G.R. No. 22945 - People vs. Buenviaje

On June 26, 1991, an information was filed before the RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte, Branch 1, charging Wilson Gutual y Remollena and Joaquin Nadera y Apostol with murder (Criminal Case No. 7851).
The information charged that on or about December 29, 1990, at San Vicente, Davao, the accused conspired, with treachery and evident premeditation, and using a Garand rifle and an M14 rifle, to attack and shoot Celestino Maglinte, causing his death and damaging the victim’s heirs.

According to the prosecution, on December 29, 1990, at around 1:30 p.m., Celestino Maglinte was walking along the barangay road carrying his four-year-old child after coming from his farm, with his bolo sheathed.
The victim, upon hearing an exploding firecracker and leaving his child momentarily, headed toward the store of Barangay Captain Wayne Gutual, and subsequently to a nearby basketball court.
Wilson Gutual and Joaquin Nadera appeared armed respectively with a Garand rifle and an M14 rifle.
Gutual allegedly fired three warning shots into the air, causing Maglinte to drop his arms in submission.
Following the victim’s temporary recovery, both accused fired repeated shots, mortally wounding Maglinte, who later died; his burial was expedited the following morning by order of the barangay captain.

The defense contended that the killing was committed in self-defense or in defense of a relative or even a stranger.
It was alleged that the victim, chasing Barangay Captain Gutual, became violent and threatened both the captain and the accused once he approached them.
Testimonies suggested that after initially pursuing the barangay captain, Maglinte shifted his attack towards the accused, leading to a situation where the accused was forced to defend himself when he was pinned against the barangay hall staircase.
The accused testified that he fired a warning shot to disarm the victim, but the shot unintentionally became fatal when it struck Maglinte’s vital areas.

At trial, prosecution presented six witnesses (with five related by affinity to the victim), while the defense offered nine witnesses, including the accused and barangay officials.
There were conflicting narratives: prosecution maintained that the victim was subdued by warning shots and then fatally shot, whereas the defense argued that the victim’s actions were unpredictable and aggressive.
Key evidence included the death certificate, which noted “Hypovolemia secondary to gunshot wound, anterior chest, R forearm per informant’s report,” and testimonies regarding the victim’s known violent tendencies.

On January 2, 1994, Judge Saludares rendered a decision acquitting Nadera and convicting Gutual for murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and imposing civil liabilities.
Gutual appealed the decision arguing errors on issues including the sufficiency of self-defense evidence, the proper imputation of civil liabilities on Nadera, and the failure to consider alternative lesser charges (homicide rather than murder).
The Office of the Solicitor General intervened, noting that appellant Gutual had challenged a decision affecting a co-accused (Nadera) who did not join in the appeal.

Whether Joaquin Nadera should be held civilly liable for damages despite being acquitted of the criminal charge.

Whether Wilson Gutual has sufficiently established the grounds of self-defense or defense of a relative/stranger, or at least an incomplete justifying circumstance of self-defense.
In the alternative, whether the accused should be convicted of a lesser offense such as homicide, given the absence of qualifiers like treachery and premeditation in the proven facts.

The reliability of the testimonies, particularly given that the trial court received only a surrebuttal testimony for some witnesses.
How the conflicting versions between the prosecution’s narrative and the defense’s explanation, along with medical and documentary evidence, support the self-defense claim.