G.R. No. 140557-58 - People vs. Herrera

On May 29, 1996, around 6:30 p.m., Enrique Ganan was at his home in Pasay City, sitting on a steel chair while eating fishballs and cuddling his youngest child.
He was engaged in a conversation with Ma. Rizza Aguilar and his brother Edwin, while his wife, Mariel, was nearby. Simultaneously, neighbor Corazon Cajipo was at a short distance, chatting with a friend.

An armed assailant approaching from behind fired a .38 caliber revolver at close range at Enrique Ganan.
Despite being wounded, Enrique managed to pass his child to his brother and endeavored to crawl to safety, only to be pursued and further shot multiple times.
After the sixth shot, the assailant casually walked away, leaving both Enrique Ganan and Corazon Cajipo fatally wounded—the latter being hit in the temple.

Criminal Case No. 96-9225 for Murder (killing Enrique Ganan) with allegations that the crime was committed with treachery and by taking advantage of his public position.
Criminal Case No. 96-9226 for Homicide (killing Corazon Cajipo), with added damages for moral, exemplary, and actual funeral expenses.

On arraignment, Herrera pleaded “Not Guilty.” The cases were tried jointly, and the trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both counts.

In Criminal Case No. 96-9225 (Murder), the trial court found the killing of Enrique Ganan was qualified by treachery and the aggravating circumstance of abusing his public position, sentencing Herrera to death.
In Criminal Case No. 96-9226 (Homicide), he was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor to Seventeen (17) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal, and was ordered to pay various civil indemnities, moral/exemplary damages, and actual damages.

Herrera claimed he acted in self-defense when he confronted Enrique Ganan, alleging that:

The victim had attempted to grab his gun during a previous altercation at a birthday celebration.
The immediacy of an alleged threat forced him to use “reasonable means” to preserve his life.
The shooting of Ganan’s hand (or attempt thereof) was a measure to prevent the victim from seizing his firearm.

His testimony detailed a sequence of events including a prior birthday event, consumption of alcohol (and a suggestion that his drink might have been drugged), and preparatory measures such as having a fully loaded revolver.

The accused’s narrative contains inconsistencies regarding how and when he drew his firearm, the manner in which Ganan allegedly attempted to seize it, and the sequence of gunshots.
Eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence (multiple, precisely located gunshot wounds) contradicted Herrera’s version, undermining his self-defense claim.
Notably, the number and nature of wounds as determined by the autopsy, particularly a fatal head shot at point-blank range, did not support an act of mere self-defense.

Whether Herrera’s claim of acting in self-defense is supported by clear, sufficient, and convincing evidence.
Whether the elements required for a self-defense plea—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means used, and lack of provocation—were in fact present.

Whether the trial court correctly appreciated and applied the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of Enrique Ganan.
Whether the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position (as a police officer) was properly imputed to Herrera’s actions.

Whether the inconsistencies in Herrera’s testimony weaken his defense.
Whether the physical evidence (i.e., the multiple gunshot wounds, their locations, and the condition of the crime scene) clearly supports the prosecution’s case of an intentional and premeditated act of killing.

Whether the penalties imposed by the trial court should be modified, particularly in light of arguments to reduce the death penalty to reclusion perpetua for the murder charge, and adjustments in the penalty for the homicide charge.