Case Digest (G.R. No. 33426)
Facts:
On December 16, 1929, Apolonio Hitosis and Espiridion Losada got into a heated dispute in Batan, Irosin, Sorsogon, concerning a dam that Losada was constructing. Hitosis, believing that the dam would damage his property, halted construction, leading to tensions between the two men. On December 20, a physical altercation unfolded where Losada struck Hitosis, resulting in substantial injuries to Hitosis, including the loss of several teeth. The following morning, December 21, Hitosis returned to Batan armed with a shotgun. At approximately 8:00 AM, he encountered Losada alongside two workers, Janaban and Escopete, who were suspected to be hostile, brandishing bolos. Hitosis, feeling threatened, fired a warning shot into the air, followed by another shot directed at Losada when he allegedly lunged at him. This second shot struck Losada in the left thigh, resulting in his death. Hitosis was subsequently charged with murder in the Court of First Instance ofCase Digest (G.R. No. 33426)
Facts:
- Background of the Dispute
- Apolonio Hitosis and Espiridion Losada were involved in a quarrel in the barrio of Batan, municipality of Irosin, Province of Sorsogon, stemming from the construction of a dam by Losada.
- Hitosis opposed the construction, believing that the dam would injure his property, and subsequently halted the work.
- Initial Confrontation and Altercation
- After workmen Pedro Janaban and Policarpo Escopete reported Hitosis’ opposition, Losada went over to the land, leading to a heated encounter.
- During this initial encounter, Losada brandished his bob but did not escalate the violence as Hitosis prudently returned home.
- Renewed Quarrel and Physical Altercation on December 20
- A few days later, on the morning of December 20, Hitosis was inspecting a sledge in the barrio when Losada suddenly approached, rekindling the quarrel.
- The renewed confrontation quickly escalated into a physical fight:
- Losada struck Hitosis in the chest and across the mouth, knocking out about six teeth.
- Losada himself sustained an injury on the left wrist.
- Events Leading to the Shooting Incident
- Later that afternoon, Hitosis went to the town of Irosin, ostensibly to seek medical assistance and obtain a certificate to support a potential complaint against Losada.
- The following morning at 8 o’clock, Hitosis returned to the barrio carrying the same shotgun he had the previous day.
- Upon reaching the Caracdacan River—a natural divider between the barrio of Batan and the town of Irosin—Hitosis encountered Losada accompanied by Janaban and Escopete.
- The Confrontation at the River and the Shooting
- Noticing a hostile demeanor in Losada and his companions, who were armed with bolos, Hitosis issued a warning:
- He ordered them to stop and not to move, warning that he would fire his shotgun.
- Immediately after his verbal warning, he fired a shot into the air.
- Losada then lunged at Hitosis with a bolo in his hand.
- In response, Hitosis discharged his shotgun a second time:
- The shot was aimed at Losada, who was approximately 4 meters away.
- The discharge hit Losada in the left thigh, causing him to fall instantly and suffer profuse bleeding.
- Testimonies and Evidentiary Details
- Both prosecution and defense witnesses corroborated that Hitosis fired two shots:
- The first shot was fired in the air as a warning.
- The second shot was fired in response to Losada’s aggressive movement.
- Discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the exact movements and positions of the parties were noted:
- Testimonies by Escopete and Janaban (for the prosecution) suggested that Losada was washing his feet with his back toward Hitosis at the time the shot was discharged.
- Contrasting accounts by defense witnesses Simeon Gamba and Fabian Gabion described Losada’s aggressive posture (stooping and taking steps forward with a bolo) upon hearing the first shot.
- Forensic evidence through the testimony of Doctor Sierra demonstrated:
- The extraction of the shot from Losada’s left thigh revealed a cluster of wounds forming a roughly 5-centimeter diameter circle.
- This pattern indicated that the shot was fired at close range, supporting Hitosis’s account of the distance between him and Losada.
- Procedural History and Appellant’s Assignments of Error
- Hitosis was initially prosecuted for murder, but the trial court convicted him of homicide, sentencing him to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal.
- The trial court also ordered Hitosis to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of ₱1,000 and to bear the court costs.
- In his appeal, Hitosis raised several assignments of error, notably arguing:
- That the trial court’s finding regarding Losada’s attack was inexplicable given Hitosis’s initial warning.
- That the physical possibility of transitioning from firing into the air to aiming at Losada within a 4- to 5-meter distance was implausible.
- That the location of Losada’s wound (on the side of the left thigh rather than in the front) contradicted the prosecution’s narrative.
- That the absence of bolos on Losada and his companions called into question the characterization of the incident.
- That Hitosis’s act was committed in self-defense and therefore should lead to his acquittal.
Issues:
- Whether Apolonio Hitosis acted in self-defense when he discharged his shotgun, thereby satisfying the requisites for exemption from criminal liability under Article 8, number 4 of the Penal Code.
- The issue focuses on whether the facts established in court justify Hitosis’s use of deadly force.
- Contention arose concerning the timeline and sequence of events, particularly:
- The credibility of the defendant’s version that he first fired a warning shot.
- The feasibility of aiming at Losada after discharging the weapon into the air given the short distance.
- The physical nature and location of Losada’s injury in relation to the direction of the aggression.
- The credibility and reliability of the various witness testimonies.
- Divergent accounts by prosecution and defense witnesses regarding the positioning and armament of the parties.
- The reconciliation of forensic evidence (wound pattern analysis) with the testimonies presented.
- Whether the evidence, taken as a whole, supports the absolution of Hitosis on the ground of self-defense.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)