G.R. No. 165770 - Heirs of Medrano vs. De Vera

The case originated from a prosecution for murder against Bienvenido Orbillo, his son Carlos Orbillo, and his servant Jesus Mina, though only Bienvenido Orbillo eventually faced trial after the other two were provisionally dismissed for lack of evidence.
The incident took place on the evening of April 19, 1946, at a tienda in sitio Pandanan, Sagay, Occidental Negros, where an octogenarian, Liberato Deligero, operated a small store and was playing cards with several individuals, including the defendant, his son, and his servant.

During the card game, at around 10 o’clock, when Liberato Deligero was winning and the defendant was losing, a controversy arose when during the defendant’s turn to deal, his son Carlos substituted him and attempted to hide one of the cards by placing it on his lap.
The old man’s protest against the deceit led to the game’s disruption, which in turn incited the defendant whose pride or desire to recover his losses was wounded; he challenged the old man to a gun duel.
The old man, accompanied by his eleven-year-old granddaughter Shirley, left the tienda and headed home. However, during his journey – about 300 yards away from his home – he was ambushed in a coconut grove along the road.

The ambush occurred in a coconut grove exploited for its tuba, where the defendant, armed with a carbine, attacked the old man.
According to testimony by Valentin Callado, who witnessed both the card game and the attack:

The defendant was seen hitting the old man with a stone.
After the old man fell, his companions, Carlos Orbillo and Jesus Mina, attempted to dispose of his body under the banana trees; noticing signs of life, Jesus Mina struck him again on the order of the defendant.
The defendant further shot the old man twice with his carbine.

Shirley, the granddaughter, also reported that after witnessing the attack, she ran to inform her father, Jose G. Poblador, who then confirmed the fatal shooting by hearing gunshots and later finding the body.

Later in the night, while on duty, a special policeman, Juanito Mabug-at, observed the defendant passing by with a carbine.
After a brief interaction – where the defendant mentioned he was a “criminal” because he had killed a man – Mabug-at pursued him.
Mabug-at overheard the defendant’s self-incriminating conversation at Tomas Magalona’s house, interrogated him, and eventually arrested him after extracting a confession.
During the confession, the defendant admitted that:

An altercation on the road led to an exchange where the old man allegedly intercepted him and threatened him with a carbine.
During a struggle for the possession of the carbine (which even exploded twice), the defendant hit the old man with a stone and shot him.
He then proceeded to Cadiz, stopping at Magalona’s house before ultimately being apprehended.

A postmortem examination by the attending doctor revealed multiple injuries on the old man:

Contusions and bruises on the head (specifically on the frontal region and left temporal area).
Fractures and contused wounds of the nasal and maxillary bones causing internal hemorrhage (identified as the fatal lesion).
A contused wound on the upper lip and a bullet wound on the buttock.

The bullet wound was noted to have been inflicted at close range, as evidenced by powder burns, and occurred while the deceased was in a sitting position.
Despite acknowledging that the bullet wound was inflicted by the defendant, the trial court initially attributed the actual cause of death to the injuries inflicted by other persons accompanying the defendant.

Despite inconsistencies and conflicting versions regarding the responsibility for lethal injuries, the trial court relied principally on the testimony of the government’s witnesses and the defendant’s own confession.
The trial court convicted the defendant of frustrated homicide with the aggravating circumstance of premeditation and imposed the corresponding penalty.
Defendant appealed the verdict arguing that more weight was given to the prosecution’s witnesses and that he should have been found guilty of lesser offenses.

The Court of Appeals, upon reviewing the evidence, disagreed with the trial court’s conviction for frustrated homicide.
It concluded that the crime committed was in fact homicide, noting that premeditation was not proven.
The Court of Appeals emphasized the aggravating circumstance of disrespect to an older person, considering the defendant was only forty-five years old while the victim was an octogenarian.
Consequently, the sentence was modified, leading to a conviction for homicide under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Whether the court should give more weight to the testimonies of the government witnesses over those of the defense witnesses, particularly in light of conflicting accounts of the ambush and the ensuing struggle.
Whether the testimony of minor witness Shirley and the account of Valentin Callado could be deemed reliable or exaggerated.

Whether the killing should be classified as murder, frustrated homicide, or homicide, given that the defendant acknowledged inflicting the fatal injuries.
Whether the alternative plea that the defendant be charged only with lesser physical injuries holds merit.

Whether the evidence and the defendant’s own testimony substantiate his claim of having acted in self-defense when the old man supposedly intercepted and threatened him with a carbine.
Whether the apparent inconsistencies and improbabilities in the defendant’s recounting of the events negate the self-defense argument.

Whether the direct cause of death – specifically the role of the bullet wound versus injuries inflicted with a stone – should be solely attributed to the defendant.
Whether the participation or actions of the accomplices (Carlos Orbillo and Jesus Mina) could mitigate the defendant’s responsibility.