Title
Amarillo, Jr. vs People
Case
G.R. No. 153650
Decision Date
Aug 31, 2006
Amarillo convicted of frustrated homicide after shooting Hermo during a dispute; acquitted of illegal firearm possession, upheld by Supreme Court.
frustrated homicide
illegal possession of firearm
acquittal
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 153650)

Filing of Informations and Arraignment

On November 15, 1994, two separate informations docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1932 and 1933 were filed against Amarillo. Upon arraignment, Amarillo pleaded not guilty. The records showed that a joint trial ensued, although the convictions and subsequent appellate modifications proceeded differently for each case.

Prosecution’s Version of the Events

The prosecution evidence established that on September 3, 1994, Raul Hermo and several companions—Herminio Ade, Leoncio Ade, Ricky Ramirez, Danilo Palmero, and Edgardo Soriano—went to the Amihan Disco and Restaurant to celebrate Herminio Ade’s birthday. At the same time, the group of Amarillo, Joseph Alvin Bihasa, Ramses Barribal, and Bimbo Bernardo was already present, with Hermo’s group seated at a table near Amarillo’s group. A waitress turned on a stand fan near Hermo’s group and faced it toward them. Amarillo stood up and redirected the fan toward his own group.

A companion of Hermo’s group, Soriano, told Barribal to switch off the fan to be fair. Barribal complied, but Amarillo switched it on again. The prosecution then testified that Amarillo shifted a gun tucked on his left side to the right side. Hermo approached and talked to Amarillo. Without warning, Amarillo shot Hermo in the forehead, causing him to fall. Hermo’s companions rushed toward Amarillo and wrestled the gun from him. Hermo survived due to timely and capable medical assistance.

Accused’s Version of the Incident

Amarillo’s defense denied that he intentionally shot Hermo. He asserted that he and his friends were already using the fan when Hermo’s group arrived and that Ramirez took control of the fan and directed it toward their group. Amarillo claimed that when he felt hot, he pressed the fan’s button to swivel it. Amarillo further testified that Ramirez began throwing peanuts at him. He said that Bihasa approached Hermo’s group but was pushed back to their table. Amarillo stated that when he stood up, Soriano pointed a gun at him. Amarillo claimed he parried the gun, but it allegedly “suddenly exploded.”

Amarillo then maintained that when he tried to see whether anyone was hit, someone struck him in the head, rendering him unconscious. He claimed that he regained consciousness only inside the police vehicle en route to the hospital. In substance, the defense narrative attempted to shift the blame away from Amarillo and suggested that the shooting did not originate from him.

RTC Conviction in Criminal Cases Nos. 1932 and 1933

After trial, the RTC found Amarillo guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 1932 of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294. It imposed an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, crediting voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, with no aggravating circumstance.

In Criminal Case No. 1933, the RTC likewise found Amarillo guilty of frustrated homicide and imposed an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum, again considering voluntary surrender as mitigating with no aggravating circumstance. The RTC also ordered Amarillo to indemnify Raul Hermo the amount of P338,317.45 as civil indemnity and to pay costs. The RTC further provided for crediting Amarillo’s preventive imprisonment pursuant to disciplinary rules, depending on his compliance.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Amarillo appealed to the CA, assailing the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging bias and partiality. The CA agreed with the factual findings of the RTC but modified the legal treatment of the cases.

As to Criminal Case No. 1933, the CA concluded that Amarillo should have been convicted only of frustrated homicide, and that the use of an unlicensed firearm should be treated as an aggravating circumstance only. The CA reasoned that this aggravating circumstance had to be offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Accordingly, the CA modified the sentence: Amarillo was ordered to suffer an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor as maximum.

As to Criminal Case No. 1932, the CA set aside the RTC decision and acquitted Amarillo of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The CA thus affirmed the judgment only insofar as it related to Criminal Case No. 1933, as modified.

Issues Raised in the Petition for Review

Amarillo then sought review on certiorari, raising multiple issues. In the Court’s framing, the controversies centered on: first, whether the judge who presided—referred to as the “judge a quo”—was disqualified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court because he had acted as counsel de oficio during Amarillo’s arraignment; and second, whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain Amarillo’s conviction of frustrated homicide.

Other issues on appeal included claims of mistrial, violation of Amarillo’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial tribunal, failure of the judge to act with cold neutrality, gross ignorance of the law, and alleged failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Disqualification and Alleged Bias of the Judge A Quo

On the disqualification issue, the Court applied Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which provides that no judge shall sit in a case if he is pecuniarily interested, related to parties or counsel within specified degrees, has served in specific capacities including as counsel, or has presided in an inferior court when his ruling is under review, unless written consent of all parties in interest is obtained and entered on record. The Court treated the rule as creating two forms of inhibition: compulsory and voluntary. Compulsory inhibition applies where the rule conclusively assumes the judge cannot sit impartially for the enumerated reasons. Voluntary inhibition leaves the judge’s discretion to desist for other just or valid reasons.

The Court treated as the closest doctrinal analogy the case where a judge has been counsel. It recognized that the judge a quo had indeed been designated as Amarillo’s counsel de oficio for purposes of arraignment. However, the Court observed that the judge’s participation was limited to appraising Amarillo of the consequences of his plea. The Court further noted that Amarillo had counsel de parte prior to and subsequent to arraignment. Given this limited role, the Court found no basis for compulsory inhibition.

Amarillo repeatedly alleged bias and partiality. The Court did not find the acts or omissions alleged to amount to partiality causing grave injustice. It explained that the judge’s supposed failure to treat illegal possession of firearm as merely aggravating was an error in the application of law. It also noted that while the CA had earlier found in CA-G.R. SP No. 47647 that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in canceling bail pending appeal, the appellate ruling did not expressly pass upon the judge’s supposed bias and partiality. The Court also considered the judge’s subsequent order of commitment to the National Penitentiary, which the Court attributed to the judge’s belief that Amarillo had not filed a motion for reconsideration, and found that once a motion was learned to have been filed, the judge did not implement the commitment order. These circumstances did not, according to the Court, warrant a conclusion that the judge acted with bias against Amarillo.

Sufficiency of Evidence for Frustrated Homicide

The Court then turned to the principal and more substantial issue: whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt Amarillo’s guilt for frustrated homicide. After scrutinizing the records, the Court upheld the conviction.

The Court relied heavily on the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. It noted that the witnesses Ramirez, Ade, Soriano, and victim Raul Hermo identified Amarillo as the shooter. The Court emphasized that the RTC had found the witnesses could not have mistaken Amarillo because they had a clear view of him at a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms