G.R. No. L-30882 - People vs. Anies y Fabro

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30882)

Procedural History and Appellate Claims

The accused was arraigned on May 20, 1969 and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Circuit Criminal Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation, and imposed the penalty of death, plus indemnity to Jaime Cruz’s heirs in the amount of P12,000.00, and the costs.

On review, the accused assigned errors, principally contending that the trial court failed to consider his lame leg in evaluating the reasonableness of his alleged defensive act; that evident premeditation was not established; that the killing was not attended by treachery; and that the court erred in drawing “criminal instinct” from his possession of a firearm licensed to a landlord, despite the absence of a separate charge for illegal possession of the firearm.

The Prosecution’s Case: How the Killing Occurred

The Court found it undisputed that Jaime Cruz was shot to death at about 12:15 in the early morning of April 25, 1969 by the accused. The prosecution evidence showed that on April 24, 1969 in the evening, Jaime Cruz, wearing a white polo shirt, arrived at Daling’s Restaurant on Epifanio delos Santos Avenue, Quezon City. He ordered beer and was joined by Paquing Magsino, after which they drank together. Later, a group of six (6) persons, including the accused, arrived, ordered beer and “pulutan,” and drank with the victim.

At about 12:10 A.M. of April 25, 1969, after paying their bill, the accused approached Jaime Cruz face to face, drew a gun from his waist, and fired five (5) successive shots. The victim was seated and in the process of lighting a cigarette, facing the counter, and his lone companion was in the comfort room at the time of the shooting. The Court noted that there was no previous exchange of words before the incident. After the shots, the victim fell face down. The accused fled in a limping manner and was chased and arrested by Sgt. Domingo (or Dominador) Castro, the owner of the restaurant. The accused’s companions also fled.

Medical and Forensic Evidence: Nature and Location of Wounds

The Court relied on the necropsy report of Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, who performed the autopsy on April 25, 1969. The examination showed multiple gunshot wounds, and the cause of death was stated as “Multiple gunshot wounds of the body.” The report detailed six entry wounds and the corresponding trajectories, including that some wounds were directed backward and downward, and that the pattern and direction of the bullets were consistent with an attacker firing from a position possibly in front and slightly on a higher level than the victim. Dr. Reyes opined that any of the shots could have caused immediate death and that the victim could have been seated when fired upon.

The record also included toxicology results indicating that the victim had alcohol in his blood. The Court further considered ballistics testimony from the NBI, showing that the cartridges and the deformed bullet recovered from the victim were fired from the evidence firearm with the serial number 4-9946, identified as the pistol turned over by Sgt. Castro.

The Accused’s Admissions and Version of Self-Defense

The Court treated as significant the accused’s written extra-judicial statement executed before police investigators on April 25, 1969 at around 5:45 A.M., in the presence of Atty. Maximo Savellano, who signed as a witness on each page. In that statement, the accused admitted killing Jaime Cruz. He narrated that while drinking at the restaurant, he heard someone whispering a threat, turned around, and saw the victim looking at him threateningly. He claimed the victim suddenly thrust his hand into his pocket, and the accused, fearing he would be attacked, drew a .38 caliber pistol, cocked it, and fired five (5) times, then fled and later surrendered.

At trial, the accused testified in support of self-defense but the Court found the defense inconsistent and unworthy of belief. He claimed that he was lame and could not run, and he asserted that the victim kicked his chair and made threatening remarks, after which the victim acted as if to pull something from his pocket. The defense sought to establish that the accused fired because he perceived imminent danger. The defense witness Aniceto Velasco (referred to in the record with an alleged mistaken name) supported the occurrence of quarrel-like behavior and the victim’s threatening words and kicking.

Credibility Determinations: Why Self-Defense Was Rejected

The Court upheld the trial court’s rejection of self-defense. It emphasized that the waitress Belen Gacias, who executed a written statement shortly after the killing, testified consistently that the accused suddenly stood up, faced the victim, and shot him face to face while the victim was seated and lighting a cigarette, with no exchange of words. The Court found that she was an eyewitness and located about four (4) meters from the accused at the time of the shooting.

The Court further concluded that the accused’s own extra-judicial statement supported the prosecution’s theory that the victim was seated when shot. The accused attempted to discredit his written declaration by claiming that he signed without reading it. The Court rejected this explanation as incredible, noting that Atty. Savellano assisted during the taking and signed every page of the statement, and that the accused was a third-year A.B. student at San Juan de Letran College at the time of the incident.

The Court also identified contradictions within the accused’s narratives. It noted inconsistencies on the timing of arrival and the number of the victim’s companions, changes on whether the accused was alone or had companions, and discrepancies on the distance from which the accused claimed he fired. It observed that the trial court correctly brushed aside the accused’s asserted distance as contradicted by the chemistry report and by the eyewitness’s account that the shots were fired at about one and one-half (112) meters.

Finally, the Court applied established jurisprudence that once an accused admits inflicting the fatal injuries, self-defense must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, and the accused cannot rely on alleged weakness in the prosecution’s evidence but must strengthen his own case.

Unlawful Aggression Not Established, and Consequences for Self-Defense

On the requirement of unlawful aggression, the Court held that the alleged aggression by Jaime Cruz was not established. It ruled that without unlawful aggression, the issue of the reasonable necessity of the means employed becomes immaterial. The Court cited the governing rule that unlawful aggression is the essential element of self-defense and that the other requisites operate only in relation to such aggression.

The Court found it highly inconceivable that an unarmed victim, alone at his table with no effective companion present, would dare provoke or engage in conduct that would justify the accused’s killing, especially given the numerical superiority of the accused’s group. The Court also held that even assuming the victim kicked the chair, uttered threatening words, and acted as if he might withdraw something, such acts did not constitute the kind of material unlawful aggression required to justify killing.

The Court relied on jurisprudence including U.S. vs. Carrero and later cases reiterating that mere threats or an attitude suggesting an impending attack are insufficient; there must be an external overt act showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression. It also invoked People vs. Calantoc and People vs. Tan, where the Court ruled that placing a hand in a pocket as if to draw something does not amount to unlawful aggression sufficient to invoke self-defense.

Accordingly, it ruled that the accused’s claim of self-defense could not stand, even while acknowledging his contention about his lameness. The Court found that despite the asserted disability, the accused could walk fast, as reflected in the trial court’s observations during testimony. It further accepted that the alleged behavior of the victim did not warrant the accused’s use of lethal force against an unarmed person.

Evident Premeditation: Not Proven

While the trial court had found that the killing was aggravated by evident premeditation, the Court found otherwise. It held that the evidence did not show any proof that the accused had a preconceived plan to kill, how and when the plan was hatched, or the lapse of time needed to reflect upon the consequences of the act. It reiterated that to apply evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the time when the offender decided to commit the crime, a notorious act indicating persistence in that determination, and a sufficient interval between determination and execution. Since these elements were not shown, evident premeditation was not established.

Treachery (Alevosia): Present in the Manner of Attack

The Court then addressed the accused’s challenge to treachery. It held that treachery was present. It explained that treachery requires proof of the manner of attack and that the mode of assault must show the victim’s inability to defend himself or to anticipate the danger.

The Court found ample basis in the evidence that the victim was unarmed, alone since his

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30882)

The case involved the automatic review of a death sentence with accessory penalties imposed on accused-appellant Constante Anies y Fabro by the Circuit Criminal Court, Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, Rizal, in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-153-Quezon City (9467).
The conviction was for murder, arising from the killing of Jaime Cruz y Paulino.
The accused-appellant sought reversal on multiple assignments of error relating to self-defense, evident premeditation, and treachery.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff-appellee, while Constante Anies y Fabro acted as defendant-appellant.
The lower court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation.
The trial court imposed the death penalty and ordered indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,000.00, plus costs.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction automatically because of the death sentence.
The Court treated the primary appellate contention as the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense.

Key Factual Allegations

The information for murder alleged that on or about April 25, 1969, in Quezon City, the accused, without justifiable cause, shot Jaime Cruz y Paulino with intent to kill and inflicted fatal injuries.
The prosecution’s version placed the killing at about 12:10 in the early morning of April 25, 1969, inside Daling’s Restaurant at 837-D Epifanio delos Santos Avenue, near Timog Avenue.
Jaime Cruz was seated and, at the moment of the shooting, was lighting a cigarette and facing the counter.
After paying their bill around 12:10 A.M., a group of six including the accused-appellant prepared to leave, when the accused approached the victim face to face.
The accused pulled a gun from his waist and fired five (5) successive shots at the victim at a distance of about one and one-half (112) meters.
There was no previous exchange of words immediately before the incident.
The accused ran away limping, was chased, and was arrested about 100 meters from the crime scene by Sgt. Domingo (or Dominador) Castro.
The gun allegedly used was a nickel-plated .38 caliber automatic pistol bearing Serial No. 4-9946, which Sgt. Castro turned over to the police.
At the scene, investigators found one (1) slug, one (1) empty shell, and five (5) empty cartridges marked Exhibits "G-2" to "G-6", and submitted them to the NBI for examination.
Waitress Belen Gacias executed a written statement shortly after the incident, identifying the accused as the shooter.
The accused-appellant later executed an extra-judicial statement admitting the killing and claiming fear of attack.

Medical and Forensic Evidence

The autopsy was conducted on April 25, 1969 by Dr. Alberto M. Reyes, whose findings showed multiple gunshot wounds.
The medico-legal report recorded six (6) gunshot wounds and concluded that death was due to “Multiple gunshot wounds of the body.”
The Court relied on the wound characteristics indicating the victim was possibly sitting down when shot.
The direction of wounds and the nature of the trajectories were described as backward and downward, consistent with the victim’s position at the time of shooting.
Dr. Reyes testified that any of the six shots could have caused immediate death and that trajectories suggested the assailant was possibly in front and slightly on a higher level than the victim.
Toxicology findings showed the victim had alcohol in his blood.
The NBI Ballistics Division examined the evidence firearm and ballistics specimens.
Erdulfo M. Grimares, a ballistic expert, testified that test cartridges and the evidence cartridges shared matching characteristics and that the deformed jacketed bullet was fired from the firearm identified as the accused-appellant’s gun.

Accused’s Version and Defense Theory

The accused-appellant testified that he carried a .38 caliber pistol belonging to Evangelo Savellano and that the gun was taken without prior consent and knowledge of the owner.
The accused claimed that at Daling’s Restaurant he heard a threatening remark, saw the victim looking at him sharply, and feared an impending attack.
The accused stated that when he sensed danger, he cocked the gun and fired five (5) times at the victim face to face.
The accused alleged that the victim acted as if to pull something from his pocket and that he fired because he believed he would be attacked.
The accused claimed he had a lame leg and argued that this should have been considered in assessing the reasonableness of the means employed.
The accused also testified that he surrendered after being chased and that he signed the extra-judicial statement without reading it.
The defense witness Aniceto Velasco (referred to with variant spelling in the record) supported the claim of a quarrel and that the accused fired after the victim kicked his chair.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in failing to consider his lameness when assessing the reasonableness of the means used in self-defense.
The accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding evident premeditation.
The accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding treachery.
The accused-appellant contended that the trial court wrongly inferred “criminal instinct” from hi