Case Summary (G.R. No. L-48706-07)
Key Dates
• November 25, 1991 – Date of the triple killing.
• March 27, 1992 – Filing of Information charging multiple murder.
• March 6, 2006 – Regional Trial Court decision convicting the accused of murder.
• March 31, 2011 – Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction with modified damages.
• July 11, 2018 – Finality of appellate resolution.
• March 11, 2019 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (governing civil liberties and due process).
• Revised Penal Code (RPC), Article 248 (Murder), Article 14(16) (Treachery).
• Jurisprudence on mistake of fact (People v. Oanis), fulfillment of duty (People v. Oanis), treachery (People v. Amora), and damage awards (People v. Jugueta).
Factual Background
On the evening of November 25, 1991, three CVO members—Hernando Villegas, Jose Villegas, and Benito Basug, Jr.—were walking along a lit stretch of the national road and crossing rice fields en route to a wake. They were unarmed and conversing. Unbeknownst to them, a group of CAFGU officers—BaAes, Castigador, Gervero, Arbolonio, and Solomon—had taken ambush positions nearby, armed with high-powered firearms. Without warning, the CAFGU members opened fire, fatally wounding all three CVO men through multiple gunshot wounds delivered at close range.
Prosecution’s Version
Witnesses (family members, barangay officials, and law enforcers) testified that:
• Earlier that day, some CAFGU officers had approached the victims’ residence to extort money, indicating familiarity with the CVO members.
• The three victims were unarmed and visibly identifiable under artificial lighting.
• No warning or challenge preceded the shooting; victims did not fire at the assailants.
• After the victims fell, the assailants approached the bodies and fired further rounds.
• The CAFGU men later admitted to Barangay Captain Balinas that they mistakenly believed the victims to be NPA insurgents.
Defense’s Version
The accused claimed:
• They acted on oral instructions from Senior Inspector Baldevinos to conduct patrol and ambush NPA members.
• A password (“Simoy” and response “Amoy”) was established; when the victims allegedly failed to respond with the correct password, they fired in self-defense.
• They believed the approaching men were hostile insurgents who fired first, prompting an exchange of gunfire lasting thirty minutes.
• They recovered firearms from the slain men and reported the incident to local authorities, demonstrating law-abiding intent.
RTC Ruling
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 29, Iloilo City) found the accused guilty of murder, emphasizing:
• Credibility of prosecution witnesses and concordance with physical evidence.
• Absence of the justifying circumstances of fulfillment of duty: the accused exceeded any lawful mandate by executing repeated, close-range shots at unsuspecting victims.
• Rejection of mistake of fact: the assailants knew the victims personally and had ample opportunity to identify them.
• Presence of treachery: the sudden and unprovoked nature of the attack deprived the victims of any chance to defend themselves.
• Sentence: Reclusion perpetua for each killing, plus temperate, civil indemnity, exemplary, and moral damages.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the awards for damages, finding that:
• The brutality and multiplicity of wounds evidenced mens rea inconsistent with lawful arrest or self-defense.
• Negligence in identity verification nullified any defense of mistake of fact.
• Damages were adjusted to P25,000 temperate, P75,000 civil indemnity, P30,000 exemplary, and P75,000 moral damages per victim.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the defense of mistake of fact applies.
- Whether treachery properly qualified the killing as murder.
Supreme Court Analysis
Mistake of Fact
• Doctrine requires an honest, reasonable misapprehension of fact without negligence (People v. Oanis; Yapuyco v. Sandiganbayan).
• Here, the accused had ample visibility, prior acquaintance with the victims, and time to verify identity.
• They approached and continued firing despite Hernando’s audible self-identification and the victims’ nonhostile behavior.
• The weight and consistency of witnesses’ testimony negated any reasonable mis
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-48706-07)
Facts (Prosecution’s Version)
- On 25 November 1991 at around 6:30 p.m., Roda Incronal waited outside the home of Barangay CVO Commander Hernando Villegas in Barangay Milan, Lemery, Iloilo, for transportation to Ajuy.
- CAFGU officers Eduardo BaAes, Danilo Castigador, and two companions armed with firearms approached Hernando, demanded money, and took ₱20.00; Castigador warned Hernando, “You just watch out.”
- Later, Hernando, along with CVO members Jose Villegas and Benito Basug, Jr., walked toward a wake across a rice field; Delia Villegas watched them pass her illuminated house at about 8:00 p.m.
- Moments after Isaac Villegas and Roda saw the victims laughing in the rice field, a burst of gunfire erupted; Hernando identified himself, someone cried “Shoot now!” and the three men were fatally shot at close range.
- Witnesses hid during the shooting; afterwards, Isaac positively identified the accused as the shooters; the group later told Barangay Captain Balinas they had “mistaken” the three for NPA members.
Facts (Defense’s Version)
- On the same evening, Senior Inspector Benigno Baldevinos instructed the accused CAFGU officers to conduct tactical patrol and ambush operations against suspected NPA in Barangay Milan, using the countersign “Simoy”/“Amoy.”
- The accused took position near the river; upon seeing unfamiliar persons approach, Arbolonio cried “Simoy” and, receiving no “Amoy” reply, alleged the men fired first.
- The accused returned fire in a thirty-minute exchange, then collected weapons from the fallen—recovering a homemade Armalite and a pistolized shotgun—and proceeded to report the incident to Barangay Captain Balinas and the police.
Procedural History
- 27 March 1992: Information filed in RTC Branch