G.R. No. 140557-58 - People vs. Herrera

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140557-58)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Incident: May 29, 1996.
Arraignment: November 7, 1996 (plea of not guilty).
Trial court judgment convicting accused of Murder (Criminal Case No. 96-9225) and Homicide (Criminal Case No. 96-9226): September 27, 1999.
Automatic review and final decision by the Supreme Court: December 5, 2001.
Cases were consolidated and tried jointly; review occurred under the 1987 Constitution (decision date post-1990).

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable due to decision date).
Criminal statutes and doctrines applied: Revised Penal Code provisions on Murder (Art. 248), Homicide (Art. 249), qualifying circumstances (Art. 14, par. 16—treachery), aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position (Art. 14, par. 1), Article 48 on complex crimes, Indeterminate Sentence Law, and Republic Act No. 7659 (amendment referenced concerning penalties).

Facts of the Incident

On May 29, 1996 at about 6:30 p.m., Enrique Ganan sat in his compound eating while holding his youngest child and speaking with visitors. Corazon Cajipo was about ten meters away talking with a friend. An assailant armed with a .38-caliber revolver approached from behind, fired at close range, and after multiple shots both Enrique and Corazon were found fatally wounded. Enrique sustained six gunshot wounds (head, shoulder, right arm, right hand, right thigh); the fatal head wound was inflicted at point-blank range from behind. The assailant walked away after the sixth shot.

Charges and Informations

Accused Herrera was charged with Murder for the killing of Enrique Ganan (Information in Criminal Case No. 96-9225 alleging intent to kill and treachery) and with Homicide for the killing of Corazon Cajipo (Criminal Case No. 96-9226 alleging deliberate intent to kill Enrique but hitting Corazon). The informations alleged unlawful, felonious shootings with a .38 revolver.

Arraignment, Consolidation, and Trial Court Judgment

Accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment. The cases were consolidated and tried together. The trial court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder (with treachery and an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position) and sentenced him to death for Enrique’s killing; it found him guilty of Homicide for Corazon’s death and imposed an indeterminate penalty (Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temporal). The trial court ordered civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and funeral expenses.

Issues on Appeal Presented to the Supreme Court

Accused’s principal assignments of error on automatic review: (I) trial court erred in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt and disregarded accused’s claim of self-defense; (II) trial court erred in appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance; (III) trial court erred in recognizing the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of accused’s public position as a police officer. The Solicitor General recommended reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua and adjusting the penalty range for the homicide conviction.

Prosecution’s Version and Evidence

Three eyewitnesses (Ma. Rizza Aguilar, Ma. Elena Sobrevilla, and Mariel Ganan, the victim’s wife) positively identified accused as the gunman who shot Enrique from behind. Physical evidence included the multiple gunshot wounds on Enrique’s body and the autopsy by the NBI medico-legal officer indicating a point-blank fatal head wound from behind. The bodies were presented for autopsy and attendant documentary exhibits were introduced. The prosecution narrative described a sudden approach from behind and repeated shots fired at close range.

Accused’s Version and Claim of Self-Defense

Accused admitted shooting Enrique but asserted self-defense, claiming: prior humiliation at a separate gathering (alleged kicking and urination while he was unconscious) prompted him to confront Enrique; Enrique allegedly grabbed or attempted to grab accused’s holstered firearm; a physical struggle ensued during which accused fired at Enrique’s hand to prevent disarmament; accused also testified to hearing gunfire from an unidentified assailant during the scuffle and to having fired at the victim to repel an asserted unlawful aggression.

Burden of Proof and Legal Test for Self-Defense

The Court reiterated established doctrine: when an accused admits killing but invokes self-defense, the burden shifts to the accused to prove by clear, sufficient, and convincing evidence the three elements of self-defense—(1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation by the defender. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Court’s Rejection of Self-Defense — Credibility and Inconsistencies

The Supreme Court found accused’s self-defense claim unconvincing for multiple reasons drawn from his testimony and surrounding facts:

Contradictory accounts on whether the victim had actually grabbed the muzzle versus accused pulling out a tucked gun undermined credibility.
The implausibility of aiming at the victim’s hand while in a grappling posture and then firing repeatedly, including a shot while holding the revolver aloft, strained credulity.
Unlikelihood that both participants in a struggle and other witnesses would not identify a separate assailant if there had been incoming shots from a different shooter; no spent shells or slugs from another firearm were recovered.
The fatal head wound was inflicted at point-blank range from behind, inconsistent with accused’s account of a frontal grappling aimed at the victim’s hand.
The multiplicity and placement of wounds (six shots to different parts of the body) were inconsistent with a limited defensive purpose and suggested an intent to kill rather than to repel a disarmament attempt.
Accused failed to corroborate his claim with independent evidence despite the presence of other witnesses; his testimony stood alone.
The accused had reloaded his revolver before confronting the victim and took preparatory steps (sending a boy to check the victim’s presence), indicating premeditation rather than a sudden defensive reaction.
Accused fled the jurisdiction (to Batangas) for over a month after the incident, conduct the Court regarded as indicative of guilty conscience.

Eyewitness and Physical Evidence Supporting Conviction

The Court emphasized the prosecution’s strong evidence: three consistent eyewitnesses who identified accused as the shooter and testified that Ganan was shot from behind; medico-legal evidence of multiple wounds and a point-blank fatal wound behind the ear; congruence between witness testimony about the manner of attack and the physical injuries. The multiplicity of wounds and proximity of the fatal shot corroborated the prosecution’s version over accused’s self-defense claim.

Flight and Post-Offense Conduct

Accused’s flight to Batangas and concealment for approximately one and a half months was held to be probative of consciousness of guilt. The Court noted that had accused honestly believed he acted in lawful self-defense, he would have reported the incident rather than escaping and avoiding authorities.

Treachery as a Qualifying Circumstance for Murder

The Court agreed with the trial court that the killing of Enrique was attended by treachery (alevosía). It applied the two-prong test for treachery: (1) at the time of the attack the victim was in a defenseless position (unaware, seated, holding a child), and (2) the attacker consciously adopted means and methods that insured execution without risk to himself (approach from behind, point-blank shooting). The sudden and unexpected attack from behind rendered defense impossible and thereby qualified the killing to Murder under Article 248.

Liability for Death of Unintended Victim (Corazon) and Complex Crime Analysis

The Court held accused criminally liable for Corazon’s death even if she was not the intended target. Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code and established doctrine, an offender is responsible for all natural and logical consequences of his intentional acts. However, the Court rejected the Solicitor General’s contention that Corazon’s killing should be upgraded to Murder by way of treachery; the Court reasoned that treachery cannot be predicated on a victim who was hit accidentally and was not the object of the specifically treacherous attack. The Court analyzed Article 48 (complex crimes) and relevant precedents: the case did not fall within the instances where a single act constitutes multiple grave felonies as a complex crime meriting maximum period application; rather, the successive bullets from a single-action revolver produced distinct offenses potentially attributable to separate shots, but the Court treated the deaths consistent with established precedents distinguishing complex crime situations and firearms mechanisms.

Aggravating Circumstance of Abuse of Public Position: Rationale for Deletion

The Court found that the trial court erred in applying the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. To qualify, the public officer must have used the influence, prestige, or ascendancy of office as a means to commit t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140557-58)

Procedural Posture

Case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc, reported at 422 Phil. 830, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 05, 2001.
Accused-appellant Edgardo C. Herrera was charged in two Informations: Criminal Case No. 96-9225 (Murder — death of Enrique Ganan) and Criminal Case No. 96-9226 (Homicide — death of Corazon Cajipo).
The cases were consolidated and tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasay City, Branch 110.
At arraignment on November 7, 1996, accused pleaded "Not Guilty."
The RTC rendered judgment finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder (Crim. Case No. 96-9225) and Homicide (Crim. Case No. 96-9226), imposing the death penalty for Murder and an indeterminate penalty for Homicide, and awarding civil, moral, exemplary and actual damages to the victims’ heirs.
The case was subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General recommended reduction of the death penalty to reclusion perpetua (for Murder) and modification of the maximum term in the Homicide case to the medium period of Reclusion Temporal.

Facts as Found by the Prosecution and the RTC

Date, time and place: May 29, 1996, around 6:30 p.m., at the compound of 2218 Cinco de Junio Street, Pasay City, near the corner of Propetario Street.
Enrique Ganan’s position and activity: seated on a steel/white chair in his home compound eating fishballs, cuddling his youngest daughter, conversing with Ma. Rizza Aguilar and his brother Edwin; wife Mariel was about 1½ to 2 meters away; he is referred to as "Yaye" in testimony and acknowledged as kumpadre of accused.
Corazon Cajipo’s position: chatting with a friend (Elena Sobrevilla and other neighbors) resting her chin on the fence about ten (10) meters from Ganan’s seat.
The shooting: accused-appellant emerged from Propetario Street, approached Enrique Ganan from behind, placed his left hand on Ganan's right shoulder, allegedly uttered "Saan si Pareng Yayi," pointed a .38 caliber revolver with his right hand, and fired at close range, striking Ganan at the right side of the neck near the head.
Sequence of violence: after the first shot Ganan, though wounded, passed his child to his brother and tried to escape; accused followed and fired several more shots (total of six shots fired at Ganan according to accounts), after the sixth shot the assailant walked away casually.
Collateral victim: a slug struck Corazon Cajipo in the temple; she lay bloodied and fatally wounded along with Enrique Ganan.
Result: Enrique Ganan was alive when found and was taken to Manila Sanitarium Hospital but pronounced dead on arrival; Corazon Cajipo was also found dead at the scene; bodies were brought to Veronica Memorial Chapel, Pasay City for autopsy.
Autopsy: Dr. Ludovico J. Lagat (Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI) conducted autopsies on May 29, 1996. The fatal head wound on Ganan was inflicted not more than half an inch from behind, i.e. at point-blank range. Ganan sustained six gunshot wounds located on the head, shoulder, right arm, right hand, and right thigh.
Eyewitnesses: prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses — Ma. Rizza Aguilar, Ma. Elena Sobrevilla, and Mariel M. Ganan (the victim’s widow) — who positively identified accused-appellant as the gunman and consistently testified that Ganan was shot on his right from behind by the accused.
Physical evidence and circumstances: multiple gunshot wounds, point-blank fatal head wound; no slugs or spent shells from an alleged second assailant were recovered and the supposed other shooter was not identified by witnesses.

Charges and Accusatory Allegations

Criminal Case No. 96-9225 (Information): Accused EDGARDO C. HERRERA alias "JUN" accused of Murder of ENRIQUE GANA Y DURA with a .38 caliber revolver on vital parts of the body causing instantaneous death; murder alleged to be qualified by treachery and aggravated by taking advantage of accused’s public position.
Criminal Case No. 96-9226 (Information): Accused charged with Homicide for the death of CORAZON CAJIPO y FULGENCIO as a consequence of shooting ENRIQUE GANA y DURA, with deliberate intent to kill; aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office alleged.
Trial court’s original disposition: found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder (Crim. Case No. 96-9225) with qualifying circumstance of treachery and aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position — sentenced to death; found guilty of Homicide (Crim. Case No. 96-9226) with aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office — sentenced to indeterminate penalty (10 years & 1 day to 17 years, 4 months & 1 day) and ordered to pay indemnity, moral and actual damages; exemplary damages awarded in both cases; costs imposed on accused.

Accused-Appellant’s Version and Defense (Self-Defense Claim)

Admission of killing: accused-appellant admitted killing the victim but asserted self-defense.
Background events allegedly motivating the confrontation:
- Two days earlier (May 27, 1996), accused attended the birthday celebration of Rene Carrasco where he alleges he lost consciousness.
- He alleges persons present (including Enrique Ganan) kicked him, fired his service firearm, and urinated on him; upon regaining consciousness he suspected his drink was drugged, found his revolver had one bullet remaining, and learned from Gigi Cajipo (cousin of his wife) about the alleged humiliations.
- He reloaded his revolver, arranged for a boy named Gardo to check whether Ganan was at home, then walked to Ganan’s house to confront him and obtain the truth about the birthday incident.
Accused’s account of the shooting (as narrated on the witness stand):
- He greeted Ganan and asked what transpired; he alleges that Ganan grabbed his gun (handle visible, muzzle tucked in his waist), and that he pulled out his revolver; he said he fired twice aiming at Ganan’s hand while they were grappling and because Ganan tried to seize his gun.
- He testified that while grappling, he heard gunshots from another direction and later that Ganan pulled up his shirt and tried to pull out a gun from his waist; accused claimed to have fired further shots aiming at the hand, claimed some shots hit and some he was not sure about; ultimately he described Ganan being hit and sprawling, and he left the scene because someone was shooting at him.
Elements of self-defense asserted: unlawful aggression (victim tried to grab accused’s gun), reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on accused’s part; accused relied solely on his testimony to establish these elements.

Legal Standard for Self-Defense (as Applied in the Decision)

Self-defense is a justifying circumstance that, when interposed, shifts the burden of proof to the accused to establish:
1. Unlawful aggression by the victim;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming defense.
The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and that evidence must be clear, sufficient and convincing; self-defense cannot be entertained where it is not corroborated by separate competent evidence and is doubtful in itself.
The most decisive requisite is proof of unlawful aggression by the victim.

Court’s Analysis Rejecting Accused’s Claim of Self-Defense

Credibility and consistency problems in accused’s testimony:
- Contradictory accounts about whether the victim grabbed the muzzle of the gun while it was tucked in accused’s waist and whether accused pulled out the gun before the alleged grab — contradictions that undermine the self-defense claim.
- Implausibility that accused could aim at the victim’s hand while grappling for the gun and then later fire other shots in the manner described; the sequence and physical positions alleged stra