G.R. No. L-30489 - People vs. Macaso

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30489)

Factual Background

The deceased had earlier been involved in a disciplinary controversy. On April 10, 1964, he had an altercation with the Chief of the Secret Service Division, which led to a charge of grave slander. After pleading guilty, he received punishment for simple slander, and the consequence was that he resigned from the service. For his livelihood, he decided to drive an AC jeep owned by his mother.

The record showed that the accused, Macaso, and the deceased had their first verbal encounter in September 1964 regarding parking rules and regulations near the Isabela parking area. Their next confrontation occurred on the morning of October 19, 1964 at the wharf, an area Macaso also covered in connection with his traffic duties whenever the launch from Zamboanga City arrived. Around 10:30 a.m. that day, Macaso saw the deceased’s jeep parked in a prohibited area and called his attention to the apparent violation of traffic rules. The deceased resented Macaso’s behavior, and an altercation ensued. Macaso reported the incident to Inspector Fortuno Ramos, the Chief of the Traffic Division, who went to the wharf and told the deceased to move his jeep out of the restricted area. Before leaving, the deceased told Inspector Ramos that he would obey if Ramos ordered him, but that he would not obey if Pat. Macaso ordered him because he had no respect for the “salamagan.”

Again that afternoon, while Macaso was on duty at the intersection of Magallanes and Magno Streets, he saw the deceased with his jeep overloaded. Macaso beckoned the deceased to stop, but the deceased ignored him and proceeded. Macaso immediately reported the incident to Inspector Ramos.

A few minutes later, both Inspector Ramos and Macaso went to the Aguada bridge and waited for the deceased’s jeep. When it arrived, Inspector Ramos ordered the deceased to stop and stated that he wanted to talk to him. The deceased begged permission to take passengers to the parking area so they would not be late. Inspector Ramos boarded the jeep until the passengers alighted at the parking lot in front of the City Bakery, and then asked why the deceased did not stop when Macaso motioned him. The deceased answered that he did not hear the whistle. Inspector Ramos then asked the deceased to go to the police station, but the deceased refused, insisting he had not committed any traffic violation and that he would fight the case in court if Macaso believed he was at fault. He also stated that he had respect for Inspector Ramos and the other officers, but not for Macaso, whom he allegedly considered ignorant of traffic rules and regulations.

Macaso then arrived and told Inspector Ramos: “Sir, I will take his license.” This prompted an angry retort from the deceased, who asked why Macaso wanted to take his license. Macaso charged him with having overloaded his jeep and for defying his signal to stop. The deceased shouted “Prove it! Prove it!” Inspector Ramos cautioned Macaso to move back, which he did. The deceased then returned to his jeep, sat behind the steering wheel, and told Macaso that the trouble with him was that he was “stupid.” When Macaso asked Inspector Ramos what to do next, the deceased angrily asked Macaso what he wanted, immediately got off the jeep, and confronted him.

At that instant, Macaso fired at the deceased, hitting him on several parts of his body. The medical report showed four gunshot wounds: (1) a wound entering on the left mid-infraclavicular area and coming out on the left mid-line scapular area; (2) a wound entering on the left anterior lumbar area and coming out on the left posterior lumbar area; (3) a wound entering on the right posterior lumbar area and coming out on the right anterior hypochondrium; and (4) a wound on the right shoulder. The deceased died from internal hemorrhage caused by multiple gunshot wounds.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

The Court of First Instance of Basilan, after trial, convicted Macaso of murder. It found that the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation. It therefore imposed the supreme penalty of death, with the accessories of the law, and ordered Macaso to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Nicolas B. Suaso in the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs. Because the judgment carried the death penalty, the case came before the Court for mandatory review.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

In his appeal, Macaso assigned multiple errors, primarily contending that the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and evident premeditation, and in rejecting his plea of legitimate self-defense. He argued that, to establish self-defense, there must be three concurring circumstances: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.

He thus emphasized that the decisive factor was whether the deceased had unlawfully agressed against him at the time of the shooting. He denied that he acted treacherously or with evident premeditation, and he further maintained that if self-defense were not accepted, still the penalty should not be death.

The Court’s Assessment of Unlawful Aggression and Self-Defense

The Court reviewed the evidence and found no basis to lend credence to Macaso’s claim that the deceased had unlawfully agressed against him. It pointed out that the deceased was not armed at the time, while Macaso, the man he faced, was a policeman in possession of his service pistol, and another police officer who was likewise armed was present. On that factual matrix, the Court deemed it unlikely that the deceased would attack Macaso under such circumstances.

The Court also stressed that self-defense must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and it held that Macaso’s evidence fell short of that standard. It considered the account unnatural when measured against common experience, and it declined to accept the defense narrative that could not withstand logical analysis.

The Court then addressed the governing legal requirement that unlawful aggression entails an actual attack or material aggression that positively shows the aggressor’s intent to cause injury. It held that mere threatening or intimidating behavior did not suffice to justify a punishable act by claiming exemption based on self-defense. It further held that for unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety, with peril that is imminent and actual.

Although the Court acknowledged that the deceased acted belligerently and with arrogance, and that he repeatedly displayed disrespect toward Macaso’s authority by announcing to Inspector Ramos and the people around that he had no respect for Macaso, refusing to surrender his license, calling Macaso “stupid,” and finally challenging him by asking “What do you want?” while jumping off his jeep and rushing toward him, it concluded that the conduct preceding the shooting did not amount to unlawful aggression. The Court characterized the deceased’s demeanor as provocative, yet it treated the situation as one that did not create a real and imminent threat that would authorize Macaso to shoot. Consequently, it held that Macaso could not claim even incomplete self-defense since the element of unlawful aggression was absent.

Treachery Under Article 14(16): Rejection of the Qualifying Circumstance

After rejecting self-defense, the Court turned to the prosecution’s aggravating circumstances, particularly treachery. It reiterated that treachery exists when the offender uses means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to insure the killing, without risk to himself from any defense the offended party might make.

Applying this, the Court found nothing in the record showing that Macaso had pondered the mode or method to insure the killing or to remove or diminish any risk from the defense the deceased might offer. The Court observed that Macaso’s decision to shoot appeared sudden and was brought about by provocation from the deceased immediately preceding the act. It held that the series of events transpired so rapidly that no time existed for deliberation and preparation to ensure a killing with full assurance that the deceased would be unable to defend or retaliate. Hence, the Court ruled that treachery could not be appreciated.

The Court also evaluated the medical evidence to determine whether it conclusively supported treachery. It relied on the prosecution expert witness, Dr. Reynaldo de Joya, who testified that the victim suffered four gunshot wounds and gave details on wound locations and entry and exit points. The Court reasoned that although one wound was in the back region (posterior lumbar area), there was no positive proof that it was the first inflicted. It noted that when Macaso fired, the parties faced each other. It therefore considered that the frontal injuries were likely inflicted first, and that a posterior wound could have occurred when the deceased was falling while his body turned. More decisively, it held that all wounds were inflicted at close range. It reasoned that if Macaso had intended to attack treacherously, he could have shot at a safer distance to reduce the risk of defense, especially given that the deceased was an ex-policeman and of bigger and taller build. The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution failed to prove treachery beyond the level required to qualify the killing.

Evident Premeditation Under Article 14: Failure of Proof

The Court likewise refused to give weight to the trial court’s finding of evident premeditation. It invoked its prior rulings in People vs. Palacpac, L-27822 (February 28, 1973), adopting reasoning from People vs. Torejas, L-29935 (January 31, 1972). It held that evident premeditation demands cold and deep meditation, with an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate, and an interval long enough for co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30489)

The case came to the Court for mandatory review of a condemnatory judgment of the Court of First Instance of Basilan in Criminal Case No. 1529.
The trial court convicted Alberto Macaso of MURDER under Article 248 in relation to Article 14, paragraphs 13 and 16, of the Revised Penal Code, and imposed the death penalty, with accessories of the law, PHP 12,000.00 civil indemnity to the heirs of Nicolas B. Suaso, and costs.
The Court of First Instance found that the killing was attended by treachery and evident premeditation.
The accused-appellant elevated the case, assigning errors that challenged the findings of treachery and evident premeditation, invoked legitimate self-defense, attacked the credibility assessment of the trial court, and questioned the propriety of the death penalty even on the assumption that self-defense failed.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Alberto Macaso for the death of Nicolas B. Suaso.
The trial court rendered a conviction for murder and imposed the supreme penalty of DEATH.
The Supreme Court reviewed the conviction for mandatory review, considering the appellant’s assigned errors and the record.

Victim Background

Nicolas B. Suaso had been a detective corporal of the Secret Service Division of the Basilan City Police Department.
Before the fatal incident, Suaso had an altercation with the Chief of the Secret Service Division, which led to a charge of grave slander.
Suaso pleaded guilty and received punishment for simple slander, which constrained him to resign from the service.
After resigning, Suaso used an AC jeep owned by his mother for livelihood.

Accused Background

Alberto Macaso was a member of the Basilan City Police Department.
Macaso was appointed Patrolman on March 26, 1963.

Prior Encounters

Suaso and Macaso had their first verbal encounter in September 1964 about parking rules and regulations near the Isabela parking area.
Their next confrontation occurred in the morning of October 19, 1964 at the wharf, where Macaso also covered duties as traffic police whenever a launch from Zamboanga City arrived.

Events of October 19, 1964

Around 10:30 a.m. on October 19, 1964, Macaso saw Suaso’s jeep parked in a prohibited area.
Macaso called Suaso’s attention to the alleged traffic violation, which led to an altercation.
Macaso reported the matter to Inspector Fortuno Ramos, the Chief of the Traffic Division, and Ramos later ordered Suaso to move the jeep out of the restricted area.
Before moving out, Suaso told Inspector Ramos that he would obey if Ramos ordered him, but he would not obey if Pat. Macaso ordered him, because Suaso had no respect for the “salamagan.”
In the afternoon, Macaso again saw Suaso with an overloaded jeep and beckoned him to stop, but Suaso ignored the signal and proceeded to his destination.
Macaso immediately reported the matter to Inspector Ramos.
Shortly thereafter, both Inspector Ramos and Macaso waited at the Aguada bridge for Suaso’s jeep to pass, and Inspector Ramos ordered Suaso to stop.
Inspector Ramos boarded Suaso’s jeep to the parking lot in front of the City Bakery where passengers alighted, then questioned Suaso for not stopping when Macaso motioned him.
Suaso explained that he did not hear Macaso’s whistle.
Inspector Ramos asked Suaso to go with him to the police station, but Suaso refused, claiming no traffic violation and announcing he would fight the case in court if Macaso believed he was at fault.
Suaso expressed high respect for Inspector Ramos and the other officers except Macaso, whom he alleged was ignorant of traffic rules.
Upon Macaso’s arrival, he told Ramos: “Sir, I will take his license.”
Suaso reacted angrily and demanded why Macaso wanted his license.
Macaso charged Suaso with overloading his jeep and defying the signal to stop.
Suaso shouted “Prove it! Prove it!” and Ramos cautioned Macaso to move back.
After returning to his jeep, Suaso told Macaso that the trouble with him was that he was “stupid,” and then asked Inspector Ramos what was next.
Suaso again angrily confronted Macaso after asking what Macaso wanted and immediately got off his jeep to confront him.
At that instant, Macaso fired at Suaso, hitting him on several parts of his body.

Medical Findings and Cause of Death

The medical report (Exhibit “A”) described four gunshot wounds: two entering on the left mid-infraclavicular region and left anterior lumbar area, another entering on the right posterior lumbar area, and a wound on the right shoulder.
The Court treated the death as due to internal hemorrhage caused by multiple gunshot wounds.

Defense Theory: Self-Defense Claim

Macaso argued that he acted in legitimate self-defense.
He asserted that when he told Inspector Ramos at the City Bakery parking area he would take Suaso’s license, Suaso allegedly became angry and questioned the reason.
Macaso claimed he charged Suaso with overloading and disregarding his signal to stop.
Macaso claimed Suaso challenged him to “prove it,” called him “stupid,” and refused to surrender the license.
Macaso contended that Suaso allegedly jumped off the jeep, held his shirt front, grabbed Macaso’s pistol with his left hand, and wrestled for possession.
Macaso asserted that during the struggle the pistol went off and fired multiple shots, hitting Suaso.

Issues Presented on Appeal

The appellant challenged the existence of treachery as an aggravating circumstance.
The appellant also challenged the existence of evident premeditation as an aggravating circumstance.
The appellant raised legitimate self-defense as the principal issue.
The appellant assailed the trial court’s rejection of his self-defense theory and its acceptance of the prosecution’s version based on alleged inconsistencies and contradictions.
The appellant questioned the imposition of the death penalty, assuming self-defense was not accepted.

Standard for Self-Defense

The Court reiterated that to claim self-defense, the accused must prove three concurring circumstances: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and