G.R. No. 128116 - People vs. Peralta y Ringor

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128116)

Key Dates

Shooting incident: night of July 2 to early morning July 3, 1991.
Victim pronounced dead: July 7, 1991.
Trial court decision convicting appellant of murder: November 21, 1996.
Supreme Court decision on appeal: January 24, 2001.

Factual Summary of the Incident

On the night of July 2–3, 1991, Louise Rimando and three companions (Esguerra, Soriano, Gaa) went to Quezon City to “pick up” prostitutes. After meeting pimp Roberto Reyes, two gay escorts and two girls entered Rimando’s owner-type jeep. A taxi driven by or carrying appellant followed them. The jeep stopped near the Dunkin Donuts corner of Quezon and West Avenues; Rimando and the appellant engaged in a heated conversation. Eyewitnesses testified that the appellant approached while holding a .38 caliber handgun, grabbed Rimando’s NBI card, and shot Rimando twice while Rimando was seated beside the driver. Appellant left the scene; Rimando was hospitalized and died on July 7, 1991.

Medical and Autopsy Findings

Medico-legal officer Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr. performed the autopsy. Findings showed two gunshot entry wounds on the right posterior and right anterior lumbar/abdominal areas, an exit wound in the left antero-lateral iliac area, multiple perforating wounds to the jejunum and sigmoid colon, and hemoperitoneum. Dr. Alteza concluded the first wound was fatal and that the trajectory and wound locations indicated the shooter was at the victim’s right lateral side; no defensive injuries were found on the victim’s hands.

Trial Court Disposition and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 106) convicted appellant of murder under Article 248, finding treachery and evident premeditation and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The trial court ordered indemnities and damages: P50,000 civil indemnity, P57,000 actual damages, P35,000 moral damages, P35,000 exemplary damages, with credit for preventive detention.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant’s principal assignments included: (1) that he acted in self-defense while performing official police duty; (2) that treachery attended the shooting; (3) that the trial court wrongly disregarded the testimony of Roberto Reyes; and (4) that the trial court erred in the quantum of civil and other damages awarded.

Burden and Standard of Proof for Self-Defense

The Court reiterated the established rule: once the accused admits killing the victim and pleads self-defense, the burden shifts to the defense to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation (Article 11, RPC). The defense must establish self-defense by clear and convincing evidence and cannot rely solely on the prosecution’s weaknesses.

Court’s Findings on Self-Defense

The Court found the appellant’s claim of self-defense not credible. Key points: (1) medical evidence did not support a close-quarters scuffle or defensive injuries on the victim’s hands; (2) the trajectory and location of wounds were consistent with the victim being seated and attacked from the right side, contradicting the defense claim that the victim grabbed the appellant’s forearm and attempted to take the weapon; (3) appellant failed to promptly report having shot someone in the alleged course of his duties and at trial admitted he did not know whether he hit anyone after the alleged accidental discharge — conduct inconsistent with a genuine self-defense claim. Consequently, unlawful aggression by the victim was not established.

Court’s Analysis on Treachery and Evident Premeditation

The Court concluded that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Rationale: treachery requires a sudden, unexpected attack that deprives the victim of any real chance to defend himself and must be deliberately adopted; but the record showed a preceding heated argument, a two-to-three minute interval before the shots according to one eyewitness, and the appellant’s brandishing of a weapon as he approached, so the victim was not unaware of danger. Treachery was therefore not established. Likewise, evident premeditation requires proof of the offender’s prior determination, an overt act manifesting such decision, and sufficient lapse to reflect; the Court found no proof that appellant had determined to kill Rimando beforehand — appellant’s act of following the jeep was reasonably explained as an attempt to arrest suspected prostitutes and did not constitute an overt act indicating intent to kill.

Credibility Assessments and Witness Evaluation

The Court credited the testimony of three prosecution eyewitnesses (Esguerra, Soriano, Gaa) as consistent, credible, and supported by the medico-legal evidence. It discounted and gave limited weight to Roberto Reyes’ testimony due to material inconsistencies (e.g., conflicting accounts about appellant driving the taxi, position of vehicles, prior arrest by appellant, and claiming not to have seen the victim hit despite asserting he saw the shooting). The appellate court emphasized that assessment of witness demeanor and credibility at trial is entitled great deference, but it still found Reyes’ testimony unreliable on material points.

Performance of Duty Defense Rejected

The Court rejected appellant’s contention that he acted in the lawful performance of duty. Two requisites must concur for that defense: (1) action in performance of duty or lawful exercise of office, and (2) the injury caused must be a necessary consequence of that duty. The Court found neither satisfied: the alleged prostitutes were not committing acts of prostitution in appellant’s presence; appellant’s authorized correct course was limited to arresting persons actually committing vagrancy-type acts (e.g., Reyes’s offer), not to use lethal force against an intervening civilian who merely resisted an attempted arrest of suspected prostitutes. The fatal shooting was not a necessary consequence of any lawful performance of duty.

Conviction Modified to Homicide and Sentence Adjustment

Because treachery and evident premeditation were not proven, the Court reduced the conviction from murder (Art. 248) to hom

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 128116)

Procedural Posture

Appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, in Criminal Case No. Q-91-23687, which convicted appellant Gilbert Peralta of murder. (Decision penned by Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo; Rollo, pp. 444-452.)
Appellant was arraigned and pleaded "Not Guilty"; trial ensued with testimony and exhibits introduced by both sides.
Trial court rendered judgment on November 21, 1996, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and imposing reclusion perpetua plus civil and other damages. (Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 452.)
Appellant appealed raising four assignments of error challenging (I) denial of self-defense, (II) finding of treachery, (III) disregard of testimony of Roberto Reyes, and (IV) the amounts of civil and exemplary damages ordered. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 53-54.)
Supreme Court reviewed the record, evidence, trial court findings, and applicable law and issued decision dated January 24, 2001 (G.R. No. 128116), modifying the conviction and sentence. (403 Phil. 72; G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001.)

Factual Background — Events of July 2–3, 1991

On the evening of July 2, 1991, victim Louise Rimando and his fraternity brothers and schoolmates Crizaldo Esguerra, Delfin Soriano, and Danilo Gaa watched a basketball game in Pasig City and thereafter proceeded to Quezon City "to pick up" prostitutes.
At the Aberdeen Court Hotel along Quezon Avenue, Rimando alighted from an owner-type jeep driven by Esguerra and spoke to a gay pimp, Roberto Reyes, identifying himself as an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation to obtain a discount for the girls.
Reyes agreed to introduce girls and proposed to pick them up in front of the Aberdeen Court Hotel; when the jeep arrived, Reyes, two girls, and another gay named Sandro Lim suddenly boarded the jeep and Reyes told Rimando to help them against a CAPCOM extortionist.
With eight persons aboard, the jeep sped away; while driving along Quezon Avenue a pimp noticed they were being followed in a taxi by the appellant. Rimando instructed Esguerra to park in front of Dunkin Donuts at Quezon and West Avenues.
Two gays were ordered to alight; the taxi containing appellant parked behind (or near) the jeep; one lady also alighted. Appellant, armed with a .38 caliber firearm, alighted and approached Rimando who was seated beside the driver’s seat.
Appellant inquired if they were policemen; Rimando replied negatively, said he was an NBI agent, and showed his NBI ID card. Appellant said “N.B.I. ka pala,” grabbed the identification card and suddenly shot Rimando twice in the body. Appellant then returned to his taxi and left.
Rimando was brought to United Doctors Medical Center, later transferred to Santo Tomas University Hospital, and pronounced dead on July 7, 1991.

Prosecution Evidence and Eyewitness Accounts

Three prosecution eyewitnesses — Crizaldo Esguerra, Delfin Soriano, and Danilo Gaa — were schoolmates and fraternity brothers of Rimando; they witnessed the shooting and had a clear view of appellant’s face because of illumination from a lamppost. (TSN, Oct. 23, 1991; Exhibits A, A-1, A-2, C, C-1, C-2, E, E-1, E-2.)
Esguerra testified that Rimando and appellant had an argument that lasted two to three minutes before the appellant shot Rimando. (Cross & re-direct testimony; TSN, Oct. 2, 1992.)
The eyewitnesses’ account, as summarized in the decision, indicates appellant approached while holding a handgun, engaged in a heated argument, and then shot Rimando twice while Rimando remained seated beside the driver’s seat.
The trial court found these prosecution witnesses credible; the Supreme Court also found their testimonies credible and relied on them in its analysis.

Defense Evidence and Appellant’s Version

Appellant testified he was a member of the Central District Field Force, Intelligence Investigation Unit of the Central Police District (CIC), on a mission order to conduct surveillance near Aberdeen Court Hotel concerning rampant prostitution. He was in civilian clothes and carrying an authorized .38 caliber gun. (Exhibit F; TSN, Mar. 3, 1994.)
Appellant’s account: at about 1:00 a.m., he saw suspected prostitutes and stopped the taxi; Reyes offered services and warned companions because appellant identified himself as a police officer; Reyes and others boarded the jeep, which appellant followed to effect arrests.
Appellant claims he approached the jeep, identified himself, and that Rimando arrogantly replied that he was NBI. A heated discussion ensued for two to three minutes; the girls jumped off the jeep; as appellant attempted to pursue, Rimando grabbed appellant’s right forearm and held appellant’s .38; appellant maintained his hold of the gun with both hands and, during the struggle, accidentally pressed the trigger twice. (TSN, Mar. 3, 1994; TSN, July 7, 1994.)
Appellant asserted he reported the incident to his Officer-in-Charge, Dante Yan, at headquarters later that night and that a spot report was prepared; follow-up operations the next day failed to identify the victim. Appellant was identified as the assailant only on August 23, 1991.
Appellant emphasized long police service (11 years) and that this was his first criminal charge.

Corroborating Defense Witness (Roberto Reyes) and His Testimony

Roberto Reyes testified to facts consistent with appellant’s account in some respects: Rimando sought pick-up girls, identified as NBI, he (Reyes) and others boarded the jeep, appellant’s taxi followed, the jeep parked near Dunkin Donuts, and a heated argument occurred culminating in a struggle and two gunshots while appellant and Rimando struggled for the gun.
Reyes testified appellant drove the taxi and claimed the taxi was parked in front of the jeep; he also claimed he heard gunshots but did not see anyone get hit.
The Supreme Court found material inconsistencies in Reyes’ testimony undermining his credibility: contradictions on whether appellant had already arrested him, whether appellant drove the taxi, relative parking positions of vehicles, and Reyes’ claim not to have seen anyone hit despite having seen the appellant shoot in an illuminated area. (TSN, May 16, 1996.)

Medical and Forensic Findings

Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr., medico-legal officer of Santo Tomas University Hospital, conducted the autopsy and prepared Exhibit "I."
Autopsy findings: two gunshot entry wounds — 2 x 2 cm in the right anterior lumbar/abdomen and 1 x 1.5 cm in the right posterior lumbar area; a gunshot exit wound in the left antero-lateral iliac area; multiple perforating gunshot wounds (6) involving the jejunum and two perforations of the sigmoid colon; hemoperitoneum. Conclusion: patient pronounced dead July 7, 1991.
Dr. Alteza opined the first gunshot wound was fatal, having hit intestines and other vital