G.R. No. 220977 - Tabobo III y Ebid vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220977)

Factual Background

On January 19, 2005, Manuel Zachary Escudero y Araneta was robbed and shot along P. Ocampo Street, Manila. Police arrested two suspects that day, including Victor Ramon Martin y Ong, and detained them at Police Station 9. On January 20, 2005, while PO2 Jesus De Leon interviewed Martin and temporarily removed Martin’s handcuffs, Martin grabbed PO2 De Leon’s service firearm and a scuffle ensued. A gunshot occurred. Petitioner, then on the ground floor, proceeded to the second floor, perceived PO2 De Leon to be nearly subdued by Martin, fired his service firearm twice, and struck Martin in the chest. Martin was rushed to Ospital ng Maynila and was declared dead on arrival.

Charging and Evidence at Trial

The petitioner was charged with homicide before the RTC of Manila. The prosecution presented Dr. Ravell Ronald R. Baluyot, who testified to two gunshot wounds to Martin’s chest and opined that the exit wounds were higher than the entrance wounds. The defense called Police Superintendent Marcelino DL Pedrozo, Jr., who had no personal knowledge of the shooting’s circumstances. PO2 De Leon commenced testimony but did not complete it; the trial court later struck his direct testimony from the records.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On May 15, 2013, the RTC convicted the petitioner of homicide and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period, finding that the petitioner failed to prove all elements of the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger. The RTC adjudged no civil liability. The petitioner moved to avail of appeal and filed motions for reconsideration and a new trial, alleging counsel’s gross negligence. The RTC allowed the petitioner to post bail in the amount of P150,000 and deferred resolution of the motion for new trial pending appeal.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated January 23, 2015, affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, and awarded civil indemnity of P50,000 to the victim’s heirs. The CA reasoned that because the petitioner invoked the defense of a stranger, the burden of proof shifted to him to establish the justifying circumstance, and that the petitioner had admitted shooting Martin in his extrajudicial Sworn Statement, Counter-Affidavit, and Joint Rejoinder. The CA concluded that the defense failed to prove all elements of self-defense.

Petition to the Supreme Court

The petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking nullification of the CA Decision and Resolution and the RTC Decision. He asserted denial of due process caused by the gross negligence and incompetence of his counsel before the trial court. He further argued that the CA should have given weight to the stipulations in SPO2 Edmundo C. Cabal’s Crime Report indicating that the petitioner acted in defense of PO2 De Leon.

Issue Presented

The central issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction for homicide.

Supreme Court Disposition

The Supreme Court held the petition partly meritorious. The Court reversed and set aside the RTC Decision dated May 15, 2013, the CA Decision dated January 23, 2015, and the CA Resolution dated October 12, 2015. The Court remanded the case to the RTC of Manila for a new trial to allow PO1 Celso Tabobo III y Ebid to present evidence in his defense, with a directive to decide the case with all deliberate speed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that an appeal in criminal cases opens the whole case for review and that appellate courts must correct errors whether assigned or not, particularly when liberty is at stake, citing People of the Philippines v. Dahil, et al. and related authority. The Court explained that an accused’s extrajudicial admissions of fact differ from a confession of guilt; an admission establishes certain facts but is not conclusive of criminal guilt, citing People v. Buntag. The Court further held that affidavits and written statements constitute hearsay unless the affiants testify, relying on Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos-Manotoc, et al., and thus the trial court should not have relied solely on the petitioner’s undemonstrated sworn documents to establish an admission of guilt. Because the petitioner pleaded not guilty but invoked the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger under Art. 11, Revised Penal Code, the burden shifted to him to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender, citing People v. SPO2 Magnabe, Jr., People v. Asuela, and Salcedo v. People. The Court cited People v. Patrolman Belbes for the proposition that once an accused admits inflicting fatal injuries, he must prove the justifying circumstance on the strength of his own evidence.

Counsel’s N

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 220977)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PO1 Celso Tabobo III y Ebid was the accused in Criminal Case No. 06-248576 before the RTC of Manila and the petitioner in this Rule 45 appeal to the Supreme Court.
People of the Philippines was the respondent prosecuting the killing of Victor Ramon Martin y Ong.
The petition sought review under Rule 45, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 23, 2015 and Resolution dated October 12, 2015 that affirmed the RTC Decision dated May 15, 2013.
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition and ordered a remand for new trial pursuant to Rule 121, Sec. 2, Rules of Court.

Key Factual Allegations

On January 19, 2005, two men on a motorcycle robbed and shot Manuel Zachary Escudero y Araneta in Manila, resulting in Escudero's death.
Police arrested two suspects who matched eyewitness descriptions, one of whom was Victor Ramon Martin y Ong, and detained them at Police Station 9 (PS-9).
On January 20, 2005, PO2 Jesus De Leon interviewed Martin on the second floor of PS-9 and removed Martin's handcuffs so Martin could answer nature's call.
Martin allegedly grabbed PO2 De Leon's service firearm during that episode and a scuffle ensued, after which the petitioner fired two shots that struck Martin in the chest.
Martin was rushed to Ospital ng Maynila and was declared dead on arrival.

Evidence and Testimony

The prosecution presented Dr. Ravell Ronald R. Baluyot who testified that Martin sustained two chest gunshot wounds and various blunt-force injuries, and that exit wounds were higher than entrance wounds possibly indicating the shooter was positioned lower than the victim.
The prosecution relied on the crime report executed by SPO2 Edmundo C. Cabal and on documentary statements attributed to the petitioner, namely a Sworn Statement, Counter-Affidavit, and Joint Rejoinder.
PO2 Jesus De Leon initially took the witness stand for direct examination but his testimony was stricken from the record for failure to complete testimony and in consequence the defense presentation was deemed waived.
The petitioner never personally identified or testified to the contents of his written statements in open court, rendering those documents hearsay as to him under the authorities cited.

Procedural History

The RTC of Manila, Branch 41 convicted the petitioner of homicide in a Decision dated May 15, 2013 and sentenced him to reclusion temporal in its medium period while adjudging no civil liability.
The petitioner filed motions for reconsideration and for bail and later appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals in its January 23, 2015 Decision affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term from eight yea