THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SERGIO MALIWANAG, JESUS VILLEZA AND EULOGIO JALOS, DEFENDANTS, JESUS VILLEZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Villeza

The Case

This is the appeal of Jesus Villeza, a municipal policeman of Mansalay, Oriental Mindoro, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro convicting him of murder for the shooting death of Esmeraldo Fernando on election day, November 9, 1965, near the polling place at the Sta. Brigida Elementary School. Villeza admitted firing the shots but claimed complete self-defense, insisting that the deceased was the aggressor who attacked him with a balisong knife as he tried to make an arrest. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows how the Supreme Court weighs a plea of self-defense by a peace officer, how it treats the trial court's finding that physical evidence was planted, and how the presumption of innocence overrides even the usual deference to the trial court's assessment of credibility.

Procedural History

Three persons were charged before the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro: Mayor Sergio Maliwanag, policeman Jesus Villeza, and policeman Eulogio Jalos. After trial, the court acquitted Maliwanag and Jalos on the ground of reasonable doubt, but convicted Villeza of murder, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay an indemnity of ten thousand pesos to the heirs of Esmeraldo Fernando, plus the costs. Villeza appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning three errors: that the trial court wrongly held the balisong knife and his torn uniform shirt to be planted evidence, that it failed to find complete self-defense, and that it failed to acquit him.

Facts

At about eleven o'clock in the morning of November 9, 1965, election day, the three accused were at the Sta. Brigida Elementary School, which served as the polling place for Precinct Number 7. According to the prosecution, Villeza, in police uniform, approached Esmeraldo Fernando, who was standing and conversing with others, said "requisa," and immediately shot him even though Fernando had raised his hands; Jalos then fired and hit Fernando, and Mayor Maliwanag also fired but missed.

The defense told a different story. Shortly after the three arrived, Villeza noticed a commotion near the polling place. Edgardo Artiza, chairman of the board of election inspectors, handed Villeza an order of arrest to be enforced against whoever was creating trouble. Villeza then saw Fernando dragging one Salvador Balani by the neck. When Villeza approached to arrest him, Fernando swung a balisong knife at him, catching only his uniform. Villeza shot him, and when Fernando tried to stab again, Villeza shot him a second time. Jalos fired into the air to scare off Fernando's approaching relatives, and Mayor Maliwanag was elsewhere taking his lunch. Villeza admitted he alone inflicted the two fatal wounds and claimed complete self-defense.

The trial court found the balisong knife surrendered to the police, and Villeza's torn shirt, to be planted or fabricated evidence meant to support self-defense. It convicted Villeza of murder.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the balisong knife and the torn police uniform shirt were planted or fabricated evidence.
• Whether or not Jesus Villeza acted in complete self-defense when he fatally shot Esmeraldo Fernando.
• Whether or not Jesus Villeza should be acquitted.

Applicable Provisions

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Any one who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First: Unlawful aggression; Second: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

This is the provision under which Villeza's plea of complete self-defense must be tested, and each of its three requisites must concur for the justifying circumstance to arise.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court's conclusion that the knife and shirt were planted had no basis in the evidence. Villeza's testimony, corroborated by Salvador Balani, established that Fernando was armed with a balisong knife and used it against Villeza, hitting only his uniform; this was neither contradicted nor rebutted. The Court rejected the prosecution's reliance on the rule that failure to produce the weapon renders the claim incredible, because Villeza had surrendered the knife to the authorities right after the incident. As the Court put it, how could he suppress something he did not have in his possession? Balani's account of being kicked, boxed, and struck with the handle of the balisong knife was supported by the physician who treated him. As for the torn shirt, when Villeza wore it in court it was observed to be loose and did not cling to his body, which explained why only the shirt was caught by the blade.

On the second issue, the Court found all three requisites of self-defense present. There was unlawful aggression: Fernando, instead of submitting to arrest, drew his balisong knife and swung it at Villeza, showing a determination to kill. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed, since Villeza's only recourse against a deadly knife was his service pistol. And there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part, because he was simply discharging his duties as a peace officer in compliance with the lawful order of the chairman of the board of election inspectors. The Court held that the defense evidence met the requirement that self-defense be established by clear and convincing evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that the prosecution's evidence fell short of the certainty required for conviction. Quoting its earlier ruling, the Court declared:

As a salutary proposition, this Court usually desists from disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, in deference to the rule that the lower court, having seen and heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to appreciate the evidence. But this doctrine must bow to the superior and immutable rule that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because the law presumes that a defendant is innocent, and this presumption must prevail unless overturned by competent and credible proof.

Having reached this conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to discuss the third assigned error.

Doctrine

Self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code requires the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. When a peace officer, acting on a lawful order of arrest, is attacked with a deadly weapon by the person he seeks to arrest, the aggression comes from the latter, and the officer may repel it with the means reasonably necessary, here his service pistol. The claim of self-defense must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, but once the accused shows that he surrendered the weapon to the authorities, he cannot be said to have suppressed it, and non-production in court does not by itself destroy his claim. Finally, the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt prevail over the general rule of deference to the trial court's findings on credibility.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction, acquitted Jesus Villeza, and ordered his release from the custody of the law, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the deference owed to the trial court's credibility findings must bow to the superior and immutable rule that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of self-defense by a peace officer making a lawful arrest, and the rule that failure to produce the weapon does not defeat self-defense when the accused had already surrendered it to the authorities.