PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON NAVARRA AND VIRGILIO CRUZ, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The charge is murder.^[1] The
entire evidence was presented before Judge Demetrio
Vinson who passed away before judgment could be reached.  Judge Jose F. Fernandez penned the decision
below.  The judgment declared the two
defendants, Ramon Navarra and Virgilio
Cruz, guilty thereof.  They were each
sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental to reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Tomas Martir in the sum of P6,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.  The present is an appeal from that judgment.

At about 11:00 p.m. on December 11, 1961 in Bacolod City,
Ramon Masa, a merchant, was on his way home from Max
Restaurant where he bought food, pancit and siopao.  He met Tomas Martir
alias Masing at the corner of Washington-Luzurriaga Streets.  Martir was known to be a violent person, a police
character, and one not averse to liquor. 
Martir called Masa.  The latter replied that he was in a hurry as
it was already late.  Martir
retorted:  “You are a fool.  Now, I am going to stab you”.  Without much ado, Martir
delivered a fist blow on the belly of Masa who
dropped to the ground.  Martir entered the Caviteña
Bar.  Masa
picked up his things and started to go home.

Meanwhile, a police patrol jeep occupied by Patrolmen Rodolfo
Pico and Felipe Aplasca passed by and saw Martir going back and forth in front of the Caviteña Bar.  They
stopped, heard Martir murmur that he would kill
somebody that evening.  Patrolman Pico
observed that Martir smelled of alcohol.  The two police officers were able to persuade
Martir to go home. 
They conducted him to the front of his house at Smith
Street. 
Instead of going up, Martir joined the
conversation of some people in the street.

It was about this time that defendants Ramon Navarra
and Virgilio Cruz, also of the Bacolod City
police force assigned with the Mayor’s special squad, were on patrol in another
jeep.  They saw Ramon Masa
standing at the corner of Washington and Gonzaga
Streets signalling the patrol to stop.  Getting off the jeep, Navarra
inquired from Masa what it was all about.  Masa reported his
incident, shortly before, with Tomas Martir.  Navarra and Cruz
invited Masa to report the matter to the police
station.  The latter suggested instead
that he would follow after taking home the food that he bought, which might get
cold.  When Masa’s
wife learned of the incident with Martir, she
prevailed upon Masa to stay home.

The two defendants proceeded to the capitol shopping center, to
the place where Masa informed them that he was
manhandled by Martir. 
The two came upon Sgt. David Sevillo likewise
of the Bacolod
City police at the corner of Lacson and Burgos Streets.  
Sevillo was on his way to report for duty and
got a ride from the two defendants.

Near the bridge of Smith Street,
the three came upon a group of six persons. 
Navarra and Cruz alighted, inquired if those
people had any weapons, searched them, found none.  The two defendants advised the group to break
up.  In that group was Tomas Martir.  Navarra approached Martir and
told him that there was a complaint against him.  Martir denied the
charge.  The two defendant-policemen
sought the advice of Sgt. Sevillo as to what to do
with Martir with respect to Masa’s
complaint.  Sgt. Sevillo
answered that it would be best to take Martir along
to headquarters for investigation and record purposes.

The three police officers took Martir
along.  At police head­quarters on Smith
Street, Sgt. Sevillo
alighted, proceeded to his post. 
Defendant police officers were then informed that there was no complaint
recorded against Martir.  So they proceeded with Tomas Martir to the former’s
headquarters [of the Mayor’s special squad] at City Hall on Araneta Street.  Here, they also found from their own blotter
that Ramon Masa had not yet reported the
incident.  As Martir
denied the charge against him, the two defendants decided to take him
home.  Upon nearing Florida Hotel in San
Juan Street, they stopped and Navarra
entered the hotel.

From here on, there is a sharp divergence of evidence between the
prosecution and the defense.  The
People’s version which gained the nod of the court below is this:  Upon reaching the gate of the Florida
Nightclub, which was on the ground floor of Florida Hotel, accused Ramon Navarra alighted and approached the watchman, Antonio
Santiago, and inquired about his brother Jesus Navarra
who was living inside the compound of the nightclub.  Upon being informed that Jesus was inside,
Ramon Navarra entered the gate and called out to his
brother.  While Ramon Navarra
was inside the nightclub com­pound, Tomas Martir
inquired from the accused Virgilio Cruz why they
stopped at the nightclub where his enemy, Jesus Navarra,
was.  Forthwith, Martir
jumped from the jeep, started to run away. 
Accused Virgilio Cruz then went running to his
co-accused Ramon Navarra shouting “Pare Ramon,
he has gone, he left away”.  Ramon Navarra rushed to the watchman Antonio Santiago who was at
the gate and directed him to run after Tomas Martir.  Santiago
demurred, as he was watching the nightclub. 
Navarra angrily threatened to shoot Santiago
if the latter disobeyed him.  Whereupon, Santiago
ran after the fleeing man, collared him in front of the Sea Breeze Hotel.  Ramon Navarra who
had followed them shouted to Antonio Santiago to keep distance.  Santiago
pushed Tomas Martir dashing him against the
wall.  Almost simultaneously, Ramon Navarra, with his service revolver, shot Tomas Martir twice.  The
latter staggered towards the direction of the nearby Wonder Inn.  But then, the accused Virgilio
Cruz, also with his service revolver, shot Tomas Martir
once.  This was followed by Ramon Navarra with two shots. 
Tomas Martir fell, sprawled face downward to
the ground alongside Sea Breeze Hotel in San Juan
Street.  As
Ramon Navarra reached the dead man, he directed
Antonio Santiago to drop a knife which was handed to the latter by Segundo Masa (brother of Ramon Masa) near
the prostrate body of Tomas Martir.  Santiago
did so.  Sgt. Porfirio
Arcobillas shoved the knife nearer to the body of the
deceased Tomas Martir, because Antonio Santiago did
not drop it close enough.

The medico-legal necropsy report filed by Dr. Alfredo Lamayo of the Negros
Provincial Hospital
showed that five bullets found their mark on the body of Tomas Martir.  Of these,
the wound which entered the parasternal border was
pronounced fatal since it hit the lungs, the pericardium, the diaphragm, the
stomach, and the left border of the liver. 
Dr. Lamayo also found that the deceased
smelled of intoxicating drink which could either be whiskey or beer.

1.  Defendants’ brief
pleaded self-defense in exculpation.

Defendants’ version of the incident follows:  On the way to conduct Tomas Martir home, they passed by Florida Nightclub where Segundo
Masa, a brother of Ramon Masa,
had his job.  Defendant Navarra asked defendant Cruz who was at the wheel to stop
the jeep as he would inquire from Segundo Masa of the
whereabouts of Ramon Masa.  Navarra went inside
the Florida Nightclub compound. 
Defendant Cruz was left with Martir in the
jeep.  Cruz passed water in front of the
jeep.  Martir
suddenly and unexpectedly grabbed from behind Cruz’ service revolver which was
tucked in his waist.  The two grappled
for the possession of the gun. 
Meanwhile, Cruz called Navarra for help:  “Pare Ramon, Pare Ramon, help
me”.  During the struggle, the gun
went off.  It hit Martir.  But Martir held to
the gun, succeeded in wresting possession thereof.  It was then that Navarra
arrived and shouted to Tomas Martir:  “Masing, Masing, drop it”. 
Martir did not heed the warning, instead faced
Navarra, pointed the gun at him, and said:  “You also”.  Defendant Navarra
sidestepped to his left and fired four successive shots.  Martir dropped the
gun, dizzily walked away about five arm stretches and fell face down.

Since People vs. Ansoyon,
75 Phil. 772, 777, courts of justice have clung to the rule that for the plea
of self-defense to prosper, a defendant must rely on the strength of his own
evidence, not on the weakness of that for the prosecution.  Reason for this is that even if the People’s
evidence were weak it would not be dis­believed after the defendants themselves
have admitted the killing.  We do not
propose to stray away from this salutary rule.

With the standard forged in Ansoyon,
we now analyze the evidence.  First
and foremost is the ballistic finding that four of the bullet
wounds were from the service revolver of Navarra and
one from the service revolver of Cruz. 
It cannot be true therefore that Cruz did not fire a shot as he, thru
his testimony, would want the court to believe. 
Secondly, it does not jibe with normal course of events that if
really the deceased Tomas Martir was able to wrest
Cruz’ revolver, Martir did not fire a shot.  The natural impulse would have been for Martir to do so. 
What did he grab the revolver for? 
Thirdly, it would not seem credible, as the court below observed,
that Tomas Martir could have handled the gun so ably
and aimed it at Ramon Navarra.  Fourthly, the balance of probabilities
is that, again as the lower court pointed out, if Tomas Martir
had the upperhand and was able to wrest the gun in
the process, that gun could not have misfired to hit Martir
himself.  Lastly, it is improbable
anyway that Martir could have presented such a
spirited struggle.  For, at that time, he
was drunk.

We find that self-defense has not been proven.

2.  Judge Jose F. Fernandez
declared the crime to be that of murder upon the finding that defendants took
advantage of superior strength within the meaning of paragraph 15, Article 14
of the Revised Penal Code.

The judge is correct.  The
deceased Tomas Martir was unarmed, under the
influence of liquor.  He was much smaller
than Navarra.  Navarra’s attack came after he (Martir)
was pushed to the wall by Antonio Santiago. 
Not content with this and after Martir tried
to escape, Virgilio Cruz fired at him.  Not only that.  This was followed by two other shots from Navarra.  Since the
attack was unexpected, the aggressors were police officers fully armed, and the
deceased was defenseless and under the influence of liquor, a clear case of
abuse of superiority is present.  The two
took advantage of these circumstances to consummate the offense.^[2]

3.  The performance of our
police officers since the not-too­-remote past leaves much to be desired.  The catalogue of crimes into which our
policemen have fallen has galvanized the minds of our government leaders and
civic spirited citizens into the formula­tion of steps to decrease – not to say
to eliminate – the number of our policemen who debase their position, give
dishonor to their uniform, and who have become menaces to, rather than
protectors of, the community.

A little more than two years ago, Congress enacted the Police Act
of 1966^[3]
with the end in view of upgrading the quality of our police officers.  The explanatory note to the bill that became
law as well as the law itself reflect a grave concern over the substandard
local police service in this country vis-a-vis
the upsurge in crime.  Contemporary
history notes the fact that police officers have not been insulated from
criminal acts.

Our concept of policemen is that they are peace officers.  The term “peace officers” suggests
their primary role in our society.  They
are to uphold the law, not to break it; to protect citizens from crimes, not to
commit them; to induce respect from the citizenry, not their distrust; to
perform their duty to keep peace in the community, not to turn their backs on
crime and violence; to defend the people from murderers, not to murder
them.  The policemen then should be made
to understand that when they are found guilty of crimes which they themselves
are oath-bound to prevent, they shall receive the full measure of the law.  The present case before us is illustrative
indeed of how a law upholder has become a lawbreaker.  Defendants here were appropriately meted the
penalty imposed upon them by the lower court.

For the reasons given,
the judgment under review is hereby affirmed.

Costs against defendants-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Castro, Angeles, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., concurs in the result.

Zaldivar, J., on leave.

^[1]
Criminal Case 7695, Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental, entitled “People of the Philippines,
Complainant, versus Ramon Navarra, et al., Accused”.

^[2] See: 
U.S. vs. Consuelo, 13 Phil. 612, 614; People vs. Quesada,
62 Phil. 446, 450; People vs. Antonio, 73 Phil. 421, 424; People vs.
Mendoza, 91 Phil. 58, 64; People vs. Develos,
L-18866, January 31, 1966; People vs. Reyes, L-21445, May 30, 1967;
People vs. Verzo, L-22517, December 26, 1967.

^[3]
Republic Act 4864, effective September
8, 1966.