EDGAR GERASTA Y LAPUS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Gerasta versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of Edgar Gerasta, who was charged with killing Deogracias Rendal, a barangay police officer, by shooting him with a firearm on the evening of 9 March 1980 in San Fernando, Cebu. The case matters for the bar candidate because it is a compact lesson in three things examiners love to test: the weight given to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals; the strict requirements of self-defense, beginning with unlawful aggression; and the proper computation of the indeterminate penalty, together with the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages. It also shows how the Court treats the relationship of witnesses to the victim, and how delay in reporting a crime is weighed.

Procedural History

Edgar was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 11, with homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Because the same incident also gave rise to a charge of illegal possession of firearms, the trial court consolidated the two cases and conducted a joint trial. On arraignment, Edgar, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated 8 November 1996, found Edgar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and acquitted him of illegal possession of firearms. Edgar appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated 9 November 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. Edgar then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

At around 6:30 in the evening of 9 March 1980, Alberto Loquez, the victim's brother-in-law, was in the sala of his house when he heard a gunshot. The same sound was heard by Teresita Rendal, the victim's wife, who was standing beside the road facing Edgar's house, and by Modesto Reyes, who was at a nearby store buying cigarettes. After the shot, Alberto went to his window and saw Edgar across the road, by the window of his house, pointing a gun at Deogracias, who was lying beside the road. Edgar fired a second time. Teresita, looking toward the gunshot, saw Edgar aiming his gun at her husband and shooting him. Modesto went out of the store after the second shot and saw the victim's body lying face down.

Edgar's brother, Quirino, emerged from the dark and approached the victim. Edgar asked, "Brother, is he still alive?" and Quirino answered that he was. Edgar went down toward the victim and, with his gun in his hands, shouted at the gathered neighbors that whoever complained would be shot next. The two brothers then brought the body to the balcony of Edgar's house and dropped it at the stairs, where it fell at the foot of the staircase. When Patrolmen Duterte and Empacis arrived, they saw the wounded victim at the foot of the staircase, still breathing but unable to talk. Edgar approached Patrolman Duterte and surrendered his gun, saying, "This is the gun I used in shooting Deogracias." The policemen also observed bloodstains on the road near Edgar's house. The victim was brought to the Southern Islands Hospital in Cebu City, where he died. An autopsy the following day found two gunshot wounds, one in the left thigh and one in the head, the head wound being fatal.

The defense put up self-defense. Edgar testified that the victim had challenged him to a fight, that the victim pointed a gun at him, that they wrestled for possession of the gun, and that the gun fired twice, hitting the victim. His wife Miriam corroborated him, and Ismael Barredo testified that he saw the two men struggle for control of a revolver. Dr. Tomas Refe of the National Bureau of Investigation opined that the wounds could have been inflicted within two seconds while the parties grappled for the gun. On rebuttal, Dr. Llenes testified that from the trajectory of the bullet, the assailant could have been on an elevated place with the victim below when the gun was fired.

Issues

• Whether or not the lower courts erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses Alberto and Teresita, who were closely related to the victim.
• Whether or not Edgar's claim of self-defense should be sustained.
• Whether or not the delay of Alberto in coming forward as a witness impaired his credibility.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.
• Whether or not the award of damages should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

This is the crime of which Edgar was convicted, and it fixes the penalty from which the indeterminate sentence is computed.

Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: 2. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

This provision governs the maximum of the indeterminate penalty where only a mitigating circumstance, voluntary surrender, attended the crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the credibility of witnesses is best determined by the trial judge, who can weigh testimony in light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct, and position, and that such findings, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally conclusive and binding unless significant facts were overlooked. The Court found no such oversight. Alberto and Teresita were in unison in pointing to Edgar as the gunman, and the crime scene was illuminated by an electric bulb on an electric post. Teresita's house was only about two meters from Edgar's, and Alberto was about ten to fifteen meters away. The Court also held that the relationship of the witnesses to the victim did not impair their credibility, absent any showing of improper motive; on the contrary, their natural instinct would be to bring the real culprit to justice, and to blame an innocent man would serve them no purpose.

On the second issue, the Court held that self-defense must fail because the first requisite, unlawful aggression, was absent. The victim was standing by the road in front of Edgar's house, while Edgar was by the window and fired at him. Even granting that the victim shouted and challenged Edgar to a fight, such an act would not constitute unlawful aggression, since the victim was unarmed and could not possibly inflict harm on Edgar, who was armed with a gun. The Court also found the defense version hard to believe: if the first shot had hit the victim and caused him to fall, why did he sustain another gunshot wound from a different bullet, one in the head and another in the thigh?

On the third issue, the Court held that there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, frightful, or traumatic experience; some may shout, some may faint, and some may be shocked into insensibility. Alberto sufficiently explained his delay, having been shocked as it was his first time to witness an actual killing.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in Edgar's favor, since he surrendered to a person in authority on the day of the incident and this was not contested. Under Article 249, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be imposed in its minimum period pursuant to Article 64, paragraph 2, ranging from twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months. The minimum shall be taken from the full range of the penalty next lower in degree, prision mayor, or from six years and one day to twelve years. The penalty imposed by the trial court, eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal as maximum, was within the prescribed range and was sustained.

On the fifth issue, the Court modified the damages. The trial court had awarded 50,000 pesos as death indemnity and 20,000 pesos for funeral expenses. Following its ruling in People versus Dela Cruz, the Court held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than 25,000 pesos, the award of temperate damages of 25,000 pesos is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount, because it would be anomalous and unfair that the heirs who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages amounting to less than 25,000 pesos would be in a worse situation than another who presented no receipts at all but would be entitled to 25,000 pesos as temperate damages. The Court also awarded 50,000 pesos as moral damages in line with recent jurisprudence.

Doctrine

First, the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court absent a showing that significant facts were overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded. Second, relationship of a witness to the victim does not by itself impair credibility; absent improper motive, it may even strengthen it, since the witness's natural instinct is to bring the real culprit to justice. Third, delay in reporting a crime is not fatal to credibility, because there is no standard form of behavioral response to a startling or traumatic experience. Fourth, self-defense requires unlawful aggression as its first requisite; a mere challenge to a fight by an unarmed person against one who is armed does not constitute unlawful aggression. Fifth, under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal, and where only the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender attends the crime, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty is imposed in its minimum period under Article 64, paragraph 2, while the minimum is taken from the full range of prision mayor. Sixth, when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than 25,000 pesos, temperate damages of 25,000 pesos may be awarded in lieu thereof, and moral damages of 50,000 pesos may be awarded to the heirs of the victim.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Edgar Gerasta for homicide, with the modification that he was also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 25,000 pesos as temperate damages in lieu of the award of funeral expenses.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: an unarmed man's challenge to a fight is not unlawful aggression, and the trial court's credibility findings, affirmed on appeal, bind the Supreme Court. Examiners use this case to test self-defense's first requisite, the effect of a witness's relationship to the victim and delay in reporting, and the computation of the indeterminate penalty with voluntary surrender plus the award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages below 25,000 pesos.