PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO REY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Saturnino Rey
was charged with the crime of Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Capiz, committed as follows:

“That on or about 8:40 o’clock in the evening of May 28, 1983,
at Poblacion, Pilar, Capiz, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court,
the above-named accused armed with a .45 caliber pistol, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one NICOLAS
PAGAYUNAN in a sudden and in unexpected manner, thereby inflicting upon the
latter a gunshot wound above the nipple and sternum, right, thru and thru which
caused his death thereafter;”^[1]

After trial, Judge Rodrigo V. Cosico
found the following facts to have been established:

“x x x On
the evening of May 28, 1983, which was a fiesta day, while Rosette Pagayunan, a teacher at the San Esteban Elementary School,
was preparing to cook food at her house, she found out that there was no
water.  Accordingly, Mrs. Pagayunan instructed her two (2) children, Babette and Nicolas, to get water from the faucet of the
accused Saturnino Rey, also
a public school teacher.  At that time,
Mr. Rey’s faucet was allegedly the only one with
water at the neighborhood because of the long drought.  Nicolas was then a ninteen-year
old fourth year high school student at the Colegio de
la Purisima Concepcion, Roxas City.  Babette and Nicolas
proceeded towards the house of Mr. Rey to get water. Babette and Nicolas found Roban Rey, son of the accused, near the faucet.  Roban was sitting
atop the steps of the kitchen stairway talking with Nicolas.  While Nicolas was standing beside the faucet
waiting for his pail to be filled with water, he was shot twice by Saturnino Rey from the window of
his bedroom which was about four (4) meters away.  The shooting was witnessed by Roban Rey and Babette
Pagayunan, who was about three (3) meters away from
the faucet.  After he was hit, Nicolas
said to Roban: ‘I was hit’.  Soon after, Nicolas fell front of Roban.  Roban went up their house and told Saturnino
Rey: ‘Daddy you hit Colas’.  Babette went home
and reported the shooting incident to her mother who fainted.  The Pagayunan sisters
and their group went to the place to get the body of Nicolas, who was taken to
the Medicare Hospital
in Pilar, Capiz, where he
was given a first-aid treatment. 
Thereafter, Nicolas was taken to Roxas City
but died before reaching the hospital.

“On the morning of May
29, 1983, Patrolmen Jose Ballera and Hanzel Villareal conducted an
investigation at the place of the shooting incident and found an empty shell (Exh. C) below the window of the room of Saturnino
Rey.  During
the investigation, Roban Rey,
in the presence of the police investigators and Romeo Bacalocos,
pointed to the direction of the window of the room of his father, Saturnino Rey, as the place where
the firing came from.”^[2]

The trial court found the defendant-appellant guilty, as charged,
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00, to
pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages and to
pay the costs.

From this judgment, the accused Saturnino
Rey appealed. 
His counsel assails the trial court for completely believing the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 
Counsel points to certain facts and circumstances of weight and
substance which the trial court allegedly overlooked, misapplied or misinterpreted, and which, if
considered, will materially alter the result, to wit: “1) the fact that it
was summer and the water system connections,
particularly those in the higher level of the town, were not
functioning; 2) the fact that the water faucet at the backyard of the accused-appellant
was not functioning, not merely because the water pressure was too weak for the
faucet to function but also because the water connection had been disconnected (t.s.n.,
p. 283); 3) the fact that the houses of both the deceased and the
accused-appellant and their immediate neighborhood are on the same higher level
of the town; 4) the fact that the household of the accused-appellant were
getting their water supply from Martin Cunada, their
nearest neighbor, because he had a water pump, several water storage tanks, and
a well; 5) the fact that the immediate neighbors of the Pagayunans
had wells, water storage tanks, as well as water system connections and some of
their neighbors were relatives and close friends of the Pagayunans;
6) the fact that the Pagayunans were known and seen
to obtain their water supply from these immediate neighbors; 7) the fact that
the Pagayunans (who were relatively new in the
neighborhood) had never drawn water from the faucet of the accused-appellant;
8) the fact that the house of the accused-appellant was at least 120 meters
away from the house of the deceased; 9) the fact that the only  access to the accused-appellant’s bedroom
window from the outside was through the shuttered gate of the wire-enclosed
vegetable garden; 10) the fact that the six-foot-high chicken and bar-wire
fence of the vegetable garden was covered with climbing plants, thereby
blocking the view from the window as well as from the outside into the bedroom;
11) the fact that the accused-appellant’s house was of the bungalow type and
the sill of the bedroom window was only about 3.5 feet from the ground; 12) the
fact that the deceased was found just below or near the bedroom window and
within the enclosed vegetable garden, not only by members of the
accused-appellant’s family but also by Martin Cunada,
a friend and barkada of the deceased, who happened to
be passing by just after gunfire
sounded; 13) the fact that Martin Cunada, who stayed
for some five minutes at the scene of the incident right after the shooting,
did not see Babette Pagayunan
or any other member of the deceased’s family anywhere in the vicinity; 14) the
fact that after the shooting only Babette Pagayunan of the Pagayunan
household was seen with the deceased and the Rey children
at the Medicare Hospital in Roxas City; 15) the fact
that none of the four water containers the deceased allegedly brought with him
to the accused-appellant’s backyard faucet was ever found or seen before,
during, or after the shooting; 16) the fact that except for Dr. Buenvenida, all the other four (4) witnesses of the
prosecution concocted some material portions of their testimonies; 17) the fact
that in a small rural town in the interior the inhabitants sup and sleep early;
and 18) the act that it was the night of the town fiesta and older folks tend
to be more security-conscious.”^[3]

The appeal is without merit. 
The circumstances enumerated by the counsel for the appellant are of
little importance because the accused-appellant, Saturnino
Rey, had admitted having fired the shot that killed
the deceased Nicolas Pagayunan.  His testimony in court reads, as follows:

“Q   Now,
will you please inform the Honorable Court at about 8:40 in the night of May 28, 1983 where you were and what you were doing.

A     I
was inside my room of my house.

Q    And
what were you doing?

A     I
was lying down.

Q    Did
you have any companion in your room that night and at that time?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Inform the court who were your
companions.

A     My
child aging four years of age with my second wife.

Q    What happened while you were in your
room that night and that time with your child?

A     There
was a person who opened my window, the window of my room where I was lying
down.

Q
   Now do you know who was that
person who opened the window of your room where you were lying down?

A     No,
sir.  At first I did not know.

Q    Will
you please describe to the Honorable Court the room where you were staying in
and the window which was opened?

A     The
frontage of my house is facing (witness pointing to the western
direction).  The elevation of the
flooring is one foot.  The height of the
window from the floor is this high (witness referring to the window of the
courtroom estimated to be 2 1/2 feet).

Q
   After you noticed that a person opened your window, the window
of your bedroom, what happened?

A     I
felt for my pistol.

Q    What happened after that?

A     I
sat on the bed and asked, ‘Who are you?’

Q
   And did you receive an answer
after asking who was that person?

A     No, sir.

Q    What
happened after you received no answer?

A     I
fired a shot.

Q    How many times did you fire your
pistol?

A     Twice.

Q    By
the way, how wide was that window in
your room?

A     About
1 1/2 meters wide.

Q    And
did you see anybody to whom or at whom you fired your pistol?

A     The
first shot that I fired was upward, on the air.

Q    My
question to you is, did you see any person outside the window?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Were
you able to discern the facial
features of the person you saw at the window?

“ATTY. PATRICIO:

Objection, your Honor.

COURT:

All right, reform.

ATTY. ABELA:

Q    How
well did you see the person you saw at your window?

A     Silhouette.

Q    Will
you be able to recognize the person you saw at your window that night?

A     No,
sir.

Q    And
what was the person you saw at your window doing when you fired the shot?

A     You
mean the first shot?

Q    The first shot what was the person
doing?

A     After
he pushed the shutter of the window he put his hand down.

Q    And
at that time you fired the second shot what was the man doing?

A
    I was looking at him and he had
the action of drawing something and that was
the time I fired the second shot.

Q    By
the way how close was the man to
your window that night?

A     Just
like this, from myself up to Atty. Abela (distance
estimated to be 1 ½ meters).

Q    My
question to you is, how close was that man to the window of your room?

A     He
was right at the window.

Q    And
what part of the body of that man can be seen by you?

A     From
the waist.

Q    And
how far were you seated on your bed, how far was your bed from the wall of the
window?

A     About
one foot.

Q    What happened after you fired the
second shot directed at that man at your window?

A     I
gave out an alarm to my children.”^[4]

Having invoked self-defense, it was incumbent upon the
defendant-appellant to prove by clear and convincing evidence the fact that he
acted in self-defense.  The defendant
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that
of the prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after
the accused himself admitted the killing.^[5]
In this regard, defendant-appellant failed to discharge the burden reposed upon
him by law to prove self-defense.  The trial
court found that the testimony of the defendant-appellant gave evasive and
ambiguous answers before the court. ^[6]
We have examined the record of the case and we find no cogent reason to disturb
said findings of the trial court.  The
witnesses for the prosecution had no evil motive to testify falsely against the
appellant.

Besides, defendant-appellant’s testimony, even if true, does not
establish a case of self-defense.  There
is no evidence of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased.  The defendant-appellant merely testified that
he saw a person open the window of his bedroom and when he inquired who the
person was and received no answer, he fired a shot into the air; then, when
said person lifted his right arm chest high,^[7]
he fired the second shot.  The interval
between the two shots was only about three (3) to five (5) seconds.^[8]
For unlawful aggression to be appreciated in self-defense, there must be an
actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely
a threatening or intimidating attitude.^[9]
The raising of the right arm chest high alone by an unarmed person cannot be
considered unlawful aggression.  Absent
unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased, there cannot be self-defense
on the part of the accused.

The defendant-appellant also failed to rebut the presumption that
the shooting was done with criminal intention His conduct after the shooting
incident was inconsistent with the conduct of a person who had innocently shot
a person by accident.  It would appear
that he did not do anything to help his victim who was lying down on the
ground, bleeding and moaning.  He did not
go down from his house even after finding that the person he had shot was
Nicolas Pagayunan. 
Instead, he uttered curses.^[10]
Then, very early the next morning, at about 5:30
o’clock, he left his house and stayed with his brother in a
neighboring municipality,^[11]
and did not go home even to help the police in their investigation.^[12]
Flight is an indication of a guilty mind.

The defendant-appellant also contends that treachery or alevosia was not charged in the information filed
against him, or proven by the evidence presented by the prosecution at the
trial.

The contention is without merit. 
The information filed in
this case specifically stated that the accused, Saturnino
Rey, armed with
a .45 caliber pistol, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shot Nicolas Pagayunan “in a sudden
and unexpected manner.” This is sufficient allegation of treachery because
a sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the person
of the one attacked is the essence of treachery or alevosia.  It is not necessary that the information
should use specifically the word “alevosia”
or treachery.  It is sufficient if the
information alleges facts in clear and explicit language which would show
treachery or alevosia without the use of the
specific word.^[13]

Treachery in the shooting of Nicolas Pagayunan
was established by the testimony of Babette Pagayunan who declared that the accused-appellant suddenly
and without warning shot the deceased as the latter was waiting for his pail to
be filled with water and while talking to the son of the
accused-appellant.  The attack was
sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victim an opportunity
to defend himself or repel the aggression. 
In fact, the deceased did not sense any danger that he would be shot by
the defendant-appellant as there was no previous grudge or misunderstanding
between them.

The claim of the defendant-appellant that he had fired a warning
shot into the air appears to be an afterthought.  Babette Pagayunan categorically declared that her brother, Nicolas Pagayunan, was hit on the first shot.  Her testimony, on cross examination, reads as
follows:

“Q   How
many shots did Saturnino Rey
the accused, direct to your brother?

A     Two
shots were delivered by Saturnino Rey.  The first shot hit my brother.  I did not know whether the second shot hit my
brother.  After the first shot my brother
staggered towards Roban.”^[14]

Besides, the shots were fired in rapid succession so that the
first shot could not serve as a warning shot. 
Babette Pagayunan
stated:

“Q   How
long after the first shot did you hear the second shot?

A     Seconds
only.  The interval was seconds.

Q    So
that the second shot came right after the first shot?

A     Yes,
sir.”^[15]

The defendant-appellant, Saturnino Rey, also testified, as follows:

Q    You
testified a while ago that you fired two
shots.  How long after you fired the
first shot that you also fired the second shot?

A     The
interval was only seconds.

Q    About
two seconds?

A     Three
seconds or more.

Q    But it could
not be more than five seconds, right?

A     No, sir.”^[16]

As the People’s counsel observed, if the version of the
defendant-appellant were true, the empty shell would have fallen near the
defendant-appellant’s bed; inside his room, and not outside the house where
Pat. Hanzel Villareal found
it; and that the first shot would have hit a part of the house.

The trial court, therefore, correctly found the offense committed
by the defendant-appellant to be murder, qualified as it was by treachery.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.  With costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), J., with reservations as to the penalty only consistent
with her dissent in P. vs. Millora.

Paras, Sarmiento,
and Regalado,
JJ., subject to the same reservations indicated
by the chairman.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 15

^[2]
Id., pp. 26-27

^[3]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 62-64

^[4]
t.s.n of October
27, 1986, pp. 4-6

^[5]
People vs. Liamera, G.R. No. L-21604-06, May 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 48, 57, and
cases cited therein

^[6]
Decision, pp. 3-4

^[7]
t.s.n. of October
27, 1986, p. 16

^[8]
t.s.n. of March
26, 1987, p. 17

^[9]
People vs. Pasco. Jr., G.R.
No. L-45715-16. June 24, 1985,
137 SCRA 137

^[10]
t.s.n. of March
26, 1987, pp. 22-25

^[11]
Id., p. 11

^[12]
Id., p. 16

^[13]
Sec. 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court

^[14]
t.s.n. of November
27, 1984, pp. 67-68

^[15]
Id., p. 68

^[16]
t.s.n. of March
26, 1987, p. 17