G.R. No. 195534 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO GONZALES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, this Court finds accused EDUARDO GONZALES, having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that his act was justified, GUILTY of the crime of Murder and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua . Accused Eduardo Gonzales is directed to pay the heirs of the victim Eligio Donato the sum of P20,000.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. [3] (italics ours) The Facts The appellant and his brother, co-accused Edmundo Gonzales, [4] were charged with murder under a criminal information which alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation and treachery in the killing of Eligio Donato ( victim ). The records [5] show that the victim went to the house of the appellant at the invitation of Edmundo. When the victim arrived, he was met by the appellant who was armed with a .22 caliber firearm. The appellant and Edmundo immediately fired at the victim six (6) times, hitting him three (3) times - in the arm, in his left thigh and in his left chest. [6] The victim expired before he could receive medical treatment. The appellant denied the charge and claimed that he had acted in self-defense. He narrated that he was at his house watching television when the victim suddenly arrived, armed with a short firearm. The victim shouted invectives at the appellant and threatened to kill him. When efforts by the appellant to pacify the victim proved to be futile, the appellant retrieved his own firearm inside his house. A struggle for the possession of the appellants firearm then ensued between the appellant and the victim which caused the appellants gun to discharge three times; thus, hitting the victim. The RTC found the prosecutions version more consistent with the physical findings that the victim was not shot at close range, in the absence of powder burns on his skin. [7] The RTC rejected the appellants self-defense theory in the absence of evidence of unlawful aggression. The RTC ruled that the appellant was guilty of murder, qualified by treachery and evident premeditation, given the manner and the means employed in attacking the unsuspecting victim, leaving him no time or opportunity to resist. [8] In due course, the appellant appealed his judgment of conviction with the CA, contending that the RTC committed reversible errors in the appreciation of the evidence, namely: (1) in giving weight and credence to the highly inconsistent and questionable testimony of the prosecution eyewitness; (2) in disregarding the justifying circumstance of self-defense; and (3) in finding that the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing. The CA rejected the appellants arguments and affirmed the RTCs decision holding that the prosecution eyewitness account of the shooting was straightforward, categorical and without any established ill-motive. The CA also held that the eyewitness testimony was compatible with the physical