FIRST DIVISION
ELADIO C. TANGAN,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
105830
January 15, 2002 -versus-
THE COURT OF
APPEALSAND THE PEOPLE
OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents. R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On February 23, 2001,
this Court rendered a Decision as follows:
WHEREFORE,
the petition in G.R. No. 103613 is DISMISSED. The appealed decision
subject
of G.R. No. 105830 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) Tangan is
sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal, maximum, with all the accessory
penalties.
(2) Tangan is
ordered
to pay the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P42,000.00 as
funeral and burial expenses, P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, and
P50,000.00
as moral damages,chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner Eladio C.
Tangan
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, invoking the rule that factual
findings
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court.
Thus, he argues that this Court erred in disregarding the mitigating
circumstances
which were appreciated by the lower courts and in raising the
indeterminate
penalty imposed on him from a maximum of two years and four months of
prision
correccional to a maximum of fourteen years, eight months and one day
of
reclusion temporal. This, he claims, exposed him to the "horrifying
reality"
of being re-incarcerated after having been preventively confined for
more
than four years.[1]
It bears stressing that
at no time during the trial of the case did petitioner raise
self-defense.
Nevertheless, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the
attendance
of the mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense, sufficient
provocation, and passion and obfuscation.cralaw:red
When petitioner appealed
the decision, he threw open the whole case for review. It became the
duty
of this Court to correct any error as may be found in the appealed
judgment,
whether it was made the subject of assignment of errors or not.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, this Court reviewed
the records of the case and found that the evidence fails to support or
substantiate the lower court's findings and conclusions. Clearly,
therefore,
this case falls within the recognized exceptions to the rule that an
appellate
court will generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on
factual
matters considering that the latter, as a trier of fact, is in a better
position to appreciate the same.[3]
First of all, the physical
evidence belies petitioner's version of the incident. As we clearly
explained
in our assailed Decision:
The medical examiner
testified that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the
target
was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3 inches. Based on the
point of exit and trajectory transit of the wound, the victim and the
alleged
assailant were facing each other when the shot was made and the
position
of the gun was almost perpendicular when fired. These findings disprove
Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not prone to
accidental
firing because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it were uncocked,
then considerable pressure had to be applied on the trigger to fire the
revolver.[4]
Physical evidence is
a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the
hierarchy
of our trustworthy evidence.[5]
For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the highest order. It
speaks
more eloquently than a hundred witnesses.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The physical evidence
is amply corroborated by the eyewitness accounts of Rosalia dela Cruz
and
Mary Ann Borromeo to the effect that petitioner took a gun from his car
and suddenly fired it at the deceased.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, this Court
found that the mitigating circumstances appreciated by the trial court
are not present. Petitioner refutes this and insists on his version of
the facts. However, the testimony of his witness, on which he heavily
relies,
suffers from material inconsistencies which render it unworthy of
belief.cralaw:red
It was shown that defense
witness Nelson Pante was 10 meters away when he saw the incident, and
his
line of vision was blocked by petitioner's car.[8]
From that distance and vantage point, he could not have heard anything
or have had an unobstructed view of the events. Sure enough, the
details
of his statement betray the falsity thereof. He testified that
petitioner
was hit on the eyebrow, while petitioner said he was hit on the jaw.[9]
Pante was also unable to identify Manuel Miranda, the person whom he
supposedly
saw punch petitioner.[10]
All of these, and the
incredibility of petitioner's account when compared with the physical
evidence,
belie self-defense. From the established facts, it can be plainly
gleaned
that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. What
merely transpired before petitioner's gun went off was a heated
exchange
of words between the protagonists. This does not qualify as unlawful
aggression.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack,
or imminent danger thereof. The person defending himself must have been
attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[11]
Unlawful aggression
is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of
self-defense.
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim
has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending
himself.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By the same token, the
evidence does not show the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party. As stated,
the
provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit a wrong and
must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. In this case, all
that
the deceased did immediately before he was shot was shout expletives
and
slap petitioner's hand when the latter pointed it to his face. These
acts,
while offensive, were grossly disproportionate to petitioner's act of
drawing
and firing of a gun.cralaw:red
Furthermore, there was
no sudden and unexpected occurrence that could have naturally produced
a powerful excitement in petitioner's mind causing him to lose his
reason
and self-control. As shown by the facts, no passion and obfuscation
could
have clouded his mind.cralaw:red
On the whole, therefore,
this Court correctly imposed on petitioner the proper penalty for
Homicide,
without the attendance of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
and
sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and
one
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While his Motion for
Reconsideration was pending, petitioner filed with the Court an
"Omnibus
Motion to Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to Recuse." He alleged, among
others,
that the ponente of the assailed Decision is biased in favor of
respondents
and, therefore, must recuse herself from this case. Petitioner's
accusation,
however, is based on nothing more than this Court's own evaluation of
the
evidence and departure from the rule that findings of facts of lower
court
are not to be disturbed.cralaw:red
Petitioner should bear
in mind that the Decision, although penned by a member of the Court, is
a decision of the whole Court. Hence, any attack on the integrity of
the
ponente, or any member of the Court for that matter, is an attack on
the
entire Court. More importantly, petitioner fails to establish with
concrete
proof his imputations of bias. Such irresponsible and unfounded
statements
will not be taken lightly by this Court. Hence, petitioner and his
counsel
should be admonished for making such baseless and unsubstantiated
accusations
of bias against the Court. Moreover, the Omnibus Motion should be
denied
for lack of merit.cralaw:red
Petitioner faults the
Court for increasing the penalty five times such that, despite having
served
the penalty imposed by the trial court, he now faces the "intolerable
specter
of reincarceration."[13]
It should be recalled that petitioner, by consciously and deliberately
firing his gun, snuffed the life out of a 29-year old optometrist.
Suffice
it to state that petitioner should bear the consequences of his
felonious
act.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of
merit.
The Omnibus Motion to Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to Recuse is likewise
DENIED.
This denial is FINAL.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman),
Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, G.R. No. 105830, pp. 296-297.
[2]
People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 126287, April 16, 2001; People v. Lucero,
G.R.
No. 102407-08, March 26, 2001; People v. Taguba, G.R. No. 112792-93,
October
6, 2000.
[3]
People v. Balano, G.R. No. 138474, March 28, 2001; People v. Naag, G.R.
No. 136394, February 15, 2001; People v. Limon, 306 SCRA 367,
372372-373
[1999].
[4]
Decision, p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
People v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001.
[6]
People v. Silvano, G.R. No. 125923, January 31, 2001.
[7]
TSN, August 30, 1988, pp. 13, 23-25; September 14, 1988, pp. 13-15, 27.
[8]
TSN, October 20, 1988, pp. 64-65.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid., p. 68.
[10]
Ibid., pp. 22-23.
[11]
People v. Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000.
[12]
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Omnibus Motion to Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to Recuse, p. 2. |