In a ruling that clarifies the application of self-defense and treachery in criminal law, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Edgardo Herrera for murder and homicide. The Court found that Herrera’s claim of self-defense was inconsistent with the evidence, including multiple gunshot wounds inflicted on the victim. The presence of treachery, marked by a sudden and unexpected attack, elevated the charge to murder. This decision underscores the strict requirements for proving self-defense and the grave consequences of killings perpetrated with treachery, ensuring accountability and upholding justice for the victims and their families.

From ‘Kumpadre’ to Killer: Did Self-Defense Hold Water in this Fatal Confrontation?

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Herrera revolves around the tragic events of May 29, 1996, in Pasay City. Enrique Ganan was fatally shot while sitting at his home, and a bystander, Corazon Cajipo, also died from a stray bullet. Herrera, a police officer, was charged with murder for Ganan’s death and homicide for Cajipo’s death. The central legal question was whether Herrera acted in self-defense, as he claimed, or whether the killings were intentional and qualified by treachery.

Herrera argued that he killed Ganan in self-defense after confronting him about an incident where he was allegedly humiliated. He claimed that Ganan tried to grab his gun, leading to a struggle and the fatal shooting. However, the Supreme Court found Herrera’s version of events unconvincing. The Court noted several inconsistencies in his testimony, including conflicting accounts of how he drew his gun and the implausibility of his actions during the alleged struggle. Building on these inconsistencies, the Court highlighted the incredible nature of the testimony.

The Court emphasized that self-defense requires the accused to prove unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending himself. In this case, Herrera failed to demonstrate that Ganan’s actions constituted unlawful aggression. According to the Court, Ganan’s attempt to grab the gun did not pose an imminent and real threat to Herrera’s life, especially considering Herrera’s training as a police officer and his physical advantage over Ganan. In People v. Cabansay, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that self-defense shifts the burden of proof to the accused:

[a]s a justifying circumstance shifts the prosecutorial burden of proving the guilt of the accused to the accused himself who must prove the elements of such defense, to wit: 1.) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2.) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and 3.) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Moreover, the nature and number of gunshot wounds contradicted Herrera’s claim of self-defense. Ganan suffered six gunshot wounds, including a fatal shot to the head fired at close range. The Court found that such multiple wounds indicated a determined effort to kill, not merely defend oneself. This approach contrasts sharply with the requirements of self-defense, where the force used must be proportionate to the threat. The calm and composed demeanor of Herrera after the incident was also seen as inconsistent with someone who had just acted in self-defense.

In stark contrast, the prosecution presented strong evidence against Herrera. Three eyewitnesses positively identified Herrera as the shooter. The witnesses’ consistent testimonies, coupled with the physical evidence, painted a clear picture of Herrera as the aggressor. Furthermore, Herrera’s flight to Batangas after the shooting indicated a guilty mind, betraying his desire to evade responsibility. This implied admission of guilt further undermined his claim of self-defense, as a righteous individual would have reported the incident to the authorities.

The Court also affirmed the trial court’s finding of treachery in the killing of Enrique Ganan. According to Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code:

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The Court found that Herrera’s sudden and unexpected attack on Ganan, who was unarmed and unaware of the danger, constituted treachery. The two conditions for treachery were present: Ganan was not in a position to defend himself, and Herrera consciously adopted a method of attack that ensured its execution without risk to himself. Treachery qualified the killing as murder, highlighting the gravity of Herrera’s actions. This is especially heinous considering the method employed was to attack from behind without warning.

Regarding the death of Corazon Cajipo, the Court clarified the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which addresses complex crimes. The Court acknowledged that while Cajipo was not the intended victim, Herrera was still culpable for her death. However, the Court distinguished this case from those involving a volley of automatic gunfire, where a single act can result in multiple felonies. In Herrera’s case, he fired several times with a single-action revolver, making him responsible for each resultant crime. The principle of el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused) applied, holding Herrera liable for the unintended consequences of his actions.

The Court modified the trial court’s decision by removing the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. The Court found no evidence that Herrera used his position as a police officer to facilitate the crime or that his office gave him the influence to commit the act. Additionally, the information failed to allege this aggravating circumstance, precluding its consideration. As such, the penalty for the killing of Enrique Ganan was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. The penalty for the death of Corazon Cajipo was also modified to an indeterminate sentence of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Finally, the Court affirmed the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to the victims’ heirs. The award of actual damages for funeral and burial expenses was also sustained, but the award of exemplary damages was deleted due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The Court emphasized that these awards were in line with prevailing jurisprudence and aimed to compensate the victims’ families for their loss and suffering. The civil indemnity serves as compensation for the loss of life, while moral damages account for the emotional pain and anguish endured by the victim’s families.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Edgardo Herrera acted in self-defense when he killed Enrique Ganan, and whether the killing was qualified by treachery. The case also addressed Herrera’s culpability for the death of Corazon Cajipo, a bystander killed by a stray bullet.
What is required to prove self-defense in the Philippines?	To prove self-defense, the accused must show unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending himself. The accused bears the burden of proving these elements with clear and convincing evidence.
What is treachery (alevosia) and how does it affect a murder charge?	Treachery is when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to themselves arising from the defense the offended party might make. If proven, treachery qualifies the killing as murder, which carries a higher penalty than homicide.
How did the Court view the multiple gunshot wounds inflicted on the victim?	The Court viewed the multiple gunshot wounds as evidence against the claim of self-defense. The number and location of the wounds indicated a determined effort to kill rather than merely defend oneself.
What was the significance of Herrera fleeing to Batangas after the shooting?	Herrera’s flight to Batangas was considered an implied admission of guilt and a sign of a guilty conscience. It suggested that he was trying to evade responsibility for his actions.
What is the legal principle of “el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado”?	This principle means “he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” In this case, it was used to hold Herrera liable for the death of Corazon Cajipo, even though she was not his intended victim, because his voluntary act of firing the gun led to her death.
Why was the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position not applied?	The Court found no evidence that Herrera used his position as a police officer to facilitate the crime. The Court also emphasized that the information did not allege this aggravating circumstance.
What penalties were ultimately imposed on Herrera?	Herrera was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for the murder of Enrique Ganan and an indeterminate sentence of ten years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for the homicide of Corazon Cajipo. He was also ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to the victims’ heirs.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Herrera serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for claiming self-defense and the severe consequences of committing murder with treachery. The case underscores the importance of credible evidence and consistent testimony in legal proceedings. It also highlights the principle that individuals are responsible for the unintended consequences of their voluntary acts.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 05, 2001