PEOPLE v.

PADILLA
G.R. No. 75508
June 10, 1994
BELLOSILLO, j.

FACTS of the CASE

The case of People v. Padilla revolves on the murder of Pfc. Edino Ontuca, a member of
Philippine Constabulary. The accused and at the same time the appellant was Sgt. Felix Padilla,
a uniformed personnel and a member of the Philippine Air Force.

There were two versions of the case.

Version of the Prosecution:

On May 5, 1981 at past midnight, Pfc. Ontuca approached Pat. Daniel Q. Omega to
ask for assistance claiming he was maltreated by strangers. Pfc. Ontuca and Pat.
Omega proceeded where the former was reportedly assaulted. Upon arrival, Pat.
Omega investigated the incident and there he came to know the group of Sgt. Padilla.
With the latter were certain C1C Belino and Maj. Ildefonso de la Cruz. After which,
Pfc. Ontuca and Pat. Omega left and went back to Pier 1, the duty station of Pat.
Omega.

On that same date and in a hotel near the pier area, a commotion happened. Upon
checking, Pat. Omega, saw Pfc. Ontuca being ganged up by the group of Sgt. Padilla.
The latter’s group then tried to bring Pfc. Ontuca and pat. Omega to the hospital for
liquor test. On their way to the hospital, Pfc. Ontuca managed to free himself and ran
away. Pfc. Ontuca latter o grabbed a woman named Lilia as his human shield. The
woman, however, managed to escaped leaving Pfc. Ontuca without any protection.
Pfc. Ontuca begged for his life but Sgt. Padilla showed no mercy and pulled the trigger
of his gun. Pfc. Ontuca was shot into the head.

Version of the Defense

Sgt. Padilla claimed that on the night the murder happened he just came from an
operation. He was on his way to his cousin’s house when he saw a man forcing himself
to a woman. He identified himself (Sgt. Padilla) and ordered the man to release the
woman but he was ignored. Sgt. Padilla made a warning shot in the air and even
before he could even lower his arm a gun report was heard emanating from some 30
meters away. After which, the man holding the woman slumped to the ground.

Court of First Instance (Regional Trial Court) Ruling: Sgt. Padilla was convicted with the crime
of murder qualified by treachery with the generic aggravating circumstances of taking
advantage of his public position but appreciating the same time the mitigating circumstance
of sufficient provocation. court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to
indemnify the heirs of Pfc. Ontuca in the sum of P30,000 and to pay the costs.

Sgt. Padilla appeared the CFI decision before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE (under the doctrine of Mitigating Circumstances)

(1) Whether or not sufficient provocation can mitigate the criminal liability of Sgt. Padilla.
NO. Sufficient provocation cannot mitigate the criminal liability of Sgt. Padilla.

He cannot claim that he was provoked by Pfc. Ontuca when the latter ran away from him
because the victim feared for his life having been beaten up twice by his assailants that same
evening.

To flee when danger lurks is human and can never be regarded as a source of provocation
sufficient to come within the ambit of the RPC.

OTHER ISSUES

1. Whether or not there was treachery or alevosia in the killing of the victim to qualify it to
murder.

There was NO treachery or alevosia. The accused did not deliberately employ means, methods
or forms in the mode of his attached which tended directly and specially to insure his safety
from any offensive or retaliatory act the victim might make.

The appellant did not consciously adopt a particular method or manner of killing the victim
that would eliminate any risk to himself.

The assault on the victim was not made in a sudden and unexpected manner. Pfc. Ontuca
apparently sensed the sinister plan of his malefactors when he fled and forcibly took a woman
to use as a human shield.

2. Whether or not the killing was aggravated by the circumstance of abuse of superior
strength.

YES. Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical
superiority or there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of the proportion to the
defense available to the offended party.

The accused was armed with a powerful pistol which he purposely used, gaining him an
advantage over his victim.

RULING
The judgement of the CFI was affirmed, but with modifications, by the Supreme Court. Sgt.
Padilla was found guilty of murder and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The civil indemnity was modified, from P30,000 it was increased to P50,000.

-END-