Talampas v.

People
G.R. No. 180219
Justice Bersamin
23 November 2011

FACTS:
Jose Sevillo together with Eduardo Matic and Ernesto Matic were repairing his
tricycle when Virgilio Talampas passed by on a bicycle and then stopped. When he
alighted from his bicycle he was armed with a revolver and poked the same to Eduardo
and fired it several times hitting Eduardo and Ernesto. Thereafter, Talampas ran away
while Sevillo and his neighbors brought the victims to the hospital. Ernesto died
because of the gunshot wounds while Eduardo survived.
Talampas contended that it was only an accident and imposed self-defense. He
insisted that Eduardo was his enemy and not Ernesto. He alleged that Ernesto hit him
with a wrench but was able to avoid the blow. He then noticed that Eduardo was holding
a revolver and the two struggled to have control of the gun where it accidentally fired
and hit Ernesto and Eduardo. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Talampas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt?

(2) Whether or not the indeterminate sentence was correctly applied?

RULING:
(1) No, the trial court correctly found Talampas guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of homicide. Talampas invoke self-defense and thereby
assumed the burden of proving the elements of self defense under the
Revised Penal Code. However, he miserably failed to discharge the burden.
He also claims that it was an accidental death but still failed to prove it.
(2) The Court finds to be unnecessary the increment of one day as part of the
minimum term of the indeterminate sentence. It may be true that the
increment did not constitute an error, because the minimum term thus fixed
was entirely within the parameters of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Yet,
the addition of one day to the 10 years as the minimum term of the
indeterminate sentence of Talampas may occasion a degree of
inconvenience when it will be time for the penal administrators concerned to
consider and determine whether Talampas is already qualified to enjoy the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Hence, in order to simplify the
computation of the minimum penalty of the indeterminate sentence, the Court
deletes the one-day increment from the minimum term of the indeterminate
sentence.