438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED People ve bio ‘ges should be awarded to deter fathers with perverse ten- ‘dence and aberrant sexual behavior from sexually abusing thei daughters." ‘After resdelieration, the decision of the Regional Trist Court of Sorsogon, Branch 51, in Criminal Case No. 2000- 15122, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of| ‘Qualified rapo under Republic Act No. 8353, oterwioe known, fas the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, and sontoncing him to sufer the Death” Penalty, is AFFIRMED. The civil indemnity and ‘moral. damages awarded to the victim in the amounts of 75,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively, are. alto AF- FIRMED. In edition, the 3 is ordored to pay the ‘etn the sum of 226,000.00 ae exemplary damages In accordance with Article 88 ofthe Revised Penal Code, as mended by Section 25 of Republie Act No, 7659, pos finality fof Unie decision, lt the records ofthis cate be forwardod to the Oige of the Procent for posible exeraao of exoeutive clo ney ‘80 ORDERED. Davide, Jr (CalJ, Puno, Panganiban, Quisummbins, Ynarse Santiago, Sandoval Gutierrn, Carpio Austria Martins, Corone, Carpio Moreles, Cale, Sr and Tinge, i, canes. Azeuna and Chico Nozerio, JS, On Leave Assoiled decison affirmed. ‘People ox. Sacopeno, $13 SCRA 650 (190, ted in People Duley, 6 Now. 14484458, July 28, 2002, $85 SCRA 15. ‘Two (2) member of Ihe Caurt santa tei positon that Republi Act No 7659, insofar as it presribns the death penalty, i ‘uso ‘ey eubmie tothe rullng of the {Gort br majority vse, tat tha law i conttonal and the sath VO. 498, SEPTEMBER 29, 2001 439 a ie eee OO Pomay ox People Notes —hggrvating cumstances munt be oraaied ‘ih the sane quant of rot beyond reson det og fy ie ite af and ay Sai et th eee ‘te sled in ne of the ann. Pale Seas Sr, 248 SORA 519 (1995]) aap ‘he ved Rae of Ciminal Procure gue that ony soma wr nroaton mut epey Sa pan. Sal lee ante qaiing bt ase ene ee ‘ang esate neritic oe feet th un een proved daring the wal Ges Legazpi, 357 SCRA 234 (20011) oe oe —o00— GR.No, 150607. September 2,200, ROWENO POMOY, petitioner, v. P RQWENO roma, + 0, PROPLE OF THE Pate Criminal Law Exempting Circumstances, Acsident: Erni he ements of eden are ot fol) hc aed eh ‘ime peroring a eupd ct with de sre: te alin a a by mor aie cd (the prtof aaa re ‘wot no ful or na itent cause the ijuryT elomenta af sok dota lw: 1) the auaned wa atte tine sera lawful et with da are: 2) the rerling Injury wns exec a asidnt and 8 onto part ofthe aera there was Begone, {ott to eee the sry. rom the fa is den Catal ‘lementa were pretest. At th tna of the inde, ptliones nears ‘ember—apecial, one of the iaretgnorrof the Phiipone ‘Nitona Police (PNP) stationod atthe laa Prorat Mile Foes mpaty. This it vas in the lawl portraits lnvesigatng ofcer ‘hat, under the instructions of ar ost ‘sched the vin ro the latter cl fra rune atertoatog ‘THIRD DIVIS.ON.440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomey vs. People Sime San Te portpaton of pation Won, nthe we tn et ite a ef lec pefrmanes of hides oe on tfc ofthe ot towel he pm fom shee, hse of etc Ihe fre of eo musi shots“ ef wich le tothe eth of he mere uicenty demontnted fo hate ben snes Steumstancesbyond the cota ‘afrer of the la. The removal ofthe un fom ie hse, the Fels ofthe safety lek, and the ring othe to sieeve ste ‘of wich fed to the death ofthe liners slicenty demon ‘teat to have been consequences ef cicumetance end the fontrl of pttioer At the very lat, these! csumataneee reat serious doa on the ltrs clgaiy Criminal Law: Sefdefone Inconsistent with Aovident Sle lfina i ncnsitent with the exempling circumstance of teint, ‘ni een ll tet hd es ese rr imine? danger Apart the fd she ot secur ou of any conscious o premeditated effort fo oerpae, ma, ‘rl the letin forthe purpose of lf dense etn any ears ‘lon rather, they apparel tobe pantancous ond ade eal of ‘th partie tempts fo panna fra. Sal dfene fect sistant with te exempting deeumtanc faint, tn which there ‘no intent to il On the othe hand, rldeonce necessarily cr templates promadiated intent to Kil In oder fo deen oneele fom imminent danger. Apparently, the ft hota isthe instant oe didnot eeu eat of any conto or peematieata, fort to ‘overpower, maim of il the vist fr the porpcs of selene ‘guint any aguesion; rather they appeared tos the sfntaneras fad ecient eval of both part attempt to poses the fe Constitutions Law: Presumption of Innocence; Welles {sth ripe tht factual finding ef the tril eur, then affirmed ly the Court of Appeals. ore binding onthe Nights! cou of he ‘nd—howeer, hen forts ore misinterpreted ad the innocence of ‘he acused depends on proper appeltion ofthe actual ens sons the Suprome Court may conduct ete tara Wal. VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 441. Pomoy va. People ‘elalinhed is the principe tat the factual Gndings of the wil ‘our, when afiemed by the Court of Apress, ee Badlng on the ighest court othe land, However, when fate are misinterpreted ‘nd the innocence af tho aceand depends a 2 proper appesaion of the factual costsins, the Suprema ovr tny conlul review ‘ere To the present cs, «cara! romano envinss Une ‘our tan "tent" eased th victim's ath, At the very ast, he tatimonies of tho credible witness ete a reoonuble dew ‘on appellant pik Hone, the Gout ton oped che ensue PETITION for review on curtiorai of the cision and reel tion of the Cour of Appeal ‘The facts are stated in the opinion ofthe Court Ferdinand M. Negre fo petitioner. ‘The Slictor Generel for the People PANGANIBAN, J Wellestablished isthe peinciple thatthe factual fading of the tial court, when affirmed by the Caurt of Appeal, ere binding oa the highest court ofthe land. However, when facts ‘are misinterprated an the innocence af the accused depends on a proper appreciation af the factual conclusions, the Su rome Court may conduct a review thereef. In the present ‘0H, careful reexamination convinces this Court that an ‘seedent” caused the victim's death. At the very least, the testimonies of the credible witnesses create « reasonable doubt on appetants guilt. Hence, the Court must uphold the ‘unatitutional presumption of nnocence, The Case Before us isa Petition for Review’ under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to sat nside the February 28, 2001 Rola pp. 647442. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomey ve People Decision’ and the October 20, 2001 Resolution” ofthe Court of ‘Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CR No, 18759. The CA afirmed, ‘with modifieations, the March 6, 1995 judgment” of the Re: ional Trial Court (ETC) of lilo City (Branch 25) in Crimi nal Case No, 26921, finding Reweno Pomoy guilty of the erime ‘of homicide. The assailed CA Decision disposed as follows: “WHEREFORE, premises conldered, MODIFIED as to pen sky in the sense that tho [Ptiloner| ROWENO POMOY fa Sen: {enced t afer an indetermioat pris term of sit) yeas oar (@ tants and ian (1) day a prison mayor mink sin ‘um, to fourteen (1) yeers eet (8) month al twenty (0) dye of ‘ction temporal meson, ae maximum, Uy dacison spond from is hereby AFFIRMED nal ther rps ™ ‘The challenged CA Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration Petitioner was cherged in an Information worded thos “Diatono shou ene 50h cay of Janney 14, the Muni pally of Sara, Province of lal, Paippnes, and within the joie tion a this Honorable Cours, th above-aame! sued, armed With bin service pnt, with dlberate Intent and decide purple Eland without ony jtfable ease or mie ten and swt,’ and enous a ‘TOMAS’ BALBOA with tho serie pnt he war than provided {nding upon the Inter gunshot wounde onthe ial pata his bry which ditecly eased the death a isn herent “1d, pp. 49.68. Sintenth Division. Penne by Jutce BA, Ade- ‘ioe I Gras (Divison she) and copeurred in by dase Andres B.aye, Je and Raton de Gua Saver ember) Yd. p70 GA Rol, 9.20 ‘Whteen by Judge Daelome M. Pana SCA alla 8 ‘Dated Oca 28,1091; CA Rol, p. 8 a 48 at VOL, 489, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 © 443, Pomoy vs, People The Facts Version ofthe Proscution ‘The Olio of the Solciter General (OSG) prosented re- spondent’s version of the facts as follows: “Toons albos was a master teacher ofthe Concepcion Collage Scenes Pishertos a Concepcion ln On danuary 4,190, shout 70 in the mrnin, come plc ten arivel a the Conception College a aret alba, lgely in Senaestion witha rotbery whieh tak plac in te munity In Decemier 1989. Wh the amet ested, Balboa end the palenen Dae hy the Conepcion Hlementary Stal where ha wie dessa, ‘os ina eeogether party with ether Sebel Administatey, Whos ie wife aed in, Why wil ou be ers” [ile anawered Even 3 osc know why Lat sve Thats why Lam eve gene there xa Be then othe Headguntrs ofthe already defunct Hl He ‘van detainod nthe jul tharen, along wth Edear Semi, aother suspect inthe rbery eave, Later hat day, about aia pate 2 wlock In the aferoonn, Fetter whos a police sergeant, went ner the Sor othe fel ‘wher Ballna vas detained aad dread the later to ene et, ‘rptdly fr tactilintargation a he inveigation rom au he {old Balbo: Lats ge to ae tmvetcnion room’ The investigation ‘oom isa den bulding 6 the compound where the jal ted, The jal guard on daly, Nlstrade Enopar, pene the al ‘hor and waked toward the avesdenion orn At hat ine, pine hada gu, 45 elie pis tocket tn a holo which wat hanging by the sd of bis bt. "The fun {lly embeded i ts holster with only the handle a the fon po ‘ruling rth ole “Wan petkiner aod Balboa reached the main building Vore near the Jovetgaion room, to Guach were hea, When tho sures ofthe shat was ver paitinor way cox sl heling x AS alter pst ting Baton to wan ying na lof ‘oud, about wo) et awa. When the Commanding Steet te eadguarerarived, he sloarmed ptiianes and dese that Balboa be brought tothe hoptal. De Pea eat name net pos444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomay ve. People ‘ide Kappene to be ot tho crime sone as be waa vstng bis brother inthe Pilppoe Constabulary. When De Pema examined ‘Balboa, be (De. Pala) sld that i wus unneceray toring Balbo tothebarpal rhe wes dead. Upon the quest of Bre. Jaton Balbo, the wif ofthe de aed, Dr Rear Jebnete, the mef>agl offen ofthe Naa ‘Bare of inveetigaton, Region Vi, lo Gy, conducted an atopy onthe remains of Tras Balin, Te flowing were hi odings ‘Pale, inegurens and nabs ‘wound, gunshot: (1) ENTRANCE, downwards and etal, ees, modified by eure, surrounded by ateaion Cellar em fn ls eh, aft ade 10.0 ema. fom anterior ‘Bling, 121.0 em. From left hed, dieied medially be ‘wad fom Tet it penetrating chase wall hr 3h nt. {ostals apne Into theratc ea, perforating thru end th ‘oper Ibe, oft Tua, leering lef veneer wal causing Duehed oot tactre, Sth tharce Yertebe and ake [EXIT tulle In shape, 20 3 08 em. Eagen, motied by tures, boc, Fight side 60cm rom pestror ming, 1720 fa From right hel (2) ENTRANCE, oval, oriented mo tly downwards edges rare, 07 em on it widest poron, 1 lforomedil order, hypechondviae region, Teton, <0 ‘ng From anterior aline, 108.0 enn rom ifthe, dred Uckwards,Interaly wal int penetrating abdominal ar, perforating tira and thr, stacy head f the pancreas an ‘Besentery, make an ene ovald, 19 208 cm, open el aly upwards, edge, sutured, back, le ie, eve! of St as ost apace, 5 ene. rom penton midi, 10.9 re rom ited ars “CAUSE OP DEATH: Hemorge, massive secondary to unsbet wounds os chet and atom "REMARKS. Boly prevouly embalmed and autopsied “Dr. Janet teat tht the two 2) woud fad on ‘xx Balina's body were gunabot wounds, Toe entrance of ound [No.1 waste the lt se othe cent toa thet nipple and ead to the ight ede of the back. Ie tejctory se bashwnne then dlonmwarde om aR to right. As tothe yee poston ot tae ‘allan, Dr. Jatoneta opined tht thee a he gan was probaly In tront athe vei nnd was more he ede and he un must VOL, 439, SEPTEMBER 28, 200 445, Fomey va People ‘ave be lite bit higher tha the entanoe wound, Wound Na 2 was leated immediatly low the arch of the mb let ste: Aieton was backwards and lateral wpwnris, De Jabot et ‘mated that when ie waa laced, the autiast mst hve pointed the guns norle w the right ade front of the vein, The distance ecw th entrance pi of wounds No. abd No 3 was ud 0 Version of the Defense ‘The Petition adopted the narration of fact in the assailed CCA Decision, which in turn called them from the trial court ‘The RTC summarized the testimonias of Defense Witnceeos Erma Dasa the lone eyevitness to the incident; Eden Legeepi; Dr, Salvador Wallo Jr; and petitioner himself, as flows Brea Bas “xxx Oln January 4, 1990, oho was working inti fice in the camp up tnt ahersoony a aoa pat Slo eso letnoon wile working on th backlog, the heded sae noe land exchange of words which were nt tar, but i some {here was growing trouble she opened the dist erty and a ome nd Tom Bat apie tay tom the door Tomoy end Balbo wile gaping were wot tne mete say om the date greping bap eel m fat ad the pr of Pay wan nly pled Kem utter and hen there war epoch wasnt cot tan we peepee Eden Lana: ‘cx [Al sly 2010 odie inthe afternoon of Jenuary 4, 1090 she was ine the nvetiaton seen ofthe PC nt Cag “nlnodoni Sar, Tl; a about 2 etek hat same eteranon ‘hil there inside, she beard m commotion oui andthe ce ‘ained sed onthe bench; when the smmotian eared hy were seatadon the beach and afer the counetion ha woman ‘elder retin to Bena Baan) std up sal oped te dost "Comment, 9.27; Rall yp. 7-8, Citation ented445 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Fomey vs People ‘and th sa tro persone grappling fo ihe possesion ofa gue ‘tnd immediatly to musa abot rang out abe de et save the pace where she wae seated but she jst standup a terthe hot, eo the to men fll down x “Accused petitioner Roweno Pomey “Tle ie 30 years old and ¢ PNP member ofthe il Provincia ‘Mobile Force Company then atacod tothe defunct 2218 PC Company he was one ofthe investigators of their ut shout 2 oldoek or past that time of January 4, 1900 he got Tomas Balbo fom thee stackaga for tara intcrogation, the eae tlre holding the doorknob oftheir vest sion rots nd shout to open and eater i al of @ sudden hese Taras Bal tsa approach him and tak hl orga tne handle this gu, ‘Tomar Balbo Was suspect ina robbery cae wha we app honed by the patee of Concepan and thon toed ove to thom (PO) and placed in thir had; shed ho srgennt atthe guard to let Balboa oat ofthe scene fo nares fiom ‘the stockade with Daten walking with hi, he had ie 45 ealibor pistol eve in ie ls sacha to hie bet it waist thon wee was holding the dborknch wih hin ght ‘and te open the dann, the vim whe wes te mare cay ‘fom hin, suddenly tppronche hin and grab hs gun, but allt sudden he bed the hand of hin with i than 3 ralaased hs ight hand fro the doko sds with that right hand hehe the hn of his gus; Tomas Haba wa at ale o take actual old the gun ocean othe ees In ‘preventing him Baton rom Nalin the bane of Rig, he ‘ed his If hand to parry Uhe move of Baie; afr Be eld ‘he hana os gun wis hi ight hand na one fae fonds, heft somebody was holding hs ght hen: be and Bal ta grapple end into or three esos the pun wae drawn fom ie haters bath of tam eld the gun ore seipling [lowed and ve secon afar the gun wat taken ror bo ‘hae Bead, the tin was to hn ght sie when the atom {ograb hs gun began and wan elo bis ght when the uy ‘at drawn fom it bolatr unt ie Bre, an they mee al raping or wrestling; hi gun was aloo load In ite haste and cwkod when he ee haus ai wa locked trhen it Sets durng the grepliog he sed hilt haul fo Provent Balboa om hlding hs gun, whl the wl wad ie VOL. 499, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 447 Pomoy ve People Fight end ining to each the gun afer the gun Grd thy were separate fro eoeh ther ‘ad Bolton fhe Is tlat Ua Dalton though heater was bigger intl ho eae ‘ay ner dterina wh of thet was ssngor ater Balboa El SS Alag shouted saying ‘np tha” end he sew Se. Alag sp ‘riching! sometime afte, Cap. Foland Maciang, thet Sanding ofc, cam, goth gun, sad eid hat the cae be ‘evengatd sto what realy happone He sid tat when be was putin Rr oly es ane trues o oes “Upon cossxamination, he si that Ralbos vas suspect in 4 sery cate that happened during the fin wes of Bec les 196; he was the ene rh led tht casein the toe of San Dionisio ane that ease faves str porsoce whe wore sk detane; tore January 199) be had alo te chavs Invite and iacerogate Balboa but who denied any robbery case rx Ill was after be tak his laneh thot day wher Cae, adong called hi to eondue the interrogation, where tok Bsloa fom the todkade be dd ttl fn that he tien vest be inverted inthe leventgson room which was owed inthe main buldig wich ify eter mre ores from the stockade Likewise oases the administaive een, the ole af the commanding eer, elcer a te operates ‘vision and that o the signa sn, hie gan we a esl ‘ar when the vit tried fo grab i (gn rom th Une ho etd hat the vit Wied to grab hi gun, holed the vie tn che bn tho vietin wagon top of band and he le the vit was stamping ts eth fn that the entre han Ale his gun wan ‘expo whan plad nade hoster ‘anno al whater the victim, wl strugling wi him, wa ‘bleto hed any portion of he gun fom the tia its hare fo ‘he pint wheres hammer i located: uring the incident ie un wa ily led and eked Sat Alng dil nat spproach, But jst viewed them and probably reported tho inldent to ‘ei commanding alle: be wns not she to talk to Set Alsg ‘te Pog was oti his righ ase; whon his costar ing oer exne some ve to tan rinue ater and tsk may ‘gun o didnt tl him anything.448. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 489, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 449 Fomey os People Fomay va Pople Dr. Salvador Mota, “Hl othe Rural Health Physician of Sara who conducted the stutopy on the cadaver of Tomas Baltos thas aerson cf apa ndings reapeting which ld he fund bo entrance wosnds fn the viet, the foto the let cent with tnertory med ily downward, while the sosed one irom th esd ofthe Stomach with ajctory somewhat ering upwards these time of his examination he aw this vem ta be wea lehtcolored Tahire anda jek; ther than the T-shirt worn 1y the victim, be didnot ao ar find ay powder bus and Mlarks nd that ose ted mar inthe Teahict wee be eve by hi toe pomdsr burn they lok ike na be lo {ound dairmed slg inthe pocket ofthe jacket ef the wi Raling ofthe Court of Appeate ‘The CA anchored its Decision on the fllowing facta find- 1) ie visi as nt succes in his atm to gra ‘the gun, sinc petitioner had boen in control of the wespon ‘when the shots ware fired; 2) the gun hd been locked prior to ‘the alloged grabbing incident and immediately before It went ‘was petitioner who released the safety lock before he Aelberately fred the fatal shots, and 3) the location of the ‘wounds found on the body of the deceased didnot support the ‘tsertion of petitioner thet there had been a grappling forthe on. ‘To the appellate court all th foregoing facts disreditod ‘the claim of potitionor that the death of Balboa rerlted from an accident. Citing People v. Reyes,” the CA maintained that “n revolver isnot prone to accidental fring it were simply hhanded over t the deceased as appellant claims beenute of the nature of its mechaniam, unlest it wae already fst cocked and pressure was exerted on the trigger in the process {Pein pp. 6-1; Rolla, p. 13:19. Citations ated "60SORA 474, 479, Pebraary 27,1976 of allegedly handing it over. IF t were uncocked, then eonaid- erable pressure had to bo applied on the trigger to fire the ‘revolver. Fither way, the ebauting of the deseased must have ‘been intantonal becauce preeure on the tigger was ness: sary to make the gun fire" Moreover, the appellate court obviously concurred with this observation of the OSG: “[Piidoner's hoory afacident wold have boon ease tobe live ha the iti beea abt only onc, his nce, however, ea. ‘Nove shat Oe vit nat only once ba we, tarsal Ipwtoners deirndned ert kil the vit By toy srt of ‘he smaginatin, even acuming witht sdzting that te ft shot ‘wes ecetdenta, thea it baud not have been flowed by nother soc en another vita part af the bod. Te fact that poner shat ‘even two 2) times nd wa hit on to diferet and tant bats ofthe bay, Idi fom te diferent restions or tle, ‘eas that thereat an inten to enue te vitn'e deat cater {@pmtonarl pretnton ot ged cent! fing. Is ak sferwpated princi thatthe location, mbar and graiy ofthe ‘wounds fficad on te vctin have a mone nevaling tale of what ‘tually happened dering the indent Furthermore, the CA debunked the alternative plea of sl defense. It held that petitioner had miserably failed to prove the attendance of unlawful aggression, a indispensable ea. ment ofthis justiyng creunstance, While substantially affirming the factual findings of the RTO, the CA disagreed withthe conclusion of the tral court thatthe aggravaticg circumstance of abuse of pulle postion had attended the commission of the erime. Accordingly, the Benaly imposed by the RTC was meted by the appellate ‘CA Decision, p16; ata, pp IT and, tale applic450. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomey ve. People “e [Plor public pston tbe appressed wean aggravating sireumeiaedthe publi onl mur ust his fence, peste nd ‘sscodaney which his fo gives hm a relsing hi puro Ifthe ‘cused could have perpetrated the crime without oospsing hit {sition then there ie abuse of pie gotten” (spc te. Joyno 504 SCHA Gs 70) Inthe instant care, there no shang that te (petidonel had « premeditated plan to Kill he vic when the farmer fetched the later fom the aGde, thus, canet be ot ‘ued thatthe pute poniton of the Ipltoner facia the ‘mmission ofthe eine. Therefor, the alerts Bang that the ‘eid agerovaingcirmsmstance tha petition ok svantage os ‘ble poston t> eam the crime cannot te tuted Hone, {here being no egervating and no mitigating cicunstancs prove, {he maint ofthe penalty shall b taken from She medi peo ‘treason tempor pnaty ipsa forth eine af holds Hence, tie Petition.* Toswes In hs Memorandum, petitioner aubmited the fllowing i sues for the Cours consideration “L.__ Tho Gout of Appeats committed serous anit reversible ‘vor in aing plone soitondeapte te insulin of the proecution' erldene to conwit the petinoer, i ented to ‘cioners overwhelming evidence to rappore hi tseyfatage of den The Court of Appele committed grave and reversible ror in aiming the convition ofthe ptiiner on » anit ‘mistake inference thet when the gun Sire, the petting mas Ih GA Decision, p19; olla, p "This ve was deemel submited fr delin on January 18, ‘209, upon this Courts resto eapendeatt Memon, seed ty Anistant Solistor General deroinn C. Castillo nad Aso Sitar Josephine D. Aves. Fotfoner® Memorandum, signed by ‘Atty, Ferdinand M. Nogre and Atty. Karen 0. Amurwo Delangi, tea file on October, 2002 VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 29, 200¢ 451 Pomoy vs. People ‘ull nat o the handle of he gun, becnve what the totinonne of sateretod witnstes and th peidonerreeal was tht the gun ra whl ptitiner and Ballon were both bg Ue gua i ce Fulefts to weer the qn om each soce “IU. The Court of Appeals gravely eed in aiming the 20 ise genera cbaervation that the face that ptitiner ot tae ‘eGo tio etalishes petitioner detected ert to Kl the "IV, ‘The appellate court commit serous msoporehension of the evidence prereatal when Te ruld tat the terion of the ‘woud waa fonb-totack blying the alegaton of pestiner that he Sod the victim were sidetyae each ether when the grapling v, ‘The Court of Appeal filed o dsc the real import of petioners reaction tothe ineldent when stated thatthe dum Fused reaction of pttionee after the incident strongly arguos gains bis dain af cident honing SVL‘ appellate cur commited grave esr when ee ‘regu mtire or lack of i dotrmlning tne enstance a ol ‘artes and infet onthe part of pelitone t soot at the iim ‘whet the sume was put in savous doubt by the evens presented VIL ‘The Court of Appeats was mistaken in ruling that che Aetese of cident ad sleefenan ar ncocitent “VIL ‘he Court Appeals abviously ered inthe inposton the pena sid damages” 1 sum, the frogeing issue ean be narrowed davin to two Firs, whether th shooting of Tomas Balboa was the result of ‘an atident; and second, whether petitioner was able fo prove sldefense * Peneers Memirandum, pp. 16-16; Rollo, pp 12127.452. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomoy ve. People ‘The Courts Ruling ‘The Potiton it meritorious Fact lee: Accidental Shooting ‘Timeless isthe leg adage thatthe factual findings of the trial gour, when affirmed by the eppllate cour, are conli ‘sive Both eourta possess time honored expertise inthe Hold of fact finding. But where some facts are misinterpreted or ‘Some dtals overlooked, the Supreme Court may overturn the frrencous conclusions drawn by the courts « quo. Where, {nts caso, the facts in dispate are crucial tothe quoston of Innocence or il of the accused, a eaefl factual reexamin® tion is imperative, ‘Accident isan exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revit Penal Code ‘aria 12. Circumstances which exempt frm ering! ty The lowing are exempefom eviminl ay: “4 Any pereon who, while performing alfa wth de ar, canes an injry by more eso without fal teat accusing Exemption fom erlminal liability proceads from a finding thatthe harm fo the victim waa not due to the feult or nog igonce of the accused, but to creumstances that could nos have been foreseen of controlled” Thus, in determining whether Borromeo». Sun, 918 Phi. 95; 317 SCRA 178, October 2, 1299, “People, Carigues, 878 Phi 77; 916 SCRA 247, Sapember 127, 1000, To determina scien, the flowing tree elements mt foneur 1) the accused is performing lawful ac with dus cae; 2 {he resltng injury stned by mare eden, abd 3) tho par of {he acused hore eno fal fata! toca he ny VOL. 489, SEPTEMBER 29, 200 453 Pomay ve, People ‘an “accident” attended the ineident, courts must take into account the dual standerds of Ieee of intent to ill ad eb- ‘ence of fault or negligence, ‘This determination inevitably brings tothe fore dhe main question inthe preeant eave a pottioner in contol of the 46 caliber pistol atthe very 10- ‘mont the shots ware fired? Petitioner Not in Control ofthe Gun When I Fired ‘The recs show that, other Uhan petitioner himself it was. Ema Base who witnessed the inident firsthand. Her aceount, narrated during oroseexainination, detailed the events of ‘hat fateful aternoon of January 4, 1990 as follows: “ary TeODOSIO: Qo You said that while you ware insde eh iveatigation ‘som you beard a comioion, That examcion which yout sche gon ‘A. Moderately there nab ehouting and their dslgus wae aetclar I enuld nthe uncerond, @Debyoutearany voles as prt ofthat comatos? From the tow you entered the investigation rom you {dot hee an vie hile ou were nae the aveni= fatoe room apart that somato? ‘A. There wae no aod voles and th conversation could not {elated They were tleing somewhat Hike ura: ‘yor ina low vce but there wan net of tebe in etal, courn, Q Was thee a srt ofan exchange af wor in hui conee- @ _Whon you oped the door, you sa Se, Fone and Taos the desard inthis cas? Ass rreat?454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomay ve. People Yanai ‘And when you aw Se, Pomoy was he being agus? Nat ys, tho gun was ail here (Wane stating by Printing thar sid end I sw bot of them gapping oe ato hor was the gun at that te? ‘The gun wa nt ltr (Witnanuatratng by pn {gether ide) When you demonstrated you were sosoring to you so the hands holding the gun Ics Set. omcy who wes hing the gun with hgh bend? ‘A. nate to hand on the hale ofthe gun init hol ster the hand of Sir Balboa and Set Pome. cour Ai that procse moment the gun wa tli its leer ‘A. Whon Tun look the gun war sl in a baler with both hands grappling for the poseaion of the gu >e pe (One hand of Se. Pomoy and one hand is that ofthe etm? Yen sin coven: Pree Arry Teoposto; ‘Which hand Sgt. Pomey did you nn Rlding he gun Fight hand of St Pomay. “And when you soe that right hand of Set. Pomey, was ie ‘ling the gun? ‘The right hand of Ste Pomoy was here on the gun and Sir Batboa's hand was alae there. Both of them {tere holding the gun ‘Which part ofthe gun was the ight hand of Set. Pomos balding? ‘The handle > ere > ee VOL. 499, SEPTEMBER 29, 2001 455 Ponay vs. People ‘And was he fdag Tomes Balboa when be war holding the zn with his ght Rand? ‘Ava they wore not direct fsing shoes, Sota, they were facing each thee? ‘They were not directly facing cach other, Thelr pe ‘ition did not remain steady 0 they were grappling forthe postersion ofthe gun fore agains! force. court; What was th psiton of Ue vsti when the shots were ‘Wien Is thn they wee alent facing ash ober What was the ditanos? Very clase tach oher Ho ne? Very nea cheer, a @ Q a .Couldit bea distance of within one (1) fk? ‘A. Not exactly: Thay wore lee to each ser in each a ‘ar that tha bale would toh sah tet So the distance isle thas one (1) fk when the gun fra A. One(1) fotor las whon th exposons were heard nd they were dint Eaing each other? ‘court: Prose Were sou able to sce how the gun teas taken out Prom is holster? A. While thes were grappling for the posession of the ‘sun, eradually the gun teas released frm is ht. ‘er end then there sas on explosion, And when the gu fied Ube gun was on Tomas Balboe? ‘Av Leould not see towards whom the novel of the gun ‘was when Ut fired because lhoy ware grappling fr to ‘pseson of dhe gu, Did you soe whe the gun fl when they were grap lings paseson’?456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 489, SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 457 Pomay ve People Yes ei, Fectully sew dhe explain. Ie eame fom tha id yous the gun fired whan i fired fo two tes? id you so he bare af th gun when the gu Gad? eould mot really conclude towarde thor the bar- ret of the tun tas pointed to because the fun twas turning {Could you tel the court who wae holding the gun when thegun fret? ‘When the gun exploded, the gun wan already i the pe ‘anion of St. Pomey. He waa te one hlding the gu Afar the gun weat of, you {hehend ofS Pomoy?| a rere the gun was aad io How son afer the gun went off when yo a4 the gu in the hand of et. Foren? ‘Afor Balbo hod fillen and after they hod separated Uemsees ith eachother, wes then that enw S- Pemey holding the gin cour try. Te0Dost0, When the gum tas taken out from ite holster, Sit Pomay wos the one holding the handle ofthe gunt Amt correct? ‘A. Both of them were holding the handle ofthe gun. ‘Sowhen the gun wes ail i its hoater, to of them leer holding the punt Yon alr, they wore actually holding the gun, Set Pomey ond Sir Balboa. ‘was the ight hand of St omoy who was boing the ‘banal ofthe gua a ou tat?” Yes sie pe pe ie care! pore > Pomoy ve. People ‘Which hand of Balboa was bling the bande ofthe gush Lat hand, At the time Balioa was holding the hale of the evn {th is left hand, nas be Inte Sy Pomoy? ‘hey had a sort of having thee sidas toward enc ether Pomoy right and Balbo a ies [wee owas etch er. They were side By ode ata car ditanc owas tach other "awa actually Se. Pomoy whe wat Hong the hale fhe gu daring that time? When I lobed out We was chen they were grappling {forthe possesion of the gun and the right had of Sgr Pomay was hotding the handle ofthe un When you sew thom did you sen what position of tho andi othe gn was bag held by Toma Balbo? The ur prton of the handle ofthe gu othe pron wea the igre? Mhen 1 fooked of them If was the hand of Sut. Pox ‘moy holding the handle of the gun with i right ‘hand with the hand of Sir Balboa over the hand of Pomay the same hanel holding the gun. Twas in that postin when the gun was removed fem {tata When the gun pulled out from its holster, sas not ‘ble to notice clearty anymore tore, hand tas holding the gun wher Tats both thelr hands oere hoting the gun. Wen sou sid this In (he) veraeule, Date dbo no sil naghapot what you relly sean? ‘Both of them wore halting the gun ‘tS, Poy il holding the han of he gun? SUlt both of them were holding the Randle of the im ‘With the hand of Balboa sil on he op ofthe hand of ‘SH. Poste an what you have previously sd when the sun wabin the ltr of Set Posy?458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomoy ve. People ‘A When the gun was pulled from ite holwter, 1 wai ‘hat Sit. Pomoy’s right hand was stl on the handle ofthe gun withthe eft hand of Sir Balboa over his ‘ight Rand of gh. Pomoy, lke this wither ‘ng by showing hgh had with er let hand re or EM hand a belting someting. The thule the et Ihind is somewhat over the index Gager 9 the ight hand courn: Which hand ofthe itn wa ued by hn whe the gan vas alread pulled oat fom es boltr ad wile tne we fed was baling he bundle fhe gus? A tethaed, @.So,hewa ail using the ame of and in holng apo tion othe handle a he gun upto hese wien the Eun ‘ra ull ot rom lta? ‘A. Yer air, the same left hand aod that of Pomay hs eke than Beene the lat hand of Paray we used by hen faring the righthand of Sir Balto which le svt to cour. QSoin the proces of grappling he was using hi ft hand In pushing te itn mrt or ia? @ What about te right hand of the victin,what wa he a ng with aight hand? The eletim seas tring to reach the gun sith ble ‘leht hand and Pomoy wat using his Toft hand to ‘Protect the citi from reaching the sun ath his Fight hen cour ATTY. TEODOSIO: Did your acy while ago that Mr. Balbo tas able to old tse barrel of the gun of Sef Pomeyr A Yeneine VOL. 439, SEPTEMBER 29, 200 459, Pomay vs. People ‘Aud het wa ate tme bore the shots wore Aired? 2 Yen, hevwas able to bold the tip of the bare the pun sing right hand, courn That was before the gun fired? A venue ‘The foregoing account demonstrates that pationer did not ‘have ontol of the gun during tho seule, The deceased per. sistenlyalterpted to wrest the weapon frty him, while he fesolutly tried to thwart thoae attempts, That the hands of loth ptitioner and the vieim were allover the weapon Was categorally asterted by the eyewitness. In the course of rapping for the gun, both hands of pstitinsr were fully fengagid—his right hand was trying to maintain possesion of| the weapon, while his lat was warding off the victim. Te would be difficult to imagine how, under such circumstance, peltioner would cooly and effectively be ablo to release the Ssatety lock of the gun and deliberately aim and fire iat the 1 would therefore appear that there was no frm factual bass fr the folowing declaration ofthe appellate cour: "{Pe- ‘ioneadmittod that his right hand was holding te handle ofthe gun while the Tet hand af the vitim was over his right hand when the gun was fied. This declaration would safely lead usta the cochison that when the gun weat off herein Ipotitionr} was in fall ental ofthe gun" Releaseof the Gun‘ Safty Lock and Firing of the Gun Both Aovidental Petitioner tested that the 45 caliber service pistol was equipped with a safety lock that, unless released, would pre- vont the Ging of the gun. Despite thie safety feature, how {BN July 28,1996, 2240. (phasis upp) "Davison, gp 16-17; Rollo, pp. 6453,460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomay vs. People ‘ver, the evidence showed that the weapon fired and hit the ietim—not jut once, but twice. To the appliatesvurt, thie fact could only mean thet petitioner had deliberately walked the gun and shot atthe victim, This conclusion appears to be non sequitur. It is undisputed that both patitioner and the vetim grap- pled for possesion ofthe gun. This frenzied grappling forthe ‘weapon-though brief, having been finished in a matter of not be: dismissed: that in tho course of the scufle, the safety lock, ould have boon accidentally released aad the shots nciden tally fre ‘That there was not just one but two shots fred does not nocossarly and conclusively negate the cai that the shoot re can eaally be liber service gun Petitioner. in his technical doserption af th snap fn ewe tion, explained how the disputed second shot may have een Drought about kx Patton alo tetifid on cots examinaton tht cal hor 46 sem-aulomati pists, whet fred immediately sides back war thring aay the empty shall an returns imately car ing again a ie bulet in is chamber Th, the gu cya Sd, fein session, Ver, the ication oan datance betwen the wounds and the tajectarlen ofthe bust fw pefoiy with the aim ofthe petitioner tho trajectory ef te at thot ping dow ‘ward fom eft to ght ths pushing Reboats upper body ting to ‘the left while Balbon was sil ctehingpationers bane ore the ‘fa; the mand shot tng hm in the nomach with the let going {ward of Babe's body ns he was flag down od releasing ie hott pttoners hand xn Potion, pp 25:25; Rall, p, 304 VOL. 489, SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 461 Pomay ve People ‘Thus, the appellate court's reliance on People v. Reyes" was rilaced. In that casa, the Court diselieved the accused ‘who described how his gun bad expled while he was simply Inaading it ver to the vietin. Here, no similar calm i being ‘made; petitioner has consistantly maintained that the gut secidentally ied inthe cour ofa strug with tho vsti. More significantly, the prosont ease involves «somi-automatic pistol, the mechanism of which i very different from that of « revolver, the un usod ia Reyes” Unlike a revolver, a semi- awbmatic pistol, 28 aulicientiy dsseribed by petitioner, rene to acidental fring when possession thereof hecrmes theobject of a strugela. Allaged Greppling Not Negated by Srontal Location of Wounds On the basis ofthe fndinge of Dr. Jaboneta showing that the wounds of the deceased were ail frontal, the anpellate ‘court rejected petitioner’ claim that grappling. for the ‘weapon ever eccurred. Tt held that “if there was indeed a {rappling between the tivo, and that they had been side [by] sexx x eachother, the wounds thus inflicted could not have had 0 fron-to-back trajectory which would lead to an infer ares that the vet was shot frontal, as observed hy Dr Ordinarily the location of gunshot wounds is indicative of the positions ofthe parties af the precise moment when the ‘gun was fired, Their positions would in turn be relevant to & 3 npra, p90 * id Do nd bef suplig. VOL, 499, SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 463 Pomay vs. People ‘aling for abe pmeation ofthe gun whon Bre, “rl testimony carly demenrtrtes tat the petitioner was an th Toi of te vin during te grappling when the gun fd, The second wound was hus inflited thir wie when he fst ‘Hat ht Baton, supper body wes punhed dowawardewiag tothe ‘ocking ower of he elder 45 pltl, But be dd ot tt goo ie frp ofthe and of pottoner and the gun, Balboa pling the gun Em a he was gong down Who the pn wet ef tho second Une iting Balbo, the ejector ofthe bull n Balbo’ body was gang war! tactse his uyer tn wen pushed divaward eviating*9 doen, Te wen ten thet Bellow let goof his gp. On crocs ‘amination ptioer tote, what I noticed was that after Sccecsivo shots wo soparated from exch other. This seaueree ‘events angel because the prtagoiets were genpling oer Use finan ware moving wey feat Presence of ll he Bement of Acident "The elements of accident are a fillowa: 1) tho accused was atthe fine performing laf act wits de care; 2) tho ro ‘siting injury wns eased by mere acident and 8) on the part tf the gocusd, there was no fault or no intent to cause the fnjury2” From the fats, iti lear that all thee slements were presen. At the time of the Incident, petitioner was a ‘msmber—spcifeally, one of Ue inveatigators—of the Pilip fine National Police (PNP) stationed at the Tho Provincial Hpbile Fores Company, Thus, it was in the lawful perform. ance of his duties a investigating oficer that, under tho in structions of his superior he fetehed the victim from the lat tore ell for routine interrogation Again, it was inthe awful performance of his duty asa law rforcer that ptitioner tried to defend his postesion of the ‘weapon when the victim auddenly teed to remove it from his * Pelion, pp. 27-25; Rall, pp. 6:8. Boia inthe ginal Pope. Conquer, upr464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL, 499, SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 465, Pomoy ox. People holator. As an enforcer ofthe lav, petitioner was duty-bound to provent the snaiching of his service weapon by anyone, expecially by «detained person in his custody. Such weapon tras likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kil or main ‘persona inthe vieiity, including petitioner himself Patitiner cannot be faulted for noglgence. He exercised all the necestary precautions to prevent his service weapon from auaing accidental harm to others. Ashe so assiduously main feined, he had Kept is service gun locked when he left hie Fovee! he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the promises of his working area, ‘At no instance during is testimony di the accused admit to any intent to eause injury tothe deceased, much let kill him. Furthermore, Nicostrato Bstopar, tho guard in chargo of the detention of Balboa, didnt testify to any behavior on the ‘art of patitioner that would indicste the intent to harm the ‘itim while being fetched from the detention cel, “The partespation of pettuoner, f any, athe vicun's death ‘wat Himited only to acta committed inthe course ofthe Ina performance of his duties as an enforeer of the Inw. The re: fom its holster, the release of the safety fof the two miecessiveshote—all of which led to tho denth ofthe vitim—were sufficiently demonstrated to havo boon consequences of clcumatances beyond the con trol of poitimer. At the very least, these factual circum: tances create serious doubt onthe later’ culpability, Petitioner's Subsequent Conduct Not Conclusive of Quilt ‘To both the trial and the appellate courts, tho conduct of petitioner immediatoly after the incident was indicative of ‘emorso. Allegedly, his guilt was evident from the fact that he was "dumbfounded," according tthe CA; was “mum, pale and trembling.” acceding to the trial court ‘These behavioral reactions supposedly point to his gil, Not neceseariy so, His behavior was understandable, Afterall, « minute earlier he Pomay us People had been calmly eseurting » person from the detention cll to the investigating room; and, inthe next breath, he was look ing a his companions bloodied body. His reaction was to be expected of ono in a state of shock at ovanta that had tran Sire o ewfly and ended eo regrettably Second seus ‘Sei Defnse Petitioner edvancad self definse as an alternative, Grant- ing orguendo that he intentionally shot Balbas, he lain ho Aide to protst hie life and limb frm real and immediate danger Selfdofense is inconsisnt with the exempting circum stance of accent, in which Uhere is no intent 0 kill On the thor hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a prerned- tent t kill in order to defand aneself from imminent sdangee"" Appsrenty, the fatal shat in the instant cane dd "in the sailed Decision, the apptlat sorb ackacel cing the ine diforocenteswnen "acetal, the former pentose th ac of intention to at har nd he Inder atsoming tluntrces induced by necsniy—neveries ‘Submis thot the standards to be aed in dcterminig wheter the Stements of mew the oor a exten are one and ihe tama, ‘The Grut dsagrees- Its apparent fom thelr varying dein ons uodor the Reviaed Petal Ge Unt accident” tel ‘eto are tw diferent creumstanee. Aceon an tampa Gematanc, petuppos tat while stine may hare ben oe fie, o nial ie be ald hae: See 4 of Srl fe serbia man sampling creumatanoe 9 lows! “Are 12. Circumatacer which are exempt from ‘pinnate Blowing ar exempt ca {9 éay peron who, while performing a wf act with duecar cor ay by mre ese! boa so466. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pomcy vs. People ‘ot oocur out of any conscious or premeditated effort ta over- power, maim or kill the vitim for the rpore of seldefnse ‘against any aggression; rather, they appeared to bs the spon- taneous and accidental result of both parties’ attempts to posses the firearm, ‘Since the death ofthe vstim was the result of an acsden- tal firing of the service gun af pettioner—an exempting cir. cumstance as defined in Article 12 of the Revised Penal Cote—a farthor discussion of whther the aeailed acts ofthe latter constituted lawful self-defense so unnecensary, WHEREFORE, the Petition ie GRANTED and the asssiled Decision REVERSED. Petitioner is ACQUITTED. No sots renuppues that na erie hase etna fr which re es be hl lble Its appareat fom uteading of Section 8 of Ar fle Th, thatthe law trete tha jutting eumetnce of nl kta” as tally dierent sireamatanc with antber et ofl ent lew ‘arti 11. Justiing sircumatanes—the flowing donot incur any evimin aii 4, Anyane who acta In defnge of his person or right ‘rode hat the flloving decumtances cnc ‘Fire Uninwfl gztssion, Second, Reasonable aesosityo the means employed to prevent or repel it Third, ack of sullen proveetion onthe parte the parson defending hima” ‘With thee dering slemente, one cannot, a the spollate court exrneouly did, utes the standards une n prvi “eal ‘ders” to prove wheter or not under the ene fata “acsiden VOL. 499, SEPTEMBER 25, 2004 4g7 University ofthe Philippines ve. Philab Industries, Ine ‘SO ORDERED, SandovelGutieres, Corona and CarpioMorales, i, Petition granted, assailed decision reversed. Petitioner ac- aula. Notes—Auident t be an exempting circumstance pre- supposes thatthe act done is lawful People os. Nepomucene “Jr, 298 SCRA 480 (1008), Hoaving claimed that the shooting was accidents, peti Yioner must prove the same by clear and cawvincing evidence However, tho burden of proving the eommiasion of the erime fomained with the praseeution. (People ws, Court of Appeals, 852 SCRA 599 (2001}) OR. No 162411. September 29,200, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, es FHILAB INDUSTRIBS, INC, respondent. Remedi La; Apes; The doctrinal rales tht pur que oa of fats may nt be the uct of appl by ertiarrt ander ade 48 ofthe 197 Paes of Cill Procedure, ex this mack of ppl fs generally restr to questions of aue—hweir this al is nd ‘heoute—the Court may revi the fata fing ef he Cort ‘Apocals should they be emtrry to thse of the il court Core ‘pondingly, this Sout may rcew findings of fate when he js, Ime ofthe Court of Appets te premised ona misepprbenaon 6 {facts datcoal rule that pare questans of cs may ete ‘SECOND DIVISION.