PEOPLE vs. SILVINO VILLANUEVA, VICENTE AGGABAO, ET AL.

G. R. No. L-65483 May 25, 1988

FACTS:

On June 14, 1981 at about 11 o’clock in the evening, on their way home in Ashville Diffin Quirino
Province, Pedro Acosta and company were intercepted by National Irrigation Administration (NIA) security
guards Silvino Villanueva, who was carrying a shotgun, Aggabao and Domingo, who had wooden clubs, and a
fourth unidentified person. Acosta was killed when Villanueva fired. Juan Jose, NIA security guard supervisor,
reported to the police that Acosta was killed when they were being chased after their attempt to steal a heavy-
duty battery at NIA. Autopsy was conducted after Acosta’s death, and another one seven months after. This is
because the first examiner, Dr. Gaudencio Acosta, testified against the prosecution that Acosta’s wounds in the
head were caused not by a gun but by a blunt instrument, and that he found no powder burns, and no bullets in
the skull although there were no exit wounds, while the second examiner, Dr. Ruben Angobung, testified to the
contrary that the wounds were inflicted by simultaneous gunshots. Both autopsy reports, though, agree that
Acosta was shot not at the back of his head but while he was facing the killer.

The trial court found Villanueva guilty of Murder while his co-accused Aggabao and Domingo were
acquitted, hence Villanueva appealed to the Supreme Court (SC).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the autopsy report that Acosta was shot while facing the killer corroborate with the
story that the victim was shot while being chased.

RULING:

Yes, the autopsy report that Acosta was shot while facing the killer corroborate with the story that the
victim was shot while being chased. According to authorities, the entrance point of a gunshot wound is not
necessarily always round, its shape being dependent on the type of weapon used and the distance from which
the shot is fired. Thus, the gunshot wound would be irregular in shape, or lacerated, where the firearm is fired
from a distance of more than a yard as in this case which would also explain the absence of gunpowder burns on
the victim. There can also be only one plausible explanation for this seeming inconsistency. The Supreme Court
believes that while Acosta was running for his life he looked backwards — at his pursuers, Villanueva’s group,
perhaps to see how near they were, and it was at that exact moment that Villanueva fired the fatal shots. The SC
also believes that there was no evident premeditation thus, Villanueva was convicted of homicide only.