VIRGILIO TALAMPAS y G.R. No.

180219
MATIC,
Petitioner,
Present:

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
-versus- BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:

Respondent.
November 23, 2011
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

By petition for review on certiorari, Virgilio Talampas y Matic (Talampas) seeks the review of the
affirmance of his conviction for homicide (for the killing of the late Ernesto Matic y Masinloc) by the Court
of Appeals (CA) through its decision promulgated on August 16, 2007.[1]

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, in Bian, Laguna (RTC) had rejected his pleas of self-defense
and accident and had declared him guilty of the felony under the judgment rendered on June 22, 2004. [2]

Antecedents

The information filed on November 17, 1995, to which Talampas pleaded not guilty, averred as follows:[3]

That on or about July 5, 1995, in the Municipality of Bian, Province of Laguna, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused VIRGILIO TALAMPAS, with
intent to kill, while conveniently armed with a short firearm and without any justifiable
cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot
one Ernesto Matic y Masinloc with the said firearm, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot
wound at the back of his body which directly caused his instantaneous death, to the
damage and prejudice of his surviving heirs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The State presented as witnesses Jose Sevillo, Francisco Matic, Jerico Matic, Dr. Valentin Bernales, and
Josephine Matic. The CA summarized their testimonies thuswise: [4]

Prosecution witness Jose Sevillo (Jose) who allegedly witnessed the incident in question,
testified that on July 5, 1995 at about 7:00 oclock in the evening, he together with Eduardo
Matic (Eduardo) and Ernesto Matic (Ernesto) were infront of his house, along the road in
Zona Siete (7), Wawa, Malaban, Bian, Laguna, repairing his tricycle when he noticed the
appellant who was riding on a bicycle passed by and stopped. The latter alighted at about
three (3) meters away from him, walked a few steps and brought out a short gun, a
revolver, and poked the same to Eduardo and fired it hitting Eduardo who took refuge
 behind Ernesto. The appellant again fired his gun three (3) times, one shot hitting Ernesto
at the right portion of his back causing him (Ernesto) to fall on the ground with his face
down. Another shot hit Eduardo on his nape and fell down on his back
(patihaya). Thereafter, the appellant ran away, while he (Jose) and his neighbors brought
the victims to the hospital. On June 6, 1995, Jose executed a Sworn Statement at the Bian
Police Station.

Another witness, Francisco Matic, testified that prior to the death of his brother Ernesto
who was then 44 years old, he (Ernesto) was driving a tricycle on a boundary system and
earned P100.00 daily, although not on a regular basis because sometimes Ernesto played
in a band for P100.00 per night.

Jerico Matic, eldest son of Ernesto, alleged that he loves his father and his death was so
painful to him that he could not quantify his feelings in terms of money. The death of his
father was a great loss to them as they would not be able to pursue their studies and that
nobody would support them financially considering that the money being sent by their
mother in the amount of P2,000.00 to P2,500.00 every three (3) months, would not be
enough.

Dr. Valentin Bernales likewise, testified that he was the one who conducted the autopsy
on the body of Ernesto and found one gunshot in the body located at the back of the costal
area, right side, sixteen (16) centimeters from the spinal column. This shot was fatal as it
involved the major organs such as the lungs, liver and the spinal column which caused
Ernestos death.

The last witness, Josephine Matic, wife of Ernesto, testified that her husband was laid to
rest on July 18, 1995 and that his untimely death was so painful and that she could not
provide her children with sustenance. She asked for the amount of P200,000.00 for her to
be able to send her children to school.

On his part, Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that his enemy had been
Eduardo Matic (Eduardo), not victim Ernesto Matic (Ernesto); that Eduardo, who was then with Ernesto
at the time of the incident, had had hit him with a monkey wrench, but he had parried the blow; that he
and Eduardo had then grappled for the monkey wrench; that while they had grappled, he had notice that
Eduardo had held a revolver; that he had thus struggled with Eduardo for control of the revolver, which
had accidentally fired and hit Ernesto during their struggling with each other; that the revolver had again
fired, hitting Eduardo in the thigh; that he had then seized the revolver and shot Eduardo in the head;
and that he had then fled the scene when people had started swarming around.

Ruling of the RTC

On June 22, 2004, the RTC, giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Jose Sevilla, found Talampas
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide,[5] and disposed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Homicide, with one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
and hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT ranging
from TEN (10) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14)
years and EIGHT (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered
to pay the heirs of Ernesto Matic y Masinloc the following sums, to wit:

1. P50,000.00 as and for death indemnity;

2. P50,000.00 as and for moral damages;
3. P25,000.00 as and for actual damages; and
4. P30,000.00 as and for temperate damages.
 Furnish Public Prosecutor Nofuente, Atty. Navarroza, the private complainant and accused
with a copy of this decision.

SO ORDERED.[6]

Ruling of the CA

Talampas appealed to the CA, contending that:

I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DEATH OF ERNESTO
MATIC WAS MERELY ACCIDENTAL.

III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ACTED IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF WHEN HE GRAPPLED WITH EDUARDO MATIC.

Still, the CA affirmed the conviction based on the RTCs factual and legal conclusions, and ruled that
Talampas, having invoked self-defense, had in effect admitted killing Ernesto and had thereby assumed
the burden of proving the elements of self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence, but had
miserably failed to discharge his burden.[7]

The CA deleted the award of temperate damages in view of the awarding of actual damages,
pointing out that the two kinds of damages were mutually exclusive. [8]
Issue

Hence, Talampas is now before the Court, continuing to insist that his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt, and that the lower courts both erred in rejecting his claim of self-defense and
accidental death.

Ruling

The petition for review is denied for lack of merit.

Firstly, the elements of the plea of self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused in defending himself.[9]

In the nature of self-defense, the protagonists should be the accused and the victim. The
established circumstances indicated that such did not happen here, for it was Talampas who had initiated
the attack only against Eduardo; and that Ernesto had not been at any time a target of Talampas attack,
he having only happened to be present at the scene of the attack. In reality, neither Eduardo nor Ernesto
had committed any unlawful aggression against Talampas. Thus, Talampas was not repelling any
unlawful aggression from the victim (Ernesto), thereby rendering his plea of self-defense unwarranted.

Secondly, Talampas could not relieve himself of criminal liability by invoking accident as a defense. Article
12(4) of the Revised Penal Code,[10] the legal provision pertinent to accident, contemplates a situation
where a person is in fact in the act of doing something legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence,
but in the process produces harm or injury to someone or to something not in the least in the mind of
the actor an accidental result flowing out of a legal act. [11] Indeed, accident is an event that happens
outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.[12] In short, accident presupposes the lack of intention to
commit the wrong done.

The records eliminate the intervention of accident. Talampas brandished and poked his revolver at
Eduardo and fired it, hitting Eduardo, who quickly rushed to seek refuge behind Ernesto. At that point,
Talampas fired his revolver thrice. One shot hit Ernesto at the right portion of his back and caused
Ernesto to fall face down to the ground. Another shot hit Eduardo on the nape, causing Eduardo to fall
on his back. Certainly, Talampas acts were by no means lawful, being a criminal assault with his revolver
against bothEduardo and Ernesto.

And, thirdly, the fact that the target of Talampas assault was Eduardo, not Ernesto, did not excuse his
hitting and killing of Ernesto. The fatal hitting of Ernesto was the natural and direct consequence of
Talampas felonious deadly assault against Eduardo. Talampas poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or
mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated
his criminal liability. Lo que es causa de la causa, es causa del mal causado (what is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused).[13] Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,[14] criminal liability
is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

Nonetheless, the Court finds the indeterminate sentence of 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 14 years and eight months, as maximum, legally erroneous.

The penalty for homicide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal. Under
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[15] the court, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, is mandated to prescribe an indeterminate
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could
be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense. With
the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in
its medium period, or 14 years, eight months, and one day to 17 years and four months. This is pursuant
to Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.[16] It is such period that the maximum term of the indeterminate
sentence should be reckoned from. Hence, limiting the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence at
only 14 years and eight months contravened the express provision of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
for such penalty was within the minimum period of reclusion temporal. Accordingly, the Court must
add one day to the maximum term fixed by the lower courts.

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.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 16, 2007 finding VIRGILIO
TALAMPAS y MATIC guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, and IMPOSES the
indeterminate sentence of 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, eight months, and one
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.