People vs. Pinto, Jr. 1991

VOL.
204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 9

People vs. Pinto, Jr.
*
G.R. No. 39519. November 21,1991.
PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee, vs.

DANIEL PINTO, JR. and NARCISO BUENAFLOR, JR.,
defendants-appellants.
Criminal Law; Murder, Frustrated Murder; Requisites of

justify-ing circumstance of fulfillment of a duty.—ln order that the
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code may be successfully invoked, the defense
has to prove that these two requisites are present: (a) the offender
acted in the performance of a duty and (b) the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
or lawful exercise of such duty. In
________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
10
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes an

incomplete one thereby converting it into a mitigating
circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code.
Admittedly, the appellants and the rest of the police force
involved, originally set out to perform a legal duty: the service of a
search warrant on Bello. In the process, however, the appellants
abused their authority resulting in unauthorized and unlawful
moves and consequences. Armed with only a search warrant and
the oral order to apprehend Bello, they went beyond the ambit of
their mission and deprived Bello and two other persons of their
lives.
Same; Same; Same; Mistake in identity of victims.—The fact

that the victims were different from the ones the appellants
intended to injure cannot save them from conviction. Aberratio
ictus or mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same
gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. The
main reason behind this conclusion is the fact that the accused
had acted with such a disregard for the life of the victim(s)—
without checking carefully the latter’s identity—as to place
himself on the same legal plane as one who kills another willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously. Neither may the fact that the accused
made a mistake in killing one man instead of another be
considered a mitigating circumstance.
Same; Conspiracy.—It is not even necessary to pinpoint who

between Pinto and Buenaflor actually caused the death of Richard
or the wounding of Maria Theresa in the presence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt that they acted in conspiracy with each other.
Prior agreement between the appellants to kill their intended
victim is not essential to prove conspiracy as the same may be
inferred from their own acts showing joint purpose and design. In
this case, such unity of purpose and design is shown by the fact
that only the two of them fired their guns when the Anduiza jeep
with the Tiongsons passed by. This they did in defiance of the
order of their superior not to shoot unless ordered to do so.
Conspiracy having been proved, the guilt or culpability is
imposable on both appellants in equal degrees.
Same; Elements of Self-defense.—Under Article 11 (1) of the

Rules of Court, an accused must prove the presence of all the
following elements of said exempting circumstance: (a) unlawful
aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself. The presence of unlawful
aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-
defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed
an unlawful aggression against the person de-
11
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 11

fending himself.
Same; Qualifying circumstance of treachery.—We agree with

the trial court that treachery attended the commission of all four
crimes in this case. The killing of Richard Tiongson, Francisco
Bello and Rosalio Andes as well as the wounding of Maria
Theresa Tiongson were all so sudden that all of them were left
defenseless. This is shown not only by the testimonial evidence of
the commission of the crimes but also by the nature and location
of the wounds of all the victims. The presence of treachery
qualifies the killings to murder and the wounding of Maria
Theresa to frustrated murder. Nighttime, however, may not be
appreciated as there is no proof that it was specifically sought in
the commission of the crime and therefore we deem it absorbed by
treachery.
APPEAL from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of

Legazpi City. Payumo, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioner-appellee.
K.V. Faylona & Associates for defendants-appellants,
FERNAN, C.J.;
As an aftermath of the mission of the Legazpi City Police

Department to serve on Christmas day in 1970 a search
warrant on Francisco Bello who was allegedly training a
private army, patrolmen Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso
Buenaflor, Jr. were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
by the then Circuit Criminal Court in said city, of killing
not only Bello but also 9year-old Richard Tiongson and
Rosalio Andes and seriously wounding Maria Theresa
Tiongson.
1 The dispositive portion of the decision of June 13,
1974. reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Narciso Buenaflor,

Jr. and Daniel Pinto, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of:
(a) MURDER in CCC-X-288-Albay, and hereby sentences

each of them to suffer imprisonment for the rest of their
lives (Reclusion Perpetua); to indemnify the heir of Rosalio
Andes in
________________
1 Penned by Judge Ricardo Payumo.
12

the amount of Twenty-five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos,

jointly and severally; and to pay the costs;
(b) MURDER in CCC-X-289-Albay, and hereby sentences
each of them to suffer imprisonment for the rest of their
lives (Reclusion Perpetua); to indemnify the heirs of
Francisco Bello in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally, and to pay the
costs;
(c) MURDER in CCC-X-298-Legazpi City, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment for the rest
of their lives (Reclusion Perpetua); to indemnify the heirs
of Richard Tiongson in the amount of Twenty-five
Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally; and to
pay the costs;
(d) FRUSTRATED MURDER in CCC-X-299 Legazpi City,
and hereby sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment
of from Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as
Minimum, to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day of
Reclusion Temporal as Maximum; to indemnify the victim,
Maria Theresa Tiongson, in the amount of Eight
Thousand (P8,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally; and to
pay the costs.
In addition to the foregoing the accused are sentenced to suffer

perpetual disqualification from public office.”
According to the prosecution, on December 25, 1970, the

Legazpi City Police secured from the City Court of Legazpi
a warrant for the search of the house and premises of
Francisco Bello in Mariawa, Legazpi City on the ground
that the police had probable cause to believe that Bello
illegally possessed a garand rifle, 2 a thompson
submachinegun and two automatic pistols. The police had
earlier undertaken a surveillance of Bello on the basis of
information it had received that he was conducting an
“obstacle
3 course” or training men for combat since October,
1970.
Upon receipt of the search
4 warrant, the Chief of Police,
Dr. Solomon Adornado, called his officer ‘s to a
“confidential conference” at the residence of Mayor
Gregorio Imperial. Present at said conference were the
mayor, his secretary, and the officers of the patrol division,
secret service and the administration of
________________
2 Exh. Q.
3 TSN, March 15, 1972, p. 4.
4 He was surprisingly presented as a prosecution witness.
13
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 13

the city police. The Chief of Police was assisted by Major

Alfredo Molo, head of the intelligence division of the city
police, in briefing the group on how to serve the search
warrant and to arrest Bello as the latter had been
identified as the one who shot Salustiano Botin the night
before. At the time of the briefing,
5 no warrant of arrest had
yet been issued against Bello.
The policemen were divided into three teams and
around five members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC)
who were
6 also present were assigned to the different
teams. Team 3 was placed under the charge of Sgt.
Salvador de la Paz with a policeman named Luna and
appellants Buenaflor and Pinto as members. Wilfredo 7
Romero was the PC member assigned to the team. Except

for Romero and Pinto who were each armed with a carbine, 8
the policemen of Team 3 each carried a .38 caliber pistol.

Loaded in four vehicles, the three teams proceeded from
the residence of the Mayor to barrio Homapon arriving
there at around seven o’clock in the evening. The four
vehicles met at the junction of Homapon and the road to
Mariawa. They had decided to ride on the way to Mariawa
when one of the jeeps bogged down because of the muddy
road. Hence, the three teams had to walk in single file on
the right side of the road with the teams 9maintaining a
distance of around ten meters between them.
Suddenly, Romero noticed the members of his team
running. He ran with them and then he heard someone
shout, “Pondo!” (stop). The shout was followed by a shot
and then a burst of gunfire. The team had by then deployed
to the right side of the road. When Romero checked the
men by shouting the agreed password of “bayawas” 10 for
which the person challenged anre wered “santol", he found
that Buenaflor was 5 meters in front of him “at the bank of
the road”, Pinto was two meters to the
________________
5 Ibid., pp. 6–10.

6 Ibid., pp. 14–15.
7 TSN, March 13, 1972.
8 Ibid., p. 61.
9 Ibid., pp. 62–66.
10 TSN, March 14, 1972, p. 22.
14

right of Buenaflor, Sgt, de la Paz was two meters to his

(Romero’s) right, Luna who was holding a walkie-talkie
was to11 his left and another policeman was in front of
Luna. When Romero heard the gunburst, he saw “flashes

of fire” “just in
12 front” of him or from the place where
Buenaflor was.
The area where the team deployed was lower in
elevation than the road but Romero heard the rumbling of
a jeep going towards the direction of Homapon when he
heard the burst of gunfire13and saw the flashes of fire from
the direction of Buenaflor.
On the jeep which passed by the deployed policemen
were Fr. Felix Capellan, Mrs. Zenaida Stilianopolous
Tiongson, her six children and the driver. They had just
come from a lechonada party in the hacienda in Mariawa of
Mrs. Purificacion Napal Anduiza, the mother of Francisco
Bello. Fr. Capellan had celebrated mass to commemorate
the death anniversary of Mrs. Anduiza’s father. When Fr.
Capellan decided to go back to his parish, 14 the Anduizas
offered their jeep for his transportation. Seated on the
front seat of the “McArthur type” jeep which had 15 only a
canvass top but no cover on the sides and back, were the
driver, Mrs.
16 Tiongson with a child on her lap and Fr.
Capellan. Richard Tiongson was seated on the steel seat
behind the driver while his sister Maria Theresa was
17
beside him. The three other children were also seated at
the back.
After crossing the creek on their way to Homapon18and as
the driver “changed to high gear with a dual", Mrs. 19
Tiongson saw blinking lights some 300 yards ahead.

Fearing that there might be “people with bad intentions” or
20
hold-uppers, Fr. Capellan told the driver to go faster.

Then Fr. Capellan heard one
________________
11 TSN, March 13, 1972, pp. 67–70.

12 Ibid., p.71; Exh. O.
13 lbid., p. 72.
14 TSN, February 9, 1972, p. 6.
15 Ibid., Exh. B.
16 TSN, January 27, 1972, p. 7.
17 TSN, March 13, 1972, p. 42.
18 TSN, January 27, 1972.
19 TSN, February 9, 1972, p. 8.
20 TSN, January 27, 1972, p. 7.
15
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 15

shot and after a few seconds and around 50 meters ahead,

there21 was rapid firing with some of the bullets hitting the
jeep. According to Mrs. Tiongson, the widow of Col. Angel 22
Tiongson of the PC, the rapid firing sounded “automatic".

23
The firing came from the left rear side of the jeep.
Before they were fired upon, Maria Theresa saw a man
lying flat on his stomach while holding 24 a gun on the left
side of the road just ahead of the jeep. Through the light
of the jeep, Maria Theresa noticed that the man was
wearing a25 jacket and a hat and he was on the shoulder of
the road. After passing the man, the rapid firing ensued.
Richard said “ugh” and fell 011 the floor of the jeep. Maria
Theresa was about to hold Richard when26 she felt herself hit
at the buttocks. Then they all screamed.
The jeep continued its fast uphill climb until it reached a
level area and almost fell into a ditch were it not for a
clump of banana plants. The jeep came to a full stop. Fr.
Capellan saw three men with flashlights but he could not
distinguish their faces as it was dark and their flashlights
27
were focused on the ground. Mrs. Tiongson saw a PC jeep
and some cars and, believing that one of the cars was that
of the Mayor, she called Tia Citang, the mother of the
mayor, at the same time identify-ing herself.28 She must
have managed to take Richard from the jeep and was
cuddling him on the ground near the left rear end of the
jeep when she requested Fr. Capellan to administer
extreme unction on Richard. As 29 Fr. Capellan had no holy
oil, he gave the boy absolution.
Even after Mrs. Tiongson had identified,herself as the
widow of Col. Tiongson to the men around, nobody listened
to her appeal for help. When she approached Chief of Police
Adornado,
________________
21 Ibid., p. 8.
22 TSN, February 9, 1972, p. 9.
23 Ibid., p. 10; TSN, January 27, 1972, p. 8; TSN, March 13, 1972, p 42.
24 TSN, March 13, 1972, pp. 49–50.
25 Ibid., p. 52.
26 Ibid., pp. 42–43.
27 TSN, January 27, 1972, pp. 8–10.
28 TSN, February 9, 1972, pp. 11–13,
29 TSN, January 27, 1972, pp. 8–10.
16

she hit him and asked him why they shot her and her
companions. The Chief of Police replied that the shooting
was no longer his fault because Mrs. Tiongson and her
companions did not stop when told to do so. She requested
the Chief of Police for a car in which to take Richard to the
hospital or for a driver and even for a walkie-talkie so she
could talk to Mayor
30 Imperial but the Chief of Police did not
heed her pleas. (TSN, February 9, 1972, pp. 17–22).
A few minutes later, a jeep driven by Fernando Anduiza
arrived. Mrs. Tiongson and her children boarded the jeep.
At the intersection of the road to Legazpi City proper and
the road to Mariawa, the area was brightly lighted and
armed men ordered them to put their hands up. They were
told to alight from the jeep to be searched but Mrs.
Tiongson begged the lieutenant manning the area to let
them pass 31 so they could bring her two children to the
hospital.
Richard and Maria Theresa were brought to the Sacred
Heart Clinic in Legazpi City. Thirteen-year-old Maria
Theresa was treated for a gunshot wound 32 at the “right
upper quadrant of the right buttocks." Her pelvis
33 and
abdomen were x-rayed. One of the x-ray plates revealed
an oval spot indicating a foreign body in Maria Theresa’s
pelvis. The attending physician decided not to extract the
foreign
34 body as Maria Theresa was not a”very good surgical
risk". The hospital

35 charged P282.90 for Theresa’s
hospitalization. She was later brought by an army plane
to the PC Station Hospital in Camp Crame, Quezon City
________________
30 According to Fr. Capellan, Mayor Imperial was in a car parked in the

vicinity and he asked Fr. Capellan why he went to Mariawa when there
was a “raid” that night. Fr. Capellan replied that he said Mass and did not
know that there would be a raid. After pointing out to the mayor that he
had lost his right shoe, the mayor jokingly retorted that he owed Fr.
Capellan a shoe. The mayor then sent back Fr. Capellan to his parish in
Bangkerohan in the former’s car (TSN, January 27, 1972, pp. 13–14).
31 Ibid., pp. 23–25.
32 Exh. V.
33 Exh. U-2.
34 TSN, October 4, 1973, p. 16.
35 Exh. E.
17
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 17

36
for further treatment and hospitalization but the foreign

body was never removed from her pelvic area.
Richard sustained a gunshot wound at the back about
the level of the 5th lumbar vertebrae. The bullet travelled
obliquely to the
37 left kidney, the lesser sac, the liver and the
right auricle. Richard was operated at the hospital but he
died at 8:45 the following morning due 38 to massive
hemorrhage caused by the gunshot wound. When he was 39
autopsied, a lead slug was 40 found embedded in his heart.
His mother paid P862.35 for his hospitalization and was

charged P200 by the church. Mayor 41 Imperial paid P500 to
Funeraria Oro for Richard’s burial.

Meanwhile, according to Chief of Police Adornado, after
the shooting incident involving the Tiongsons, the police
pursued their mission to serve the search warrant on Bello,
When they reached Bello’s residence in Mariawa, they were
met by a “volley of fire.” Suddenly, the house was lighted
and a certain Escober met him. Although Bello and his
parents, Mr. and Mrs. Anduiza, were not around, the police
searched the area and found a Japanese Springfield rifle,
ammunition of a garand rifle, ammunition of a carbine, live
ammunition for a42 .38 caliber pistol and 380 bullets for an
automatic pistol. Thereafter, the Chief of Police declared
the search terminated
43 and the entire searching party left
for headquarters. The following day, he issued Special
Order No. 24 which states:
“December 26, 1970
‘To All Concerned:
“The following men mentioned below are hereby assigned at

Homapon until their mission is accomplished, effective as of
today,
________________
36 TSN, February 9, 1972, pp. 40–41.

37 Exh. K.
38 Exh. C.
39 Exh. ln or J (Annex FF).
40 Exh. F.
41 TSN, February 9, 1972, pp, 35–37,
42 TSN, March 15, 1972, pp. 17–20.
43 Ibid., pp. 22–23,
18

December 26, 1970:
“1. Sgt Salvador de la Paz, In-charge

“2. Pfc. Carlos Barbin, member
“3. Pat. Eduardo Arcinue, member
“4. Pat. Juan Luna, member
“5. Pat. Daniel Pinto, member
“6. Pat. Celedonio Abordo, member
“7. Pat. Narciso Buenaflor, member
“Report progress of mission any time of day through the radio

system. For strict compliance.
(Sgd.)
SOLOMON B. ADORNADO
Chief of Police
“Copy furnished: The Honorable 44 City Mayor, The Patrol
Command, LCPD, the OIC and file."
The mission was to keep peace and order in the specified

45
place and to determine the whereabouts of Bello. It was

not necessary to specify the mission in the order itself
because the Chief of Police “had a close
46 understanding with
the squad that went to Homapon". For a “convenient

tactical deployment,” Sgt. De la Paz further divided Team 3
into three groups with
47 patrolmen Buenaflor and Pinto
composing Group II.
At noontime of December 26, 1970, Francisco Bello,
more popularly known as Paquito, arrived at the residence
of Inocencia Malbas in sitio Ando, Talahib, Daraga, Albay.
He was with Inocencia’s brother, Francisco Andes,
Francisco’s son Ananias, and Leoncio Mostoles. Rosalio, 48
another son of Francisco, also arrived with the group.

Bello requested Inocencia and her husband that he and his 49
group be allowed to spend the night in Inocencia’s house.

Inocencia woke up at around 5:00 o’clock in the morning
of
________________
44 Ibid., p. 25.
45 Ibid., pp. 26–27.
46 Ibid., p. 42.
47 Exh. O. or R or M, p. 2.
48 TSN, February 11, 1972, p. 17.
49 TSN, February 10, 1972, pp. 4–6.
19
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 19

December 27, 1970. At the sala, 011 her way from her room
to the kitchen, she saw Bello sleeping alone. From the
kitchen, Inocencia went to the balcony through the sala. On
her way back to the kitchen, she noticed that Bello, who
was wearing a red shirt and an underwear, had awakened.
Bello opened the window, spat out and went to the balcony.
He reentered the sala and, saying that it was cold, Bello
put on his ‘clothes and pants. He also wore his jacket. He
went back to the balcony and asked for water. Inocencia’s
husband gave Bello a glass of water. After gurgling, Bello
placed the glass on the window
50 sill and asked Inocencia’s
husband for a cup of coffee.
Inocencia’s husband was about to offer Bello a cup of
coffee when she heard a successive burst of gunfire. Bello,
who was on the balcony facing the copra kiln (“agonan”)
with his back towards the pili tree, gradually fell to the
floor with his hands above his head. Then there was
another burst of gunfire. From the kitchen, Inocencia
rushed to the door from where she saw a man holding a
long firearm, whom she later identified as Pinto, near the
pili tree which was around eight meters from where Bello
was, and another
51 man, also holding a gun, crouching near
the stairs. 52
Inocencia, with her two-year-old child in her arms, was

about to rush to Bello when her husband pulled her. Just
then a man, whom Inocencia identified as Buenaflor, came
up the house, pointed a gun at Inocencia and her husband
and told them to lay flat on the floor. The man asked them
where the gun was. Inocencia told him that there was no
gun in the house but then, when she looked around, she
saw a long firearm with its muzzle pointed upward leaning
against the wall near the door around two meters from
where Bello laid flat on his back. Bello himself had
53 a gun
but it was in its holster tucked on his waist. It was
Buenaflor who54took both the long firearm and the gun in
Bello’s holster.
________________
50 Ibid., pp. 6–10.

51 Ibid., pp. 11–14.
52 TSN, February 11, 1972, p. 11.
53 TSN, February 10, 1972, pp. 23–28,
54 Ibid., p. 28; TSN, February 11, 1972, p. 27.
20

When Francisco Andes went 55up the house, he told

Inocencia that Rosalio was dead. Inocencia went near the
pili tree where Rosalio’s body was, knelt down and asked
the man with a long firearm why he killed Rosalio. The
man answered that Rosalio fought back. However, 56
Inocencia did not notice any weapon near Rosalio’s body.

Bello’s hands and feet were tied together and a bamboo
pole was inserted between them so that two men, one of 57
them being Francisco Andes, could carry the cadaver.

Bello died because of “shock secondary to 58 massive
hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds". A former
pilot and 28 years old at the time of his death, Bello
sustained a gunshot wound at the left temple, an inch
above the highest point of the pinna of the left ear. The
bullet which entered his head through the squamous
temporal bone travelled towards the occipital region down
to the floor of the left middle cranial fosa until it reached
the base of the tongue.
Bello had three gunshot wounds on his chest. One bullet
entered the superior part of the right scapular area about
the level of the third thoracic vertebrae. The bullet
travelled to the right inna in a slightly upward direction
making its exit at the lateral part of the right
supraclavicular fossa above the clavicle. The second
gunshot wound was at the left side interscapular area. The
bullet travelled upwards and to the right fracturing the 7th
rib, entered the lower lobe of the left lung, punctured the
pulmonary conus, went through the junction of the right
auricular appendage and the right auricle, the
anteromedial side of the pericardium, grazed the medial
surface of the middle lobe of the right lung and exited at
the right side of the chest. The third gunshot wound was
below the right nipple. The bullet went to the chest cavity,
the lower lobe of the right lung, the dome of the diaphragm,
the right lobe of the liver, the 8th thoracic vertebrae and
exited59 at the left of the midline at the inferior interscapular
area.
________________
55 TSN, February 10, 1972, p. 31.

56 TSN, February 11, 1972, pp, 19–20.
57 TSN, February 10, 1972, pp. 29–30.
58 Exh. F (Annex TT).
59 Exh. H (Annex RR).
21
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1981 21

While Bello’s corpse was being autopsied, a slug fell from

his jacket. A bullet jacket and lead fragments were found at
the base of his60 skull and a slug was extracted from the floor
of his mouth.
Rosalio Andes, 23 years old, also died of shock due to
multiple gunshot wounds. A bullet entered his right
temporal area, macerated the brain, fractured both parietal
bones and exited at the left parietal bone. Another bullet
entered the left interscapular area below the level of the
6th rib, travelled to the dome of the left diaphragm, the left
lobe of the liver, the pancreas, the small intestines, and the
perineum below the ramus of the right pubis. The slug was
found at the gluteoperineal junction about 2 inches below
the tip of the coccys And 21/2 inches above the gluteal line.
A third bullet entered 61 the left knee and exited at the
medial ride of the leg.
The slugs and parts of bullets which were extracted from
the bodies of the victims were turned over to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on December 29, 1970 62 by
Fiscal Aquilino Bonto for safekeeping purposes. The
empty shells and slugs which both the PC and the Legazpi
City63police found in Talahib were also turned over to the
NBI 64in the same manner that the four empty carbine
shells found by the PC near the coconut tree a meter from
the shoulder of 65 the road to Mariawa were also turned over
to the NBI. Also submit to the NBI for ballistic

examination were twelve Smith 6, Wesson caliber .38
revolvers, two Smith 6, Wesson “paltik” caliber .22, four
Tell caliber .38 revolvers, one Bosque automatic pistol
caliber .380, four US carbine Inland rifles caliber .30, three
US Springfield rifles caliber .30, one Thompson
submachine66 gun caliber .45 and one Colt automatic pistol
caliber .45.
Defendants Pinto and Buenaflor both denied having
fired at
________________
60 Exh. 53 of J (Annex FF).

61 Exh. I (Annex SS).
62 Exh. M or J (Annex FF).
63 TSN, January 28, 1972, pp. 22–23.
64 RT-1, RT-2, RT-3 6, RT-4, Exh. D; TSN, March 13, 1975, pp. 36–37.
65 TSN, April 5, 1972, pp. 28–39.
66 Exh. E or I.
22

67
the jeep bearing the Tiongson family. Pinto, who68admitted

carrying a caliber .30 carbine during the incident, testified
that the shooting occurred
69 because the Tiongsons’ jeep “was
going towards”. them.
According to Pinto, when they 70 reached Mariawa, it was
he who fired one shot in the air. After the search had been
conducted in Bello’s premises, Team 3 was instructed by a
“superior officer” “to remain and maintain 71 peace and order
in (the) vicinity including Mariawa", While he and

Buenaflor were patrolling the area, at around midnight,
they “chanced upon a house” wherein Bello and his group
were staying. They captured four of Bello’s bodyguards and
tied them 72 to a pili tree with the torn shirt of one of the
captives.
At daybreak, Pinto saw Bello smoking at the porch.
Buenaflor, who was behind him, called Bello. Then a single
shot coming from the house rang out. It was answered by a
burst of fire which Pinto “presumed” came from Buenaflor.
By reflex action, Pinto transferred from the pili tree to a
nearby coconut tree. But before he reached the coconut
tree, he saw a man with a bolo in his hand running towards
him.73As the man was menacingly near him, Pinto shot
him.
After a lull in the firing, he went up the house to look for
Bello’s other companions. He saw the body of Bello on the
porch and “near” it was a garand which he took. He also got
Bello’s short firearm “from a holster.” He turned over both
the garand and the short firearm to Buenaflor. One of the
captured persons kicked Bello’s body saying that if not for
Bello, his son would not have been killed. Thereafter, the
two dead persons
74 were carried by the captured bodyguards
to Mariawa.
In Mariawa, Pinto contacted (through the radio) police
outpost No. 5 in Banquerohan and two jeeps arrived. When
they
________________
67 TSN, January 16, 1974, p. 13; February 12, 1974, p. 6.

68 TSN, January 16, 1974, p. 12.
69 Ibid., pp. 1142.
70 Ibid., p. 15.
71 Ibid., pp. 18–19.
72 Ibid., pp. 19–22.
73 Ibid., pp. 22–25.
74 Ibid., pp. 26–29.
23
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 23

reached the junction in Homapon, Major Molo, who was

with Fiscal Benito Se, told Pinto to go back with him to
Talahib. Although Pinto warned Major Molo that it would
be dangerous to go back because one of Bello’s men had
escaped, they nevertheless proceeded to Talahib. With
three other policemen, they arrived there between eight
and nine in the morning where they were instructed to
“look for evidence specifically x x x for a thompson.” He
found in the porch two shells and the others found a hat
and a flashlight. Thereafter, 75they returned to Mariawa and
later, to Legazpi City proper.
On cross-examination, Pinto stated that he did not know
that they found Bello in an area which was beyond the
jurisdiction of Legazpi City. He admitted that while they
were instructed to patrol the area, they were also told to
effect the arrest of Bello
76 even if no complaint had been
lodged against him. According to Pinto, of the fifteen
bullets in the magazine of his carbine, only two remained,
He fired 77“most” of the thirteen shots during the “Bello
incident".
Pinto shot the man later identified as Rosalio Andes
when he was at a distance of around three meters, Rosalio
was “face-toface” with him when Pinto shot him. As Rosalio
did not
78 fall from the first shot, Pinto continued shooting
him. When he went up the porch he saw the garand “lying
on the floor”79 but the gun tucked on Bello’s waist was still in
its holster.
On the Tiongson 80 incident, Pinto asserted that he did not
fire his carbine. When he saw the headlight of the

Tiongsons’ jeep, he also saw a flashlight being waved. A
little later, he heard a shout ordering the jeep to stop. Then
he heard one shot and immediately after, the volley of fire
as the jeep was going towards his direction.81 As it passed by
him, he heard the jeep’s passengers shriek.
For his part, Buenaflor declared that during the mission
to
________________
75 Ibid., pp. 30–33.

76 Ibid., pp. 45–47.
77 TSN, January 16, 1974 (p.m.), pp. 3–4.
78 Ibid., pp. 5–8.
79 Ibid., pp. 13–14.
80 Ibid., p. 36.
81 Ibid., pp. 37–40.
24

serve the search warrant on Bello, he carried the ".38

caliber revolver Tel.” (sic) which had been issued to him by
the Legazpi City Police Department. He did not fire his gun
at the Tiongsons and, “as a matter of 82fact,” he surrendered
his firearm for ballistic examination. In the afternoon of
December 26, however,
83 Major Molo issued him a Thompson
submachinegun.
While patrolling Homapon, he and Pinto “chanced upon”
some persons who told them that they could guide them to
where Bello was. At the place which they later found to be
Talahib, they went near a pili tree from where they saw a
house “below.” Then he saw a man who turned out to be
Mostoles. Buenaflor apprehended Mostoles because the
latter was Bello’s bodyguard and he had a .22 caliber
firearm with him. He came by another man with a bolo,
named “Banteque” and apprehended him also. Then, from
behind the pili tree, Pinto appeared with yet another man.
They waited for a while until another man, who turned out
to be Francisco Andes, came within four meters of him.
Buenaflor pointed his submachin egun at him so Andes
approached
84 him. Buenaflor confiscated Andes'.22 caliber
firearm.
From the group, Buenaflor learned that Bello provided
them with firearms and that Bello himself had a pistol
tucked in his holster as well as a garand. He and Pinto
then tied the men to the pili tree. Later, he saw a person in
the balcony of the house below and Buenaflor shouted
twice: “Paquito, mag-surrender ka!” Then Buenaflor heard
“a shot coming from the direction of the balcony followed by
successive shots.” He sought cover behind the pili tree and,
while in a crouching position, fired his submachinegun
towards the balcony. Pinto was then behind him. As Pinto
shifted his position while firing his carbine, Buenaflor went
down to the “elevated portion going down to the nipa
shack” until he was near the coconut tree. There he found a
person lying with his face down. He later85 found out that
the person was the son of Francisco Andes.
________________
82 TSN, February 12, 1974, pp. 5–6.

83 Ibid., p. 12.
84 Ibid., pp. 13–15.
85 Ibid., pp. 17–19.
25
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 25

After the firing had stopped, Pinto told him that Bello was
dead. Pinto then went up the house. Buenaflor went back
to the pili tree, untied the four persons they had captured,
and told them to do something so 86 they could carry the
bodies of Bello and (Rosalio) Andes.

Like Pinto, on cross-examination, Buenaflor also
asserted that he87 did not fire his gun at the jeep carrying
the Tiongsons. While admitting that the person who led
them to Bello had told them that the latter was in Talahib,
Buenaflor did not know that Talahib 88 was a barrio of
Daraga, Albay and not of Legazpi City. He reiterated
89 that
he shouted at Bello urging him to surrender but he was
not able to fire a warning shot or identify himself as a
member of the police force “because 90after the second shot
there was already a burst of gunfire".
Buenaflor affirmed that the first shot emanating from
the balcony of the house in Talahib which was around
fifteen meters
91 from the pili tree, came from a “high caliber
firearm". After they had found out that Bello was dead,
Pinto went up the house. Later, Pinto gave him Bello’s 380
92
automatic pistol and garand. Although he looked at those
firearms,
93 he did not determine whether they had been
fired. He noticed, however,
94 that the magazine of the
garand was “intact". Aside from Bello’s firearms,
Buenaflor and Pinto confiscated two .2295 caliber revolvers
and two bolos from Bello’s bodyguards.
Buenaflor stated that his Thompson submachinegun
had two clips with each clip containing 30 bullets. When he
gave back the firearm to Major Molo,
96 only four bullets were
left of the one clip he had used. He remembered having
squeezed twice the
________________
86 Ibid., pp. 19–220

87 Ibid., p. 27.
88 Ibid,. pp. 31–32.
89 Ibid., p. 35.
90 Ibid., p. 46.
91 Ibid., p. 45.
92 Ibid., pp. 59–60.
93 Ibid., pp. 61 & 65
94 Ibid., p. 64.
95 TSN, February 12, 1974 (p.m.), pp. 22–23.
96 TSN, February 12, 1974, pp. 48–49.
26

trigger of his
97 Thompson submachinegun or automatic rifle 98
in Talahib. His service revolver was still with him then.

As a result of this series of events, four separate
informations were filed against Pinto and Buenaflor. The
information charging Pinto and Buenaflor for the murder
of Andes which was filed on July 26, 1971 reads:
“That on or about the 27th day of December, 1970, in sitio Ando,

Barrio Talahib, Daraga, Albay and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court the accused, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping one another, without any
justifiable cause or motive, with intent to kill, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery and evident
premeditation, accused Pat. Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. and Pat.
Daniel Pinto, Jr., and by means of a Cal. 45 Thompson Sub-
Machine Gun, SN-213436 and a US Carbine Inland, Cal. 30, SN-
5099407, owned respectively by said accused, shoot one Rosalio
Andes, inflicting upon him gunshot wounds as described in the
attached Autopsy Report marked as Annex “A" and being made
an integral part of this Information, thereby causing upon said
Rosalio Andes serious and mortal wounds which led to his instan-
taneous death.
“Contrary to law.”
The information charging Pinto and Buenaflor with having

murdered Bello contains basically the same allegations as
the above and it was filed on the same date. On August 24,
1971 two other informations were filed against Pinto and
Buenaflor: one for the murder of Richard Tiongson and
another for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa
Tiongson. On arraignment, Pinto and Buenaflor both
pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
After trial, the trial court rendered the aforementioned
judgment of conviction. For the killing of Bello and Andes,
the trial court appreciated evident premeditation as a
qualifying circumstance and treachery, nighttime and use
of public position as aggravating circumstances. For the
incident involving the Tiongson children, it considered the
crimes as qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use
of public position.
________________
97 TSN, February 12, 1974 (p.m.), pp. 27–29.

98 Ibid., p. 35.
27
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 27

Pinto and Buenaflor instituted the instant appeal praying

for exoneration mainly on the basis of their claim that the
killings were perpetrated in the course of the performance
of their official duties as peace officers in obedience to the
lawful order of their superiors.
In order that the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of
a duty under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code may ber
successfully invoked, the defense has to prove that these
two requisites are present: (a) the offender acted in the
performance of a duty and (b) the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance or Iawful exercise of such duty. In the
absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes
an incomplete one thereby converting it into a mitigating99
circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code.

Admittedly, the appellants and the rest of the police
force involved, originally set out to perform a legal duty:
the service of a search warrant on Bello. In the process,
however, the appellants abused their authority resulting in
unauthorized and unlawful moves and consequences.
Armed with only a search warrant and the oral order to
apprehend Bello, they went beyond the ambit of their
mission and deprived Bello and two other persons of their
lives,
While the defense presented proofs that Bello had a
string of record in the police blotter for misdeeds ranging
from taking the harvest of their hacienda without the
permission of his parents to assaulting his stepfather, and
that he100 was “dangerous while under the influence of
liquor", there was no proof that he had been convicted of
any offense or that he was a dangerous fugitive from justice
which would warrant a “shootto-kill” order from police
authorities. Proof of bad moral character of the victim only
establishes a probability that he committed a crime but it
certainly cannot be the reason for annihilating him nor
may it prevail over facts proven showing
101 that the same
victim had been cold-bloodedly killed. As such, the
________________
99 Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed., p. 200.
100 TSN, December 12, 1973, p. 15.
101 See: People v. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18,1990; 189
28

suspicion that Bello was maintaining a private army was

not a sufficient justification for his being rubbed out
without due process of law.
The police theory that Bello authored the shooting of one
Salustiano Botin on Christmas eve is neither a justification
for his arrest without a warrant. It should be observed that
while the police had obtained a search warrant for illegal
possession of firearms against Bello even on Christmas day
which was supposed to be a holiday, no such effort was
made in securing a warrant of arrest for Bello’s alleged
frustrated killing of Botin. The improbability of the defense
evidence through the testimony of Botin himself that Bello
had shot him in the evening of December 24, 1970 is
bolstered by the same testimony showing that while he was
shot by Bello in the presence of the police force who were
converging at the junction of Homapon and Mariawa, the
same law enforcers were unable to arrest Bello. Besides the
fact that no other eyewitness corroborated Botin’s
testimony even in the face of his own admission that Bello
had no reason to shoot him, no complaint102 was ever lodged
against Bello for the alleged shooting.
On the other hand, the prosecution, through eyewitness
Rogelio Escober, tried to establish that during said
shooting incident, the police 103were looking for Bello at the
store of a certain Serrano. Unable to find Bello, the
police, specifically Pinto, mauled Escober while asking 104 him
to testify against Bello for allegedly shooting Botin. The

police had focused their vehicles’ headlights near the
bodega of ex-Mayor Los Baños in their effort to flush out
Bello who, unknown to the police, had earlier left the
vicinity. It was when the police fired at the 105said bodega
that Botin must have been accidentally shot. This story
was uncorroborated but if true, would show the police’s
dangerous propensity for using otherwise official
operations in an unlawful manner.
________________
SCRA 700, 711.

102 TSN, October 5, 1973, pp. 33–37; 42; 44–46; 70.
103 TSN, August 23, 1973, p. 29.
104 TSN, September 6, 1973, pp. 22–26,
105 Ibid., pp. 27, 42–43.
29
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 29

A propensity for rash judgment was likewise amply shown

at the incident involving the Tiongson children. Since the
jeep coming towards them was owned by the Anduizas, the
appellants acted obviously in the belief that Bello was its
passenger and posthaste they fired upon it even without
any reasonable inquiry as to the identity of its
106
passengers. Granting that the police indeed fired a
warning shot, sound discretion and restraint dictated that,
there being no responding shots from its passengers after
the alleged warning shot and considering the condition of
the road which was not only muddy but uphill, instead of
directing aimless gunburst at the jeep, the most that they
could have done was to render the jeep immobile by
shooting its tires. That way, they could have verified the
identity of the passengers. As it were, they riddled the jeep
with bullets injuring in the process innocent passengers
who were completely unaware of what they were up
against.
Appellants’ stark denial of firing their guns upon the
Tiongson family falls flat in the face of various
circumstantial evidence which point to their culpability.
There is the unflinching testimony of Sgt. Romero that he
saw “flashes of fire” from the direction of Buenaflor as the
jeep bearing the Tiongsons passed by. Said testimony was
corroborated by that of Rafael Jacob, the PC member of
team 2, that while no one in his team fired his gun, the
“sporadic firing” came from team 3 after the first burst of
fire107 which occurred while the jeep was “abreast of team
2". Even defense witness Mariano Rico, a policeman who
led team 1, was “sure” that he heard gunshots 108 at the
moment when"the jeep had just passed team 2".
Then there are the four empty .30 caliber carbine shells
which were found near the coconut tree where, according to
Romero, Pinto was deployed. While he himself carried a
carbine, Romero did not fire it and his testimony was never
contradicted. When the four empty shells were compared
with the test shells which were fired from the US carbine,
caliber .30 Inland Division, SN5099407, which, according to
the aforequoted information charg-
________________
106 People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257, 262 (1943).

107 TSN, April 5, 1972, pp. 16–17, 37.
108 TSN, January 17, 1974, pp. 41–42.
30

ing appellants with having killed Andes, was used by
Pinto, they were found 109to have “significant similar
individual characteristics".
While it is true that the ballistic report reveals that the
lead bullet taken from the body 110 of Richard was fired from a
Smith 6, Wesson type firearm and Buenaflor was proven

to be carrying a .38 caliber Tell revolver, the findings of
expert witnesses or, in this case, the ballistic report
pointing to another kind of caliber .38 weapon as the source
of Richard’s wound only serves as a guide 111 for the courts
after considering all the facts of the case. The undisputed
fact is that Buenaflor was specifically pointed by Romero as
the one who fired his firearm as the Anduiza jeep bearing
the Tiongsons passed by. Inasmuch as no evidence that
Romero would prevaricate to pin responsibility on
Buenaflor was ever presented,
112 there is, therefore, no reason
to discredit his testimony.
In addition to all these, Buenaflor’s motive for wanting
to do away with Bello has been established. Such motive
provided a circumstantial evidence
113 leading to the inference
that indeed he fired his gun. According to the unrebutted
testimony of Rogelio Escober, an overseer of the Napal
hacienda and constant companion of Bello, on November 1,
1970, Buenaflor and another policeman named Santos
Urbina, Jr. borrowed Bello’s jeep on the pretext that they
needed it to transfer Moscoso, the suspect in the Perez
killing, to the Albay Police Headquarters. When it was
returned, the jeep had bloodstains. Bello and Escober later
learned from a PC officer that the jeep had been used in
dumping in Guinobatan the body of Moscoso. Confronted by
the PC officer, Belle admitted that the jeep was borrowed
by Buenaflor and Urbina and agreed to execute a
________________
109 Supplementary Ballistics Report No. B-219–171, Exh. E-1 or I1.

110 Ballistic Report No. B-219–171, Exh. E or I.
111 People v. Aldana, G.R. No. 81817, July 27, 1989, 175 SCRA 635.
112 People v. Jutie, G.R. No. 72975, March 31, 1989, 171 SCRA 586.
113 People v. Gallo, G.R. Nos. 70193–96, January 11, 1988, 157 SCRA
17.
31
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 31

sworn statement on the matter. Consequently, the PC
authorities notified Mayor Imperial of the solution of the
Moscoso killing.
Three days later, Escober and Bello met Urbina who
warned Bello, “Kit, if you want to give your statement, just
say that I borrowed your jeep for thirty minutes. This is a
brotherly advice because something might happen to you.”
Bello retorted that he would do what was right and that
was to tell the truth. Urbina said that it was up to Bello
but he repeated that he was giving Bello a brotherly114
warning that something might happen to him (TSN,

August 23, 1973, pp. 4–20). These facts were of course
denied by Buenaflor. However, as between the positive
declaration of a prosecution witness and the negative 115
denial of the accused, the former deserves more credence.

All these pieces of circumstantial evidence point to no
other inference than that Pinto and Buenaflor fired their
guns in defiance of their superior
116 officer’s order only “to
find the whereabouts” of Bello and to desist from using
their weapons
117 “without clearance from the Chief of
Police". Since there is more than one circumstance and
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven,
the combination of all the circumstances is118 such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The fact that the victims were different from the ones
the appellants intended to injure cannot save them from
conviction. Aberratio ictus or mistake in the identity of
the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused
zeroes in on his intended victim. The main reason behind
this conclusion is the fact that
________________
114 According to the trial court, Urbina was one of the two police-men
accused of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-X-165 6, X-225 before the
said court but both cases were dismissed as to Urbina who died from
multiple gunshot wounds sustained in an encounter with elements of the
PC in Legazpi City (Decision, p. 57).
115 People v. Juanga, G.R. No. 83903, August 30, 1990, 189 SCRA 226.
116 TSN, March 15, 1972, p. 26.
117 TSN, December 13, 1973, pp. 8–9.
118 People v. Madriaga IV, G.R. No. 73057, March 8,1989, 171 SCRA
103 citing Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
32

the accused had acted with such a disregard for the life of
the victim(s)—without checking carefully the latter’s
identity as to place himself on the same legal plane as one 119
who kills another willfully, unlawfully and feloniously.

Neither may the fact that the accused made a mistake in
killing one man instead 120 of another be considered a
mitigating circumstance.
It is not even necessary to pinpoint who between Pinto
and Buenaflor actually caused the death of Richard or the
wounding of Maria Theresa in the presence of proof beyond
reasonable
121 doubt that they acted in conspiracy with each
other. Prior agreement between the appellants to kill
their intended victim is not essential to prove conspiracy as
the same may be inferred
122 from their own acts showing joint
purpose and design. In this case, such unity of purpose
and design is shown by the fact that only the two of them
fired their guns when the Anduiza jeep with the Tiongsons
passed by. This they did in defiance of the order of their
superior not to shoot unless ordered to do so. Conspiracy
having been proved, the guilt or culpability
123 is imposable on
both appellants in equal degrees.
The same conspiracy was evident in the killing of Bello
and Andes. The appellants’ concerted action was shown by
the manner by which they killed the two. In this incident,
however, they invoke self-defense as a justifying
circumstance. Evidence at hand, however, do not favor
their claim.
Under Article 11 (1) of the Rules of Court, an accused
must prove the presence of all the following elements of
said exempting circumstance: (a) unlawful aggression, (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending him-
________________
119 Calderon v. People and Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 216 (1954) citing
People v. Canis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943).
120 People v. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 (1930).
121 People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 80406, November 20, 1990,191 SCRA
503; People v. Sazon, supra at pp. 713 and 714; People v. Salcedo, G.R. No.
78774, April 12, 1989, 172 SCRA 78; People v. Basilan, G.R. No. 66257,
June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 115.
122 People v. Tachado, 170 SCRA 611.
123 People v. Macalino, G.R. No. 79387, August 31, 1989, 177 SCRA
155.
33
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 33

124
self. The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition

sine qua non. There can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete, unless the victim has committed an125 unlawful
aggression against the person defending himself.
In this case, Buenaflor insists that he fired at Bello
because, after calling out to him to surrender, his shout
was answered by a gunshot. Pinto corroborates his story
but the principal prosecution eyewitness in this incident,
Inocencia Malbas, swears that she heard no such shout to
surrender nor a gunshot from Bello’s direction before Bello
was fired upon by the appellants. Physical evidence as well
as the testimonies of Buenaflor himself and Pinto show
that Inocencia, and not the appellants, was telling the
truth.
Rafael Señora, the NBI agent who went to Talahib and
the road to Mariawa to investigate as well as to take
pictures, found no bullet marks at the crime scene which
would pertain to a .22126 caliber “paltik” firearm which Bello’s
men allegedly used. As no other “paltik” firearms were

recovered from the crime scene other than the two which
Buenaflor confiscated from Mostoles and Francisco Andes,
the possibility of said firearms or one of its kind having
been used by Bello’s men against the appellant particularly
the one who escaped is nil.
Buenaflor claimed that the 127 shot after his call to Bello
belonged to a high-powered gun obviously referring to the
firearms recovered from Bello himself. According to
Buenaflor, however, when he found the rifle, its magazine
was “intact” and he did not manipulate 128 the rifle to know
how many of its bullets had been used. Moreover, if Bello

indeed fired a gun, it must be the firearm in his holster and
not the garand which was found a couple of meters from
where Bello had fallen. That Bello did not fire any of his
two firearms is buttressed by Pinto’s own testimony that
Bello was smoking with his back towards
________________
124 People v. Batas, G.R. Nos. 84277–78, August 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 46.
125 People v. Sazon, supra at p. 704 citing People v. Batas, supra.
126 TSN, January 28, 1972, pp. 22–23.
127 TSN, February 12, 1974, p, 45.
128 Ibid., p. 64.
34

them when he was shot at and 129 that at that moment, he did
not see Bello holding a gun. We cannot help, therefore,

but conclude that the defense claim that Buenaflor’s call to
Bello was answered by a gunshot is but a figment of their
imagination designed for their own exoneration.
Appellants’ claim of unlawful aggression on the part of
Bello or his men would have been clarified had any of
Bello’s men whom they had captured been presented in
court. These men, Leoncio Mostoles, Francisco Andes,
Domingo Bantigue and Ananias Andes had executed
statements before the Legazpi City police to the effect that
they heard Buenaflor’s call for Bello to surrender and that
Bello fired his gun at the appellants. However, all four of
them later executed statements before the NBI retracting
said earlier statements in view of the fact that the police
had threatened130them to make the statements favorable to
the appellants.
As regards the unlawful aggression of Rosalio Andes
against Pinto, we find that if we are to believe Pinto, we
have to stamp full credibility on his statement alone. Even
Buenaflor admitted
131 that he did not see Rosalio Andes
attack Pinto. Inocencia swore that she did not 866 any
weapon near the fallen Rosalio. Indeed, if the aggression
did occur, Pinto would not have lost time in presenting in
court the bolo which Andes threatened to use on him. But
granting that Rosalio had a bolo, Pinto was not justified in
inflicting the wounds sustained by Rosalio because a mere
threatening attitude132of the victim will not constitute
unlawful aggression. Moreover, Pinto’s testimony that
Rosalio menacingly approached him with a bolo after
Buenaflor had released a gunburst directed at the house
where Bello was, is contrary to human behavior if not
totally ridiculous. On the contrary, by his own admission,
Pinto continued firing until he saw Rosalio fell.
________________
129 TSN, January 16, 1970 (p.m.), p. 13.

130 Exhs. S, T, TV & V.
131 TSN, February 12, 1974, p. 25.
132 Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 43537, July 3, 1990, 187
SCRA 123, 130; People v. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28,1989, 174
SCRA 285.
35
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 35

An accused who admits inflicting fatal injury on his victim

and invokes self-defense must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not only on the weakness of that of the
prosecution for, even 133if weak, the prosecution evidence
gains more credibility Unfortunately, in this case, inspite
of the fact that the prosecution had only one eyewitness to
the killing of Bello and Andes, the appellants had not
presented sufficiently strong evidence to shore up their
claim of self-defense.
We agree with the trial court that treachery attended
the commission of all four crimes in this case. The killing of
Richard Tiongson, Francisco Bello and Rosalio Andes as
well as the wounding of Maria Theresa Tiongson were all
so sudden that all of them were left defenseless. This is
shown not only by the testimonial evidence of the
commission of the crimes but also by134the nature and
location of the wounds of all the victims. The presence of
treachery qualifies the killings to murder and the
wounding of Maria Theresa to frustrated murder.
Nighttime, however, may not be appreciated as there is no
proof that it was specifically sought in the commission of
the crime and therefore we deem it absorbed by treachery.
Evident premeditation has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt in this case but we find that the
appellants indeed took advantage of their public position in
perpetrating the crime. Under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to death. There being no mitigating
circumstance to temper the penalty and there being only
the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their
public office under Article13514 (1) of the said Code, the
proper penalty is death. However, in view of the
constitutional abolition of the death penalty, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on the appellants for
each
________________
133 Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 130, People v. Sazon,

supra; People v. Lamosa, G.R. Nos. 74291–93, May 23, 1989, 173 SCRA
518.
134 People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 71142, September 19, 1988, 165 SCRA
425 citing People v. Abubakar, G.R. No. 32102, February 10, 1986,141
SCRA 286,
135 Article 64(3), Revised Penal Code.
36

of the three murders they committed.

For the wounding of Maria Theresa, the penalty
imposable, applying Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code,
is prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium.
There being no reason to further lower the penalty by one
degree pursuant to the provision of Article 250, and there
being one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, the penalty should be within the range of
prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal 136 medium.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper
penalty for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa is six
(6) years of prision correccional maximum as minimum to
ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum
as maximum. The indemnity of eight thousand pesos
imposed by the lower court should be respected considering
that while there is evidence as to the actual amount she
spent while confined at the Sacred Heart Hospital in
Legazpi City, there is no proof as to the expenses she
incurred after she was transferred to the Camp Crame
Hospital in Quezon City.
As in all cases wherein peace officers are accused, this
case creates a feeling of frustration in everyone. The crimes
commit-ted here ought to have no place in this democratic
and civilized society. True it is that a police officer is
sometimes left in a quandary when faced with a situation
where a decisive but legal action is needed. But, as this
Court said in Calderon vs. People and Court of Appeals (96
Phil. 216, 225 [1954]), "(t)he judgment and discretion of
public officers, in the performance of their duties, must be
exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within
reasonable limits. In the absence of a dear and legal
provision to the contrary, they must act in conformity with
the dictates of a sound discretion, and with the spirit and
purpose of the law.” Police officers must always bear in
mind that although they are dealing with criminal
elements against whom society must be protected, these
criminals are also human beings with human rights. In the
words of then Justice Moran in the Oanis case (Supra):
________________
136 People v. Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March 18,1991 citing People v.
Manalang, G.R. No. 67622, February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 149.
37
VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 37

“lt is, however. suggested that a notorious criminal ‘must be taken

by storm’ without regard to his right to life which he has by such
notoriety already forfeited. We may approve of this standard of
official conduct where the criminal offers resistance or does
something which places his captors in danger of imminent attack.
Otherwise, we cannot see how, as in the present case, the mere
fact of notoriety can make the life of a criminal a mere trifle in the
hands of officers of the law. Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for
redoubled official alertness and vigilance; it never can justify
precipitate action at the cost of human life. Where, as here, the
precipitate action of the appellants has cost an innocent life and
there exist no circumstances whatsoever to warrant action of such
character in the mind of a reasonably prudent man, condemnation
—not condonation—should be the rule; otherwise we would offer a
premium to crime in the shelter of official actuation.”
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby

affirmed subject to the modifications that appellants shall
solidarily be liable for the amount of Fifty Thousand
(P50,000) for each of the three murders they committed
and, for the frus-trated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson,
each of them shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of from
six (6) years of prision correccional maximum as minimum
to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum as maximum.
Inasmuch as appellant Daniel137Pinto, Jr. had been a
police officer for only five months when the crimes were
committed, let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Office of the President 138 for whatever action may be proper
to temper his penalty.

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., I concur but agree with Justice
Bidin,
Bidin, J., In the results, Since appellants had been
sentenced to suffer three (3) life imprisonments, the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should no longer be applied.
Decision affirmed with modifications.
________________
137 He entered the police force on July 22, 1970 (Exh. B).
138 Calderon v, People and Court of Appeals, supra.
38

People vs. Castro-Bartolome
Note.—Abuse of superior strength attended the

commission of the crime because the attackers cooperated
in such a way as to secure advantage of their combined
strength to perpetrate the crime with impunity. (People v.
Baluyot, 170 SCRA 569.)
——o0o——
© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Pinto, Jr. 1991

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Pinto, Jr. 1991

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Pinto, Jr. 1991

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOL.

204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 9

G.R. No. 39519. November 21,1991.

PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee, vs.

Criminal Law; Murder, Frustrated Murder; Requisites of

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Pinto, Jr.

the absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes an

Same; Same; Same; Mistake in identity of victims.—The fact

Same; Conspiracy.—It is not even necessary to pinpoint who

Same; Elements of Self-defense.—Under Article 11 (1) of the

VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 11

Same; Qualifying circumstance of treachery.—We agree with

APPEAL from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

As an aftermath of the mission of the Legazpi City Police

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Narciso Buenaflor,

(a) MURDER in CCC-X-288-Albay, and hereby sentences

1 Penned by Judge Ricardo Payumo.

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the amount of Twenty-five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos,

In addition to the foregoing the accused are sentenced to suffer

According to the prosecution, on December 25, 1970, the

VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 13

the city police. The Chief of Police was assisted by Major

Romero was the PC member assigned to the team. Except

the policemen of Team 3 each carried a .38 caliber pistol.

5 Ibid., pp. 6–10.

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

right of Buenaflor, Sgt, de la Paz was two meters to his

Luna. When Romero heard the gunburst, he saw “flashes

Tiongson saw blinking lights some 300 yards ahead.

hold-uppers, Fr. Capellan told the driver to go faster.

11 TSN, March 13, 1972, pp. 67–70.

VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 15

shot and after a few seconds and around 50 meters ahead,

Tiongson of the PC, the rapid firing sounded “automatic".

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

risk". The hospital

30 According to Fr. Capellan, Mayor Imperial was in a car parked in the

VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 17

for further treatment and hospitalization but the foreign

autopsied, a lead slug was 40 found embedded in his heart.

His mother paid P862.35 for his hospitalization and was

Funeraria Oro for Richard’s burial.

“December 26, 1970

‘To All Concerned:

“The following men mentioned below are hereby assigned at

36 TSN, February 9, 1972, pp. 40–41.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

December 26, 1970:

“1. Sgt Salvador de la Paz, In-charge

“Report progress of mission any time of day through the radio

The mission was to keep peace and order in the specified

place and to determine the whereabouts of Bello. It was

the squad that went to Homapon". For a “convenient

another son of Francisco, also arrived with the group.

group be allowed to spend the night in Inocencia’s house.

VOL. 204, NOVEMBER 21, 1991 19

Inocencia, with her two-year-old child in her arms, was