People v.

Antonio
G.R. No. 128900 | July 14, 2000 | YNARES-SANTIAGO, J | First Division

TOPIC: ARTICLE 19

FACTS: •The victim, Arnulfo Arnie Tuadles, a former professional basketball player,
succumbed instantaneously to a single gunshot wound right between the eyes, inflicted
with deadly precision by the bullet of a .9mm caliber Beretta pistol.

•Convicted of murder by the trial court as the killer is Alberto Ambet S. Antonio, a one-
time chairman of the Games and Amusement Board (GAB). It was during his stint as
such that he and Tuadles became socially acquainted. They somehow lost touch, but
later became reacquainted when they both started frequenting the International
Business Club (IBC), located along Wilson Street in San Juan, Metro Manila, which
houses amenities such as a dining room, music bar and gameroom. 

•November 1, 1996. Antonio, Tuadles, and a certain Danny Debdani, then president of

the IBC, had agreed to meet at the club for another poker session, their third night in a
row. Antonio arrived at the club first, followed by Tuadles at around midnight. Debdani,
however, failed to appear, so after waiting for sometime, Antonio and Tuadles decided
to play pusoy dos, a game for two (2) players only. They continued playing until
morning, pausing only when either of them had to visit the restroom. They stopped
playing at around 9:00 oclock in the morning of November 2, 1996, to eat breakfast.

•The prosecution alleged and sought to prove that in the course of an argument, without
warning or cause, Antonio pulled his gun from behind his back and shot Tuadles at very
close range, thus employing treacherous means to accomplish the nefarious deed. The
pivotal evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of one Jose Jimmy T.
Bobis, a security guard who testified as to how the shooting of Tuadles occurred.

•On the other hand, the defense hinged its opposing arguments on the testimony of
accused Antonio himself, who testified that their argument was caused by Tuadles
refusal to pay Antonios winnings. In the middle of a heated altercation where they
traded expletives, Tuadles suddenly grabbed Antonios gun from atop a
sidetable. Fearing for his life, Antonio claimed that he reached for Tuadles hand and
they grappled for possession of the gun. As they wrestled, a single shot roared, Tuadles
fell face down to the floor, and Antonio was left too stunned to recall who had actually
pulled the trigger. In fine, Antonio alleged that the shooting was accidental, and his only
motivation was to defend himself.

•He also refuted the testimony of the prosecutions eyewitness, averring that SG Bobis
could not have seen the actual shooting since he (Bobis) and co-accused SPO4 Juanito
Nieto, who were alerted by Antonios yells, reached the scene when Tuadles had
already been shot and was lying on the floor.
•While Tuadles lay bloodied and still, no one remembered to call an ambulance or
check if he was still alive. Instead, and there is no dispute in these succeeding events,
Antonio convinced the two (2) security guards, prosecution eyewitness SG Bobis
included, to accompany him to his home in Greenmeadows Subdivision, Quezon City,
after which they proceeded to the San Juan Police Station. With them was SPO4 Nieto,
a member of the San Juan Police Force. They remained at Antonios residence for
several hours, during which time Antonio made phone calls and summoned his
lawyer. In the afternoon, Antonio, accompanied by SPO4 Nieto, placed himself and his
gun in the custody of San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada and the police authorities. Later,
the two security guards and SPO4 Nieto were driven back to the club where they waited
for the police investigators. Sometime thereafter, SG Bobis narrated the events and
executed his statement at the police station, a statement which he would repudiate
three (3) days later.

•RTC: Antonio guilty of murder. Nieto and Cartalla guilty as accessories.

ISSUE: 1) WON the trial court erred in convicting Nieto as an accessory? (relevant to
the topic) – No.
2) WON the trial court erred in convicting Cartalla as an accessory? (relevant to the
topic) – Yes
3) WON SG Bobis is a credible witness despite changes of his statements? – Yes.
4) WON the shooting of Tuadles was caused by mere accident that Antonio acted in
self-defense? – No.
5) WON the trial court erred in convicting Antonio for the crime of murder? – Yes.

HELD:
1) •Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, there are two (2)
classes of accessories, one of which is a public officer who harbors, conceals or assists
in the escape of the principal. Such public officer must have acted with abuse of his
public functions, and the crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not
a light felony.

•Nieto's actuations immediately after the commission of the crime demonstrate his
liability as an accessory. Being a police officer in the active service, he had the duty to
arrest appellant Antonio after the latter committed a crime in his presence, and which he
himself witnessed. Unfortunately, he failed to do what was incumbent upon him to do.
Instead, he rode with the offender to the latter's house where they stayed for more than
five (5) hours.

•Furthermore, Nieto provided false information to deceive the investigating authorities.

He instructed Bobis to answer falsely to the questions of the investigating officer, in
order to make it appear that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and thus make
it more difficult for the police to solve the crime.

2) • The trial court's sole reason for convicting appellant SPO1 Cartalla, Jr. was his
failure to produce the laser sight of the gun as evidence during the trial.
• SPO1 Cartalla, Jr. did not intentionally conceal or destroy the laser sight, and the
prosecution failed to prove that he did so with intent to derail the prosecution of the
principal accused. On the other hand, while the laser sight was an accessory device
attached to the gun, it was not essential to the commission, investigation and
prosecution of the crime. The gun itself, which was the instrument of the crime, was
surrendered to the authorities and presented as evidence in court. The failure of
appellant SPO1 Cartalla, Jr. to present the laser sight as part of the evidence did not in
any way affect the outcome of the trial, much less prevent the discovery of the crime.
Furthermore, there is no showing that appellant SPO1 Cartalla, Jr. profited by the non-
presentation of the laser sight.

3) • SG Bobis explained the reason why he was moved to give false information in his
first statement. He had testified that moments after he saw appellant Antonio shoot
Tuadles, the appellant warned him: "Ikaw, 'wag kang tumistigo, ha.". Thus, SG Bobis
stated that his conscience bothered him, and seeing Tuadles' widow crying on
television, he gathered enough resolve and courage to finally tell the truth to the police
authorities at the EPD.

•SC respect the findings of the trial court on the issue of the credibility of SG Bobis as
an eyewitness, especially considering that the trial court was in a better position to
decide the question, having heard the witness himself and observed his deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.

4) •To successfully interpose self-defense, appellant Antonio must clearly and

convincingly prove: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) the reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) the person
defending himself must not have provoked the victim into committing the act of
aggression.

•When an accused invokes self-defense or claims that it was an accident to escape

criminal liability, he admits having caused the death of the victim. And when he fails to
prove by clear and convincing evidence the positiveness of that justifying circumstance,
having admitted the killing, conviction of the accused is inescapable.

•Appellant Antonio had to rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness
of the prosecution's evidence for, even if the latter were weak, his invoking self-defense
is already an open admission of responsibility for the killing. As it was, appellant
Antonio's testimony is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent
evidence, but also doubtful by itself for being ambivalent and self-serving.

5) •To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the accused made some
preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or
to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. A killing done at
the spur of the moment is not treacherous."
• It was Antonio's sudden anger and heated passion which drove him to pull his gun and
shoot Tuadles. Said passion, however, cannot co-exist with treachery. In passion, the
offender loses his reason and control. In treachery, on the other hand, the means
employed is adopted consciously and deliberately. One who, in the heat of passion,
loses his reason and self-control, cannot consciously employ a particular means,
method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. Thus, the killing of Tuadles by
appellant Antonio was not attended by treachery. Only guilty of Homicide, not murder.

•However, the SC find merit of mitigating circumstance considering that all the elements
in order that voluntary surrender may be appreciated were attendant in his case. First,
he had not been actually arrested; Second, he surrendered himself to a person in
authority; and Third, his surrender was voluntary. It is of no moment that appellant
Antonio did not immediately surrender to the authorities, but did so only after the lapse
of about six (6) hours.