People of the Philippines v.

Rolando Dagani y Reyes and Otello Santiago y Leonida

G.R. No. 153875. August 16, 2006

Austria-Martinez, J.

Simple Explanation

Santiago shot drunken Javier while Dagani restrained him. They can’t say self defense
and officially doing their duty because the victim stopped being dangerous the moment
Dagani restrained him. They also could not show the bullet shells and holes in the walls of
the cafeteria as evidence that Javier fought back. Treachery and conspiracy can’t be proved
though because Dagani restraining Javier and Santiago shooting him is the only proof
prosecution have of it. For conspiracy, they have no proof that the appellants planned it all
out and Santiago testified that Dagani looked surprised when he shot Javier so they were
acquitted for conspiracy. For treachery, by definition the victim must be completely unable to
defend himself. Since Javier was not completely subdued, it doesn’t count. Also there was no
other proof that Dagani and Santiago were planning to commit the crime besides Dagani
restraining him and Santiago shooting him. So the decision will be favourable to the accused
and Santiago was charged with homicide instead while Dagani was acquitted.

Full Notes

Facts:

Dagani and Santiago were security officers of the Philippine National Railways (PNR) along
C.M Recto Avenue, Tondo, Manila found guilty of murder by the Regional Trial Court which
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Prosecution claimed that Ernesto Javier, Lincoln Miran, and two other individuals had been
drinking at the canteen. Suddenly, appellants entered and Dagani shoved Miran and held
Javier while Santiago shot Javier twice on his left side, killing him.

Appellants testified that they were ordered by their desk officer to investigate a commotion at
the canteen. Santiago ordered Dagani to enter while he waited outside.

Javier took out a .22 caliber revolver and tried to shoot Dagani but it failed to go off.

Santiago meanwhile heard gunshots and saw Dagani and Javier grappling for the .22 which
went off. Santiago fired a warning shot then heard it fire again forcing him to rush into the
canteen then shot Javier.

Appellants invoke self-defense and lawful performance of official duty as PNR security
officers.
Appellants also claimed that prosecution failed to prove treachery and conspiracy.

RTC held:

- Appellants failed to prove that Javier attempted to squeeze the trigger as the
appellants could not produce the two empty gun shells as evidence and no points of
entry or bullet markings on the walls of the canteen were shown.
- Overall, the victim did not show aggression in light of this evidence
- During the struggle to possess the gun, the victim is no longer a threat.
- Appellants failed to prove they were under official duty.
- Since it was not proven that Javier fired his gun, they cannot invoke official duty.
- Qualifying circumstance of treachery was that Javier was shot while being restrained.
- Appellants had mitigated circumstance of voluntary surrender.
- Sentenced to each suffer an Indeterminate prison term of ten years and one day of
prision mayor as minimum, to eighteen years and one day of reclusion temporal
- Indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, the sum
of P31,845.00 as funeral and burial expenses, the sum of P30,000.00 as and for
attorney's fees and the further sum of P1,000.00 per appearance of counsel.
- Credited with the full extent of their preventive imprisonment and committed to the
Director, National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila for service of Sentence.

Appellants appealed to Court of Appeals and modified judgement to reclusion perpetua and
deleted award of attorney's fees and the per appearance fees of counsel since case is criminal
and fees are under control of public prosecutor and that RTC failed to justify award and
reclusion perpetua because Indeterminate Sentence Law penalty for murder was reclusion
perpetua regardless of mitigating circumstance.

Appellants are now at the court submitting for resolution the same as with CA.

Issues:

WON appellants are able to invoke self defense

WON there was conspiracy and treachery

WON appellants are guilty of murder

Appellants insist that victim would be quite probable in the struggle to easily kill them.

The court does not agree.

When invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused.

Self-defense requires:

- An unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender

- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful
aggression
 - Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All these
conditions must concur.

Saying Javier easily killing them being quite probably is speculative at best. The peril should
be imminent and actual.

When Dagani grappled Javier’s hands, Dagani would have been able to handle it without
bloodshed and fatally injuring the offender is not a necessary consequence to his official
duties. Right to kill offender is not absolute and may only be used as a last result.

The court cannot agree that they were in conspiracy however; the victim had been shot by
one of the accused while being held by a co-accused is not enough clear evidence to prove
conspiracy as they are mere conjecture, presumption or suspicion. That Santiago described
Dagani to be shocked while standing and looking at the victim show that Dagani did not
expect Santiago to shoot Javier. Therefore, the court acquitted appellants of conspiracy.

The Court cannot say that treachery attended the attack under par. 16 of Article 14 of the
Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods or forms in
the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim
might raise. Treachery is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means,
methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.

Prosecution to prove the assault of the appellants are deliberately adopted as a mode of
attack. Other than Santiago shooting Javier while Dagani restrained him, there was no other
facts prove that it was planned out or predetermined to ensure it happens nor had the risk of
the victim to retaliate been completely eliminated as he was only partially subdued.

The court looks upon the helplessness of the victim to be merely incidental and the decision
to shoot was made in an instant. Since treachery cannot be proved fully and convincingly, the
ruling shall be favourable to the accused and therefore, Santiago shall be charged of
homicide.

Santiago had aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position by using his
gun on Javier but had a mitigating circumstance by surrendering.

Sentence: CA decision is modified Santiago is found guilty of homicide suffer the penalty of
an indeterminate sentence from eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to
fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Appellant
Santiano is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as death
indemnity, P31,845.00 as funeral and burial expenses, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages,
P30,000.00 as attorney's fees and P1,000.00 per appearance of counsel. Appellant Santiano
shall be credited with the full extent of his preventive imprisonment.

Dagani is acquitted.