PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BALTAZAR AMION y DUGADUGA, Accused-Appellant.
Facts
SPO2 Baltazar Amion y Dugaduga, a member of the Bacolod City Police Office (BCPO) was charged with the crime of Murder for the death of PO3
Victor Vaflor, a member of the Escalante Police Station, under the following Information:
"That on or about the 24th day of January, 1994, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein
accused, without any justifiable cause or motive, being then armed with an M16 Armalite Rifle, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and
evident premeditation, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and shoot with said firearm one Victor Vaflor, Jr.
The prosecution presented: 1) Police Supt. Edmundo Sanicas of the BCPO; 2) PO3 Richard Dejoras, 34, a member of the Escalante Police Station; 3)
SPO2 Virgilio Pachoro, a member of the BCPO; 4) Mrs. Antoinietta Vaflor, widow of the late PO3 Victor Vaflor; 5) Dr. Johnnie V. Aritao, City Health
Officer, Bacolod City Health Office; and 6) SPO3 Francisco Castidad, a member of the BCPO and the officer-in-charge of its Property Division. The
defense presented accused Amion and his companion at the time of the incident, Ricardo Divino. The trial court 2 found Chief Inspector Sanicas and
PO3 Dejoras to be credible witnesses, and rejected the testimony of CVO Ricardo Divino. Finding the evidence against the accused as "simply
overwhelming", the court rendered judgment as follows:
"FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused SPO2 Baltazar Amion y Dugaduga, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as Principal by
Direct Participation of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
R. A. 7659. The following ordinary aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the crime:
1. Abuse of public office due to the use of his service firearm in the killing;
2. Use of motor vehicle which facilitated the commission of the crime; and
3. Aid of armed men in the commission of the crime.
There is present only one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
The accused is therefore sentenced to suffer the MAXIMUM PENALTY OF DEATH. He is also sentenced to pay by way of civil liability, the
following:
1. To the heirs of the late PO3 Victor Vaflor, the sum of P50,000.00 as death indemnity and P88,800.00 as compensatory damages;
2. To Mrs. Antonietta Vaflor, the sum of P10,000.00 as moral damages."
Issue: THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE TESTIMONIES OF PO3 RICHARD DEJORAS AND CI EDUARDO
SANICAS WHICH CONTAINED STATEMENTS THAT WERE NOT ONLY FALSE BUT HIGHLY IMPROBABLE;
Ruling:
The trial court concluded that the testimonies of Sanicas and Dejoras positively show that the accused suddenly, deliberately and without warning, shot
to death PO3 Victor Vaflor in the afternoon of January 24, 1994 at Brgy. Mansilingan, Bacolod City. The firearm used in the killing was an armalite
rifle with Serial No. RP-186739 which was issued to him in his official capacity as a member of the Bacolod City Police Office. The trial court found
that the motive for the killing is revenge as the victim is one of those charged with murder for the death of Amion's uncle many years ago. The killing
was attended by treachery as the accused was already waiting by the gate when victim emerged and was fired upon with an M16 armalite rifle and was
thus absolutely unprepared for the attack and had no chance to defend himself or to escape. We find no cogent justification to disturb the findings of
the trial court.
We do not agree with accused-appellant that the testimonies of Dejoras and Sanicas were highly improbable. Accused-Appellant claims that based on
their testimonies he could not have shot Vaflor without harming Sanicas and Dejoras; that since Dejoras had come out of the gate first, he should have
retreated and closed the gate when he saw Amion since he knew of the feud existing between him and Vaflor; and that the nature of the gunshot wounds
sustained by Vaflor do not support the testimony of Sanicas that he shot Vaflor from a distance of one (1) meter. The objections refer to minor matters
and do not detract from the positive identification of accused-appellant as the assailant. Moreover, the two (2) witnesses corroborated each other on the
essential points regarding the shooting incident.
With respect to the attendant circumstances, we agree with the Solicitor General that the use of a motor vehicle cannot be considered as an aggravating
circumstance, as the police vehicle used to reach the Sanicas residence was not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act.11 Although the
accused-appellant used a patrol car to commute from Escalante to the Sanicas residence, there is no showing that the use of that vehicle facilitated the
act of shooting itself.
Neither may the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men be appreciated in this case. The trial court found that during the shooting, an armed
companion was on board the patrol car pointing his rifle in the direction of Dejoras. In the first place, this aggravating circumstance contemplates more
than one armed man, as the use of the plural form easily suggests. In the second place, the requisites of this aggravating circumstance are: 1) that armed
men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and 2) that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them
when the crime was committed. Neither circumstance was proven present; it is clear from the evidence that the accused-appellant carried out the killing
all by himself and did not rely on his companion for assistance.
We also do not agree that the fact that accused-appellant used his service firearm in shooting Vaflor should be considered as an aggravating circumstance
as he took advantage of his public position.12 There is authority to the effect that for public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance,
the public official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose
In view of the absence of aggravating circumstances and the presence of one mitigating circumstance, the penalty imposed by the trial court should be
modified.
