7. THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANASTASIO MAISA, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-3728.

September 25, 1907]

(Ito na miso yung case)

The accused alleged that the blow was aimed at Machon, and not at Monrayo. Although the wrongful act be committed against
a person other than the one whom it was intended to injure, this fact does not excuse the offender from criminal liability for
the voluntary commission of a wrongful act or misdemeanor, according to paragraph 3 of article 1 of the Penal Code.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from, whereby the accused is sentenced to two years four months and one day of prisión
correccional, and to pay Isaac Monrayo an indemnity of 50 pesos or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
is hereby affirmed. And he is further sentenced to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

9 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGARDO HERRERA, accused-appellant.

On May 29, 1996 Enrique Ganan was sitting on a steel chair at his home eating fishballs while cuddling his youngest child.
He was engaged in a conversation with Ma. Rizza Aguilar and his brother Edwin. His wife, Mariel was situated a few meters
away. At the same time, Corazon Cajipo was chatting with a friend about ten (10) meters away. The calm evening air was
shattered when someone armed with a .38 caliber revolver suddenly approached Enrique from behind and fired at close range.
Although wounded, Enrique managed to pass his child to his brother in the ensuing uproar and attempted to crawl to safety.
His attacker, however, followed and pumped more bullets into him. After firing the sixth shot, the assailant casually walked
away. When the smoke cleared, Enrique Ganan and Corazon Cajipo, who caught a slug in her temple, lay bloodied and fatally
wounded.

Accused Edgardo Herrera was charged with Murder.

For Corazons death, Herrera was indicted for Homicide.

Accused entered a plea of Not Guilty to the crimes charged.

RTC: finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.

Issue: W/N HERRERA IS GUILTY

Held:

First, accused-appellant claims that Ganan grabbed the muzzle of his gun only to turn around when he admitted that the gun
was tucked in his waist and he pulled it out so the victim was not able to grab it. These contradictory accounts alone on how
accused-appellant drew his gun seriously undermines his claim of self-defense.

Second, it is inconceivable how he could have aimed the weapon at Ganans hand and then fire it when they were supposedly
grappling for possession of the gun most of the time. The sequence described by accused-appellant where he held his revolver
up in the air with his extended right hand and then fired a third shot at the victim before he resumed the same position
particularly strains the credulity of the Court.

Third, going by accused-appellants account, it simply goes against the grain of human experience for both accused-appellant
and the victim who were supposedly grappling for possession of the revolver not to be momentarily startled by not only one
but two gunshots coming from another firearm. It is also highly unusual that Ganan would want to grab possession of the
accused-appellants handgun while the said gun was pointed at both of them.
Fourth, it is likewise unusual for accused-appellant, allegedly distracted by gunfire from an unidentified assailant and whose
eyes are supposed to be focused towards the gunman, to have fired at point-blank range and to hit the victim at the back of
the head had not the latter, for some arcane reason, stooped down as if to deliberately meet the oncoming bullets trajectory.

Fifth, it is equally odd that while accused-appellant claims that he was fired upon, neither he nor the eyewitnesses to the
incident was able to identify the supposed gunman, considering that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal
violence to look at the faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often, the
face of the attacker, and his body movements create lasting impressions which cannot be easily erased from their memory.
Curiously too, neither were any slugs or spent shells from the alleged assailants firearm recovered from the crime scene.

Sixth, accused-appellant mentions seeing a gun tucked in the waist of Ganan which the latter allegedly tried to pull out when
he raised his shirt. However, other than accused-appellants bare allegation that he saw the firearm tucked in the victims waist,
there is no other evidence on record to show that the alleged gun of the victim ever existed.

Seventh, the nature and number of the gunshot wounds negates accused-appellants claim of self-defense. The victim suffered
six (6) gunshot wounds on the head, shoulder, right arm, right hand, and right thigh. If accused-appellant shot the victim just
to defend himself, it certainly defies reason why he had to pump several bullets on the head, shoulder, arm and thigh of the
latter. What is more damning, Dr. Ludovino Lagat, the Medico Legal Officer who performed the autopsy on the victim
testified that the most fatal wound located on the head, was inflicted not more than half an inch from behind,[40] or at point-
blank range. It has been held in this regard that the location and presence of several wounds on the body of the victim is
physical evidence that eloquently refutes accused-appellants allegation of self-defense.

Eighth, the calm and composed demeanor of accused-appellant in the face of an outrage committed on his person is not the
normal behavior of someone who has just suffered the embarrassment of being urinated upon and kicked around in public
when he confronted the alleged perpetrator of such an offensive affront on his dignity.

Ninth, accused-appellants allegation of self-defense was established solely by his testimony. He failed to corroborate his claim
of self-preservation with evidence other than his own testimony. In this connection, it has been held that the plea of self-
defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also
extremely doubtful in itself.

Succinctly stated, accused-appellants tale is too riddled with loopholes to be believed. The Court has consistently held that to
be credible, testimonial evidence should not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but it should also be credible,
reasonable and in accord with human experience.

In sum, accused-appellant failed to corroborate his claim of self-defense with evidence other than his own testimony, despite
the fact that there were other persons in the locus criminis when the incident happened and who, therefore, may have witnessed
it.

In stark contrast, the evidence of the prosecution is well nigh overwhelming.

First, there were three (3) eyewitnesses to the incident, namely: Ma. Rizza Aguilar, Ma. Elena Sobrevilla and the victims
widow, Mariel M. Ganan. All three (3) eyewitnesses positively identified accused-appellant as the gunman who fired the shots
which killed Enrique Ganan and Corazon Cajipo. All three (3) eyewitnesses declared that Ganan was shot on his right by the
accused-appellant from behind. All three (3) eyewitnesses remained steadfast and unyielding on cross-examination that
accused-appellant was the assailant who shot the deceased,[59] despite repeated attempts by defense counsel to throw them
off track. While the said eyewitnesses may be either close or related by affinity to the victim, no less than accused-appellant
himself admitted that he could not impute any ill-motive against any of them for testifying against him.

Second, the physical evidence, namely the multiple gunshot wounds sustained by Enrique Ganan, belie to accused-appellants
testimony that he hit the victim only once. Indeed, the sheer number of wounds alone totally negates accused-appellants
pretensions at self-defense and, in fact, indicates a determined effort on his part to kill and not just defend himself. Intent to
kill may be deduced from the nature of the wound inflicted and the kind of weapon used. In this case, accused-appellant was
armed with a .38 caliber revolver. While the victim sustained only one head wound, its location and the distance from which
it was fired confirms the prosecutions account that Ganan was shot from behind above the back of his right ear at point blank
range.
Third, immediately after the incident, accused-appellant fled to Batangas and hid there for one and a half (1) months. Flight
strongly indicates a guilty mind and betrays the existence of a guilty conscience. Indeed, flight is an implied admission of
guilt and accused-appellants act of fleeing to Batangas after shooting the victims cannot but betray his guilt and his desire to
evade responsibility therefor. Certainly, a righteous individual will not cower in fear and unabashedly admit the killing at the
earliest possible opportunity if he were morally justified in doing so. If the accused-appellant honestly believed that his acts
constituted self-defense against the unlawful aggression of the victim, he should have reported the incident to the police
instead of escaping and avoiding the authorities.

All told, the Court finds no reason to reverse the ruling of the court a quo insofar as the crimes were committed. What remains
to be determined is the propriety of the penalties imposed on accused-appellant.

With regard Criminal Case of Murder is the unlawful killing of any person when qualified by any of the circumstances listed
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Treachery or alevosia, aptly alleged in the information, is one such qualifying
circumstance.

Given the prevailing facts of the case, the Court agrees with the trial court that the killing of Enrique Ganan was attended by
alevosia. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make. The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two
conditions for the same are present, i.e. (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself,
and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. The essence
of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim.

In the case at bar, Enrique Ganan was in the comforts of his home, eating fishballs while cuddling his youngest daughter and
was engaged in conversation with some visitors when he was shot in the head from behind by the gunman. As in the recent
case of People v. Padilla, treachery is evident when the accused-appellant suddenly positioned himself at the back of the
unsuspecting victim, pointed his gun at him and, without any warning, promptly delivered the fatal shots. The victim was
unaware of the attempt on his life and the danger that lurked behind him. There was no way the victim could have defended
himself, taken flight or avoided the assault. The attendance of treachery qualifies the killing to Murder.

As regards Criminal Case of Homicide, the Solicitor General points out that that there is jurisprudential support to upgrade
the killing of Corazon Cajipo to Murder on account of alevosia although she was not the intended victim of the assailant.

Citing People v. Basao, the Solicitor contends that assuming the real object of the assault was Enrique Ganan and
that the death of Corazon Cajipo was purely accidental, it does not modify the nature of the crime nor lessen the
accuseds criminal liability because when accused-appellant fired his gun, the attack was made in continuous aggression
that cannot be broken up to constitute separate, distinct and independent assaults.

The cases at bar clearly do not fall under any of the two instances of complex crimes that would merit the imposition of the
prescribed penalty in its maximum period. In this case, accused-appellant, using a single action .38 cal. Smith & Wesson
revolver, fired several times.

The sad fact remains that for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, Corazon’s life came to an abrupt end. On that fateful
evening while she was chatting with a friend, her young life was cut short by a stray bullet fired from accused-appellants gun.
While it may not have been the intention of accused-appellant to shoot her, this fact will not exculpate him because, as we
pointed out in People v. Hilario, The fact that accused killed a person other than their intended victim is of no moment.
According to Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act be different from that which is intended. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the
consequences which may naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of the rule
is found in the doctrine, el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado, or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused. The accused performed voluntary acts. The purpose was to kill. Hence, notwithstanding the mistake in the
identity of the victim, the accused is still criminally liable.