Virgilio Talampas Matic vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 180219

Facts:

This is a petition on certiorari, Virgilio Talampas y Matic seeks the review of the affirmance of his
conviction for homicide (for the killing of the late Ernesto Matic y Masinloc). On July 5, 1995 Jose Sevillo
(witness) while repairing his tricycle noticed Virgilio Talampas riding on a bicycle passed by and stopped.
The respondent was about 3 meters away from him, walked a few steps and brought out a short gun, a
revolver, and poked the same to Eduardo and fired it, Eduardo hid behind his brother Ernesto and the
appellant again fired his gun three times hitting Ernesto and causing him to fall to the ground.

On the defense of Talampas, he imposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that Eduardo hit
him with a monkey wrench and that they grappled for it. Talampas noticed that Eduardo was holding a
revolver and they both grappled for it again. While they were grappling, the revolver accidently fired
hitting Ernesto, during their struggle with each other the revolver again fired hitting Eduardo in the
thigh. Virgilio managed to seize the revolver and shot Eduardo in the head.

The RTC supported the testimony of the eyewitness and convicting Talampas of homicide. Talampas
appealed to the Court of Appeals but the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC because Talampas did not
provide enough evidence to support his claim of self-defense and accident. Talampas now petitioned to
the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Talampas can impose self-defense and accident.

Held:

No. The Supreme Court stated that Talampas cannot impose self-defense and accident because it was
Talampas who started the attack and that neither Eduardo nor Ernesto committed any unlawful
aggression against Talampas. The elements of the plea of self-defense are:

a. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim

b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself.

Thus, Talampas was not repelling any unlawful aggression form the victim (Ernesto), rendering his plea
of self-defense unwarranted.

The Supreme Court also warranted that Talampas could not relieve himself of criminal liability by
invoking accident as a defense. Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code, the legal provision about
accident, contemplates a situation where a person is in fact in the act of doing something legal (lawful),
exercising due care, diligence and prudence, but in the process, produces harm or injury to someone or
to something not in the least in the mind of the actor an accidental result flowing out of a legal act (no
intent).
Talampas poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow a circumstance that neither
exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability.

The Court Affirms the his conviction of the crime of homicide.

Lito Vino petitioner

Vs.

The People of the Philippines respondent

Facts:

At about 7:00 oclock in the evening of March 21, 1985, Robert Tejada left their house at Burgos
Street, Poblacion, Balungao, Pangasinan to go to the house of Isidro Salazar to watch television. At
around 11:00 P.M., while Ernesto, the father of Roberto, was resting, he heard two gunshots. He heard
Roberto cry out in a loud voice saying that he had been shot. The neighbors and Ernesto met Roberto,
Ernesto and Julius saw Lito Vino and Jessie Salazar riding a bicycle coming from the south. Vino was the
one driving the bicycle while Salazar was carrying an armalite. Upon reaching Ernestos house, they
stopped to watch Roberto. Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions and left.

Roberto was brought to the Hospital, Col. Bernardo Cacanata took his ante-mortem statement.
In the said statement which the victim signed with his own blood, Jessie Salazar was identified as the
assailant.

Lito and Salazar were charged with murder in a complaint filed by PC Sgt. Ernesto N. Ordono in
the Municipal Trial Court. However, on March 22, 1985, the municipal court indorsed the case of Salazar
to the Judge Advocate Generals Office (JAGO) because he was a member of the military, while the case
against Vino was given due course by the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Ultimately, the case was
indorsed to the fiscals office who then filed an information charging Vino of the Crime of murder in the
RTC.

The accused entered a plea of not guilty, but instead of presenting evidence in his own behalf,
the accused filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence to which the prosecutor filed an
answer. Vino was found guilty as an accessory to the crime of murder.

Salazar was also dismissed from his service and was convicted of murder in the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

1) Whether Vino can be convicted of being an accessory when the complaint against him is
principal.
2) Whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate
charge against the principal.
3) Whether or not the conviction of the petitioner as an accessory be maintained when the
principal is acquitted.
Held:

1) Yes. The Supreme Court stated that it is not undeniable that the crime of murder happened, and
it tended to show that Vino and Salazar committed it and at least 2 witnesses attested to this
fact. This is not a case of a variance between the offense charged and the offense proved or
established by the evidence, and the offense as charges is included in or necessarily includes the
offense proved, in which case the defendant shall be convicted of the offense proved included in
that which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which is proven.

2) Yes. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct
from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence
the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of
the principal.

3) Yes. The Supreme Court based their judgement on the case of United States vs Villaluz and
Palermo a case involving the crime of theft, this Court ruled that not withstanding the acquittal
of the principal due to the exempting circumstance of minority or insanity (Art. 12 RPC), the
accessory may nevertheless be convicted if the crime was in fact established.

In the present case, the commission of the crime of murder and the responsibility of the
petitioner as an accessory was established. By the same token there is no doubt that the
commission of the same offense has been proven in the separate case against Salazar who was
charged as principal. However, he was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt by the
same judge who convicted Vino as an accessory. The trial court held that the identity of the
assailant was not clearly established. It observed that only Julius Tejada identified Salazar
carrying a rifle while riding on the bicycle driven by Vino, which the testimony is
uncorroborated, and that two other witnesses, Ernesto Tejada and Renato Parvian who were
listed in the information, who can corroborate the testimony of Julius Tejada, were not
presented by the prosecution.

The trial court also did not give credit to the dying declaration of the victim because the victim
himself did not pinpoint Salazar as his assailant when his brother and father came to his aid
immediately after the shooting. The court also stated that the prosecution and the law
enforcement failed to subject a ballistic examination the bullet slug recovered from the body of
the victim and the two empty armalite bullet shells recovered at the crime scene and to
compare it with samples taken from the service rifle of Salazar.

Hence, in the said case, the acquittal of the accused Salazar is predicated on the failure of the
prosecution to adduce the quantum of evidence required to generate a conviction as he was not
positively identified as the person who was seen holding a rifle escaping aboard the bicycle of
Vino.