CASE DIGEST PEOPLE VS ERNESTO MONTILLA Y CARIAGA GR 198449 GAERLAN

[ G.R. No. 198449. November 22, 2021 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO MONTILLA Y CARIAGA. AND DALE DUAY, ACCUSED,

ERNESTO MONTILLA Y CARIAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS : Ernesto Montilla and his co-accused, Dale Duay (who remains at large), were charged with murder for the shooting of Ranie Lapidante in Sagay City on August 20, 1999. Montilla pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense, asserting that the victim forcibly entered Duay’s house and that the firearm discharged accidentally during a struggle. The prosecution, however, presented eyewitnesses who testified that Montilla, upon Duay’s instruction, deliberately shot Lapidante inside the house. The victim sustained a gunshot wound to the abdomen, leading to his death from massive blood loss. The Regional Trial Court found Montilla’s version unbelievable, ruled that the killing was attended by treachery, and convicted him of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay ₱50,000 each in civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in full, agreeing that Montilla failed to prove self-defense and that treachery qualified the killing as murder. Montilla appealed to the Supreme Court, which required the filing of supplemental briefs, but both parties opted to adopt their previous submissions.

ISSUE : WON the CA is correct

HELD : The accused-appellant’s main defense was that he accidentally shot the victim while acting in self-defense. However, when an accused admits to the killing but invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish by clear and convincing evidence that his actions were justified. For self-defense to apply, three elements must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel the aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation by the accused. The first element—unlawful aggression—is essential; without it, self-defense cannot be appreciated. In this case, both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) found that the accused failed to prove unlawful aggression. His claim that the victim pointed a gun at him was deemed implausible, as the trajectory of the fatal wound contradicted his version. The courts reasoned that if he had truly held the gun’s muzzle during a struggle, it would have been improbable for the victim—not the accused—to be hit. Given the lack of corroborating evidence, his self-defense claim was dismissed.

The prosecution’s witnesses, on the other hand, consistently testified that the accused deliberately shot the victim upon the instruction of his companion, undermining the accidental shooting theory. The Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts are in the best position to assess witness credibility, having directly observed their demeanor, and their findings—affirmed by the CA—are entitled to great respect. The Court thus upheld the lower courts’ conclusion that the shooting was intentional.

Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the courts found that the killing was attended by treachery, as the accused suddenly fired at the unarmed victim without warning, leaving him no chance to defend himself. This qualified the crime as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Since no other aggravating circumstances were present, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and adjusted the award of damages in line with People v. Jugueta: ₱75,000 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus ₱50,000 in temperate damages due to the victim’s death.