View full case

PEOPLE v. PO3 FERDINAND FALLORINA Y FERNANDO

FACTS:

On September 26, 1998, appellant PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina shot and killed eleven-year-old Vincent Jorojoro, Jr. while Vincent was flying his kite on top of a roof. The appellant, an officer of the Philippine National Police assigned to the Traffic Management Group (TMG), was on detached service with the Motorcycle Unit of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA).

At the time of the incident, Vincent was playing with his kite on the roof of an abandoned carinderia. Ricardo Salvo and his friends were playing basketball nearby. When Ricardo noticed the appellant driving his motorcycle, he called for Vincent and his playmate to come down. The appellant shouted at them and fired a shot, hitting Vincent in the head. Vincent died and the appellant fled the scene, but later brought Vincent to the hospital before surrendering himself to the authorities. An autopsy confirmed that Vincent died from a gunshot wound to the head.

The appellant, upon being implicated in the shooting, was surrendered to the police by the Chief of the MMDA Motorcycle Unit. Prior to the incident, Ricardo had given a sworn statement as part of the Witness Protection Program. Ballistic examination confirmed that the shell found at the crime scene matched the appellant's pistol. However, pictures of the crime scene taken by a police officer were not given to the prosecution. The appellant denied shooting Vincent, claiming it was an accident when his revolver fell and fired as he slipped off his motorcycle. Other witnesses provided testimonies that supported the appellant's account of events.

The trial court found the appellant guilty of murder, sentencing him to death and ordering him to indemnify the victim's heirs. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider the physical evidence, particularly a hole in the roof of the carinderia. The appellant contended that the shooting was accidental, and the hole was caused by his firearm falling to the ground. However, the Office of the Solicitor General argued that there was no evidence linking the hole to the appellant's gun. The court agreed with the Solicitor General, emphasizing the young eyewitness's straightforward testimony. The court considered the appellant's criminal liability as a factual issue.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appellant is exempt from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

  2. Whether the appellant has proven his defense of accidental shooting with clear and convincing evidence.

  3. Whether the gun was on safety lock and therefore unable to fire when the trigger was pulled.

  4. Whether the appellant's refusal to surrender and hiding from the investigating police officers is indicative of his guilt.

  5. Whether the accused intentionally shot the victim or if it was an accident.

  6. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Ricardo Salvo, deserve credence.

  7. Whether the testimony of Ricardo Salvo, a witness under the Witness Protection Program, is entitled to full faith and credence.

  8. Whether the appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery.

  9. Whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position was correctly appreciated by the trial court.

  10. Whether the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

RULING:

  1. The appellant is not exempt from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The exempting circumstance of accident requires the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the accused. In this case, the appellant failed to prove that the victim's death was caused by his gun accidentally going off without his fault or intention of causing it.

  2. The appellant has not proven his defense of accidental shooting with clear and convincing evidence. He failed to provide clear and convincing evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the shooting, such as where the gun hit the ground and what part of the gun hit the victim. The pictures submitted by the appellant were not supported by testimony or other evidence. The appellant's refusal to answer clarificatory questions regarding the pictures cast doubt on his allegations.

  3. The gun was on safety lock and therefore unable to fire when the trigger was pulled. The witness, a policeman, confirmed that even if the trigger is pulled, the bullet will not come out from the gun because the hammer is on safety lock. The appellant's counsel admitted this fact.

  4. The appellant's refusal to surrender and hiding from the investigating police officers is indicative of his guilt. The trial court found it hard to believe that a police officer would choose to flee and hide for three days if he were not at fault. The appellant's behavior after the shooting incident reflects his guilt rather than innocence.

  5. The court ruled that the shooting of the victim was deliberate and intentional, contrary to the claim of the accused that it was an accident. The court found the accused's claim to be incredible and unbelievable, and considered it an insult to human intelligence. The court emphasized that when someone is innocent or in the performance of a lawful act but causes injury to another without fault or negligence, they would usually surrender to the authorities and give an account of the accident. The accused's failure to do so invited suspicion and made his later account doubtful.

  6. The court ruled that the testimony of prosecution witness Ricardo Salvo deserves credence. Salvo testified in a positive and straightforward manner, showing truth and sincerity. He positively identified the accused as the assailant and provided detailed narration of how the accused deliberately aimed his gun and shot the victim. Despite grueling cross-examination, Salvo never wavered in his testimony. The court considered Salvo's testimony as credible and reliable.

  7. The testimony of Ricardo Salvo is entitled to full faith and credence as there is no ill motive for him to falsely testify against the appellant. He testified in order to seek justice for the victim and not for any personal gain.

  8. The appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The victim, an eleven-year-old boy, was shot intentionally while his back was turned against the appellant. The use of a firearm against a helpless child qualifies the killing as treacherous.

  9. The trial court erred in appreciating abuse of public position as an aggravating circumstance. There is no evidence that the appellant took advantage of his position as a police officer when he shot the victim.

  10. The appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. He deliberately evaded arrest and hid for three days before surrendering. His actions showed that he did not have the intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The exempting circumstance of accident requires the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the accused.

  • Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.

  • The burden of proving the defense of accident or exemption from criminal liability lies on the accused, who must rely on the strength of their evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.

  • The state of a gun being on safety lock prevents the hammer from moving forward and firing a bullet.

  • The behavior of a suspect after a crime can be indicative of guilt or innocence.

  • When someone is innocent of some acts or in the performance of a lawful act but causes injury to another without fault or negligence, they are expected to surrender to the authorities and give an account of the accident.

  • Findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, its assessment of the witnesses' credibility, and the probative weight of their testimonies are accorded high respect and may even be given conclusive effect by the appellate court.

  • Testimony that is positive, straightforward, and shows truth and sincerity deserves credence.

  • Testimony of a witness under the Witness Protection Program is entitled to full faith and credence if there is no ill motive for the witness to falsely testify.

  • Treachery exists when there is a sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without provocation, especially when the victim is a minor who cannot defend themselves.

  • Abuse of public position is an aggravating circumstance if there is evidence that the accused took advantage of their position.

  • Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance if the accused surrenders spontaneously and unconditionally to the authorities.