FACTS:

The accused, Julio Recto y Robea, was charged with multiple crimes, including two counts of complex crime of qualified direct assault with frustrated homicide, complex crime of qualified direct assault with murder, and homicide. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Romblon found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. In Criminal Case Nos. 1970 and 1971, the accused was charged with assaulting and shooting Melchor Recto, a barangay chief tanod, and Percival Orbe, a duly elected barangay captain, respectively, while they were performing their official duties. The accused used a homemade shotgun known as "pugakang". In Criminal Case No. 1972, the accused was charged with the murder of Antonio Macalipay, and in Criminal Case No. 1973, the accused was charged with the homicide of Emiliano "Renato" Santos. The RTC sentenced the accused to various penalties, including the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 1972. The accused filed an automatic review with the Supreme Court. The accused had the opportunity to escape or defend himself but chose not to, placing himself in a position more open to attack.

The case involves an appellant who was charged with direct assault with murder, murder, and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The first two charges pertain to separate incidents where the appellant attacked and caused the death of two individuals using a shotgun and a long bolo. The third charge pertains to the illegal possession of a handgun, which was allegedly used in the killings. The appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges and was subsequently tried and sentenced. Witnesses testified to the events leading to the killings, with one witnessing the appellant shoot and kill the first victim, and another witnessing the appellant shoot and kill the second victim in self-defense. Amidst the chaos, the appellant was heard asking for the location of the barangay captain.

The case concerns an altercation between the appellant, Julio Recto, and several individuals, including Barangay Captain Percival Orbe, Barangay Kagawad Antonio Macalipay, and Emiliano Santos. According to the prosecution's version of events, a heated exchange ensued between Recto and the victims. Recto shot Melchor Recto in the thigh, and Orbe was shot in the right elbow but managed to continue running. Macalipay and Santos were killed by Recto through multiple gunshot wounds. The defense argued self-defense and defense of a co-accused. The trial court found Recto guilty of direct assault and murder, and sentenced him to death for the murder conviction. Recto appealed the decision, alleging errors in the lower court's findings regarding the crimes charged and the presence of treachery.

ISSUES:

1. Whether appellant's act of killing the victims and shooting the others can be justified as self-defense and defense of a relative.

2. Whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victims.

3. Whether appellant failed to prove the essential requisites of self-defense and defense of a relative.

4. Whether or not the barangay tanod was engaged in the performance of his official duties at the time of the incident.

5. Whether or not the barangay tanod was attacked on the occasion of the incident.

6. Whether the attack on Melchor Recto amounts to direct assault.

7. Whether appellant's liability for the attack on Melchor Recto is attempted or frustrated homicide.

8. Whether the attack on Percival Orbe amounts to qualified direct assault.

9. Whether appellant's liability for the attack on Percival Orbe is attempted or frustrated homicide.

10. Whether the attack on Antonio Macalipay amounts to qualified direct assault.

11. Whether the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, thereby qualifying the offense to murder.

12. Whether the appellant should be held liable for the complex crime of qualified direct assault with homicide.

13. Whether or not the appeal is filed out of time.

14. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a refund.

RULING:

1. The court held that appellant failed to prove the essential requisites of self-defense and defense of a relative.

2. The court found that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victims.

3. The court concluded that appellant was the aggressor.

4. The Court held that the barangay tanod was not engaged in the performance of his official duties at the time of the incident. His testimony revealed that he was merely watching what was transpiring and did not take any action to avert the tension. He also hid himself when the first shot was fired. Therefore, he cannot claim that he was performing his official duties during the incident.

5. The Court also ruled that the barangay tanod was not attacked on the occasion of the incident. The testimony of another witness confirmed that it was the barangay captain and barangay kagawad who pacified the appellant and his companions. The tanod himself testified that he only hid behind a pillar and ran towards a bathroom when he saw the situation escalating. There was no evidence to show that the appellant specifically targetted the tanod or attacked him.

6. The attack on Melchor Recto does not amount to direct assault because he was not acting in the performance of his official duties at the time of the attack.

7. Appellant's liability for the attack on Melchor Recto is attempted homicide.

8. The attack on Percival Orbe amounts to qualified direct assault because he was attacked on the occasion of the performance of his duty as a barangay captain.

9. Appellant's liability for the attack on Percival Orbe is attempted homicide.

10. The attack on Antonio Macalipay does not amount to qualified direct assault because the qualifying circumstance of treachery is not present.

11. The killing of the victim was not attended by treachery. Treachery does not exist when the evidence does not show that the appellant deliberately adopted a mode of attack intended to ensure the killing of the victim with impunity and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself. In this case, the shooting took place after a heated exchange of words and a series of events that forewarned the victim of aggression from the appellant. The appellant did not deliberately choose the mode of attack to kill the victim with impunity and without risk to himself. The absence of treachery makes the offense committed homicide, not murder.

12. Considering that the victim was a kagawad in the actual performance of his duties when he was shot, the attack on him constitutes direct assault. The appellant should be held liable for the complex crime of qualified direct assault with homicide. The penalty to be imposed on the appellant should be for homicide, which is the more serious crime, to be imposed in the maximum period. The minimum penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed for homicide.

13. The Supreme Court rules that the appeal is filed out of time. The Court affirms the ruling of the lower court that the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the reglementary period prescribed by law.

14. The Supreme Court rules that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund. The Court agrees with the findings of the lower court that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for a refund.

PRINCIPLES:

• To establish self-defense, the accused must prove the existence of the essential requisites of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.

• For defense of a relative to prosper, the accused must prove the concurrence of the first and second requisites of self-defense and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein.

• Unlawful aggression requires actual force or actual use of a weapon.

• Without unlawful aggression from the victim, there can be no viable self-defense or defense of a relative.

• A law enforcement officer can claim the justifying circumstance of performance of duty or defense of a stranger only when they are actually performing their official duties or are being attacked on the occasion of the performance of their duties.

• It is essential to establish the elements of the justifying circumstances alleged by an accused in order for such circumstances to be considered as a defense.

• Direct assault requires that the victim be a person in authority or his agent, and that the attack be committed on the occasion of the performance of their official duties. (Relevant in issue 1 and ruling 1)

• The nature of the weapon used and the manner and direction of the attack can indicate the intent of the offender. (Relevant in ruling 2 and 4)

• A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but do not produce it due to causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (Relevant in ruling 2 and 4)

• The penalty for an attempted offense is lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the consummated offense. (Relevant in ruling 2 and 4)

• Qualified direct assault requires the presence of treachery or employing means to weaken the defense or facilitate the commission of the offense. (Relevant in ruling 5)

• Treachery does not exist when the evidence does not show that the appellant deliberately adopted a mode of attack intended to ensure the killing of the victim with impunity and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself.

• If the decision to kill was sudden, there is no treachery, even if the position of the victim was vulnerable, because it was not deliberately sought by the accused but was purely accidental.

• When there is no evidence that the accused has resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of killing, or there is no proof that the death of the victim was the result of meditation, calculation, or reflection, treachery cannot be considered.

• Section 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code defines treachery.

• In a complex crime of qualified direct assault with homicide, the penalty to be imposed is for homicide, which is the more serious crime, to be imposed in the maximum period.

• Appeals must be filed within the reglementary period prescribed by law to be considered timely.

• The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim for a refund.