THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 222434. April 13, 2016.]

CONRADO MARTINEZ, JR. ALIAS "JUN-JUN" , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April
13, 2016 , which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222434 (Conrado Martinez, Jr. alias "Jun-Jun" v. People of the
Philippines) . — The Court NOTES petitioner's Ex-Parte Manifestation/Compliance
dated February 26, 2016 relative to Resolution of February 24, 2016, submitting a soft
copy of the petition for review on certiorari, its annexes and an attached declaration.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 02280 which af rmed the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 31, Calbayog City's conviction of Conrado Martinez, Jr. alias "Jun-Jun"
(Conrado) for the crime of Homicide for the killing of his half-brother, Galo Rowe
Martinez alias "Boyet" (Galo).
The Information against Conrado reads:
That on or about the 10th day of February, 1997, at about 8:30 o'clock in
the morning, at Barangay Tagnao, Municipality of Gandara, Province of Samar,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with deliberated (sic) intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shot one GALO ROWE
MARTINEZ alias "BOYET" with the use of [a] rearm (revolver), which the
accused conveniently provided himself for the purpose, thereby in icting upon
the latter mortal wounds on his body, which caused the untimely death of said
Galo Rowe Martinez alias "Boyet." 2
At arraignment, Conrado pleaded not guilty and asserted the justifying
circumstance of defense of self.
The prosecution's evidence included the testimony of the victim's wife, Jackelyn
Martinez (Jackelyn). Jackelyn testi ed that Conrado, while on board a jeepney
traversing the National Highway in Calbayog City, and shouted "You let Boyet approach
me!" at her. Conrado alighted on the other side of the road between two waiting sheds
near the Tagnao Bridge where the victim Galo was. Upon alighting the jeepney, Conrado,
wearing a bullet-proof vest and a camou age shirt, pulled a gun from his body and
immediately red at Galo hitting the latter's right side of the body to the line of the
navel. Galo fell on the street, Conrado went nearer and motioned to fire again at Galo. At
this point, Jackelyn ran to the scene and attempted to hold back Conrado and prevent
him from shooting her husband.
Jackelyn further testi ed that by the time the second shot was red, Galo was
already on the pavement, slumped to his right side, his one hand on top of a small
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 stone. Conrado hovered over Galo, stooped down and pointed the muzzle of the gun, 48
inches away from Galo. Jackelyn pled with Conrado to stop, but the latter then poked
the gun at Jackelyn's chest and threatened to likewise shoot her. When Conrado did not
re the gun, Jackelyn pushed him aside, plaintively crying for Conrado to not shoot his
brother, Galo. Thereafter, Conrado ed, carrying his gun, and ran towards the other end
of the bridge. As soon as Conrado ed, Jackelyn brought Galo to the Gandara District
Hospital where despite several attempts to revive him, Galo died.
For his defense, Conrado asserted that his killing of Galo was made in self-
defense, i.e., when he alighted from the jeepney, Galo rushed toward him in attack and
was actually brandishing a gun. Conrado claimed to have wrested the gun from Galo,
and in the struggle accidentally pulled the trigger, hitting Galo. As the two purportedly
lay supine on the ground, Galo, larger built than Conrado, inadvertently pinned the latter.
Conrado then detached the gun from Galo's hand, pushed Galo's body aside and ed in
the direction of Gandara. Conrado rode a jeepney to Gandara, alighted when he saw a
police of cer, and forthwith surrendered to Chief of Police, Police Inspector Arnulfo
Baronggo (P/Insp. Baronggo). AcICHD

Conrado's claim of voluntarily surrendering to Chief of Police Baronggo was

refuted by prosecution witness Senior Police Of cer 3 Benedicto Cabañas (SPO3
Cabañas) who testi ed that at the time of the incident, he was at his house in Barangay
Taganao and was told that someone had been shot. Proceeding to the scene of the
crime, he saw Galo lying on the street and noticed Conrado across the bridge about to
ride a tricycle. He ran back to his house to get his motorcycle and pursued Conrado
towards Gandara.
Failing to catch up with the jeepney boarded by Conrado, SPO3 Cabanas
proceeded to the Gandara Police Station and reported the matter to their Chief of
Police P/Insp. Baronggo. Thereafter, the team went to look for Conrado and found him
about to board a jeep heading to Catbalogan. P/Insp. Baronggo then brought Conrado
to the Police Station for questioning where Conrado's bullet-proof vest and camou age
shirt were removed for evidence. No gun was recovered from Conrado.
The prosecution likewise presented the Autopsy and Medical Reports which
stated Galo's cause of death was from multiple gunshot wounds and severe
hemorrhage: the gunshot wound approximately 1 cm diameter as wound of entry.
As previously adverted to, Conrado was charged with homicide for the death of
his brother Galo before the lower court. Note that the Information against Conrado did
not allege that Galo was his half-brother.
After inverted trial because of Conrado's claim of defense of self, the RTC found
Conrado guilty, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this [c]ourt nds CONRADO
MARTINEZ, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide
charged against him, and hereby sentences him to suffer and Indeterminate
Penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as the minimum
to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion
Temporal as the maximum and to pay the costs.
Further, this [c]ourt directs the accused to pay the heirs of Galo Rowe
Martinez Php50,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php50,000.00 as moral damages and
Php20,000.00 as temperate damages. 3
A few months after the ruling of the trial court, Jackelyn recanted her testimony
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 claiming that she testi ed thus because she wanted revenge against Conrado for
accidentally shooting her husband.
On appeal however, despite the recantation of Jackelyn, the appellate court
af rmed with modi cation the ruling of the RTC, increasing the amount of civil
indemnity to P75,000.00 consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
The Court of Appeals ruled that in invoking the justifying circumstance of self-
defense, Conrado admits to the criminal act of killing Galo, but asserts unlawful
aggression on the latter's part. However, contrary to Conrado's claim, the appellate
court af rmed the lower court's ruling that the element of unlawful aggression from the
victim Galo was absent, which primary element is the pith in the claim of self-defense.
The appellate court held that absent unlawful aggression, the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be invoked.
Moreover, the appellate court noted that by the time Conrado red the second
shot, Conrado, by his own narration, had effectively taken out another indispensable
element of self-defense, i.e., reasonable necessity of the means employed. Since
Conrado already injured Galo with the initial shot, albeit accidentally in icted, the ring
of a second shot was not necessary or reasonable in order to repel the supposed
threat from Galo.
The lower courts likewise noted that Conrado failed to explain and refute why he
was wearing a bullet proof vest and a camou age shirt at the time of the incident. The
appellate court further noted that the location of the wounds on Galo's body were
consistent with the account in Jackelyn's testimony and which physical evidence were
corroborated by Dr. Reynaldo Roldan, one of the doctors who prepared the Autopsy
Report.
As for Conrado's invocation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, the appellate court disregarded such where Conrado's actions failed to show
spontaneity and did not evince that he wished to submit himself to the authorities and
save them trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. The
appellate court sustained the prosecution's evidence that the police were in Hot Pursuit
of Conrado which resulted in the latter's apprehension.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari led by Conrado assailing the
appellate court's refusal to sustain his claims of: (1) the justifying circumstance of self-
defense; and (2) the privileged mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
As the lower courts have done, we also deny Conrado's claim of self-defense in
the killing of his half-brother, Galo. Their uniform factual nding that unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim was not present, is nal and conclusive especially
since it is supported by the evidence. 4 Thus, correctly, the justifying circumstance of
self-defense cannot be validly invoked.
Absent unlawful aggression, an indispensable element of self-defense, Conrado's
admission that he indeed shot Galo resulting in Galo's subsequent death, stands.
Indeed, from the testimony of Jackelyn, it was Conrado who was the aggressor,
even shouting at her from the other side of the bridge before getting off to where Galo
was at, wearing a bullet-proof vest and camou age shirt, carrying a gun and rushing
towards Galo. There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. 5
The testimony of Conrado that Galo was the one rushing towards him and
brandishing a gun is inconsistent with the evidence on record that Conrado red a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 second shot at Galo who had already fallen to the ground. Contrary to Conrado's claim
and as the lower courts have found and ruled, even assuming that Galo appeared to be
on the attack when he supposedly rushed to Conrado, Conrado need not have red the
second shot or shoot in close range as shown in the Autopsy Report. We reiterate that
Conrado was unable to explain why he was wearing a bullet proof vest and a
camouflage shirt at the time of the incident. TAIaHE

Ultimately, we nd no reason to disturb the appellate court's disquisition on

Conrado's claim of mitigating circumstance, its penalty imposed on Conrado and the
amounts of the monetary awards:
The evidence on record likewise belie the claimed mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The essence of voluntary surrender is
spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself
to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save
the authorities the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and
capture.
Conrado's actions are in contrast with espoused principle. Jackelyn and
SPO3 Cabanas witnessed Conrado eeing from the scene of the crime. Contrary
to [Conrado's] claim of voluntary surrender, the testimony of SPO3 Cabanas
saying that Conrado was apprehended is corroborated by the blotter extract
prepared by Chief of Police Insp. Arnulfo Baronggo. In the said report, the Police
Inspector recounted that they conducted a Hot Pursuit Operation to apprehend
Conrado which resulted in the latter's apprehension. A non-violent apprehension
does not equate into a voluntary surrender.
All told, we nd no reason to disturb the ndings of the Lower Court save
for the amount of civil indemnity awarded in favor of the Heirs of Galo Rowe
Martinez.
It is jurisprudentially settled that when death occurs due to a crime, the
following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the
victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary
damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in
proper cases. Thus, so as to conform with prevailing jurisprudence, we nd the
increase of the award of civil indemnity to P75,000.00 proper. 6
WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED there being no reversible error in the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 02280.
SO ORDERED . J. Peralta , on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 82-93; Penned Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles with Associate Justices Marilyn
B. Lagura-Yap and Edward B. Contreras concurring.
2. Id. at 36.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Id. at 46.
4. Pascual v. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, 11 January 2016.
5. SPO2 Nacnac v. People of the Philippines, 685 Phil. 223, 229-230 (2012).

6. Rollo, pp. 91-92.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com