People vs Fallorina

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs PO3 FALLORINA (G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004)

Facts: Ricardo Salvo, 14 years old, along with his 3 friends nicknamed LA, Nono, and Puti were playing on a basketball court. Beside this basketball court was an abandoned carinderia where the victim, Vincent Jorojoro, Jr., 11 years old, was playing with his kite alongside his friend Whilcon Rodriguez, at the rooftop of the said carinderia. PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina, a PNP officer, was on detached service with the motorcycle unit of the MMDA at the time. PO3 Fallorina and the sound of his motorcycle was familiar to the children because he frequently scolds those playing on the roof of the abandoned carinderia. Upon hearing the familiar sound and seeing the approaching Fallorina, Ricardo called upon Vincent and Whilcon to come down of the roof. Whilcon was able to jump down first, but as Vincent turned his back and was about to jump, Fallorina shot him at the back of the head, causing his death. Fallorina then carried Vincent to a nearby tricycle and ordered its driver to bring the child to the hospital. Fallorina was sentenced by the lower court to suffer death as penalty of the crime of murder, hence, this automatic review. Issues: a) Whether or not the lower court erred in not giving credence to his defense of commiting the crime by accident. b) Whether or not the lower court erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the appellant. c) Whether or not the lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his position by the accused. Ruling: a) Fallorina’s defense was that his gun was loaded and cocked back, with the safety lock in place before he left his house. As he was driving, the gun was not placed firmly on his waist and was told that his gun was about to fall off. Distracted, he stopped his motorcycle and allegedly, his gun fell on the ground, accidentally firing towards the direction of Vincent. As this scenario was re-enacted in Court, it was proven to be impossible that a gun will fire with the safety lock in place, even if dropped. The Court did not commit a mistake in its finding that fallorina deliberately shot Vincent. b) After the incident, Fallorina went into hiding and spent 3 days sleeping and staying on his friends’ house. He even moved from one house to another which showed his

intent to evade arrest. Surrender is said to be voluntary if the accused spontaneously, immediately, and unconditionally turn over himself to the authorities, whether to admit his guilt or to save them from trouble and expenses. The Court did not err in not entitling the accused of said mitigating circumstance. c) There was no evidence that the accused took advantage of his position. He wasn’t even in uniform at the time and the shooting occurred without any mention of his position or office. The lower court erred in including this as an aggravating circumstance. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Due to absence of modifying circumstance however, the appellant should be sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court regarding the amount of damages and civil indemnity. However, the penalty was modified from death to reclusion perpetua.