People vs Nitcha

FACTS:
On October 1990, at around 7 ocloc! in the evenin", #o$o %el&onte 'ent out o( his
house located at Puro! )*, %aran"a+ Alac, San ,uintin, Pan"asinan to bu+ so&e
ci"arettes in a nearb+ store- %e(ore #o$o %el&onte could bu+ the ci"arettes, .oro Nitcha
arrived, uttered the 'ords /0ou are one o( the&/ in the vernacular, then started &aulin"
hi&- 1nable to endure the pain, #o$o (ou"ht bac!- A (e' &inutes had "one into the (i"ht
'hen 2a+ *illarica #oselito, A"ustin and 2arcelina, all surna&ed Siba+an, arrived- 2a+
and #oselito tried to paci(+ the t'o prota"onists, ho'ever, their e((orts proved (utile as
.oro Nitcha re(used to be paci(ied-
The (i"htin" stopped upon the arrival o( .oros sister *ictoria Corpu3 'ho, upon seein"
the co&&otion, dra""ed .oro a'a+ (ro& the (i"ht and brou"ht hi& ho&e-
4i!e'ise, 2arcelina, A"ustin, 2a+ and #oselito proceeded to'ards their house located
in (ront o( the store 'here the incident occurred-
Not lon" therea(ter and 'hile the Siba+ans 'ere still on their 'a+, appellant Florestan
Nitcha, brother o( .oro, arrived at the sari5sari store brandishin" a "un and shoutin" in
Ta"alo", /6alan"hi+a !a+o, putan"ina nin+o, papata+in !o !a+on" lahat7/ A(ter utterin"
those 'ords, appellant (ired his "un in the direction o( the Siba+ans, the bullet hittin"
2a+ at the bac! o( her head and e8istin" throu"h the &iddle o( her (orehead- Appellant
then ai&ed his "un at #oselito but &issed-
2a+ 'as brou"ht to the 9astern Pan"asinan .istrict :ospital in Ta+u", Pan"asinan
'here she 'as "iven (irst aid treat&ent- 1pon the advice o( a doctor, the victi& 'as
brou"ht to a hospital in .a"upan Cit+- 2a+, ho'ever, e8pired on the 'a+ thereto-
Shortl+ a(ter the shootin" incident, appellant 'ent bac! to his &others house be(ore
proceedin" to the police station o( San ,uintin, Pan"asinan 'here he surrendered
hi&sel( to"ether 'ith his service (irear&
An indict&ent (or &urder 'as (iled a"ainst herein accused5appellant 'ho, a(ter trial, 'as
(ound "uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt on account o( the positive identi(ication &ade b+
the Peoples 'itnesses, the de(ense o( accused5appellant anchored on denial bein"
(ound unavailin"-
)SS19:
6hether or not the arrest 'as ille"al (or 'ant o( preli&inar+ investi"ation
:94.:
Act o( postin" a bail bond, apart (ro& the (act that he entered a plea o( not "uilt+, is
tanta&ount to (ore"oin" the ri"ht to ;uestion the assu&ed irre"ularit+< %ail is a &atter o(
ri"ht 'hen the o((ense char"ed is punishable b+ an+ penalt+ lo'er than reclusion
perpetua =absolute>< %ail is a &atter o( discretion 'hen the o((ense char"ed is
punishable b+ reclusion perpetua< )( accused ins convicted b+ the cri&e =reclusion
perpetua>, bail is neither a &atter o( ri"ht nor a &atter o( discretion- %ail &ust not be
"ranted-
The clear i&plication there(ore, is that i( an accused 'ho is char"ed 'ith a cri&e
punishable b+reclusion perpetua is convicted b+ the trial court and sentenced to su((er
such a penalt+, bail is neither a &atter o( ri"ht on the part o( the accused nor o(
discretion on the part o( the court- )n such a situation, the court 'ould not have onl+
deter&ined that the evidence o( "uilt is stron" ? 'hich 'ould have been su((icient to
den+ bail even be(ore conviction ? it 'ould have li!e'ise ruled that the accuseds "uilt
has been proven be+ond reasonable doubt- %ail &ust not then be "ranted to the
accused durin" the pendenc+ o( his appeal (ro& the $ud"&ent o( conviction-