Simon A. Flores v.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 181354
February 27, 2013
Mendoza J.

FACTS:
- The accused was convicted of homicide in killing one JESUS MENDOZA
while in performance of his official duties.
- Prosecution’s version: Several people were drinking at the house of
Mendoza. Late in the evening, the accused (with a gun) went to the house
and talked with Mendoza (without a gun). After a short while, gunshots
were heard and bloodied body of Mendoza was lying in the ground. The
witnesses were the visitors and the wife and son of Mendoza who were
also at the same house while serving “pulutan” to the visitors.
- Defense’s version: Flores raises self-defense in this case. On the eve of
the town’s fiesta, while the CAFGU was on patrol, they heard gunshots
emanating from the house of Mendoza, Flores’ cousin. Flores tried to talk
to Mendoza to stop firing gunshots and save them for tomorrow as it was
already late at night. Mendoza, being drunk poked a magnum pistol in the
accused chest. However, the accused parried the shot hit Mendoza’s
should instead. They wrestled for the gun and the accused being hit in the
hand, used his armalite to shot Mendoza and ran for fear thereafter.
- Sandiganbayan convicted him of homicide (victim’s testimonies were more
convincing and consistent) and denied motion for reconsideration as there
was no notice of hearing.
ISSUE:
- W/N the denial of his MR was a violation of his due process because of
mere technicalities (notice of hearing).
- W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him of homicide and not
accepting his claim of self-defense
HELD:
- No, Rule 15 Sec. 5 Notice of Hearing and Rule 37 Sec. 2 Contents of
Motion for new trial and reconsideration and notice thereof and Rule
121 Sec. 4 Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor.
- Jurisprudence also dictates that the requirement Rule 15 Sec. 4&5 is
mandatory.
- Thus, his motion was a worthless piece of paper with no legal effect
whatsoever.
- While the ponente of the case only took over from a colleague who
presided the trial, the validity of the decision is not affected unless
there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.
- The justices arrive at their decision by deliberating and exchanging of views
and ideas.

 - The issue of whether accused acted in self-defense is a question of fact
not a question of law.
- Thus, the findings of the Sandiganbayan are binding in this court as the
defense failed to outweigh the evidence and testimonies of the prosecution.
o (1) accused did not mention anything about a bullet remaining in his
shoulder.
o (2) with a magnum pistol it is quite unlikely not to hit the bones in his
shoulder
o (3) accused did not bother to secure x-ray plate or medical records from the
hospital
o (4) the shirt shown by the accused has a hole but the blood is only in its
circumference. He was treated only after 5 hours. Naturally, his blood should
have dripped.
o (5) Likely possible that victim was drunk already one hour into drinking.
o (6) Unlikely to have unlocked his big weapon with ease while he was
wounded.
- Furthermore, if he really acted in self-defense he would have stopped on the
first shot enough to repel the attack. However, 4 gunshot wounds were found
in the victim.
- Hence, even on the assumption that unlawful aggression initially existed, the
same had effectively ceased after the victim was first shot and fell to the
ground.