Cop's conviction for homicide upheld

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals Cebu Station affirmed the conviction of a policeman assigned to the Toledo City Police Station for homicide for killing a man who allegedly stabbed him.

 Upon review of the records of the case Associate Justice Gabriel Ingles said he found no evidence to reverse the findings of the trial court that convicted PO3 Adolfo Alporte for homicide.

“In addition to the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution against him, accused-appellant cannot claim innocence,” the decision read.

Ingles likewise affirmed the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the court to the accused-appellant, from six years to eight years.

Ingles also modified the compensation awarded to the heirs of the victim Josephus Purisima. Aside from the P50,000 award for civil indemnity, Ingles ordered the accused-appellant to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000 for moral damages and P10,000 for actual damages.

Alporte was accused of killing Purisima on Oct. 19, 2002 around 3:40 a.m. in Toledo City.

Celso Juario, a security guard of Toledo Port said on the said date he and the accused were sitting outside a videoke bar enjoying themselves when Vangie Cabisan came to join their conversation.

Later, he said Cabisan suddenly shouted at the accused to warn him someone was coming up behind him to stab him. The assailant was able to stab the accused in his right shoulder.

Juario said accused fired two warning shots and the assailant, who was later identified as Purisima, ran away.

Another witness, Pablo Seville, said while accompanying his mother to the Toledo City Public Market they heard two or three successive gunshots from the videoke bar. He said they were told by the trisikad driver that there was a dead person found.

He said they identified the victim as their neighbor Purisima. Since the victim was still “moaning” he said he went to the barangay office to seek assistance.

Roque Bayuhin, a barangay tanod, said when they were about to bring the victim to the hospital, the accused arrived onboard a patrol car and asked where “the tough guy” was then pointed his long firearm at the victim and fired several times.

Based on the accounts of the prosecution witnesses the court convicted the accused for homicide.

Not satisfied, the accused filed an appeal. He said the trial court made a mistake in convicting him citing he cannot be held liable for the death of the victim considering he shot someone who was already dead.

The accused said the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was still alive when he shot him.

But the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the prosecution, said when the accused shot the victim while he was still alive. The OSG said the accused merely relied on the testimonies of other witnesses who assumed that the victim was dead.

Based on the certificate of death, Ingles said it was found out that the victim died because of the multiple gunshot wounds he sustained.

“The medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Alfredo Soberano who conducted the post-mortem examination on Purisima’s body shows that the latter suffered five gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body. Dr. Soberano testified that four out of the five gunshot wounds were fatal,” the decision read.

Ingles adopted the arguments of the prosecution that the accused relied merely on the testimonies of the other witnesses who assumed the victim was dead after he was shot the first time.

Ingles noted that in the counter-affidavit the accused submitted before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Military he admitted shooting the victim but with self-defense.

In his counter-affidavit, the accused averred after he sustained stab wounds he went to the police station to ask for backup. He said they then went to look for his assailant.

He said the assailant was hiding behind a table and tried to stab him but he was able to evade and then shot him.

The claim of the accused was contrary to the statement of the prosecution witnesses who said he accused fired his gun at the helpless victim.

With that Ingles ruled the accused-appellant had “no reasonable necessity” to fire his gun at the victim because the victim did not impose any more threat to him.  (FREEMAN)