**Facts:**
– **January 1, 2005:** At around 2:30 PM, Sherwin Dela Cruz visits Sykes Asia Inc. in Makati to fetch his wife, Darlene.
– **Security Checks:** He was frisked twice by security guards, failing to find any firearm.
– **Office Encounter:** Unable to find Darlene, Dela Cruz approached Jeffrey Wernher L. Gonzales, who allegedly told him, “Ayaw na nga ng asawa mo sayo sinusundo mo pa!”
– **Altercation:**
– **Petitioner’s Version:** Jeffrey pulled a gun on Dela Cruz which failed to fire. Dela Cruz wrestled the gun away from Jeffrey. Jeffrey then allegedly tried to attack him with a fire extinguisher, causing the gun to discharge accidentally.
– **Prosecution’s Version:** Eyewitnesses Managbanag and Pelaez testified Dela Cruz pointed the gun at Jeffrey’s head, a struggle ensued, and Dela Cruz fired the gun four times, with the final shot hitting Jeffrey in the forehead, killing him.
– **Charges Filed:** On March 2, 2005, Dela Cruz was charged with Homicide.
– **Legal Proceedings:**
– **Arraignment (August 22, 2005):** Dela Cruz pled “Not Guilty.”
– **Trial:** Prosecution presented eyewitnesses and documentary evidence. Defense countered with testimony from Dela Cruz, his brother, and two others.
– **RTC Decision (February 26, 2007):** Dela Cruz found guilty, sentenced to 8 years and 1 day to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day imprisonment.
**Procedural History:**
– **March 28, 2007:** Dela Cruz filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).
– **CA Decision (May 7, 2009):** Affirmed RTC decision, with modifications on civil damages.
– **Modifications:** Civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and damages for loss of earning capacity adjusted.
– **Supreme Court Petition:** Dela Cruz sought reversal of CA decision, arguing self-defense and accidental discharge.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the elements of self-defense were present.
2. Whether the shooting was accidental during continued unlawful aggression.
3. Whether the prosecution proved homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Whether privileged mitigating circumstance of self-defense was applicable.
5. Whether petitioner is civilly liable for the accidental death of the victim.
**Court’s Decision:**
– **Self-Defense Elements:**
– **Unlawful Aggression:** Court found no continuous and imminent threat from Jeffrey after being disarmed by petitioner.
– **Reasonable Means:** The court deemed Dela Cruz’s response (shooting Jeffrey) unreasonable and disproportional to the threat.
– **Lack of Provocation:** The court did not see sufficient evidence to corroborate the threat claimed by petitioner.
– **Accidental Discharge Argument:**
– Court concluded the gun discharge was deliberate. Petitioner clicking the trigger thrice before firing suggested intention rather than accident.
– **Homicide Proof:**
– Court found prosecution evidence, especially eyewitness testimony, credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
– **Civil Liability:**
– Petitioner held accountable for damages due to the unlawful aggression. Civil indemnity and other damages affirmed, with inclusion of exemplary damages.
**Doctrine:**
– **Self-Defense:** Requires unlawful aggression, proportional response, and no provocation. The attack must be real and imminent, not speculative.
– **Use of Unlicensed Firearm:** Constitutes aggravating circumstance in homicide cases, enhancing the penalty.
**Class Notes:**
– **Self-Defense:** Defined under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. Key elements include unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, and lack of sufficient provocation.
– **Homicide (Article 249, Revised Penal Code):** Defined as any person who kills another without the attendance of qualifying circumstances of murder, parricide, or infanticide.
– **Procedural Posture:**
– **Notice of Appeal:** Mechanism to challenge lower court’s decision.
– **Plea Bargaining:** Petitioner’s plea at arraignment can be strategic.
– **Burden of Proof:** Shifts to the accused in self-defense claims.
**Historical Background:**
– **Firearm Law:** The case underscores stringent regulations on possession and use of firearms in the Philippines, reflecting amendments under Republic Act No. 8294.
– **Judicial Standards:** Emphasizes the burden on the defense to corroborate claims of self-defense sufficiently.
– **Court Interpretations:** Conforms to historical jurisprudence regarding self-defense’s crucial elements as consistent with landmark decisions in Philippine judicial history.
Leave a Reply