RAMON BORGUILLA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Ramon Borguilla versus Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Ramon Borguilla versus the Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines. Borguilla, a police lieutenant of Makati, was convicted of murder for the shooting death of Tirso Abad. He admitted the killing but invoked self-defense, and the question that reaches us is whether the courts below were right in crediting only incomplete self-defense. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court weighs directly conflicting versions of a shooting, how it tests the credibility of eyewitnesses against the physical evidence, and how the justifying circumstance of self-defense is measured against the requirement of reasonable necessity of the means employed.

Procedural History

Borguilla and one Hernando Caray were charged with murder before the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal, Branch Seven. After trial, the court acquitted Caray for insufficiency of evidence but convicted Borguilla of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of twelve thousand pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay costs.

Borguilla appealed to the Court of Appeals, assailing the conviction and insisting that he acted in self-defense and in the performance of his duty as a law officer. On March 18, 1976, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty on a finding of incomplete self-defense. Borguilla moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was likewise denied, with two justices dissenting and voting to acquit. Borguilla then filed this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Tirso Abad had been a Technical Assistant of Mayor Maximo Estrella and had run for councilor of Makati in the November 1969 elections. He lost, and he felt strongly that the mayor's faction had not supported him. His resentment deepened into what the Court called a deep grudge.

On the night of November 22, 1969, at about past nine o'clock, Abad, slightly under the influence of liquor, went with companions to the meeting place of the Samahang Magdamag at the house of Ireneo Francisco in Makati. Between ten and ten thirty, Mayor Estrella arrived with Ramon Borguilla, a former security guard of the mayor and later a police lieutenant of Makati. Abad confronted the mayor, saying the mayor had caused his defeat. The heated conversation continued inside the house. Abad later came out, crossed the street, and when he returned his shirt was open, showing a revolver tucked at his waist.

Borguilla tried to pacify him, but Abad retorted angrily, stepped back, drew his revolver, and fired at Borguilla, missing. Borguilla drew his own revolver and fired six successive shots, hitting Abad in different parts of the body, though none felled him. Both men took cover and exchanged further shots; one of Abad's bullets hit a bystander behind Borguilla. Abad entered the house of Mrs. Miguela Francisco, reloaded, and moved from room to room. Policemen arrived in mobile patrol cars. Abad's brother Cesar arrived and called out to him to surrender, and Abad came out staggering with his hands raised, saying he was giving up. What happened next is the heart of the dispute. The prosecution says Borguilla rushed Abad and shot him three times as he tried to sit down. The defense says Abad fired his gun once more at Borguilla before Borguilla shot him twice. Abad died of acute hemorrhage from multiple gunshot wounds.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in basing its decision on the testimonies of Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner is entitled only to incomplete self-defense.
• Whether or not there was reasonable necessity for the petitioner to shoot the victim Tirso Abad to death.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Are exempt from criminal liability the following: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

This is the justifying circumstance Borguilla invoked, and the Court measured his claim against each of its three requisites, focusing on reasonable necessity of the means employed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the testimonies of Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco cannot be believed. Cesar Abad's claimed presence during the shooting was highly doubtful: Patrolman Acuña, who was ahead of him, arrived only after the shooting was over, and the investigators themselves testified that the entire incident had already transpired when they arrived. If those who came earlier saw nothing, Cesar Abad, who came much later, could not have seen the shooting. His testimony was also oddly inconsistent, for his immediate statement to the police omitted the claim that his brother was shot while already lying helpless on the ground, a detail he remembered only later. Antonio Basco related the incident differently on different occasions, and his claim that Abad was shot while already lying flat on the ground was impossible given the downward trajectory of the bullets. The Court laid down the test of credible evidence:

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, it must be credible in itself — such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that the defense met the requirement of proving by clear and convincing evidence all the justifying circumstances of complete self-defense, particularly reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. The evidence established that Tirso Abad actually fired his gun once at Borguilla before Borguilla shot him. The testimony of Benjamin Roldan, who saw Abad fire at Borguilla, was buttressed by the testimonies of Corporal Rodolfo de Leon and Lieutenant Gregorio Averia, who examined Abad's revolver and found one cartridge with its primer struck by the firing pin, showing it had been fired, with the other cartridges unfired. The Court therefore concluded that there was reasonable necessity for the petitioner to shoot the victim.

Doctrine

First, where there are directly conflicting versions of the incident, the Court looks for facts and circumstances that test the probability or improbability of a testimony, and evidence must not only come from a credible witness but must be credible in itself, conforming to common experience and observation. Second, self-defense, when invoked, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and the justifying circumstance of defense of person under paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Third, reasonable necessity of the means employed is established where the victim fired at the accused before the accused shot him, as confirmed by the physical evidence of a fired cartridge in the victim's revolver.

Disposition

The Court granted the petition, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted Ramon Borguilla of the crime charged on the ground of complete self-defense.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, it must be credible in itself. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of self-defense under paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the standard of clear and convincing evidence, and the Court's method of resolving directly conflicting versions of a shooting through physical evidence.