G.R. No. 60159 - Andal vs. Sandiganbayan

The petitioner, Fausto Andal, was a corporal in the Batangas Integrated National Police.
The respondents are the Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines.
Andal was on duty during his scheduled shift from 4:00 p.m. to midnight.

On the evening of 25 September 1980, Andal was patrolling with Police Pfc. Casiano Quinio aboard a tricycle.
Andal went to the Sta. Clara pier in Batangas City to check on one of his men, Pfc. Maximo Macaraig, who had not reported for briefing.
At the police checkpoint, Andal questioned Macaraig about his failure to report to headquarters; Macaraig replied that he already had his orders.
A minor verbal altercation ensued when Macaraig made a remark (“supsup ka”) that hinted at displeasure, prompting Quinio to intervene and attempt to pacify the situation.

Later that night, at around 11:00 p.m., Andal and Quinio parked their tricycle in front of the Philbanking Building on P. Burgos Street in Batangas City.
Quinio joined other policemen, Pat. Andres Perez and Pat. Pedro Banaag, who were seated on a bench nearby.
Macaraig then arrived and directly confronted Andal, accusing him of having publicly embarrassed him.
In an effort to resolve the matter peacefully, Andal denied the charge and summoned Quinio to help clear up the misunderstanding.

The situation escalated when Macaraig, who had initially been pacified, approached Andal again with heightened anger.
Macaraig, now visibly upset and armed, drew his gun while shouting “Bumunot ka, bumunot ka,” thereby challenging Andal.
Andal, asserting his duty and the bond of fellow policemen, refused to engage in a physical altercation, stating, “I cannot fight you because we are both policemen.”
Without further warning, Macaraig fired his gun pointblank, striking Andal in the middle aspect of his lower right knee.
In response, Andal lunged toward Macaraig and wrested the gun from him, leading to a struggle over its possession.
After the grapple, two successive shots were fired; these shots struck Macaraig, who later was pronounced dead on arrival at a hospital.

The critical factual issue revolved around whether there was an appreciable time lapse between Macaraig’s initial aggression (firing the shot that hit Andal) and the possession of the weapon by Andal leading to the additional shots.
Testimony from witnesses, including Pat. Andres Perez, indicated that after Andal wrested the gun, Macaraig moved backward approximately two meters.
Pat. Quinio’s testimony and physical evidence – notably the demonstration by Andal showing his “right hand stretched downward” – reinforced that the fatal shots were not the product of an ongoing grapple but were fired when the parties were separated.
Corroborative physical evidence provided by Dr. Luis Aclan, including the bullet trajectory analysis, supported the observation that the shots were fired in a downward direction from a certain distance.

The Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 2521 found Andal guilty of the crime of homicide.
Andal was sentenced to suffer one (1) year of prision correccional, ordered to indemnify the victim’s heirs with moral damages of P12,000.00 and P20,000.00 respectively, and to pay the costs.
Andal appealed the decision before the Supreme Court, claiming that his plea of self-defense should have been accepted since he argued that the initial unlawful aggression had ceased once Macaraig was disarmed.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the petitioner’s appeal raised only factual issues that were already determined by the Sandiganbayan, thus giving due deference to its findings.

Whether Andal’s claim of self-defense was valid after Macaraig had been disarmed, given that the initial unlawful aggression had ceased.
Whether there was any imminent and real danger to Andal’s life or limb at the time he fired the fatal shots.

Whether the factual findings that affirmed a lapse of time between the initial aggression and the subsequent firing were properly supported by eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the two shots were not fired during a struggle for the gun.

Whether Andal, while acting as a police officer and in the performance of his duty, exceeded the limits of his lawful authority by using excessive force.
Whether the use of deadly force was justified given the circumstances of the confrontation and the absence of continuing threat.