G.R. No. 129875 - Cabuslay vs. People

Petitioner SPO2 Jovito Cabuslay, a police officer assigned at the PNP Provincial Headquarters of Lanao del Norte, was charged with homicide for killing Paquito Umas-as.
The killing occurred on or about 5 August 1992, at a mobile checkpoint established at Barangay Libertad, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.
An Information dated 10 August 1993 charged Cabuslay and his co-accused with murder, arising from a confrontation at the checkpoint.

Paquito Umas-as, a motorcycle-riding collector wearing blue denim, was intercepted at the checkpoint where police personnel, including Cabuslay, were on duty.
During the routine stop, the collector was asked to present his identification. When he took out his ID, eyewitness Zaragosa testified that petitioner Cabuslay discharged his M-16 armalite, consuming an entire magazine of ammunition.
The victim, Paquito, sustained multiple fatal injuries. He was still moving when he was loaded onto a vehicle and subsequently pronounced dead at a hospital.
Forensic evidence and post-mortem examinations (by Dr. Tammy Uy and forensic chemist Bernabe Arenga) corroborated the finding of multiple (eight) fatal gunshot wounds.

Eyewitness testimony by Leoncio Tagapulot Zaragosa was given significant weight by the court; his account was described as categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent.
Other prosecution witnesses included medical personnel and forensic experts whose examinations indicated severe hemorrhage and multiple gunshot wounds as the cause of death.
Documentary evidence such as police blotters, a certification by Inspector Fulgencio dela Pena Raguine, and exhibits regarding the case were introduced to corroborate the sequence of events.

Cabuslay claimed that the shooting was a justifiable act in self-defense and defense of a superior officer, Celso G. Regencia, asserting that he was the next target.
The defense contended that an intelligence report had indicated a plot to assassinate local officials, which necessitated the establishment of a mobile checkpoint.
According to the defense, while on duty, Regencia signaled an approaching motorcycle rider (later identified as Paquito Umas-as) to stop. The rider allegedly produced a firearm instead of his identification, prompting Cabuslay’s shooting in self-defense.
The defense’s account was weakened by the failure to produce key pieces of evidence, namely the firearm allegedly used by the victim and the pertinent NBI examination report, along with affidavits taken under dubious circumstances.

Medical evidence included a post-mortem report noting that Paquito sustained eight gunshot wounds to vital organs—a detail inconsistent with a mere act of self-defense.
Multiple pages of police blotters and spot reports documented the incident; these records detailed the sequence of events, the recovery of the victim’s personal effects (motorcycle, sunglasses, and the alleged gun), and the immediate actions taken by responding officers.
The trial record revealed inconsistencies in the defense testimony when compared with the clear and consistent testimony of eyewitness Zaragosa.

The Sandiganbayan, in Criminal Case No. 19586, rendered a Decision on 25 June 1997, finding Cabuslay guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.
While his co-accused were acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt, Cabuslay was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ten years and one day to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, along with accessory penalties and an award for damages.
Cabuslay filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the trial court’s findings and his conviction.

Whether Cabuslay’s act of shooting Paquito Umas-as can be justified under the doctrine of self-defense or defense of a stranger.

Was there sufficient evidence to establish the existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim?
Did the circumstances warrant the use of deadly force as a necessary and reasonable means of self-defense?

Whether the defense’s contention that Cabuslay was merely performing his duty as a police officer during the apprehended assassination plot justifies the imputed homicide.

Can the act of shooting be characterized as an integral part of a lawful duty?
Did the victim’s conduct necessitate such a deadly response in the context of the claimed security operation?

Whether the evidence produced, including eyewitness and forensic testimony, was sufficient to overcome Cabuslay’s burden in proving his claim of self-defense with clear, convincing evidence.

The reliability and credibility of the sole prosecution eyewitness, Zaragosa, vis-à-vis the conflicting accounts of the defense.
The implications of the absence of crucial physical evidence (firearm, NBI report) on the defense’s overall credibility.