Case Digest (G.R. No. 129875)
Facts:
Petitioner Jovito Cabuslay, then SPO2, was charged in an Information dated 10 August 1993 with murder for the shooting death of Paquito Umas-as on 5 August 1992 at Libertad, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte; four co-accused were acquitted by the Sandiganbayan, which on 25 June 1997 found Cabuslay guilty of homicide and imposed an indeterminate sentence and damages. At trial the sole prosecution eyewitness, Leoncio Tagapulot Zaragosa, identified petitioner as the shooter; the defense claimed self-defense, defense of a stranger, and lawful performance of duty, asserting an intelligence-led checkpoint and that Senior Inspector Regencia had been shot by the victim.
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in rejecting petitioner’s plea of self-defense and defense of a stranger?
- Did the Sandiganbayan err in assessing civil damages against petitioner?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide as to petitioner and rejected the claims of self-defense, defense of a stranger, and lawful performance of duty. The Court deleted the award of actual damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), affirmed moral damages, and ordered payment of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as indemnity ex delicto to the heirs; no costs.
Ratio:
The Court held that an accused who admits killing must prove the justifying circumstance by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence, and that unlawful aggression is the primordial element of self-defense and defense of a stranger. Cabuslay failed to prove unlawful and imminent aggression because the victim could not have seen the parked hummer or petitioner, the alleged handgun was never produced nor was its NBI report secured, and the eyewitness testimony identifying petitioner was credible and unimpeached. The multiplicity and fatal nature of eight gunshot wounds, and the improbability of the defense account, negated reasonable necessity and showed intent to kill; likewise, the requisites for lawful performance of duty under Section 5, Article 11, Revised Penal Code were not met. The Court applied the rule that failure to produce evidence that would naturally be produced permits an adverse inference against the producing party.
Doctrine:
- The accused who admits killing must prove a justifying circumstance by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence.
- Unlawful aggression is the primordial element of self-defense and defense of a stranger, and must be actual and imminent.
- Reasonable necessity of means requires rational equivalence and is negated by excessive or multiple fatal wounds.
- The lawful performance of duty justifying a killing requires proof that the act was a necessary consequence of due performance, per Section 5, Article 11, Revised Penal Code.
- Failure to produce evidence that would naturally be produced permits an adverse inference against the proponent.