G.R. No. 189405 - Dela Cruz vs. People

The case involves petitioner Sherwin Dela Cruz who was charged with homicide for the death of Jeffrey Wernher L. Gonzales, which occurred on January 1, 2005, in Makati City at the premises of Sykes Asia Inc., located on the 25th floor of Robinson’s Summit Center.
The Information alleged that petitioner, with intent to kill and armed with an unlicensed firearm, attacked, assaulted, and shot the victim in the head, causing his death.

Petitioner entered the building after passing the security checks at the main entrance and on the floor, with his identity and belongings verified.
Upon reaching the work area, petitioner approached Jeffrey from behind while already holding a gun aimed at the back of Jeffrey’s head.
A struggle ensued for the possession of the gun after Jeffrey attempted to deflect petitioner’s hand; petitioner ultimately wrested away the firearm.
Petitioner then pointed the gun at Jeffrey’s face and fired four shots in succession; the fourth bullet struck Jeffrey in the forehead, resulting in his death.
Immediately after the shooting, petitioner fled the scene.

Petitioner asserted that on that day he was at the Sykes Asia office to pick up his wife, Darlene Dela Cruz, with his children, following the normal entry procedures which included frisking and registration by security.
Upon inquiry about his wife’s location, petitioner encountered Jeffrey, who curtly questioned and inadvertently provoked him by making disparaging remarks regarding his family situation.
According to the defense, after a brief verbal confrontation, Jeffrey brandished a firearm from his chair (resulting in clicking sounds without immediate discharge) and then escalated the incident by moving a fire extinguisher toward petitioner.
In the ensuing physical struggle, petitioner managed to disarm Jeffrey and, while parrying an attack with the extinguisher, a single bullet was accidentally discharged which fatally struck Jeffrey on the forehead.
Subsequent developments included petitioner’s abandonment by his wife immediately after the incident and later revelations regarding an illicit relationship between Darlene and Jeffrey.

At trial, the prosecution presented several eyewitness testimonies (including those of Marie Antonette Managbanag, Maria Angelina Pelaez, and Carlos Alberto Lim Gonzales) and various documentary evidences supporting the charge of homicide.
The defense relied primarily on petitioner’s testimony and that of selected witnesses, including a later recalled testimony of Managbanag, to establish an argument of self-defense.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, imposing an indeterminate sentence and ordering payment of civil indemnity, moral damages, and other related damages.
On appeal, both the Court of Appeals (CA) and later the Supreme Court affirmed the RTC decision albeit with some modifications regarding civil liabilities and sentencing parameters, particularly considering the aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm.

Eyewitness testimonies described the course of events including the struggle for the gun and subsequent shooting, with the prosecution’s accounts consistently showing that petitioner maintained possession of the firearm and actively fired it.
The defense’s version, which emphasized an accidental discharge during self-defense, was largely supported only by petitioner’s testimony and lacked corroboration by other competent evidence.
Discrepancies existed between the accounts of prosecution and defense, particularly regarding the aggressor’s actions and the continuation or cessation of an unlawful aggression, which is central to a self-defense claim.

It was established that petitioner used an unlicensed firearm during the commission of the crime, which under Republic Act No. 8294 serves as an aggravating circumstance.
This factor played a role in modifying the sentence, directing that the penalty must fall within the maximum period prescribed for homicide under the Revised Penal Code when aggravated by such use.

Whether the discharge of the firearm, which resulted in a single fatal gunshot wound, was accidental and occurred during a struggle that was genuinely self-defensive in nature.

Whether the prosecution was able to substantiate all the essential elements of the crime of homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the privileged mitigating circumstance of self-defense could be applied to exonerate or mitigate petitioner’s criminal liability.

Whether petitioner should be held civilly liable for the death of the victim despite his claim of self-defense, particularly given the evidentiary record.