G.R. No. 119641 - Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On February 20, 2003, in Dingras, Ilocos Norte, SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac (petitioner), then assigned at Dingras Police Station, was charged under an Information with willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, shooting SPO1 Doddie Espejo, resulting in the latter’s death.
A reverse trial was held in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 14, Criminal Case No. 10750-14, upon petitioner’s plea of self-defense.

Petitioner, the highest-ranking officer on duty from 8:00 a.m. of February 20 to 8:00 a.m. of February 21, was designated officer-of-the-day. At around 10:00 p.m., SPO1 Espejo and SPO1 Eduardo Basilio attempted to take a patrol tricycle from station grounds.
Petitioner ordered them to stay because they were on duty and Espejo was intoxicated. Espejo insulted petitioner in Ilocano, alighted from the tricycle, and drew his .45-caliber pistol.
Petitioner fired an upward warning shot from his M-16 armalite. Undeterred, Espejo drew his weapon and allegedly pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner then shot Espejo in the head, causing instantaneous death.
Petitioner surrendered to the station’s Chief of Police after the incident.

RTC (May 23, 2007) convicted petitioner of homicide, finding no unlawful aggression by the victim. Sentence: indeterminate penalty of 8 years prision mayor (min.) to 14 years reclusion temporal (max.); indemnity and damages totalling ₱220,000 plus attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals (July 20, 2009) affirmed the RTC, holding insufficient proof that the victim pointed his gun at petitioner and thus no unlawful aggression. Appeal dismissed.

SC Resolution (August 25, 2010) denied petitioner’s petition for review for lack of reversible error; Motion for Reconsideration filed October 11, 2010.
On March 21, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration, reinstating the petition and setting the case for decision.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the victim’s drawing or pointing of his handgun did not constitute unlawful aggression.

Applicability of jurisprudence on what constitutes unlawful aggression.
Sufficiency of photographic and testimonial evidence regarding the victim’s handling of his firearm.

Whether the Court of Appeals misappreciated the evidence on the warning shot and other circumstantial factors supporting petitioner’s claim of self-defense.

Whether the second and third requisites of self-defense—reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation—were met.