Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17688)
Facts:
On or about August 17, 1986, in the City of Davao, Gregorio Pelonia was indicted for murder for having, armed with a rifle and allegedly with treachery and evident premeditation, shot Ignacio Nacilla in a manner that caused the latter’s instantaneous death. The Information alleged that Pelonia carried out the shooting within the jurisdiction of the court. Upon arraignment, Pelonia, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. The prosecution narrated that Nacilla, together with Winefredo Bustamante, Monico Betarmos, and Boy Domondon, went to the barrio of Tawan-Tawan, Davao City to attend the eve fiesta celebration and, along the way, obtained permission from the Barangay Captain to enter the barrio, who in turn sent members of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), now CAFGU, to accompany them. After stopping at Blacito’s Store where Nacilla bought beer and the group drank, Boy Guhiling invited them to supper at Pelonia’s house. At Pelonia’s house, the group went to the balcony wh...Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17688)
Facts:
Petitioner Gregorio Pelonia was indicted for murder before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 13 for the killing of Ignacio Nacilla on or about August 17, 1986 in Davao City. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty, and he later invoked self-defense; the RTC found him guilty of homicide, rejecting self-defense, and sentenced him accordingly.On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification of the penalty, finding mitigating circumstances and recommending executive clemency. The petition to the Supreme Court challenged (a) the refusal to credit self-defense, (b) the refusal to consider an ocular inspection, and (c) the failure to acquit, while the Supreme Court sustained the factual findings of the trial court and the CA.
Issues:
- Whether the courts below erred in rejecting petitioner’s self-defense.
- Whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated when the CA sustained the trial court’s refusal to consider the ocular inspection.
- Whether the CA erred in not acquitting petitioner.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)