G.R. No. 207257 - Paje vs. Casino

On May 30, 2008, in Cebu City, the accused, Nestor M. Bugarin y Martinez, was involved in a violent altercation that led to multiple fatalities and injuries.
The case involves three separate criminal charges: two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, as detailed in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-83610, CBU-83611, and CBU-83613.
Bugarin admitted to shooting the victims—Esmeraldo B. Pontanar, Cristito C. Pontanar, and Maria Glen Neis Pontanar—but maintained that he acted in self-defense.

Bugarin claimed he was initially watching television when an altercation broke out outside his home after his wife, Anecita, went for a walk.
Allegedly, he heard his wife arguing with Maria Glen and noted that his brother-in-law, Esmeraldo, was approaching wielding multiple firearms.
Initially hesitant due to the threat posed by Esmeraldo’s armament, Bugarin was persuaded by his son to intervene.
Upon exiting his house, Bugarin confronted Esmeraldo; when Esmeraldo drew his own firearm, Bugarin fired multiple shots at him.
As Esmeraldo fell, Bugarin shot him again to “ensure he was finished.”
Cristito, the father-in-law, rushed with the apparent intent of intervening, whereupon Bugarin, fearing that Cristito might retrieve Esmeraldo’s weapon, shot him.
Subsequently, when Esmeraldo’s son, Paulo, threw stones at him, Bugarin shot at him as well.
Finally, seeing Maria Glen armed with a pipe—supposedly about to strike Anecita—Bugarin shot her, injuring her in the leg.

The prosecution’s narrative indicated that longstanding ill-feelings existed between the Pontanars and the Bugarins.
On the evening in question, Esmeraldo and Maria Glen were returning to Cristito’s residence when Anecita commenced hurling gravel and sand at them.
In reaction, Bugarin exited his home and fired on Esmeraldo without provocation, resulting in fatal gunshot wounds.
Cristito, attempting to aid Esmeraldo by confronting Bugarin, was shot and killed.
Maria Glen, though managing to avoid fatal injury by fleeing, suffered a through-and-through gunshot wound to her leg.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 12, rendered a Joint Judgment on July 5, 2012, finding Bugarin guilty beyond reasonable doubt for double murder and attempted murder.
The RTC ordered penalties including reclusion perpetua for the murders and an indeterminate sentence for the attempted murder, along with the imposition of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and actual damages.
On July 31, 2015, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, particularly in the nature of the crimes (finding homicide in one instance instead of murder and adjusting the penalties and damages).
Bugarin then appealed, primarily arguing his act was committed in self-defense; however, the CA decision upheld his conviction.

Whether Bugarin’s claim of self-defense, an affirmative defense requiring a clear and convincing demonstration of three essential elements, was sufficiently substantiated.

Unlawful aggression by the victims.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the alleged aggression.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Bugarin.

Whether the trial court and the CA correctly appreciated and applied the evidence regarding the presence or absence of treachery in the shooting of Esmeraldo, Cristito, and Maria Glen.

Determination if treachery, as a qualifying circumstance for murder, was adequately established by Bugarin’s manner of attack.
Whether the sudden and unprovoked nature of the attack negated any claim of self-defense.

The proper application of the aggravating circumstance regarding the use of an unlicensed firearm.

Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm should enhance liability in all counts or be limited to incidents where its use directly affected the commission of the crime.
The distinction in applying this aggravation in the murder counts versus the attempted murder count, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in the latter.

The adequacy of the penalty and the computation of damages ordered by the lower courts in light of the evidence and applicable law.