Case Digest (G.R. No. 150647)
Facts:
Roweno Pomoy v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150647, September 29, 2004, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Roweno Pomoy (accused) sought review of the Court of Appeals’ February 28, 2001 decision and October 30, 2001 resolution in CAGR CR No. 18759, which affirmed with modification the March 8, 1995 judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Iloilo City, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 36921 finding him guilty of homicide.
The Information charged that on January 4, 1990 petitioner, a police sergeant armed with a .45 service pistol, willfully and unlawfully shot Tomas Balboa causing his death. At trial the prosecution (through the Office of the Solicitor General) presented a narrative that Balboa, detained at the 321st Philippine Constabulary Company stockade, was brought out for interrogation, afterwards taken near the investigation room, and—according to prosecution witnesses—petitioner was seen holding the pistol and Balboa was found lying in a pool of blood; autopsy by Dr. Ricardo Jabonete reported two gunshot wounds (one to the chest and one to the abdomen) and concluded massive hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds as cause of death.
Petitioner and defense witnesses offered a different account. The lone eyewitness Erna Basa testified she saw petitioner and Balboa grappling for possession of the pistol while it was still in its holster, with both hands on the weapon; the struggle was close and violent, the gun was drawn during the struggle, and two successive shots occurred while the parties were grappling. Petitioner himself testified he fetched Balboa for interrogation, had his .45 in a holster with a safety lock engaged, and that Balboa suddenly grabbed for the gun, a scuffle ensued, and the gun fired while they were struggling. Dr. Salvador Mallo Jr., who performed an autopsy that afternoon, testified to two entrance wounds and observed marks on the deceased’s clothing.
The RTC found petitioner guilty of homicide and imposed a penalty (trial judge: Bartolome M. Fanunal). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, rejecting petitioner’s defenses of accident and self-defense, finding petitioner in control of the weapon when it fired, and holding that the location and multiplicity of wounds and the mechanism of firearms rebut the accident theory; the CA also removed the aggravating circumstance of abuse of publ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the shooting of Tomas Balboa the result of an accident exempting petitioner from criminal liability?
- If the shooting were deemed intentional, did petitioner establish lawful sel...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)