Case Digest (G.R. No. 196945)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 196945)
Facts:
Danilo Remegio v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196945, September 27, 2017, the Supreme Court Third Division, Martires, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Danilo Remegio was charged by Information dated November 19, 1999 with homicide for allegedly shooting and killing Felix Sumugat on December 12, 1998 in Culasi, Antique. Petitioner pleaded not guilty but, at pre-trial, the parties stipulated that petitioner killed Sumugat, without prejudice to petitioner's plea of self-defense; as a consequence, the order of trial was reversed to allow the defense to present its justification theory.
The defense presented petitioner and Diosdado Bermudez who described an encounter in which Sumugat, while cutting an uprooted ipil-ipil tree, allegedly shouted threats, drew a revolver and aimed it at petitioner; petitioner grabbed the gun, during which Sumugat picked up a running chainsaw and advanced. Petitioner testified he first fired a warning shot to the ground and only after being slashed on the palm while parrying the chainsaw did he accidentally discharge the gun, fatally wounding Sumugat. The medico-legal report corroborated petitioner’s injury to his left hand.
Prosecution witnesses (Bernardo Caduada, Hermie Magturo, Rolando Dubria, and Dr. Feman Rene M. Autajay) gave a different account: petitioner threatened Sumugat, drew his gun and fired, initially wounding Sumugat in the foot and thereafter in the chest while Sumugat allegedly continued the attack with a chainsaw. The prosecution’s case suffered credibility problems in the trial court: Caduada later executed an affidavit of retraction and Magturo admitted he did not actually witness the incident.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Culasi, Antique, in Criminal Case No. C-358, found petitioner guilty of homicide in a decision dated September 16, 2005, concluding that petitioner’s claim of self-defense failed to satisfy Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code because unlawful aggression had ceased once petitioner wrested the firearm and therefore the fatal shot was not reasonably necessary; the RTC sentenced petitioner to reclusion temporal and ordered indemnity of P300,000. Petitioner was granted provisional liberty on bail pending appeal.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00312 affirmed the conviction in a decision dated September 16, 2008 but reduced the penalty to an indeterminate term (minimum prision correccional, maximum prision mayor) and reduced indemnity to P50,000 for funeral expenses and P50,000 for civil indemnity; the CA found unlawful aggression present but ruled the means employed were unreasonably necessary. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 6, 2011.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the CA decision. The Supreme Court considered the record, the parties’ pleadings, and relevant precedents in resolving whether petitioner was entitled to invoke self-defense.
Issues:
- Is petitioner entitled to invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)