Case Digest (G.R. No. 196945)
Facts:
In the case of Danilo Remegio v. People of the Philippines, the petitioner, Danilo Remegio, was charged with homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code for the death of Felix Sumugat on December 12, 1998, in Culasi, Antique. The Information dated November 19, 1999, alleged that Remegio had wilfully and unlawfully attacked and shot Sumugat while armed with an illegally possessed firearm. At his arraignment, Remegio pleaded not guilty, and during a pre-trial conference, it was stipulated that he had killed Sumugat, yet he maintained that it was in self-defense.
The trial revolved around contrasting versions of the incident. The defense's witnesses, including Remegio and Diosdado Bermudez, testified that Sumugat threatened Remegio with a revolver and came at him with a running chainsaw after Remegio attempted to stop him from cutting down a tree. In fear for his life, Remegio claimed he shot Sumugat, albeit accidentally, during a struggle over the firearm.
Converse
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 196945)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Petitioner Danilo Remegio was charged with homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code for the killing of Felix Sumugat.
- The Information, dated 19 November 1999, charged Remegio with having unlawfully attacked, assaulted, and fatally shot Sumugat while allegedly in possession of an illegally held firearm.
- During the pre-trial conference, both parties stipulated that the killing occurred on 12 December 1998 at Barangay Jalandoni, Culasi, Antique, although Remegio pleaded not guilty by asserting self-defense.
- The Incident as Narrated by the Defense
- Petitioner’s Role and Land Background
- Remegio was the caretaker of a parcel of land owned by his brother-in-law, which had various fruit-bearing and timber trees.
- On the morning of 12 December 1998, while on duty, Remegio became aware of the sound of a chainsaw.
- Confrontation with the Victim
- Remegio witnessed Felix Sumugat cutting down an uprooted ipil-ipil tree that had been destabilized by a typhoon.
- He approached Sumugat and instructed him to cut only the branches instead of the trunk, as the wood was intended for storage due to an impending arrival of his in-laws.
- Sumugat reacted with anger, verbally threatening Remegio by saying, “You have nothing to do with this. I will kill you,” and proceeded to draw a revolver.
- The Escalation and Use of Force
- In response to Sumugat’s threat and armed stance, Remegio raised his hands indicating his unwillingness to engage in combat.
- Despite Remegio’s non-combative gesture, the confrontation escalated when Remegio grappled for control of the firearm after Sumugat aggressively advanced with a chainsaw.
- While attempting to parry the chainsaw attack, Remegio lost balance and accidentally discharged the firearm, fatally wounding Sumugat in the chest.
- Testimonies and Supporting Evidence
- The defense presented Remegio and witness Diosdado Bermudez whose testimonies corroborated that Remegio’s actions were in self-defense.
- The medico-legal report confirmed that Remegio sustained wounds on his left hand, consistent with his account of parrying an attack using a chainsaw.
- The Incident as Narrated by the Prosecution
- Alternative Sequence of Events
- According to the prosecution’s witnesses (Bernardo Caduada, Hermie Magturo, Rolando Dubria, and Dr. Feman Rene M. Autajay), Remegio initiated the confrontation by approaching Sumugat as he was cutting the tree.
- Remegio allegedly threatened Sumugat, stating that he would shoot him if he did not desist, which led to Sumugat turning on the chainsaw.
- The Shooting
- In this version, Remegio fired at Sumugat, first missing, then shooting him first in the left foot and later in the chest following Sumugat’s continued aggression with the chainsaw.
- Sumugat also purportedly injured Remegio with a chainsaw strike to his palm, and Remegio disposed of the firearm by throwing it into a canal.
- Issues with Witness Testimony
- A Joint Affidavit executed by Magturo and Caduada was critiqued because Magturo admitted on cross-examination that he did not fully understand or personally witness the events.
- Caduada revealed that he had executed an Affidavit of Retraction, expressing remorse for testifying facts he did not actually witness.
- Rulings of the Lower Courts
- Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- In its decision dated 16 September 2005, the RTC found Remegio guilty of homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
- The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty between ten years, one day and fourteen years, eight months of imprisonment, and ordered him to pay P300,000.00 to the heirs of Sumugat.
- The RTC ruled that Remegio’s conduct, particularly his intervention in the tree-cutting activity which was viewed as a provocation, nullified his claim to self-defense once the firearm was wrested from the victim.
- Court of Appeals (CA)
- The CA, in its decision dated 16 September 2008, affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 2 years and 4 months (prision correccional) to 6 years and 1 day (prision mayor).
- The CA reduced the compensatory award to the heirs of Sumugat to P50,000.00 for funeral expenses and an additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
- The CA acknowledged the presence of unlawful aggression by Sumugat but held that the means employed by Remegio were not reasonably necessary, noting that alternative methods of defense were available.
- Subsequent Motions
- Remegio’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied by Resolution dated 6 April 2011.
- Supreme Court Ruling
- Issue on Appeal
- Remegio petitioned for review on certiorari questioning whether he was entitled to invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
- The key issue was whether Remegio’s actions, under the circumstances, met the requirements of self-defense as provided under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Decision of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA’s decision, and set aside the determinations in the CA decisions dated 16 September 2008 and 6 April 2011.
- It acquitted Remegio of homicide, canceled the provisional bail bond, and ordered his immediate release.
- Analytical Approach
- The Court emphasized that self-defense inherently requires the accused’s admission of having killed the victim, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to establish the justifying circumstances by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Court systematically reviewed the elements of self-defense: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation, finding that all were present in the case.
Issues:
- Whether Remegio is entitled to invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
- Whether the actions of Felix Sumugat, including his verbal threat and his use of a chainsaw, amount to unlawful aggression against Remegio.
- Whether the means employed by Remegio (i.e., discharging the firearm) were reasonably necessary to repel the ongoing attack with the chainsaw.
- Whether Remegio’s initial act of advising Sumugat regarding the tree cutting constituted sufficient provocation to negate his right to claim self-defense.
- Whether the prosecution met its burden of proving Remegio’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in light of the shift in burden when self-defense is invoked.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)