Title
Andal vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 60159
Decision Date
Nov 6, 1989
A police corporal, Fausto Andal, shot and killed a fellow officer, Maximo Macaraig, after being initially wounded. The Supreme Court ruled that Andal's claim of self-defense was invalid, as Macaraig was disarmed and no longer a threat when the fatal shots were fired. Andal was convicted of homicide.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191667)

Factual Background

On the evening of September 25, 1980, the petitioner and Police Pfc. Casiano Quinio were on patrol. The petitioner went to a police checkpoint at Sta. Clara, Batangas, to check on Pfc. Maximo Macaraig, who had failed to report for duty. An altercation ensued between Macaraig and the petitioner, which led to Macaraig confronting the petitioner with a drawn gun. Despite the petitioner's attempts to de-escalate the situation, Macaraig shot the petitioner in the knee. In the ensuing struggle for the firearm, the petitioner was able to disarm Macaraig, leading to a series of shots that resulted in Macaraig's death.

Legal Issues and Findings

The primary legal issue raised by the petitioner involves the claim of self-defense. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the unlawful aggression from Macaraig ceased once the petitioner disarmed him. The court highlighted that after disarming Macaraig, the petitioner had the upper hand and was no longer in a life-threatening situation, negating the justification for self-defense. The court found significant evidence indicating that a considerable time lapsed between the initial aggression and the subsequent shooting, undermining the petitioner's defense.

Credibility of Witnesses

In determining the case, the Sandiganbayan emphasized the credibility of witnesses and the importance of factual findings. Testimonies suggested that there was an appreciable interval between the initial shooting and the subsequent shots fired by the petitioner. The distance between the petitioner and Macaraig during the second incident was corroborated by multiple witnesses, which the court deemed credible.

Legal Standard for Self-Defense

The court underscored the legal requisites for claiming self-defense, noting that unlawful aggression must be present at the time of the purported self-defense. The lack of immediate danger to the petitioner following the disarming of Macaraig negated the self-defense claim, as confirmed by the reasoning of previous jurisprudence cited within the decision.

Application of Mitigating Circumstances

While ruling on the penalty, the court acknowledged that the petitioner was acting within the scope of his duties as a police officer. However, it concluded that he

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.