Title
Dela Cruz vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 189405
Decision Date
Nov 19, 2014
Petitioner shot victim after a struggle, claiming self-defense; Supreme Court ruled intent to kill, no self-defense, and imposed penalties with civil liability for homicide.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189405)

Allegations and Charges

Sherwin Dela Cruz was charged with homicide, stemming from an incident that occurred on January 1, 2005, at Sykes Asia Inc. in Makati City. The crime was outlined in an Information filed on March 2, 2005, alleging that Dela Cruz intentionally shot Jeffrey Wernher Gonzales with an unlicensed firearm, resulting in Gonzales's death.

Prosecution's Version

The prosecution’s narrative claims that Dela Cruz, armed with a gun, approached Gonzales from behind and shot him in the head after a brief struggle for the weapon ensued when Gonzales attempted to deflect the gun. Witnesses testified corroborating this sequence of events, emphasizing the dramatic nature of the encounter and Dela Cruz's actions leading to Gonzales's death.

Defense's Version

Contrarily, Dela Cruz argued that he was merely present to collect his wife, who worked with Gonzales. He described a scenario where Gonzales had drawn a firearm during an altercation, which prompted a struggle for control of the gun that ultimately led to Gonzales's accidental death when the firearm discharged during a confrontation involving a fire extinguisher.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Dela Cruz guilty of homicide, highlighting that he had not sufficiently proven the elements of self-defense—specifically, the presence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity in the means of defense, and lack of provocation on his part. He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and required to pay damages to the heirs of the victim.

Appeal and Court of Appeals Decision

Dela Cruz appealed the RTC's judgment, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and modified the civil damages awarded. The appellate court reiterated findings regarding Dela Cruz's lack of credible evidence to support his claim of self-defense and questioned the proportionality of his response.

Supreme Court's Analysis

  1. Self-Defense Requisites: The Supreme Court confirmed that for self-defense to exonerate an accused from criminal liability, there must be: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent such aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation.

  2. Unlawful Aggression: The Court determined that unlawful aggression was absent, underscoring that Dela Cruz's narrative could not stand against the consistent testimonies of witnesses. The evidence indicated that any aggression from Gonzales ceased when Dela Cruz wrested the gun away, undermining the claim of self-defense.

  3. Reasonable Necessity and Excessive Force: Even if unlawful aggression had existed, the Court noted that the force employed (shooting Gonzales) was excessive and disproportionate when measured against Gonzales's alleged actions (holding a fire extinguisher).

  4. Accidental Discharge Argument: The Court rejected the notion that the shooting was accidental, as the circumstances—Dela Cruz firing multiple shots—indicate a criminal intent rather than an accident or self-defense reaction.

  5. Credibility of Testimonies: The trial court's and appellate court's assessments of witness credibility were upheld, indicating th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.