Title
Ganal, Jr. y Badajos vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 248130
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2020
Prudencio Ganal, Jr. fatally shot Julwin Alvarez, claiming self-defense due to Julwin’s aggression. Courts initially convicted him, but the Supreme Court acquitted Ganal, ruling his actions justified under imminent threat.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225595)

Petitioner

Prudencio Ganal, Jr., charged with homicide for shooting Julwin Alvarez.

Respondent

People of the Philippines.

Key Dates

  • May 20, 2013: Incident date
  • July 5, 2013: Information filed
  • December 19, 2017: RTC conviction
  • March 27, 2019: Court of Appeals decision
  • July 2, 2019: CA resolution denying reconsideration
  • December 2, 2020: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution
  • Article 11, Revised Penal Code (justifying circumstances)

Factual Background

On May 20, 2013, petitioner and two companions were drinking at petitioner’s residence when neighbor Angelo Follante arrived drunk and provoked a fight. Stones were exchanged; petitioner repelled Angelo, who left. Shortly thereafter, stones were hurled at petitioner’s and his father’s houses. Julwin Alvarez appeared with stones in hand, entered the gate, and struck petitioner’s father in the chest, rendering him unconscious.

Charge and Arraignment

By information dated July 5, 2013, petitioner was charged with homicide for firing a handgun at Julwin, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds that caused death. He pleaded not guilty and went to trial.

Defense’s Version

Petitioner admitted the killing but claimed self-defense and defense of his father. He testified that after witnessing his father’s assault and enduring threats from Julwin—who advanced wielding stones and a concealed knife—he discharged a warning shot, then fired more rounds when Julwin persisted in approaching with lethal intent. Petitioner immediately surrendered to police.

Prosecution’s Version

The prosecution contended that Julwin went unarmed to petitioner’s house at Angelo’s behest and that the first shot struck Julwin unexpectedly. They argued that the means used were excessive and that unlawful aggression by Julwin was not sufficiently proven.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of homicide, rejecting self-defense and other justifications on the ground of disproportional force (five gunshot wounds and two lacerations). It credited mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and voluntary surrender, imposed an indeterminate sentence (6 years minimum to 10 years maximum), and awarded civil indemnity and damages.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in full, finding no reversible error in the rejection of justifying circumstances and upholding the penalty and damages.

Issues on Supreme Court Review

Petitioner invoked Rule 45 to challenge the appellate rulings, asserting that Julwin’s unlawful aggression, the reasonable necessity of lethal force, and lack of provocation warranted acquittal under the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of an ascendant.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Applying Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code under the 1987 Constitution, the Court examined:

  1. Unlawful aggression—established by Julwin’s material attacks (stone-throwing, gate-forcible entry, f

...continue reading

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