Case Summary (G.R. No. 160188)
Facts of the Incident
During an on-duty shift that began at 8:00 a.m. and was to end the following 8:00 a.m., petitioner, as officer-of-the-day, prevented the victim and another officer (SPO1 Eduardo Basilio) from taking a patrol tricycle at about 10:00 p.m. The victim, who was intoxicated and had a known history of violent conduct, reacted with invective and alighted from the tricycle. The victim drew a .45 caliber handgun from his holster. Petitioner fired an upward M-16 armalite warning shot; the victim nevertheless drew his handgun and, according to petitioner, pointed it at him. Petitioner then shot the victim in the head, resulting in instantaneous death. Petitioner later surrendered to the station chief.
Procedural History
The RTC convicted petitioner of homicide, finding absence of unlawful aggression and sentencing him to an indeterminate term (prision mayor minimum to reclusion temporal maximum) and ordering indemnity, actual and moral damages, and attorney’s fees. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment, concluding that the essential element of unlawful aggression was lacking because no eyewitness corroborated that the victim pointed his gun at petitioner. The Supreme Court initially denied review but later, upon reconsideration, reinstated the petition and granted relief.
Issues Raised on Review
Petitioner contended that: (1) the CA erred in holding that the victim’s drawing or pointing of his handgun was insufficient to constitute unlawful aggression under existing jurisprudence; (2) the CA improperly evaluated a photograph showing the victim holding his handgun without expert testimony; and (3) petitioner satisfied the second and third requisites of self-defense (reasonable necessity of means and lack of sufficient provocation).
Petitioner's Arguments on Appeal
Petitioner argued that the trial court and CA misinterpreted evidence and failed to give proper weight to circumstances supporting self-defense: absence of expert testimony should not defeat the photograph’s evidentiary value; evidence showed unlawful aggression by the victim; two gun reports and two empty shells supported petitioner’s account that he first fired a warning shot; and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had commented that petitioner was entitled to acquittal or, at minimum, mitigating circumstances.
Legal Standard: Self-Defense under Article 11, Revised Penal Code
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code creates the justifying circumstance of self-defense, requiring concurrence of three elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is indispensable: it presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger to life or limb at the time defensive action is taken — not merely a threatening attitude or speculative danger.
Analysis — Unlawful Aggression
The RTC and CA treated the victim’s act of drawing his gun as insufficient to establish unlawful aggression, emphasizing the legal distinction between drawing a firearm and pointing it at a target. The Supreme Court disagreed with the characterization of petitioner’s testimony as an afterthought, finding that the record supported a finding of unlawful aggression when contextualized: the victim was intoxicated; he was a trained police officer expected to be quick on the draw; petitioner’s warning shot was ignored; petitioner had given a lawful order that the victim disobeyed; and the victim had a known history of combative drunken behavior. The Court also gave weight to the OSG’s comment that, because the victim was a fellow policeman and was standing only about five meters away, petitioner had reasonable basis to believe his life was threatened and could not safely wait to be shot before firing in return. The Court concluded that, under these facts, unlawful aggression was present.
Analysis — Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed
The Court examined proportionality, noting that the lone gunshot wound to the victim is an important indicium of reasonableness. Citing prior cases, the Court reiterated that the means of defense is reasonable if equivalent to the aggressor’s means and that reasonableness depends on weapon quality, physical condition, and other circumstances. Given the victim’s proximity, intoxication, training, disobedience of orders, and failure to heed a warning shot, the Court found that petitioner’s single shot to the head was a reasonable means to avert an imminent threat.
Analysis — Lack of Sufficient Provocation
The Court found no eviden
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 160188)
Case Citation and Court
- Reported at 685 Phil. 223, Third Division, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012.
- Decision authored by Justice Velasco, Jr.
- Decision announces grant of motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Resolution dated August 25, 2010, reversal and setting aside of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 (People v. SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac), and acquittal of petitioner SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac for homicide on reasonable doubt.
- Concurrence by Justices Peralta, Abad, Mendoza, and Perlas-Bernabe.
Charge / Information
- The Information charged that on or about February 20, 2003 in Dingras, Ilocos Norte, SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac, a member of the Philippine National Police assigned to Dingras Police Station, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, shot one SPO1 Doddie Espejo with a gun, resulting in the latter’s death.
Factual Background
- The shooting occurred around 10:00 p.m. on February 20, 2003 at the Dingras Police Station, Dingras, Ilocos Norte.
- The victim, SPO1 Doddie Espejo, had a history of violent aggression and drunkenness; he once attacked a former superior for no apparent reason.
- On the night in question, petitioner, the victim, and other police officers were on the same duty shift (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. the next day); petitioner was the officer-of-the-day and highest-ranking officer on duty.
- Shortly before 10:00 p.m., the victim and SPO1 Eduardo Basilio took a patrol tricycle from the station grounds. Petitioner stopped them and refused to allow use of the tricycle because the victim was drunk and was needed at the station.
- The victim responded angrily, uttering an Ilocano invective (“aIyot ni inam kapia”).
- The victim alighted from the tricycle and, according to testimony, took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber firearm, which was holstered on his right side. SPO1 Basilio testified as to the victim’s inebriation and that petitioner ordered the men not to leave.
- Petitioner testified that he initially fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot. The victim allegedly drew his firearm and, per petitioner’s testimony, pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner then shot the victim in the head, causing instantaneous death.
- Petitioner later surrendered to the station’s Chief of Police.
Procedural History
- A reverse trial was conducted because the accused interposed the claim of self-defense.
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Laoag City, convicted petitioner of homicide in a May 23, 2007 Judgment, finding self-defense unavailing for lack of unlawful aggression; the RTC sentenced petitioner to an indeterminate penalty (minimum eight years prision mayor to maximum fourteen years reclusion temporal) and ordered payment of indemnity, actual damages, moral damages and attorney’s fees.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC judgment on July 20, 2009, concluding that the essential element of unlawful aggression was lacking and noting that no one else saw the victim pointing his weapon at petitioner.
- This Court issued a Resolution dated August 25, 2010, denying petitioner’s petition for review for failure to sufficiently show reversible error. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 11, 2010.
- On March 21, 2012, this Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration, reinstated the petition, reversed and set aside the CA decision, and acquitted petitioner of homicide on reasonable doubt; ordered immediate release unless petitioner was being held for another lawful cause and required the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to inform the Court within five days of release.
Issues Presented by Petitioner
- Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously held that the victim’s drawing of his handgun or pointing it at petitioner is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression based on existing jurisprudence.
- Whether the Court of Appeals incorrectly appreciated the photograph showing the victim holding his handgun in a peculiar manner despite the absence of expert testimony.
- Whether petitioner met the second and third requisites of self-defense (reasonable necessity of the means employed; lack of sufficient provocation).
Arguments by Petitioner (as summarized in the record)
- The trial court erred in interpreting a photograph without resort to expert testimony.
- The trial court ignored evidence proving unlawful aggression by the victim.
- The trial court failed to consider two gun reports and two empty shells at the crime scene, which support petitioner’s claim that he fired a warning shot.
- The trial court failed to appreciate petitioner’s act of self-defense.
- The CA erred in not giving proper weight and due consideration to the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Office of the Solicitor General’s Position (as reflected in the record)
- In its Comment dated April 27, 2011, the OSG avers that petitioner is entitled to an acquittal or, at the very least, the appreciation of one or two mitigating circumstances.
- The OSG argues that a police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately, including drawing quickly from a holster; given that the victim w