Case Summary (G.R. No. 196945)
Petition Overview
This case revolves around a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling of guilty for homicide against Remegio.
Facts of the Case
On 19 November 1999, an information was filed against Remegio for the homicide of Felix Sumugat, alleging that on 12 December 1998, in Culasi, Antique, he unlawfully shot Sumugat using an illegal firearm. Remegio pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial conference, both parties acknowledged that Remegio killed Sumugat but claimed self-defense.
Defense Version
Remegio and witness Diosdado Bermudez testified that Remegio was a caretaker of land belonging to his brother-in-law. On the day of the incident, Sumugat was cutting an uprooted tree when Remegio told him to stop. Sumugat allegedly threatened to kill Remegio and pulled out a revolver. A struggle ensued over the firearm, during which Remegio took the gun but Sumugat attacked him with a chainsaw. In self-defense, Remegio fired a warning shot, but in the ensuing struggle, he mistakenly shot Sumugat in the chest.
Prosecution Version
The prosecution’s witnesses claimed Remegio initially threatened Sumugat. Testimonies indicated discrepancies where some witnesses retracted their statements or acknowledged they did not directly witness the incident. Additionally, Remegio allegedly shot Sumugat after he had already been shot in the foot, painting a different narrative from the defense.
RTC Ruling
The RTC found Remegio guilty of homicide, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering him to indemnify Sumugat’s heirs. They ruled that Remegio's action in confronting Sumugat was provocation, thereby negating the self-defense claim.
CA Ruling
The CA affirmed Remegio's conviction but modified the penalty and the amounts of damages awarded. It acknowledged that unlawful aggression was present but highlighted a lack of reasonable necessity concerning the means employed by Remegio. The appellate court maintained that alternatives to killing existed for Remegio to defend himself.
Legal Issue
The primary legal issue was whether Remegio was entitled to assert self-defense. The petitioner argued that his actions were justified under the imminent threat posed by Sumugat.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that self-defense necessitates proving three elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. It reiterated that unlawful aggression is a prerequisite and must entail an actual and immediate threat.
Unlawful Aggression
The Court found sufficient evidence of unlawful aggression. Remegio’s consistent narrative and corroborating medical evidence of his injuries established the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 196945)
Overview
- Case Citation: G.R. No. 196945, September 27, 2017
- Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Decision Date: September 27, 2017
- Petitioner: Danilo Remegio
- Respondent: People of the Philippines
- Context: Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' conviction of the petitioner for homicide.
Background Facts
- In an Information dated November 19, 1999, Danilo Remegio was charged with homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The incident occurred on December 12, 1998, in Culasi, Antique, where Remegio shot Felix Sumugat after a confrontation involving a chainsaw.
- Remegio pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense during the trial.
- A pre-trial conference confirmed that Remegio killed Sumugat but maintained the plea of self-defense.
Version of the Defense
- Remegio testified that he was the caretaker of a land owned by his brother-in-law and witnessed Sumugat cutting a tree with a chainsaw.
- A confrontation ensued where Sumugat threatened to kill Remegio and drew a revolver, prompting Remegio to wrest the gun away.
- Sumugat then picked up the chainsaw and attacked, leading Remegio to fire warning shots before accidentally shooting Sumugat in the chest.
Version of the Prosecution
- The prosecution's witnesses, including Caduada and Magturo, provided conflicting accounts, suggesting that Remegio provoked the confrontation and shot Sumugat without justification.
- Witness Magturo later admitted he did not witness the incident, and Caduada retracted his previous testimony.
- The prosecution argued that Remegio's actions were unjustifie