Case # 31: Criminal Law1| Article 11- Justifying circumstances, self-defense

G.R. No. 224498, January 11, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs. PFC ENRIQUE REYES, Accused-Appellant

FACTS:
Accused-appellant (Enrique Reyes) was charged with murder of Danilo S. Estrella. That on
August 13, 1990, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with treachery
and evident premeditation and with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Danilo
Estrella by firing an armalite rifle at the victim (Danilo) that resulted to his death.
The prosecution presented three eye witnesses wherein they testified that they saw Danilo
walking towards his house (along Francisco Street, Tondo, Manila) after tending to his fighting cock when
accused suddenly fired at him from behind, causing him to fall on the ground. The accused approached
Danilo and took the .38 caliber firearm tucked in Danilo’s waist, and fired upwards, then placed the gun
on Danilo’s right hand and turned the latter’s body on a lying position. Accused then fired his armalite
upwards, saying “walang kukuha nito” then walked to his house. Danilo died from multiple gunshot
wounds.
On the other hand, accused presented six witnesses to refute the accusations of the prosecution
and invoked self-defense. Allegedly, he was informed by his nephew, Adelardo, about the intention of the
victim with his companion to “kill” him. Fearing for his family’s safety, Enrique prepared his Armalite rifle
and called for assistance from the police. After a while, someone outside shouted that there were
policemen in civilian clothes. Accused then proceeded towards Francisco Street thinking that the police
he called had arrived. At that time, Celia who was on her way to Enrique’s house, saw a man holding a
gun approaching Enrique from behind so she shouted “Ricky”. At that, he drew and shot his armalite
hitting Danilo who fell on the ground. After, he surrendered himself as well as his armalite rifle and
Danilo’s gun to Officer Ellano.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant can validly claim self-defense.

RULING:
Self-defense cannot be validly claimed by the accused-appellant.
By invoking self-defense, the burden of proof shifted to accused-appellant to show that the killing
was attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person invoking self-defense.
There is nothing in the records which would clearly and convincingly prove Enrique’s claim that
his life was in danger when he saw Danilo. In his claim that when Celia shouted his name, he saw Danilo
who was about to shoot him. However, based on Celia's testimony, Danilo was only approaching
accused-appellant while holding a gun. Celia did not witness any positive act showing the actual and
material unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
Indeed, accused-appellant failed to show an attack so offensive, menacing and strongly indicative
of an intent to cause injury, as to justify the killing of Danilo. It has been sufficiently established by the
prosecution that accused-appellant's attack on Danilo was unexpected and executed in a manner that
deprived the latter of a chance to put up a defense.
The accused-appellant is held guilty of murder.