G.R. No. 60159 November 6, 1989
P/CPL. FAUSTO ANDAL, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Fausto Andal, a corporal in the Batangas Integrated National Police, was convicted of Homicide by the Sandiganbayan. The incident stemmed from a duty-related confrontation on September 25, 1980. Earlier that evening, Andal, as supervisor, questioned subordinate Pfc. Maximo Macaraig at a pier checkpoint for failing to report for briefing. Macaraig resented this, leading to a heated exchange. Later, around 11:00 PM in Batangas City, Macaraig aggressively confronted Andal again, now visibly furious. Despite pacification attempts by a colleague, Macaraig drew his service firearm, pointed it at Andal, and fired, hitting Andal in the knee.
Andal lunged at Macaraig and successfully wrested the gun from him. The central factual dispute concerns the events immediately following this disarming. The prosecution evidence, credited by the Sandiganbayan, established that after Andal gained possession of the gun, Macaraig had moved backward, creating a distance of about two meters. There was an appreciable lapse of time during which Andal spoke to his son and a colleague began to leave, thinking the altercation was over. Andal then fired two shots, killing Macaraig.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in rejecting petitioner’s claim of self-defense and in convicting him of Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The petition raised purely factual issues, which are generally beyond the scope of review under Rule 45, as the Court accords finality to the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan when supported by evidence. The Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the element of unlawful aggression required for self-defense had ceased. When Andal disarmed Macaraig and the latter retreated, the initial aggression ended. The subsequent shooting was not a continuous act of defense but a separate retaliatory act. The trajectory of the bullets (downward) and witness accounts placing the deceased two meters away contradicted Andal’s claim that the shots were fired during a continuing struggle for the gun.
However, the Court noted the presence of an incomplete justifying circumstance under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal Code. Andal was acting in the performance of his duty to maintain discipline when the initial confrontation occurred. His patience in the face of insults and his lawful exercise of authority were recognized. Nevertheless, he exceeded the necessary force required after disarming Macaraig, thus failing to fully satisfy the justifying circumstance. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan correctly applied Article 69, reducing the penalty by two degrees due to this incomplete justification, considering his service record and the context of instilling discipline. The conviction for Homicide with the mitigated penalty was sustained.