G.R. No. 215748 November 20, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. PAUL DURAN, JR. y MIRABUENO, Accused-appellant

FACTS

The prosecution’s eyewitness, Beverly Quilana, testified that on January 9, 2009, at around 1:48 a.m., she was awakened by her godson, Gilbert Grimaldo, calling for help outside her house in Rosario, Cavite. Upon opening her door, she saw the accused, Paul Duran, Jr., shoot Grimaldo from behind at close range. Grimaldo fell face down. Duran left momentarily but returned to shoot the prone victim three more times before fleeing. Quilana, familiar with Duran as a neighbor for six years, positively identified him under the illumination of a fluorescent bulb. The autopsy confirmed the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds.
The accused, Paul Duran, Jr., invoked self-defense. He claimed that while on his way to buy fish, he was blocked by Grimaldo and an accomplice who attempted to rob him at gunpoint. A struggle ensued, during which Duran wrestled the gun away from Grimaldo. He alleged that he shot Grimaldo only once during this altercation and fired subsequent shots out of fear that the other assailant would retaliate.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s finding of guilt for Murder, rejecting the accused’s claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction for Murder. The Court meticulously dissected the claim of self-defense, emphasizing that an accused who admits the killing assumes the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Duran utterly failed to prove the indispensable element of unlawful aggression. By his own narrative, any aggression from the victim ceased the moment Duran successfully seized possession of the firearm. The subsequent act of shooting the victim multiple times, including after he was already defenseless on the ground, was not a reasonable or necessary act of repelling an ongoing attack but an intentional assault. This negated self-defense.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the presence of treachery (alevosia) as a qualifying circumstance. The eyewitness account established that the initial shot was delivered from behind without any warning, ensuring the victim had no opportunity to defend himself. The subsequent shots while the victim was prostrate compounded this mode of attack. The trial court’s assessment of the eyewitness’s credibility was accorded great weight, as there was no evidence of ill motive to falsely testify. Consequently, with self-defense unproven and the prosecution having established the elements of Murder qualified by treachery, the conviction was sustained.