G.R. No. 150647 ; September 29, 2004
Roweno Pomoy, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Roweno Pomoy, a police sergeant, was charged with homicide for the death of Tomas Balboa. The prosecution alleged that on January 4, 1990, at Camp Jalandoni in Sara, Iloilo, Pomoy, while armed with his .45 caliber service pistol, escorted the detained Balboa from his jail cell to an investigation room. Shortly thereafter, two gunshots were heard. Pomoy was found holding his pistol, with Balboa lying fatally wounded nearby. The Regional Trial Court convicted Pomoy of homicide, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.
Pomoy claimed the shooting was a pure accident. He testified that while escorting Balboa, who was handcuffed, the latter suddenly turned, grabbed the pistol from its holster, and a struggle for possession ensued. During the struggle, the gun accidentally fired twice, hitting Balboa. He asserted he performed a lawful act of escorting a detainee with due care and had no intent to shoot.

ISSUE

Whether the shooting was a criminal act constituting homicide or a mere accident exempting Pomoy from criminal liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted Pomoy. The Court held that the incident was an accident, an exempting circumstance under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The legal logic requires concurrence of three elements: 1) the accused was performing a lawful act; 2) he acted with due care; and 3) the injury was caused by mere accident without fault or intent.
All elements were present. First, escorting a detainee for interrogation is a lawful duty for a police officer. Second, Pomoy acted with due care; the gun was properly holstered, and no evidence showed he provoked the struggle. The credible testimony described a sudden, unexpected grab by Balboa, initiating the struggle. Third, the fatal shots were fired during this unforeseen physical contest for the weapon, establishing the absence of criminal intent. The trajectory of the wounds, as described by the medico-legal officer, was consistent with a struggle where the gun was not aimed. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails. The factual findings of the lower courts were set aside as a review is warranted when the innocence of the accused hinges on a proper appreciation of facts, which here demonstrated reasonable doubt.