GR 125538; (September, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 125538 September 3, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HONORATO NAVARRO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Honorato Navarro was charged with Murder for the killing of Rosendo Espura. The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the trial court, established that on the night of June 28, 1993, Jocelyn Navarro (common-law wife of the victim) and Rosendo Espura were sleeping when Leosadi Azusano, a wounded second cousin of Jocelyn, arrived seeking help. Rosendo went outside their house to inquire about assisting Azusano. Accused-appellant Navarro and his son Renato had followed Azusano. While Rosendo was about to re-enter his house, accused-appellant, from a distance of about two arm’s length, shot him with a high-powered firearm. After Rosendo fell to the ground, accused-appellant shot him again. Jocelyn witnessed the shooting. Accused-appellant admitted the killing but invoked self-defense and defense of strangers, claiming that Rosendo was approaching him while carrying a hand grenade and threatening to kill him. The trial court convicted accused-appellant of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant of Murder, and whether his claim of self-defense or defense of strangers is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the crime from Murder to Homicide. The Court held that accused-appellant failed to prove the elements of self-defense or defense of strangers. Specifically, he did not establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, as the evidence showed Rosendo was unarmed and defenseless when shot. The claim that Rosendo possessed a hand grenade was belied by prosecution witnesses and no grenade was produced in evidence; the Court found the explanation of its disappearance not credible. However, the Court found that treachery was not present. The attack was not deliberately chosen to ensure the execution without risk to the accused; rather, it was a rash and impetuous act arising from the situation where the intended target was Leosadi Azusano, and Rosendo was shot on the spur of the moment when he came out to help. Absent any qualifying circumstance, accused-appellant is liable only for Homicide. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period. The award of damages was sustained.