G.R. No. 143071 , August 6, 2002
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. SPO2 Jose Magnabe Jr., appellant.

FACTS

SPO2 Jose T. Magnabe Jr. was charged with Murder for the killing of SPO2 Perfecto Cajucom. The prosecution’s evidence, primarily from eyewitness Ma. Cristina Crisanta Manabo, established that on September 17, 1995, a commotion occurred at Tyler’s Videoke Bar involving the appellant’s son, Jomel Magnabe. Kagawad Emilio Andan sought help from SPO2 Cajucom, who was nearby. Cajucom pursued one of the assailants, later identified as Jomel, and caught him at a house selling La Paz Batchoy. While Cajucom was trying to pull Jomel, the appellant arrived by taxi, approached Cajucom from behind, and shot him in the clavicle. Appellant then pushed Cajucom inside the house, closed the door, and further gunshots were heard. The autopsy revealed Cajucom died from multiple fatal gunshot wounds. The appellant invoked self-defense, claiming he shot Cajucom because the latter was holding his son at gunpoint inside their house and refused to listen to pleas from the appellant’s wife. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the appellant’s claim of self-defense is valid, and if not, whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery to constitute Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the RTC decision. The appellant’s claim of self-defense was rejected. By invoking self-defense, he admitted the killing, thereby waiving the presumption of innocence and assuming the burden to prove the justifying circumstance. The Court found the appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The evidence showed Cajucom was a police officer attempting to apprehend a suspect involved in a disturbance, and there was no proof he was acting unlawfully or aggressively towards the appellant at the moment he was shot from behind. However, the Court ruled that treachery was not proven. The prosecution failed to establish that the appellant employed means of execution that deliberately and consciously ensured the victim’s defenselessness. The attack from behind occurred while Cajucom was preoccupied with restraining Jomel, but this alone did not constitute the deliberate and methodical adoption of treacherous means required by law. Consequently, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. Appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The civil damages were modified accordingly.