GR 115233; (February, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115233 ; February 22, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILSON GUTUAL Y REMOLLENA and JOAQUIN NADERA Y APOSTOL, accused.
FACTS
The accused, Wilson Gutual and Joaquin Nadera, both CAFGU members, were charged with Murder for the killing of Celestino Maglinte. The prosecution’s version alleged that on December 29, 1990, the unarmed victim was walking when accused Gutual fired warning shots. When Maglinte raised his arm in surrender, Gutual shot him multiple times, with Nadera also firing, resulting in Maglinte’s death. The defense, however, claimed self-defense. They testified that Maglinte was running amuck, chasing Barangay Captain Wayne Gutual while hacking with a bolo. The accused, responding to calls for help, fired warning shots. As Maglinte continued his aggressive advance, Gutual, cornered and in imminent danger, fired to disarm him, resulting in the fatal shot. The trial court acquitted Nadera on reasonable doubt but convicted Gutual of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant Wilson Gutual of murder and not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the conviction and ACQUITTED Wilson Gutual. The Court found that the accused-appellant successfully proved self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish its elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found unlawful aggression present in the victim’s act of aggressively advancing and hacking at Gutual with a bolo, cornering him against a staircase. The means employed—firing a rifle—was reasonably necessary given the immediacy and severity of the threat from an armed assailant at close range. The Court emphasized that the determination of the reasonable necessity of the means does not depend on the harm done but on the imminent danger of such injury. The instinct of self-preservation justified Gutual’s action. The prosecution failed to overcome this evidence. Consequently, Gutual incurred no criminal liability under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code. His civil liability was also extinguished.