G.R. No. 118002 September 5, 1997
ULDARICO ESCOTO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Uldarico Escoto, a security guard, was charged with homicide for killing his head guard, Eugenio Tuangson. The incident stemmed from a dispute over a job assignment. After a security guard resigned, Escoto expressed interest in the vacated post to Tuangson, who was in charge of assignments. Tuangson agreed to give him the post but demanded P2,000.00 as “grease money,” which Escoto paid. However, Tuangson later gave the position to another guard. Feeling aggrieved, Escoto confronted Tuangson on May 23, 1993, demanding the return of his money. During the heated argument, Tuangson stated the money was already spent, became angry, and said, “Are you crazy? I will kill you (birahan tika unya).” Escoto testified that Tuangson, while seated, was in the act of standing and pulling his revolver from its holster when Escoto, fearing he would be shot, fired his shotgun first, hitting Tuangson in the chest and killing him. Escoto pleaded not guilty and invoked self-defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of homicide, appreciating the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and voluntary surrender. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the civil indemnity and awarded actual damages.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner, Uldarico Escoto, validly acted in self-defense when he shot and killed Eugenio Tuangson.

RULING

No, the petitioner did not validly act in self-defense. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide. The elements of self-defense—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means, and lack of sufficient provocation—were not proven. Specifically, there was an absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The Court found that Tuangson’s act of being in the process of standing and pulling his gun from its holster while seated did not constitute actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, but merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The Court noted Escoto was standing, armed with a shotgun, and was a robust 29-year-old, while Tuangson was 56 years old and seated. Escoto failed to prove legal justification for the killing. The penalty was modified due to the presence of two mitigating circumstances (passion and obfuscation, and voluntary surrender) with no aggravating circumstances. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was set at two (2) years six (6) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium, as maximum. The civil awards of P50,000.00 as indemnity and P40,000.00 as actual damages were affirmed.