G.R. No. 129875 September 30, 2005
JOVITO CABUSLAY, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner SPO2 Jovito Cabuslay, along with other police officers, was charged with murder for the shooting death of Paquito Umas-as at a mobile checkpoint in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. The prosecution presented eyewitness Leoncio Zaragosa, who testified that on August 5, 1992, he saw a group of policemen, including Cabuslay, stop a motorcycle-riding collector (later identified as Umas-as). According to Zaragosa, after Umas-as presented his ID, Cabuslay, without provocation, opened fire with an M-16 rifle, emptying an entire magazine at the victim from a distance of four meters. The other officers had their firearms pointed at Umas-as, who was then placed in a vehicle after falling. The NBI forensic report showed the victim was negative for gunpowder nitrates.
The defense presented a different account, claiming the shooting occurred during a legitimate police operation prompted by an assassination plot against local officials. Cabuslay testified that the victim, who matched the description of a suspect, fired at them first during a checkpoint inspection. He claimed he and his team returned fire in self-defense. The Sandiganbayan convicted Cabuslay of homicide but acquitted his co-accused on reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting petitioner Jovito Cabuslay of homicide, rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the settled principle that self-defense is an affirmative allegation, and the burden of proof rests upon the accused to prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence. These elements are: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
The Court found that Cabuslay failed to discharge this burden. His claim of unlawful aggression—that the victim fired first—was not credible. The prosecution eyewitness gave a clear, consistent, and straightforward account of an unprovoked shooting. This testimony was corroborated by the NBI forensic finding that the victim’s hands were negative for gunpowder nitrates, strongly indicating he had not fired a weapon. In contrast, the defense’s claim of a prior firefight was unsupported by any physical evidence from the scene, such as recovered shells from a weapon allegedly used by the victim. The number, location, and severity of the victim’s eight gunshot wounds also belied the claim of reasonable necessity in the means employed. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly rejected the plea of self-defense and found Cabuslay guilty of homicide, as the qualifying circumstance of treachery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.