G.R. No. 134262 ; June 28, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABDULAJID SABDANI y SHUMARHARI, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on July 14, 1996, in Quezon City, appellant Abdulajid Sabdani, a police officer, shot and killed Norodin Ibrahim. Eyewitness Hairoden Abdul testified that the victim was merely standing in front of appellant’s house when appellant emerged, armed with a .45 caliber pistol. The victim ran but stumbled. While the victim was lying supine and defenseless, appellant stood over him and shot him. Even as the victim raised his hands in a plea for mercy, appellant shot him again. Appellant then pointed his gun at bystanders before returning to his house. He later surrendered to arriving policemen, allegedly stating, “Sample lang iyan, sample.”
The defense, anchored on self-defense, presented a contrary version. Appellant and his wife, Marilyn Sabdani, claimed that the victim, along with five or six companions, blocked their doorway in a threatening manner. They alleged the victim had a gun tucked in his waistline and was in the act of pulling it out when appellant preemptively shot him in defense of himself and his family. The trial court rejected this narrative, convicting appellant of murder qualified by treachery and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly rejected the plea of self-defense and found appellant guilty of murder.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted to the killing and assumed the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of its requisites: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found that appellant failed to discharge this burden. The testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution was found credible, straightforward, and consistent, detailing how appellant shot the unarmed and fleeing victim who was already prone on the ground. This manner of attack, executed to ensure the victim had no opportunity to defend himself, constituted treachery, qualifying the killing to murder. In contrast, the defense account was deemed unreliable. The claim that the victim was armed was uncorroborated, as no gun was recovered from him. The number, location, and trajectory of the gunshot wounds also belied appellant’s claim of a sudden, close-range confrontation. The justifying circumstance of self-defense was therefore unsubstantiated. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and civil indemnity were upheld, though moral damages were reduced to P30,000.00.