G.R. No. 137143 ; December 8, 2000
NERIO SALCEDO y MEDEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nerio Salcedo was charged with murder for the shooting death of PO1 Nilo Demapaylo on May 30, 1992, in Balasan, Iloilo. The prosecution’s evidence, while lacking eyewitnesses to the actual shooting, included the medico-legal report of Dr. Ricardo Jaboneta, which detailed five gunshot wounds on the victim’s body. These included wounds on the front left abdomen, the right ear lobe with powder burns on the cheek, and a fatal wound on the back, left side. The cause of death was profuse hemorrhage from multiple gunshot wounds.
Salcedo admitted to the shooting but invoked self-defense. He testified that while leaving a cockpit arena, the victim challenged him for carrying a firearm. After Salcedo responded that his shotgun was licensed, the victim allegedly shouted an expletive, drew his firearm, and fired first. Salcedo claimed he fired back almost simultaneously from a distance of six to eight feet while both were facing each other, and fired a second shot as the victim advanced. He stated he later found the victim lying down, took the victim’s firearm, and eventually surrendered to the police.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction for homicide, specifically in rejecting petitioner’s claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court reiterated that a petition for review under Rule 45 can only raise questions of law, not questions of fact. The factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding. The petitioner failed to prove any recognized exception to this rule.
On the merits of the self-defense claim, the Court upheld the lower courts’ conclusion that petitioner failed to prove the essential element of unlawful aggression by the victim. The physical evidence contradicted his narrative. The presence of five gunshot wounds, including one at the victim’s back, belied his claim of having fired only twice and that they were facing each other. The powder burns indicated a close-range shot, inconsistent with the claimed distance of six to eight feet. Furthermore, the Court found it implausible that the petitioner emerged completely unscathed if the victim had fired first at such close range. Since self-defense requires proof of unlawful aggression, and the petitioner’s account was rendered doubtful by the physical evidence, his claim must fail. The conviction for homicide was thus sustained.