G.R. No. 168818 March 9, 2007
NILO SABANG, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Nilo Sabang was charged with homicide for the death of Nicanor Butad. The incident occurred during a drinking spree on January 17, 1997, in Ormoc City. Butad, who was armed with a .38-caliber revolver, uttered the words “I will shoot you” to Randy Sabang, petitioner’s son. Shortly thereafter, Butad was fatally shot four times with his own firearm. Petitioner admitted to the killing but claimed he acted in defense of his son, asserting that the shots were accidentally discharged during a struggle where he was trying to wrest the gun away from Butad, who had allegedly aimed it at Randy.
The prosecution presented a contrasting version. Eyewitnesses testified that Butad was holding a glass, not his gun, when he made the threatening statement. They stated that after Butad was punched by another person and fell, petitioner stood up, took Butad’s gun from his waist, and intentionally shot him multiple times. The trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted petitioner of homicide, giving greater weight to the prosecution’s evidence and the medico-legal findings.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner acted in legitimate defense of his son, a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which would exempt him from criminal liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The defense of a relative requires the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of provocation from the defender. The Court found that the element of unlawful aggression was not sufficiently established. The prosecution witnesses credibly testified that Butad was not holding his gun but a glass when he uttered the threat, meaning no actual physical assault or imminent danger of such an assault was present at that moment. A mere threatening statement, without an overt act of aggression, does not constitute unlawful aggression.
Furthermore, the physical evidence contradicted petitioner’s claim of a close-range struggle. The medico-legal expert testified that the absence of powder burns on the victim’s clothing and wounds indicated the gun was fired from a distance of more than ten inches, not at point-blank range as one would expect in a grappling scenario. This objective evidence strongly supported the prosecution’s narrative of an intentional shooting rather than an accidental discharge during a scuffle. Since unlawful aggression, the primordial element for self-defense or defense of a relative, was not proven, petitioner’s claim of a justifying circumstance must fail. The findings of fact by the lower courts, which are accorded great respect, were thus sustained.