G.R. No. 191913; March 21, 2012
SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner SPO2 Lolito Nacnac was convicted of homicide for the shooting death of fellow police officer SPO1 Doddie Espejo. The incident occurred at their police station. The prosecution’s narrative led to a reverse trial as Nacnac invoked self-defense. He testified that on the night in question, he, as the officer-of-the-day, prevented the visibly drunk victim from taking a patrol vehicle. The victim responded with a grave insult in Ilocano, alighted, and then drew his .45 caliber pistol from his holster. Nacnac claimed he fired a warning shot upward with his M-16 rifle, but the victim persisted in drawing his weapon, prompting Nacnac to shoot him in the head, causing instant death.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals rejected the claim of self-defense, primarily finding an absence of unlawful aggression. The lower courts gave weight to the fact that no other witness saw the victim draw his gun and questioned the trajectory of the fatal shot. They convicted Nacnac of homicide, appreciating only the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction by failing to appreciate petitioner’s claim of self-defense, specifically the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration, reversed the CA decision, and acquitted petitioner. The Court held that the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense beyond reasonable doubt. The legal logic centered on a re-evaluation of the evidence establishing unlawful aggression. The Court found that the victim’s history of violent behavior, his drunken state, his grave insult followed by the act of drawing his service firearm—a fact supported by the victim’s body position and gun holster in a crime scene photo—constituted a real and immediate threat to Nacnac’s life.
The lower courts’ over-reliance on the lack of an eyewitness to the drawing of the gun was misplaced, as the act could have been instantaneous and witnessed only by the accused. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, and when self-defense is invoked, to prove that the killing was not justified. Here, the evidence, including the warning shot and the victim’s aggressive actions, created reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that Nacnac acted in legitimate self-defense, as the requisites of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation were present. Consequently, acquittal was the constitutional duty of the Court.