G.R. No. 193085, November 29, 2017
Petronilo Napone, Jr. and Edgar Napone, Petitioners vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent

FACTS

Petronilo Napone, Jr. (Junior), Edgar Napone (Edgar), and their father were charged with Murder for the death of Salvador Espelita. The prosecution, through eyewitness Jocelyn Janioso, testified that on the evening of September 22, 1992, a wounded Salvador arrived at her house holding Calib Napone. The Napone family then arrived. The father hacked Salvador from behind. Edgar threw a stone at Salvador, and Junior shot Salvador three times with a firearm, causing fatal injuries. The medico-legal officer confirmed the gunshot wound perforated the left ventricle, causing death.
The defense claimed they acted in defense of a relative. They testified they rushed to Janioso’s house upon hearing their brother Calib was bloodied and being held by Salvador and his son. Upon arrival, they saw Calib unconscious. When their father attempted to lift Calib, Salvador allegedly hacked him, severing fingers. Junior then shot Salvador. The trial court convicted Junior and Edgar of Homicide, not Murder, finding no treachery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioners’ conviction for Homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution evidence, particularly Janioso’s credible and consistent eyewitness account, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony detailed the sequential attacks by the Napones, culminating in Junior’s fatal shooting. The medico-legal findings corroborated this sequence, identifying the gunshot as the fatal wound.
The defense of relative was correctly rejected. For this justifying circumstance to apply, the defense of the relative must itself be lawful. The evidence showed Calib was not under an unlawful aggression from Salvador when the petitioners intervened. Salvador was already wounded and seeking help, holding Calib, who was also injured. The initial aggression had ceased. The father’s act of hacking Salvador from behind when he was already inside Janioso’s house initiated a new aggression. Junior’s act of shooting the unarmed and already attacked victim was not a lawful defense of his father but a disproportionate and retaliatory response. Thus, all elements of defense of a relative were absent. The trial and appellate courts correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender for Edgar. The penalty and damages were affirmed.