G.R. No. 199579 ; December 10, 2012
RAMON JOSUE y GONZALES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ramon Josue was charged with frustrated homicide for shooting Armando Macario multiple times on May 1, 2004, in Manila. The prosecution established that Macario, a barangay tanod, was buying medicine when Josue approached, accused him of painting his vehicle, and shot him despite his denial. Macario sustained gunshot wounds to his elbow, fingers, and back. Medical testimony confirmed the injuries were fatal without timely intervention. Josue claimed self-defense, alleging he caught Macario and two others attempting to steal his jeepney’s battery. He testified that Macario pointed a .38 caliber gun at him, which jammed, prompting Josue to fire in response. His son corroborated this, and a police officer testified Josue later surrendered a .38 revolver allegedly belonging to Macario.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Josue of frustrated homicide, finding the prosecution’s version credible and noting the defense failed to prove the surrendered gun belonged to Macario. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Josue elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, arguing the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the factual findings of the lower courts and whether the petitioner’s claim of self-defense is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. As a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law are reviewable. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive. The Court found no exceptional circumstance, such as insufficient evidence or a misapprehension of facts, to warrant a deviation from this rule. Thus, it deferred to the lower courts’ unanimous factual conclusion that the prosecution’s narrative was credible.
On the merits, the Court upheld the rejection of the self-defense claim. For self-defense to be valid, unlawful aggression by the victim must be proven. The lower courts found the petitioner’s version unconvincing. The prosecution evidence showed Macario was unarmed and fleeing when shot in the back, negating any ongoing aggression. The means used by Josue—employing a deadly weapon against an unarmed person and firing repeatedly even as the victim fled—were not reasonably necessary to repel an attack. His actions demonstrated an intent to kill, not mere defense, thereby satisfying the elements of frustrated homicide. The penalty and award of actual damages were affirmed, with an additional award of moral damages granted in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.