G.R. No. 224900 March 15, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Nestor M. Bugarin, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Nestor Bugarin was charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of Esmeraldo Pontanar and Cristito Pontanar, and one count of attempted murder against Maria Glen Neis Pontanar. The prosecution’s version established that on the evening of May 30, 2008, Bugarin, without provocation, suddenly shot Esmeraldo multiple times. When Cristito, Esmeraldo’s father, came to plead for him to stop, Bugarin also shot and killed him. Bugarin then sought out and shot Maria Glen, who survived a gunshot wound to her thigh. The prosecution highlighted the familial ill-feelings between the Pontanars and the Bugarins.
Bugarin admitted to the shootings but claimed self-defense. He testified that Esmeraldo first approached his house while armed and shouting challenges. Fearing for his life, Bugarin shot Esmeraldo when he allegedly drew his gun. He claimed he shot Cristito because he believed Cristito would retrieve Esmeraldo’s firearm, and he shot Maria Glen because she was about to strike his wife with a pipe. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bugarin of double murder and attempted murder, a decision affirmed with modifications by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Bugarin’s conviction for two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that one who invokes self-defense admits to the killing and bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Bugarin’s claim of self-defense untenable. The number, location, and trajectory of Esmeraldo’s gunshot wounds, particularly two fatal wounds in the back, were physically incompatible with a frontal confrontation and negated unlawful aggression on the victim’s part. This indicated that Esmeraldo was shot from behind, demonstrating treachery.
Furthermore, the shooting of the unarmed and pleading 72-year-old Cristito, and the pursuit and shooting of Maria Glen, who was hiding, completely belied any claim of necessary self-preservation. The means employed were excessive and unreasonable. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was duly proven for the murders, as the attacks were sudden and unexpected, depriving the victims of any chance to defend themselves. The Court also upheld the penalty and awarded damages as modified by the CA, including civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, with interest. The claim of self-defense, being unsubstantiated, must fail.