G.R. No. L-57664 February 8, 1989
ANGELITO ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelito Ortega, a member of the Integrated National Police, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of homicide for the death of Marciano Donato. The prosecution’s case relied on the judicial admissions of Ortega, made with the assistance of counsel, that he was a police officer in the performance of his official duties on July 17, 1977, and that he shot and killed Donato with his service pistol during that duty. The medico-legal report indicated the fatal gunshot was fired at very close range, with the muzzle not more than six inches from the victim’s cheek.
In his defense, Ortega claimed self-defense. He testified that he and a colleague were pursuing Donato based on a complaint of extortion. Upon cornering Donato in a yard, Ortega claimed Donato emerged with a drawn kitchen knife and suddenly stabbed him, cutting his raincoat. While leaning back on a tricycle to evade a second stab, Ortega drew his gun and fired. The defense presented corroborating witnesses, Pat. Cesar Belen and tricycle driver Ernesto Obias. However, Ortega failed to present the allegedly cut raincoat or the victim’s knife as evidence.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Sandiganbayan erred in rejecting Ortega’s claim of self-defense and convicting him of homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that when an accused admits the killing and invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Ortega failed to discharge this burden. The Court found the claim of unlawful aggression—the indispensable first element of self-defense—to be unconvincing. The medico-legal findings of a near-contact wound were inconsistent with a scenario of a moving struggle where the victim was aggressively attacking with a knife. Furthermore, Ortega’s failure to present the material evidence of the cut raincoat and the knife, which were crucial to corroborate his narrative, created a presumption that their production would be adverse to his cause. The Sandiganbayan’s assessment of witness credibility and factual findings, including the contradictions in the defense’s story, is accorded finality.
The Court also rejected the jurisdictional challenges. Ortega’s vested right to be tried in the place of the crime’s commission was not impaired, as the Sandiganbayan properly acquired jurisdiction over the case involving a public officer. The right to an appeal was also preserved through the petition for review to the Supreme Court. The penalty imposed was within the correct range under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The indemnity to the heirs was increased to P30,000.00.