G.R. No. L-26729. January 21, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUPO RIDUCA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on the afternoon of March 25, 1957, the victim Carlos Rillamas and several companions were riding in a calesa in Barrio Bantaoay, San Vicente, Ilocos Sur. Appellant Lupo Riduca, a policeman in uniform and armed with a Springfield rifle, stopped the calesa and asked to ride. Upon reaching the vehicle, Riduca pointed his rifle at Rillamas and fired, causing the victim to slump inside the calesa. While Rillamas was in that position, Riduca fired a second shot. The other passengers fled. The autopsy confirmed the fatal gunshot wounds.
At trial, appellant admitted firing the two shots that killed Rillamas but interposed the justifying circumstance of self-defense. He claimed that as he was attempting to board the calesa, Rillamas uttered a provocative statement and suddenly grabbed the muzzle of his rifle. A struggle ensued during which the gun fired twice accidentally. The trial court convicted appellant of murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to indemnify the heirs. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting appellant’s claim of self-defense and in convicting him of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that appellant failed to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof rests on the accused who admits the killing. The Court found the prosecution’s version, supported by eyewitness testimonies, credible. It established that Riduca suddenly and unexpectedly shot the unarmed and unsuspecting victim who was seated in a calesa. This manner of attack constituted alevosia, qualifying the killing to murder.
Even assuming the defense narrative were true, the Court ruled it did not substantiate self-defense. The essential elements of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed were absent. The alleged act of the victim in grabbing the rifle’s muzzle did not constitute a threat of imminent harm sufficient to justify the intentional firing of two shots. The trial judge, who observed appellant’s demonstration of how he held the rifle, was in the best position to assess the credibility of the defense, and the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn this assessment. The voluntary surrender of the appellant offset the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position as a policeman. The Court modified the decision by increasing the civil indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to P12,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.