GR L 28583; (April, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28583. April 24, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LITO PEREZ and RUSTUM DE LA TORRE, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The case stems from a politically motivated killing. The victim, Edgar Dilig, an Internal Revenue collection agent, had a history of political enmity with Marino Rubin. This animosity intensified after the 1965 elections, culminating in a series of violent incidents involving their associates. On July 10, 1966, Dilig, accompanied by his wife, stopped at a gasoline station and grocery store in Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. Unbeknownst to him, Rubin was inside the store drinking beer with his bodyguards, appellants Lito Perez and Rustum de la Torre. Dilig’s wife, upon seeing Rubin, attempted but failed to warn her husband. As Dilig entered the store to pay, multiple gunshots were fired. The wife witnessed appellants Perez and de la Torre simultaneously firing at Dilig, who fell to the floor. The appellants continued firing at the prostrate victim before fleeing. The medical examination revealed thirteen gunshot wounds, causing instantaneous death.
ISSUE
Whether the appellants can validly invoke self-defense to exculpate themselves from the crime of murder.
RULING
No, the plea of self-defense must fail. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for murder but modified the penalty for appellant Rustum de la Torre due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The legal logic is anchored on the stringent requirements for justifying self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. For such a defense to prosper, the accused must prove with clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence the concurrence of three elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation from the person defending himself. The primordial and indispensable element is unlawful aggression.
The Court meticulously examined the record and found the appellants’ claim of self-defense utterly unpersuasive. Their testimony that the victim was holding a revolver and that they fired in response lacked the requisite solidity and clarity. Crucially, the evidence failed to establish any unlawful aggression initiated by the deceased, Edgar Dilig, at the moment he entered the store. The absence of this foundational element renders the plea of self-defense legally untenable. Consequently, the killing was not justified. The appellants’ admission to firing the fatal shots, coupled with the eyewitness account and the number of wounds inflicted, firmly established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder.