GR L 47286; (January, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47286. January 7, 1987.
RAMON BORGUILLA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ramon Borguilla, a police lieutenant, was convicted of murder for the killing of Tirso Abad. The prosecution’s version, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, stated that on the night of November 22, 1969, an altercation occurred between Abad and Mayor Maximo Estrella at a meeting place in Makati. Abad, who was armed and under the influence of liquor, felt betrayed by the mayor’s lack of political support. Later, Borguilla attempted to pacify Abad, but Abad responded with an expletive, drew his revolver, and fired at Borguilla, missing. Borguilla then fired six shots, hitting Abad. A second stage of encounter ensued where both parties sought cover and exchanged more gunfire, during which Abad was fatally shot. The trial court convicted Borguilla, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, finding only incomplete self-defense.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioner acted in complete self-defense, thereby exempting him from criminal liability, or whether the evidence sufficiently supports his conviction for murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Ramon Borguilla, finding that he acted in complete self-defense. The legal logic centered on a meticulous review of the evidence, which established all elements of self-defense: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, primarily relying on the testimonies of witnesses Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco, insufficient and unreliable. Their claim that Borguilla shot the victim while they were directly facing each other was contradicted by the medico-legal findings on the trajectory of the fatal bullets, which indicated the assailant was positioned obliquely.
The Court gave credence to the defense’s narrative that the unlawful aggression indisputably originated from the victim, Tirso Abad. Abad, armed, intoxicated, and with a known violent character, fired first at Borguilla without provocation. The subsequent shots fired by Borguilla, including the final fatal ones, were a continuous and reasonable response to Abad’s persistent armed attack, even after Abad was initially wounded. The absence of motive for Borguilla to attack Abad, contrasted with Abad’s documented grudge and violent propensity, further bolstered the defense’s version. Consequently, the evidence proved Borguilla acted out of a reasonable necessity for self-preservation, thus exempting him from criminal liability.