G.R. No. L-71638. February 27, 1987. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SENDENCIO BALMACEDA alias “SENDING” AND MARIANO SERRANO, accused-appellant.
FACTS

On May 26, 1984, Patrolman Vicente Brul, while on duty, joined a group drinking at a beerhouse in Tabaco, Albay. The group included appellant Sendencio Balmaceda. Balmaceda, a parolee, resented the presence of the policeman. An altercation ensued where Balmaceda first took a small peeling knife from Brul. As Brul was leaving the establishment, Balmaceda followed him, snatched Brul’s service revolver from his waist from behind, and refused to return it. Brul pleaded for its return, but Balmaceda taunted him. A struggle for the gun occurred, during which Balmaceda, standing about a meter away from Brul, shot and killed him. Balmaceda then fled with the firearm.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Balmaceda of homicide committed with the use of an illegally possessed firearm, aggravated by assault upon an agent of a person in authority, and imposed the death penalty. His co-accused, Mariano Serrano, was acquitted. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery; (2) whether Balmaceda acted in self-defense; and (3) whether he could be convicted for using an illegally possessed firearm.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. On the first issue, treachery was not established. The prosecution failed to prove that the mode of attack was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The shooting occurred during a sudden grapple for the gun, which did not constitute a deliberate and efficient means to execution.
On the second issue, the claim of self-defense was rejected. The essential elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation were absent. The victim, Brul, was unarmed and merely pleading for the return of his service firearm when he was shot. All provocations originated from Balmaceda himself when he snatched the gun. His flight and failure to immediately report the incident to authorities were also inconsistent with innocence.
On the third issue, the Court upheld the conviction for using an illegally possessed firearm. Presidential Decree No. 1866 punishes homicide committed with an unlicensed firearm. The firearm, though licensed to the victim, was illegally possessed by Balmaceda at the time of the crime. As a parolee, he was legally disqualified from obtaining a license or permit to carry any firearm. His act of snatching the gun and appropriating it constituted illegal possession for the purpose of the decree. Therefore, the trial court correctly applied the law, warranting the imposition of reclusion perpetua.