PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015
Facts:
On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use personal violence upon Mario De Luna. Petitioner fired his service firearm against the victim hitting the latter on the chest and other parts of the body. The wounds were the direct and immediate cause of his death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim to death, but claimed to have done so in self-defense. In support of this claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack upon accused-appellant. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of homicide and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner, but modified some of the monetary damages awarded.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.
In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the first element of self-defense. There was no showing of attack or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or actual danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is negated by the physical evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the victim’s body. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.
With regard to the second element of self-defense, the Court finds that the means employed by petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the victim's alleged unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds in his chest and different parts of his body. Indeed, the Advance Information prepared by the investigator of the case reveals that there was no mention of either a stabbing incident that happened or a knife that was recovered from the crime scene. Here, the wounds sustained by the victim clearly show the intent of petitioner to kill and not merely to prevent or repel an attack.
Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015
Facts:
On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use personal violence upon Mario De Luna. Petitioner fired his service firearm against the victim hitting the latter on the chest and other parts of the body. The wounds were the direct and immediate cause of his death. Petitioner pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim to death, but claimed to have done so in self-defense. In support of this claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack upon accused-appellant. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of homicide and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner, but modified some of the monetary damages awarded.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.
In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the first element of self-defense. There was no showing of attack or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or actual danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is negated by the physical evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the victim’s body. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence must be upheld.
With regard to the second element of self-defense, the Court finds that the means employed by petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the victim's alleged unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds in his chest and different parts of his body. Indeed, the Advance Information prepared by the investigator of the case reveals that there was no mention of either a stabbing incident that happened or a knife that was recovered from the crime scene. Here, the wounds sustained by the victim clearly show the intent of petitioner to kill and not merely to prevent or repel an attack.
Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment