Nacnac v. People , G.R. , G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012. FACTS:
On February 20, 2003, SPO2 Nacnac (accused-appellant), the SPO1 Espejo (victim) and a number of other police officers were on duty. Nacnac, being the highest ranking officer during the shift, was designated the officer-of-the-day. Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, Espejo, together with then SPO1 Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When Nacnac saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle. Espejo told Nacnac that he needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar. Nacnac still refused. He told Espejo that he is needed at the station and, at any rate, he should stay at the station because he was drunk. This was not received well by Espejo. He told Nacnac in Ilocano: Iyot ni inam kapi (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). Espejo alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Eduardo Basilio did the same, went inside the office, and left Nacnac and Espejo alone. Espejo took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest. Nacnac then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, Espejo still drew his gun. Nacnac then shot the victim on the head, which caused the Espejo’s instantaneous death. Nacnac later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police. The RTC found Nacnac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. It held that the claim of self-defense by Nacnac was unvailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Espejo. On appeal, CA affirmed the findings of RTC. It held that the essential and primary element of unlawful aggression was lacking. It gave credence to the finding of the trial court that no one else saw the victim drawing his weapon and pointing it at accused Nacnac. ISSUE:
Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the petitioner’s act s constitutes a valid self-defense. RULING:
YES. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code states that anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights do not incur any criminal liability, provided that the following circumstances concur: (i) unlawful aggression, (ii) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (iii) lack of sufficient provocation on the part part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense; and ordinarily, there is a difference between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s gun at a target in determining the presence of unlawful aggression. The former cannot be said to be an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, while the latter is generally considered unlawful aggression. Here, a warning shot fired by a fellow police officer (petitioner) was left unheeded as the victim reached for his own firearm and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. As to the second circumstance above, the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia of the means employed by the accused, which must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted. Here, the lone gunshot was a reasonable means chosen by petitioner in defending himself in view of
the proximity of the armed victim, his drunken state, disobedience of an unlawful order, and failure to stand down despite a warning shot. There is also lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself in this case. Petitioner gave the victim a lawful order and fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. There was no evidence on petitioner sufficiently provoking the victim prior to the shooting. Petitioner was only defending himself on the night he shot his fellow policer. WHEREFORE, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated July 20, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac is ACQUITTED of homicide on reasonable doubt.