People vs. Delector (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO DELECTOR

G.R. No. 200026, October 4, 2017 

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: The  late Vicente Delector was talking with his brother, Antolin, when the accused, another brother, shot him twice. Vicente's son, Amel attested that the accused had fired his gun at his father from their mother's house, and had hit his father who was then talking with Antolin. Hence, the accused was charged with murder.

In his defense, the accused insisted that the shooting of Vicente had been by accident when Vicente followed him to their mother's house and dared him to come out, compelling Antolin to intervene and attempt to pacify Vicente. Instead, Vicente attacked Antolin, which forced the accused to go out of their mother's house. Seeing Vicente to be carrying his gun, he tried to wrest the gun from Vicente, and they then grappled with each other for control of the gun. At that point, the gun accidentally fired, and Vicente was hit.

Issue: Whether or not the exempting circumstance of accident is present.

Ruling: No, accident could not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal liability provided that the elements of this exempting circumstance are, present: (1) that the accused is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) causes injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without fault or intention of causing it.

Accident could not be appreciated herein as an exempting circumstance simply because the accused grappled with the victim for control of the gun which is utterly inconsistent with the ordinary and normal behavior of one who is facing imminent danger to one's life. The assertion of accident could have been accorded greater credence had there been only a single shot fired, for such a happenstance could have been attributed to the unintentional pulling of the hammer during the forceful grappling for control of the gun. Yet, the revolver fired twice, which we think eliminated accident.

Ratio Decidendi: It is unlikely that the accused-appellant would purposely set out and grapple with the victim who was already armed with a gun while accused-appellant was totally unarmed. Such actuation is utterly inconsistent with the ordinary and normal behavior of one who is facing imminent danger to one's life, considering the primary instinct of self-preservation.

Gist: This case involves a brother fatally shooting his own brother. In his defense, the accused pleaded accident as an exempting circumstance. The trial and intermediate appellate courts rejected his plea and found him guilty of murder qualified by treachery. Hence, he has come to us to air his final appeal for absolution.