People vs. Duran, Jr. (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PAUL DURAN, JR.

G.R. No. 215748, November 20, 2017 

CAGUIOA, J.:

Facts: The Information charging Duran with Murder partly alleges that the accused, using an unlicensed firearm, employing treachery, feloniously shoot GILBERT GRIMALDO on the back of his head and thereafter as the victim lay helpless and wounded on the ground shot him another three times, which cause his instantaneous death.

Upon his arraignment, Duran entered a plea of not guilty. Duran invoked self-defense and testified that while on his way to buy fish, he was blocked by two persons. One of them turned out to be the victim Gilbert Grimaldo who poked a gun at him, and said that they only needed his money. When Grimaldo attempted to get the money from his belt bag, they wrestled for the possession of the gun. Then Duran was able to take the gun away from Grimaldo. When Grimaldo moved backward, he pulled the trigger of the gun and hit Grimaldo.

Issue: Whether or not Duran guilty of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery.

Ruling: There was no unlawful aggression. The burden of proving self-defense rests on the accused. He must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or at least any provocation executed by the accused claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression.

Even if Duran's account of an attempted robbery against him is to be believed, his testimony also shows that Grimaldo, albeit the initial aggressor, ceased to be the aggressor as Duran had successfully wrested the weapon from him. Thereafter, Duran shot the gun at Grimaldo four times; three of which hit Grimaldo on vital parts of his body. At this moment, actions of the accused were already done in retaliation and not self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression initiated by the victim had already ceased when the accused attacked him; in self-defense, the aggression from the victim is continuing.

Ratio Decidendi: When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.

Gist: Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 88, finding herein accused-appellant Paul M. Duran, Jr. guilty of the crime of Murder.