People v. Nabayra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Erubien Z. Nabayra was charged in two separate informations with murder and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The murder charge alleged that on December 14, 1989, in Barangay Pinonoy, Libacao, Aklan, the appellant, armed with a bolo, with evident premeditation and treachery, and with intent to kill, attacked and wounded Remy Nabayra, inflicting injuries that caused his death. The illegal possession charge alleged that on the same date and place, the appellant had in his possession a handgun and two live ammunitions without proper authority. The two cases arose from a continuing occasion and were jointly tried. Procedural History: The appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. For the murder charge, he admitted killing the victim but interposed self-defense. The prosecution presented a doctor to testify on the victim's injuries. For the illegal possession charge, the prosecution presented police officers who apprehended the appellant and found a handbag containing a handgun and two ammunitions in his possession. The Petition: The appellant appealed his conviction by the Regional Trial Court, arguing that the lower court erred in finding him as the aggressor and in finding that the gun belonged to him. He insisted he acted in self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant acted in self-defense when he killed his uncle, Remy Nabayra. Whether the appellant is guilty of murder or homicide. Whether the appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
Ruling
The Court modified the decision of the lower court. The appellant was found guilty of HOMICIDE instead of Murder, and his conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition was affirmed. The penalty for homicide was set at imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum. The penalty for illegal possession was affirmed as previously imposed by the trial court. The firearm and ammunition were ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court ruled that the appellant failed to prove self-defense by strong, clear evidence. The appellant's version of the incident, where the victim allegedly drew a gun and aimed it at him before he retaliated with a bolo, was found to be incredible. Human instinct for self-preservation would dictate a more immediate reaction to an imminent threat. Furthermore, the number and nature of the wounds inflicted on the victim contradicted the claim of self-defense, indicating a "murderous ferocity" rather than a defensive act. The Court emphasized that evidence must be credible in itself and probable under the circumstances, citing People v. Flores and People v. Torio. On the issue of murder versus homicide: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the crime committed was homicide, not murder. The information alleged treachery and evident premeditation as qualifying circumstances for murder, but the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove their existence. There were no eyewitnesses, and the doctor's testimony only covered the physical injuries. The Court reiterated the principle that treachery cannot be presumed and must be proven as conclusively as the act of killing itself, citing People vs. Caldito. Similarly, the elements of evident premeditation were not established. On the issue of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition: The Court affirmed the appellant's conviction. The appellant's claim that the gun belonged to the victim and that he was on his way to surrender it was contradicted by the testimonies of the two police officers who apprehended him. The officers testified that the appellant did not mention surrendering the gun when apprehended and that he admitted ownership of the handgun. The Court gave credence to the police officers' testimonies, finding them to be unbiased, over the appellant's self-serving claims, citing People v. Canizares.
Main Doctrine
The Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The Court also affirmed the conviction for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, giving credence to the testimonies of police officers over the accused's claim of self-defense and surrender.