People v. Nacario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: PFC. Renante Nacario y Capalos was charged with murder for allegedly shooting Cpl. Danilo Rosil thrice with an M14 rifle on May 20, 1998, in Zamboanga City. Both were members of the Philippine Army assigned to the mess hall. The accused admitted the killing and surrendered his weapon. He claimed self-defense, alleging a heated argument, the victim grabbing his rifle, and the victim drawing a .357 caliber revolver, forcing the accused to shoot. Procedural History: The trial court rejected the self-defense claim, finding it uncorroborated and contradicted by prosecution witnesses and the autopsy report showing all three wounds were at the victim's back. The court convicted the accused of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Petition: The accused appealed, assigning errors in the disallowance of self-defense or incomplete self-defense, the appreciation of treachery, and the failure to appreciate voluntary surrender.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense or the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Whether the killing was attended by treachery, qualifying the crime to murder. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been appreciated.
Ruling
The appealed decision is affirmed with modifications regarding the award of damages. The conviction for murder stands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court held that self-defense was not proven. The accused failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, relying solely on his uncorroborated testimony. The absence of the victim's alleged .357 caliber revolver at the crime scene further weakened the claim. The Court emphasized that the use of a deadly weapon and shooting the victim thrice in the back demonstrated the accused's intent to kill, not self-preservation. The absence of unlawful aggression also invalidated the claim of incomplete self-defense. On the issue of treachery: The Court affirmed the presence of treachery. The accused himself admitted to shooting the victim three times in the back while the victim's back was turned. This mode of attack, without risk to the offender and depriving the victim of any opportunity to defend himself, squarely fits the definition of treachery under Article 14, Paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code. The victim was unarmed and unprepared for the sudden assault from behind. On the issue of voluntary surrender: The Court agreed that voluntary surrender was a mitigating circumstance, which the trial court had already considered by imposing the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, as opposed to the death penalty. However, because reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law was not applicable, and thus, no further benefit could be derived from this circumstance beyond the imposition of the correct penalty range.
Main Doctrine
The elements of self-defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim negates both complete and incomplete self-defense. Treachery is present when the attack is sudden and from behind, depriving the victim of any opportunity to defend himself. Voluntary surrender, while a mitigating circumstance, does not warrant the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law when the penalty is indivisible.