Borguilla vs. Court of Appeals

Complete self-defense exempts the accused from criminal liability where the victim, while feigning surrender, initiated the unlawful aggression by firing at the accused, and the means employed by the accused to repel the aggression were reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Ramon Borguilla was a one-time security guard of Mayor Maximo Estrella of Makati and later served as a police lieutenant of Makati. Tirso Abad was a Technical Assistant of Mayor Estrella who ran for councilor of Makati in the November 1969 elections under the mayor's political group. Abad lost the election and developed a deep resentment against the mayor, vowing to expose him. This political feud set the stage for the fatal encounter between Abad and Borguilla on the night of November 22, 1969, at the meeting place of the "Samahang Magdamag" on M. Ocampo Street, Makati, which the mayor frequently visited.

On the night of November 22, 1969, at about past nine o'clock in the evening, Tirso Abad, slightly under the influence of liquor, together with three companions including Antonio Mosqueda, went to the meeting place of the "Samahang Magdamag" at the house of Ireneo Francisco on M. Ocampo Street, Makati, Rizal, which Mayor Estrella frequently visited. Sometime between 10:00 and 10:30 that evening, Mayor Estrella arrived at the meeting place in a jeep accompanied by Ramon Borguilla. Abad approached the mayor and said, "Mayor, pinatalo mo ako," to which the mayor replied in surprise, "Anong pinatalo kita?" Abad gestured with his thumbs down and said, "Ginanoon mo ako, eh." The mayor proceeded to the house of Ireneo Francisco followed by Abad, and their heated conversation continued inside.

Borguilla went back to the mayor's jeep, which the driver had parked near a Meralco post. Not long after, Abad came out of the house in an angry mood, crossed the street, and went behind a parked garbage truck to relieve himself. When he started back toward the house, his shirt was open to the waist, showing a revolver tucked in the left side of his pants. Borguilla saw the revolver and tried to pacify Abad, saying, "Pasensiya ka na, mayroon pa namang 1971." This drew an angry retort from Abad, who blurted, "Hindot kayo," took a step back, pulled his revolver, and fired at Borguilla. Abad missed. Before he could fire again, Borguilla pulled out his revolver and fired six successive shots, hitting Abad in different parts of his body, none of which felled him. Borguilla jumped over the other side of the jeep to seek cover. Although wounded, Abad also sought cover behind a truck parked on the other side of the street and fired at Borguilla, who had reloaded his gun. Abad missed Borguilla but hit Domingo Alcantara, who was behind Borguilla.

Abad then worked his way behind the truck and entered the house of Mrs. Miguela Francisco, after emptying his revolver on the porch. He reloaded his gun and moved from one room to another facing the street. Several policemen in two mobile patrol cars arrived and deployed themselves. At about this time, Cesar Abad, the victim's brother, arrived after being informed of the shooting by Antonio Mosqueda. Cesar Abad pleaded with a policeman to stop the shooting and said he would try to get his brother to surrender. He proceeded to the house of Mrs. Francisco and called out, "Sumuko ka na, naririto na ang hustisya." According to the prosecution witnesses Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco, Tirso Abad agreed, came out staggering with both hands raised, said "Ayoko na, suko na ako," threw his revolver on the street, and tried to sit down, whereupon Borguilla rushed him and shot him three times. Cesar Abad cried in protest, "Tama na, tama na," and carried his wounded brother to a police car and brought him to the Makati Medical Center, where he died.

According to the defense witnesses—Benjamin Roldan, Cpl. Rodolfo de Leon, and Lt. Gregorio Averia—Abad did not surrender peacefully. Roldan testified that when Abad came out of the veranda of Mrs. Francisco's house holding his stomach and his gun, and when he was already very near Borguilla, Abad fired his gun toward his right, after which Roldan heard two more soft shots. Cpl. de Leon and Lt. Averia both testified that when they examined Abad's .357 Magnum revolver, they found six cartridges in the cylinder, one of which had been fired. The postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Ernesto Jimenez, NBI medico-legal officer, revealed nine gunshot entrance wounds and six exit wounds, with three slugs found inside the body. The cause of death was acute hemorrhage resulting from multiple gunshot wounds caused by .38 caliber bullets. Both the prosecution and defense medico-legal experts agreed that all gunshot wounds, except wound No. 9, followed a downward path, and all wounds followed an oblique path, either from right to left or vice versa.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner argued that the testimonies of Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco merit no credit, as their accounts are inconsistent with each other, with their prior sworn statements, and with the physical evidence.
• Medical Evidence: Petitioner maintained that the medical findings showing the downward trajectory of the bullets demonstrate Abad's fighting stance at the time he was shot, thereby impugning the prosecution's version that Abad was sitting or lying helpless when shot.
• Self-Defense: Petitioner argued that he proved self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, establishing all the elements of complete self-defense, particularly reasonable necessity of the means employed.
• Lack of Motive: Petitioner contended that the absence of motive on his part to attack and kill the victim establishes the truth of his version of the incident.

• Credibility of Prosecution Eyewitnesses: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in basing its decision on the testimonies of Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco, which are not acceptable as proof.
• Reasonable Necessity and Self-Defense: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that petitioner is only entitled to incomplete self-defense, or whether complete self-defense was established.

• Credibility of Prosecution Eyewitnesses: No. The testimonies of Cesar Abad and Antonio Basco cannot be believed, being contradicted by physical evidence, their own prior inconsistent statements, and the testimony of police officers who arrived before them yet witnessed nothing.
• Reasonable Necessity and Self-Defense: Yes. Complete self-defense was established, all three elements being proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly the element of reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression.

• Credibility of Prosecution Eyewitnesses: Cesar Abad's claimed presence during the shooting was highly doubtful. Patrolman Eustaquio Acuña, who was already at the scene when Abad arrived, stated in his affidavit and at trial that when he arrived the shooting was over and he heard no gunshots. Since the police officers who responded—Sgt. Espinosa and Cpl. de Leon—testified that the entire incident had already transpired when they arrived, and they arrived earlier than Abad, Abad could not have witnessed the shooting. Moreover, Cesar Abad omitted from his sworn statement to the police the critical fact that his brother was shot while lying helpless on the ground, only asserting this belatedly before the fiscal. Antonio Basco likewise gave inconsistent accounts: before the police he stated Abad was shot while lying flat on the ground, which is impossible given the downward trajectory of the bullets; before the fiscal he said Abad was about to sit down; and at trial he said Abad was "slowly sitting down." Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from a credible witness but must be credible in itself, conforming to common experience and observation.

• Reasonable Necessity and Self-Defense: The defense established all elements of complete self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. Unlawful aggression was proven: the victim fired his gun once at the petitioner before the latter shot him, as corroborated by the independent testimony of Benjamin Roldan and by the physical evidence showing one fired cartridge in the victim's revolver. Reasonable necessity was established: the medico-legal experts from both sides agreed that all gunshot wounds except wound No. 9 followed a downward path, indicating that Abad, who stood taller than the petitioner, was crouching in a fighting stance when hit—contradicting the prosecution's theory that he was erect, reclining, or lying flat. The oblique path of the wounds supported the petitioner's testimony that he swerved right and fired from an oblique position, negating the prosecution witnesses' claim that the two were facing each other. Lack of motive further supported the defense: the victim had reason to harm the accused, and the victim's capacity and propensity for violence were established facts—having once attempted to overpower a policeman, having challenged ten persons to a gunfight, and having gone out that night armed with a high-powered gun and extra ammunition while under the influence of liquor. The necessity of the killing committed by the accused exempts him from liability.

• Self-Defense (Complete) — Self-defense requires the presence of three elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. When invoked by the accused, the burden of proving all elements by clear and convincing evidence rests on the defense. In this case, all three elements were established: the victim fired first at the accused while pretending to surrender, the downward and oblique trajectories of the wounds confirmed the accused's account of a fighting encounter rather than a shooting of a helpless victim, and there was no sufficient provocation from the accused.

• Absence of Motive as Evidentiary Aid — Although the presence of motive is not indispensable to a conviction where the identity of the assailant is established, the absence of motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic theories or versions of a killing. Here, the lack of motive on the accused's part, combined with the victim's demonstrated propensity for violence, supported the defense version over the prosecution's.

• Intrinsic Credibility of Evidence — Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from a credible witness; it must be credible in itself—such as common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance. This principle was applied to reject the prosecution witnesses' accounts that were physically impossible given the bullet trajectories.

• "Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, it must be credible in itself — such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance." — This passage articulates the standard for evaluating witness testimony against physical evidence, serving as the analytical framework for discrediting the prosecution eyewitnesses.

• "Upon the other hand and without relying on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, the defense has met the requirement of proving by clear and convincing evidence all the justifying circumstances of complete self-defense — particularly that of — reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression." — This states the ratio decidendi: the defense independently satisfied the burden of proving complete self-defense, particularly the element of reasonable necessity.

• "The necessity of the killing committed by him exempts him from liability therefor." — This is the Court's concluding legal characterization of the killing as justified, forming the basis for the acquittal.

• People vs. Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180 — Cited for the proposition that although the presence of motive is not indispensable to a conviction where the identity of the assailant is established, the absence of motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic versions of a killing. The principle was applied to favor the accused, whose lack of motive supported his version of the incident.

• Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Provides that anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights is exempt from criminal liability, provided that the following circumstances concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The Court found all three elements present, entitling the accused to complete self-defense.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of murder, under which the accused was originally convicted by the trial court. The conviction under this article was reversed upon the finding of complete self-defense.

Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concurred.