Manaban vs. Court of Appeals

Unlawful aggression, an indispensable requisite of self-defense, is absent when the victim is shot in the back while his gun remains tucked inside a locked holster, and the perceived threat of the victim drawing his weapon is mere speculation, especially when the accused already had his firearm aimed at the victim.

On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25 a.m., Joselito Bautista—an intoxicated member of the UP Police Force—went to the BPI Kalayaan Branch ATM to withdraw money for his sick daughter's medicine. After entering the wrong PIN, the machine captured his card, prompting Bautista to pound and kick the machine. Security guard Ramonito Manaban intervened, checked the receipt, and advised Bautista to return the next morning. Bautista continued raging, even after Manaban referred him to customer service over the phone. Unable to pacify Bautista, Manaban fired a warning shot. Bautista then confronted Manaban, raised his shirt to reveal a gun tucked in his waist, and walked toward the guard. Manaban aimed his firearm at Bautista and warned him not to come closer. When Bautista turned his back and placed his hand on his waist, Manaban, fearing Bautista was about to draw his weapon, shot him.

• The ATM Incident: Intoxicated and needing money for his daughter's medicine, Joselito Bautista attempted to withdraw cash from the BPI Kalayaan ATM but entered the wrong PIN, causing the machine to capture his card. Frustrated, Bautista pounded and kicked the machine. Security guard Ramonito Manaban intervened, informed him of the wrong PIN, and advised him to return the next morning. Bautista refused, citing his urgent need, and continued his outburst even after Manaban had him speak to ATM customer service over the phone.
• The Warning Shot: Unable to pacify Bautista, Manaban fired a warning shot into the air. Bautista then shifted his attention from the machine to Manaban, raised his shirt to show a gun tucked in his waist, and told the guard not to block his way.
• The Fatal Shot: Manaban aimed his service firearm at Bautista and warned him not to come closer. Bautista took steps toward Manaban but suddenly turned his back ("bumalikwas") and placed his right hand on his waist. Manaban, claiming he feared Bautista was about to draw his weapon first, pulled the trigger and shot Bautista in the back. The victim's gun was still inside a locked holster tucked in his right waist when he was shot.
• Medical and Ballistic Findings: Dr. Eduardo Vargas conducted the autopsy and testified that the bullet's point of entry was at the back, right side of Bautista's body, with no exit point. The absence of signs of near-fire indicated the muzzle was more than 24 inches away. The bullet hit the right lung, liver, stomach, and pancreas, causing death. Ballistic examination confirmed the slug extracted from Bautista's body was fired from Manaban's service firearm.
• Post-Shooting Events: Manaban went inside the bank to call the police and his agency. When authorities arrived, he surrendered his firearm and voluntarily went with them for investigation.

• Misappreciation of Facts: Petitioner argued that the lower courts gravely erred in their factual appreciation and interpretation, basing their findings on speculation, surmises, or conjectures rather than the evidence presented.
• Rejection of Self-Defense Based Solely on Wound Entry: Petitioner maintained that the respondent court erred in ignoring the claim of self-defense merely because the victim's gunshot wound entry was from the back.
• Unlawful Aggression and the Locked Holster: Petitioner argued that the conclusion regarding the absence of unlawful aggression was erroneous, asserting that the locked holster did not negate the imminent threat of the victim drawing his weapon.
• Mistake of Fact: Petitioner contended that, assuming he made a mistake in appreciating the victim's act of turning around ("bumalikwas") as an attempt to draw a gun, such mistake of fact should be deemed justified.
• Exorbitant Damages: Petitioner asserted that the award of damages to the heirs of the deceased victim was exorbitant and baseless.

• Absence of Unlawful Aggression: Respondent countered that self-defense was correctly rejected because unlawful aggression was absent, emphasizing that the victim was shot in the back and his firearm remained securely holstered.
• Improbability of the Threat: Respondent argued that a policeman like Bautista would not have attempted to draw his holstered gun against someone who had already fired a warning shot and was aiming a firearm directly at him.
• Validity of Damages Award: Respondent maintained that the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly awarded damages based on the evidence presented regarding the victim's earning capacity and funeral expenses.

• Self-Defense: Whether unlawful aggression was present to justify the claim of self-defense when the victim was shot in the back while his gun remained in a locked holster.
• Obfuscation: Whether the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation should be appreciated in favor of the accused.
• Damages: Whether the award of damages, specifically the indemnity for loss of earning capacity and actual damages, was correctly computed and supported by evidence.

• Self-Defense: Unlawful aggression was not established. The victim was shot at the back, his gun was still inside a locked holster, and the accused was already aiming his loaded firearm at the victim when the latter turned his back. The claim that the victim was about to draw his gun was mere speculation; a policeman would not likely attempt to draw a holstered weapon against an armed opponent already pointing a gun. Furthermore, the means employed were not reasonably necessary, as the accused could have disabled the victim by shooting an extremity rather than inflicting a fatal wound.
• Obfuscation: The mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was correctly denied. The requisite unlawful act sufficient to produce obfuscation was absent. The victim's act of turning around is not unlawful, and the perceived threat of him drawing his gun existed only in the mind of the accused. Mere speculation does not suffice to produce obfuscation. However, voluntary surrender was properly appreciated, as the accused called the police, surrendered his firearm, and voluntarily went with authorities for investigation.
• Damages: The award for loss of earning capacity was recomputed. The correct age of the victim was 36 (not 26), and his annual salary was ₱60,864. Applying the formula [2/3(80 - age) x (Gross Annual Income - 50% of Gross Annual Income)], the indemnity for loss of earning capacity was adjusted to ₱892,570.56. Actual damages were reduced from ₱111,324 to ₱69,500, as only expenses supported by official receipts (embalming fee, casket, hearse fee, and funeral services) were considered; a mere list of expenses without receipts is insufficient proof. The death indemnity was reduced from ₱75,000 to ₱50,000 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Unlawful Aggression as an Indispensable Requisite of Self-Defense — Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense; without it, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense. It presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not imaginary.
• Passion or Obfuscation — To appreciate this mitigating circumstance, two requisites must concur: (1) an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time. A perceived threat existing only in the mind of the accused, stemming from an act that is not unlawful, does not constitute obfuscation.

• "Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self-defense. Self-defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Thus, without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense."
• "A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression, unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury."
• "Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Absent such actual or imminent peril to one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the life or inflicting injuries on another."

• People v. Jubail, G.R. No. 143718, 19 May 2004 — Cited as controlling precedent for the principle that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, allowing the reviewing tribunal to correct errors even if unassigned.
• People v. Gallego, 453 Phil. 825 (2003) — Followed for the rule that unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self-defense and that the accused must establish self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.
• People v. Catbagan, G.R. Nos. 149430-32, 23 February 2004 — Followed for the definition of unlawful aggression as an actual physical assault or at least a threat to inflict physical injury, and for the standard that a mere threatening attitude is insufficient unless offensive and menacing.
• People v. Malejana, G.R. No. 145002, 24 January 2006 — Applied to support the ruling that a perceived threat existing only in the mind of the accused is insufficient to produce the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation.
• People v. Agudez, G.R. Nos. 138386-87, 20 May 2004 — Followed for the doctrine that actual damages must be supported by competent proof, and a mere list of expenses without official receipts is insufficient.

• Paragraph 1, Article 11, Revised Penal Code — Defines self-defense and its three requisites: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation. Applied to reject the claim of self-defense due to the absence of unlawful aggression.
• Paragraph 6, Article 13, Revised Penal Code — Provides for the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. Applied to deny the mitigating circumstance because the victim's act was not unlawful and the perceived threat was speculative.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to determine the proper imposition of the indeterminate penalty, taking into account the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Quisumbing, Chairperson; Carpio-Morales; Tinga; Velasco, Jr.