People of the Philippines vs. Erubien Z. Nabayra

Self-defense is unavailing unless unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation are proved by the accused who admits the killing. A killing is murder only when treachery or evident premeditation is proven as conclusively as the killing itself; absent such proof, the crime is homicide. Illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866 is established where the accused is found with an unlicensed firearm and ammunition and fails to present any license or permit.

Erubien Z. Nabayra and Remy Nabayra were nephew and uncle. Before December 14, 1989, they were not in good terms because Remy accused Erubien of having stolen the carabao of Anunciacion Orbista Nabayra, Remy’s mother and Erubien’s grandmother. The charges against Erubien were for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866, and the two cases arose from a continuing occasion on the same date and were jointly tried.

According to the prosecution, at about 11:00 a.m. on December 14, 1989, along the bank of the Aklan River in Barangay Pinonoy, Libacao, Aklan, Erubien Z. Nabayra hacked and killed his uncle Remy Nabayra. The two were not in good terms because Remy had accused Erubien of stealing the carabao of Anunciacion Orbista Nabayra, Remy’s mother and Erubien’s grandmother. Erubien admitted killing Remy but claimed self-defense.

Pfc. Alberto Villorente and Pat. Elmer de Jose were patrolling the vicinity of the ferry zone when they saw a group of persons near the opposite bank of the Aklan River. They met Ulysses Ortega, Jr., a 12-year-old boatman, who informed them that there was a hacking incident on the other side of the river. The policemen proceeded to the scene and met appellant on the river bank on the poblacion side, walking toward poblacion Libacao. They saw that his clothes and bolo were stained with fresh blood, so they told him to stop and put down his bag and bolo, which he did. The policemen noticed a gun inside the handbag, with its barrel protruding about one and one-half inches through a hole in the bag. They confiscated the handgun, the bag, the bolo, and its scabbard. When they opened the handbag and took out the homemade handgun or “paltik,” they found it loaded with one ammunition, and another ammunition was found in a sack. When asked why his clothes were stained with blood, appellant answered that he hacked his uncle Remy Nabayra. Pat. de Jose went to the scene and found the victim about 50 meters from the river. The policemen caused the victim to be brought to the Libacao Medicare Hospital, then proceeded to the police station with appellant. Appellant admitted ownership of the gun but was not able to present any license or permit to carry a firearm. When confronted about his bloodstained clothes and bolo, appellant did not tell the policemen that he was surrendering because he had hacked his uncle Remy Nabayra.

Appellant gave a different account. After plowing his corn field in Barangay Pinonoy, Libacao, Aklan, at past 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 1989, he went to the Aklan River, about 30 meters from his farm, to wash. On the river bank, he met the victim Remy Nabayra, his uncle. The victim got a bag from inside the sack he was carrying, opened the bag, took out a gun, a “paltik” pistol, and aimed it at appellant, saying, “I will shoot, I will kill you.” Appellant then drew his bolo from its scabbard tied to the left side of his waist and hacked Remy, hitting him on the left temple. Remy turned around after being hit, and appellant hacked him again on the back. The victim ran away, and appellant chased him. The victim fell to the ground, and appellant stabbed him again. Appellant got the gun the victim was holding with his right hand beneath his back. The victim was not able to fire his gun even once. Appellant placed the gun inside the bag the victim was also holding and crossed the river by wading, intending to go to the municipal hall of Libacao to surrender the gun. On the way, he met Pfc. Alberto Villorente and Pat. Elmer de Jose, who told him to put down the gun and bolo, which he did. He surrendered the gun and the bolo to the policemen. On cross-examination, appellant said the police stopped him and arrested him; he did not tell the policemen he was surrendering to them; and it was already while he was in the hands of the policemen and the gun was already in their possession when he told them he was going to the municipal building.

The trial court found appellant’s scenario incredulous. Human instinct to preserve one’s life demanded that he react when the victim took out the gun, not wait until the victim aimed it at him and shouted that he would kill him. The manner and number of injuries also negated self-defense: if appellant intended only to defend himself and had already hacked the victim on the left temple, which wound was fatal according to the doctor, he would not have inflicted further injuries on his uncle. Appellant continued to hack the victim on the back, chased him when he ran away, and inflicted more injuries when the victim fell, because according to appellant he wanted to kill the victim and get the gun. The trial court found that appellant acted with murderous ferocity and that the victim was helpless and at his complete mercy. Defense witness Ludovico Asiong confirmed that the victim went to the public market of Libacao that day, as it was the market day of the town, and was carrying the sack on his way home. As to the gun, the two policemen denied appellant’s claim; Pfc. Villorente testified that appellant admitted ownership of the unlicensed gun and did not present any license.

• Self-Defense / Aggression: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in finding that he was the aggressor; the victim was the unlawful aggressor because he first drew a gun and aimed it at petitioner, saying he would shoot and kill him, and the gun did not fire, prompting petitioner to draw his bolo and hack the victim in self-defense.
• Ownership of Firearm: Petitioner maintained that the gun and ammunition taken from him belonged to the victim; he testified that when the two policemen apprehended him, he was on his way to surrender himself, the bolo he used in hacking the victim, and the gun he took from the victim to the police authorities.

• Homicide, Not Murder: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, maintained that the crime committed was homicide and not murder because the prosecution did not prove treachery or evident premeditation.

• Self-Defense: Whether appellant killed Remy Nabayra in legitimate self-defense, the victim having allegedly been the unlawful aggressor.
• Qualifying Circumstances: Whether the killing was properly qualified as murder by treachery and evident premeditation.
• Illegal Possession: Whether the firearm and ammunition found in appellant’s possession belonged to the victim and were being surrendered, negating the charge of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

• Self-Defense: No. The claim was rejected because appellant’s account was incredible and the number and manner of wounds negated the requisites of self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code.
• Qualifying Circumstances: No. The crime is homicide, not murder, because the prosecution presented no evidence to prove treachery or evident premeditation; treachery cannot be presumed and evident premeditation requires proof of its elements.
• Illegal Possession: No. The conviction for illegal possession was affirmed; the police officers’ testimony prevailed over appellant’s claim, and he admitted ownership of the unlicensed firearm and presented no license or permit.

• Self-Defense: Legitimate self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code requires (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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. Because appellant admitted killing Remy, the burden was on him to prove self-defense by strong, clear evidence. His account was incredible: human instinct to preserve life would have made him react when Remy took out the gun, not wait until Remy aimed it and shouted “I will shoot, I will kill you”; the prior ill will made the danger foreseeable. The physical evidence also negated self-defense: after a fatal hack to the left temple, appellant continued hacking Remy’s back, chased him, and stabbed him again when he fell, indicating a desire to kill and get the gun rather than to repel an attack. Unlawful aggression and the other requisites were therefore not established.
• Qualifying Circumstances: The information alleged treachery and evident premeditation, but the prosecution presented no evidence to prove either. No eyewitnesses testified to the incident; the doctor testified only on the number of physical injuries; the two policemen did not testify on the circumstances before or during the hacking. Treachery cannot be presumed and must be proven as conclusively as the act of killing itself. Evident premeditation requires proof of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating that he clung to that determination, and sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow reflection. None was established. The lower court thus erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstances; the killing was homicide, not murder.
• Illegal Possession: Appellant claimed the gun and ammunition belonged to the victim and that he was on his way to surrender himself, the bolo, and the gun. The two policemen denied this. When confronted, appellant did not say the gun was taken from Remy and that he was surrendering it; only after apprehension did he tell them he was on his way to the municipal hall. Pfc. Villorente testified that appellant admitted ownership of the unlicensed gun and presented no license. Between the conflicting testimonies, the police officers’ unprejudiced testimony prevailed over appellant’s biased testimony, especially since appellant showed no evidence that the police were prejudiced against him. The illegal possession conviction was therefore affirmed.

• Self-Defense — Under Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, legitimate self-defense requires: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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. An accused who admits killing must prove these requisites by strong, clear evidence. In this case, the claim failed because appellant’s account was incredible and the number and manner of wounds showed he continued attacking a helpless victim.
• Treachery — Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proven as conclusively as the act of killing itself. The prosecution’s failure to present evidence on the circumstances of the attack prevented its appreciation as a qualifying circumstance, reducing murder to homicide.
• Evident Premeditation — Evident premeditation requires: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. None of these elements was established.
• Credibility of Police Officers over the Accused — In the absence of proof that police officers were prejudiced against the accused, their unprejudiced testimony prevails over the accused’s biased testimony. This rule supported the affirmance of the illegal possession conviction.
• Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition under Presidential Decree No. 1866 — The offense is established where the accused is found in possession of a handgun and ammunition without the proper license, permit, or lawful authority. Appellant admitted ownership of the unlicensed gun and presented no license, so the conviction was affirmed.
• Qualifying Circumstances and Murder — A killing is murder only if qualifying circumstances such as treachery or evident premeditation are alleged and proven. Absent proof, the crime is homicide. This was applied to modify the conviction from murder to homicide.

• "Legitimate self-defense is acceptable only when the following requisites are present: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 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." — States the controlling requisites for self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, which appellant failed to prove.
• "treachery cannot be presumed. It must be proven as conclusively as the act of killing itself." — States the ratio for reducing the conviction from murder to homicide after the prosecution failed to prove treachery.
• "As between these two conflicting testimonies, we rule in favor of the police officers. The appellant did not show evidence that the police officers were prejudiced against him. Between the biased testimony of the appellant and the unprejudiced testimony of the police officers, the latter's testimony should prevail." — States the credibility rule that sustained the illegal possession conviction.
• "The scenario depicted by the appellant is incredulous. Human instinct to preserve one's life demands that at time the victim took out the gun from his bag, the appellant should have reacted to repel the imminent danger that he found himself in." — Explains why appellant’s self-defense narrative was rejected as contrary to common human experience.

• People vs. Bausing, G.R. No. 64965 (July 18, 1991) — Cited in the decision as the source collecting prior rulings that an accused who admits killing must proffer strong, clear evidence to prove self-defense.
• People vs. Caldito, 182 SCRA 66 (1990) — Cited for the rule that treachery cannot be presumed and must be proven as conclusively as the act of killing itself.
• People vs. Quintos, 186 SCRA 14 (1990) — Cited for the elements of evident premeditation.
• People vs. Canizares, 107 SCRA 296 (1981) — Cited for the rule that the unprejudiced testimony of police officers prevails over the biased testimony of the accused.
• People vs. Flores, 125 SCRA 244 (1983) — Cited for the principle that evidence must be credible in itself and consistent with common experience.

• Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines legitimate self-defense and its requisites. Applied: appellant failed to prove unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity, and lack of sufficient provocation.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes murder. The trial court used it, but the Supreme Court held the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven, so the crime was reduced to homicide.
• Presidential Decree No. 1866 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. Applied: appellant was found in possession of an unlicensed handgun and ammunition and failed to present any license or permit; conviction affirmed.

Fernan, C.J.; Feliciano, Bidin, and Davide, Jr., JJ.