Pomoy vs. People

A person performing a lawful act with due care who causes injury by mere accident without fault or intent is exempt from criminal liability, even if multiple shots are fired, where the weapon discharged during a fierce struggle for its possession rather than through deliberate aim.

On January 4, 1990, police sergeant Roweno Pomoy fetched robbery suspect Tomas Balboa from his detention cell at Camp Jalandoni, Sara, Iloilo, for tactical interrogation. While walking towards the investigation room, Balboa suddenly grabbed the handle of Pomoy's holstered .45 caliber service pistol. A physical struggle ensued between the two men over possession of the weapon. During the grappling, the gun was drawn from its holster and fired twice, inflicting fatal gunshot wounds on Balboa.

• The Arrest and Escort: On January 4, 1990, Tomas Balboa was arrested and detained at Camp Jalandoni for robbery. Petitioner, a police investigator, was instructed by his commanding officer to fetch Balboa from the stockade for tactical interrogation. Petitioner carried a fully loaded, cocked, and safety-locked .45 caliber pistol in a holster on his waist, with only the handle protruding.
• The Struggle and Shooting: As petitioner and Balboa neared the investigation room, Balboa grabbed the handle of the holstered gun. Petitioner used his right hand to grip the handle and his left hand to parry Balboa's attempts. Eyewitness Erna Basa testified that both men were grappling for the gun while it was still in the holster, with Balboa's left hand over petitioner's right hand on the handle, and Balboa's right hand reaching for the barrel. The gun was gradually released from the holster during the struggle.
• The Discharge: While both men were holding the weapon, the gun fired twice in succession. Basa testified that the gun was turning during the struggle and she could not determine at whom the nozzle was pointed when it fired. After the shots, the men separated, and Balboa fell. Petitioner was seen standing, holding the gun.
• Medical Findings: Dr. Ricardo Jabonete's autopsy revealed two gunshot wounds on Balboa: one entering the left chest and exiting the right back, and another entering the left abdomen and exiting the left back. The trajectory of the first wound was downward from left to right, while the second was backward and laterally upward.
• Post-Incident Conduct: Petitioner was described by lower courts as "dumbfounded," "mum, pale and trembling," which they interpreted as indicative of guilt.

• Accident: Petitioner maintained that the shooting was accidental, occurring while both men were grappling for the firearm, and that he had no intent to kill the victim.
• Lack of Control: Petitioner argued that he was not in full control of the weapon when it fired, as the victim's hands were also on the gun during the struggle.
• Mechanism of the Firearm: Petitioner contended that the firing of two shots does not negate accident, as a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol automatically chambers a new round and can fire in succession during a struggle.
• Trajectory Consistency: Petitioner asserted that the front-to-back trajectory of the wounds is consistent with a struggle, given that the gun was turning and the victim's body was moving upon impact.
• Self-Defense: Alternatively, petitioner claimed self-defense, arguing that if the shooting was intentional, it was to repel the victim's unlawful aggression.
• Conduct: Petitioner argued that his dumbfounded reaction was a natural response to shock, not an indication of guilt.

• Deliberate Firing: Respondent countered that petitioner was in full control of the gun when it fired, as his right hand was on the handle while the victim's hand was merely over his.
• Safety Lock: Respondent argued that the gun's safety lock must have been deliberately released by petitioner before firing, as the weapon would not fire otherwise.
• Two Shots Indicate Intent: Respondent maintained that the two shots fired from different angles at vital parts of the body demonstrated a determined effort to kill, negating the claim of accident.
• Trajectory Negates Struggle: Respondent asserted that the front-to-back trajectory of the wounds contradicted the claim that the parties were side-by-side grappling.
• Conduct Indicates Guilt: Respondent argued that petitioner's dumbfounded reaction after the incident was indicative of guilt.

• Accident: Whether the shooting of Tomas Balboa was the result of an accident.
• Self-Defense: Whether petitioner was able to prove self-defense.

• Accident: The shooting was accidental, exempting petitioner from criminal liability. The eyewitness testimony established that both men were grappling for the gun when it fired, negating the conclusion that petitioner was in full control of the weapon. The safety lock could have been accidentally released during the fierce struggle. The discharge of two shots does not negate accident, as a semi-automatic .45 caliber pistol automatically chambers a new round and can fire in rapid succession without deliberate aiming. Furthermore, the trajectory of the wounds is inconsequential where the parties were grappling, as the nozzle of the gun continuously changes direction during a struggle. All elements of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code were present: petitioner was performing a lawful act with due care, the injury was caused by mere accident, and there was no fault or intent to cause the injury.
• Self-Defense: A ruling on self-defense was rendered unnecessary. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, as the former contemplates a premeditated intent to kill to defend oneself, while the latter presupposes no intent to inflict harm. Since the shooting was determined to be accidental, self-defense need not be resolved.

• Exempting Circumstance of Accident (Art. 12(4), RPC) — An accused is exempt from criminal liability when performing a lawful act with due care, causing injury by mere accident without fault or intent. The three requisite elements are: (1) the accused was performing a lawful act with due care; (2) the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and (3) there was no fault or intent to cause the injury on the part of the accused. The Court applied this to acquit a police officer whose service weapon discharged during a struggle with a detainee, finding that the officer was merely performing his duty to prevent his weapon from being snatched.
• Inconsistency of Accident and Self-Defense — Accident and self-defense are distinct and inconsistent circumstances. Accident, as an exempting circumstance, presupposes the lack of intention to inflict harm. Self-defense, a justifying circumstance, assumes voluntariness induced by necessity and contemplates a premeditated intent to kill to defend oneself. The standards used in proving self-defense cannot be utilized to prove the existence of accident under the same facts.

• "Where, as in this case, both the victim and the accused were grappling for possession of a gun, the direction of its nozzle may continuously change in the process, such that the trajectory of the bullet when the weapon fires becomes unpredictable and erratic." — Explains why the trajectory of the wounds is inconsequential in a grappling scenario.
• "Unlike a revolver, a semi-automatic pistol, as sufficiently described by petitioner, is prone to accidental firing when possession thereof becomes the object of a struggle." — Distinguishes the mechanics of a semi-automatic pistol from a revolver in the context of accidental firing.

• People v. Reyes, 69 SCRA 474 (1976) — Distinguished. The Court disbelieved the accused in Reyes who claimed a revolver accidentally exploded while being handed over. The present case was distinguished because it involved a semi-automatic pistol that fired during a fierce struggle, not a revolver simply being handed over.
• People v. Cariquez, 373 Phil. 877 (1999) — Followed. Cited for the three elements of the exempting circumstance of accident under Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code.
• People v. Joyno, 304 SCRA 655 (1999) — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the rule that abuse of public position requires the public official to use the influence or ascendancy of the office to facilitate the crime. The Supreme Court did not disturb this ruling as the CA had already struck out the aggravating circumstance.

• Article 12(4), Revised Penal Code — Defines the exempting circumstance of accident. Applied to exempt the petitioner from criminal liability, as the fatal shooting occurred while he was lawfully performing his duty to retain possession of his service weapon, without fault or intent to kill.
• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Discussed to highlight its inconsistency with the exempting circumstance of accident, noting that self-defense requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio Morales, JJ., concurred.