Sabang vs. People

Defense of relative cannot be validly invoked absent the primary and indispensable requisite of unlawful aggression, which is deemed nonexistent when the accused initially dismisses the threat as a joke and subsequently continues to attack the victim after the latter has been disarmed.

Petitioner Nilo Sabang and Nicanor Butad were drinking together on the eve of a fiesta in Liloan, Ormoc City. Butad, who was armed with a .38-caliber revolver and reportedly in a belligerent mood due to an earlier cockfight dispute, threatened petitioner's son, Randy, saying "I will shoot you." Shortly thereafter, Butad lay dead from four gunshot wounds inflicted by his own revolver. Petitioner admitted to the killing but claimed the shots were accidentally fired while he grappled with Butad to protect his son.

• The Drinking Spree and the Threat: At around 6:30 p.m. on January 17, 1997, petitioner and Butad were drinking with spouses Cruz and Andresa Villamor outside a store in Sitio Landing. Butad was armed with a .38-caliber revolver tucked in his holster. Randy Sabang, petitioner's son, unexpectedly arrived, prompting Butad to utter, "I will shoot you."
• Defense Version: Petitioner and defense witnesses testified that Butad aimed his revolver at Randy while making the threat. Petitioner claimed he grabbed Butad's arm to twist it away from his son, and the gun accidentally fired during the struggle.
• Prosecution Version: Prosecution witnesses testified that Butad was holding a glass of Tanduay, not a gun, when he made the threat. Petitioner dismissed the threat, stating he would not fight for his "spoiled brat" son. An unidentified person then punched Butad, causing him to fall. While Butad lay on the ground, petitioner pulled Butad's gun and shot him in the chest, firing two more shots thereafter.
• Physical Evidence: The autopsy revealed four gunshot wounds on Butad's body: three to the chest area and one fracturing the thoracic vertebra. The medico-legal officer found no powder burns on the victim's body, indicating that the shots were fired from a distance of more than ten inches, likely over two feet.

• Unlawful Aggression: Petitioner argued that Butad's act of aiming a gun at his son while uttering a death threat constituted unlawful aggression of the most imminent kind, justifying his intervention to wrestle the gun away.
• Absence of Powder Burns: Petitioner theorized that the victim being fully clothed accounted for the absence of powder burns on his body.
• Nature of the Wounds: Petitioner disputed the trial court's finding that the wounds would have been oblique if fired during a struggle, maintaining that round entrance wounds could also result from near-contact fire.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Petitioner averred that prosecution eyewitness Natividad Payud was not present during the shooting, citing defense witness Benjamin Mahusay's testimony that they were heading home when the shots rang out. Petitioner also insisted that prosecution witness Andresa Villamor only saw the victim after he was already sprawled on the ground.

• Sufficiency of Conviction: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, negating the claim of defense of relative.
• Reduction of Moral Damages: The OSG argued that the award of moral damages should be reduced from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00 to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Unlawful Aggression: Whether unlawful aggression existed to justify the invocation of defense of relative.
• Credibility and Physical Evidence: Whether the prosecution's version of events and the physical evidence negate the defense's theory of accidental firing during a struggle.

• Unlawful Aggression: Unlawful aggression was not established. Petitioner's dismissive reaction to Butad's threat—telling Butad he would not fight for his "spoiled brat" son—indicated that no imminent danger was perceived. Even assuming Butad initiated the aggression, it ceased when petitioner successfully wrested the gun; by continuing to shoot the defenseless victim, petitioner became the unlawful aggressor.
• Credibility and Physical Evidence: The prosecution's version was consistent with the physical evidence. The absence of powder burns established that the shots were fired from a distance of more than two feet, contradicting the defense's claim of a close-range struggle. Furthermore, the presence of four gunshot wounds, three in the chest area, indicated a determined effort to kill rather than an accidental discharge. The defense's attempt to discredit Payud failed because Mahusay's timeline conflicted with the established time of the incident, and Villamor explicitly testified to seeing petitioner take the gun and fire multiple times.

• Defense of Relative — To successfully invoke defense of relative, the following requisites must concur: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed or injured; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) the person defending the relative had no part in provoking the assailant, should any provocation have been given by the relative attacked. Unlawful aggression is a primary and indispensable requisite without which the justifying circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
• Burden of Proof for Justifying Circumstances — An accused who admits to inflicting fatal injuries must prove the justifying circumstance with clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of their own evidence rather than the weakness of the prosecution's.
• Cessation of Unlawful Aggression — Unlawful aggression ceases when the defender gains possession of the weapon or when the assailant is incapacitated. Continuing to attack a disarmed or defenseless assailant transforms the defender into the unlawful aggressor.

• "Unlawful aggression is a primary and indispensable requisite without which defense of relative, whether complete or otherwise, cannot be validly invoked."
• "The fact that there were no powder burns on Butad’s body indicates that the shots were fired at a distance of more than two (2) feet and not at close range as the defense suggests. Moreover, Butad sustained four (4) gunshot wounds, three (3) of which were in the chest area, circumstances which are inconsistent with the defense’s theory of accidental firing."

• People v. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004 — Followed. Established that unlawful aggression is a primary and indispensable requisite for the justifying circumstance of defense of relative.
• Cabuslay v. People, G.R. No. 129875, September 30, 2005 — Followed. Held that an accused admitting to a killing must prove the justifying circumstance with clear and convincing evidence, relying on the strength of their own evidence.
• People v. Barnuevo, 418 Phil. 521 (2001) — Applied. Stated that an aggressor who continues to shoot a victim after disarming him becomes the unlawful aggressor.

• Article 11, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates justifying circumstances. Paragraph 2 provides that anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of relatives, provided unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed concur, and the defender had no part in the provocation, incurs no criminal liability. Applied to reject petitioner's defense due to lack of unlawful aggression.
• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of homicide with reclusion temporal. Applied to convict petitioner.
• Article 64(2), Revised Penal Code — Provides that when a mitigating circumstance is present, the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period. Applied to impose the minimum period of reclusion temporal due to voluntary surrender.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Provides that exemplary damages cannot be awarded absent an aggravating circumstance. Applied to affirm the trial court's withholding of exemplary damages.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.