PEOPLE v. BUGARIN

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Nestor M. Bugarin, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 224900

March 15, 2017

FACTS:

On the 30th day of May 2008, at about 8:50 o’clock in the evening, in Cebu City, the accused-appellant armed with an unlicensed firearm, repeatedly shot his brother-in-law Esmeraldo B. Pontanar hitting the latter on the different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death. On the same evening also, Cristito C Pontanar, a 72-year old father-in-law of the accused was also shot by him when the former came to the rescue of his son Esmeraldo by pleading to the latter to stop the shooting. Cristito was hit in the abdomen which also resulted to his death. After having shot the two victims, Maria Glen Neis Pontanar, wife of Esmeraldo Pontanar who tried to run away was also shot by Bugarin. Fortunately, she was not killed but only sustained gunshot wound in her thigh.

Informations were filed charging Bugarin with two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of attempted murder. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the charges. The accused-appellant admitted having shot the victims but insisted that he acted in self-defense. The RTC of Cebu City found Bugarin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder and attempted murder with the special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm in all the three cases. This prompted Bugarin to appeal before the CA. On July 31, 2015, the CA denied his appeal and affirmed the RTC decision with modifications. Bugarin appealed before the Supreme Court maintaining his innocence in all the instant cases.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense is valid.

2. Whether or not treachery may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in all the instant cases.

HELD:

No. The accused-appellants claim of self-defense is not valid. Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and offers exculpation from liability for crimes only if satisfactorily proved. Having admitted the shooting of the victims, the burden shifted to Bugarin to prove that he indeed acted in self-defense by establishing the following with clear and convincing evidence: (1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of provocation on his part. One who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving the aforementioned elements. While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. Contrary to his claims, the evidence of the case shows that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victims.

Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. In the case at bar, Bugarin failed to sufficiently establish that Esmeraldo was actually carrying three (3) firearms and that he attempted to pull out one of his guns to shoot him. However, when asked what happened to the other firearms or where they went when Esmeraldo pulled out one of the guns, Bugarin answered that he did not know. Also, Anecita herself testified that she did not see Esmeraldo carrying anything. He merely held the railings of their gate when Bugarin went out of their house and shot him. Indeed, nothing in this act would reveal that there was unlawful aggression on Esmeraldo’s part. Maria Glen also never actually struck or attempted to strike Anecita with the steel pipe. Neither can Cristito’s alleged act of trying to slap Bugarin and thereafter staring at the wounded body of his son on the ground be considered unlawful aggression that he must necessarily repel. Bugarin simply assumed and imagined that Cristito would get his son’s gun to shoot him.

Under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code: Murder is committed by any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Bugarin suddenly fired Esmeraldo without reason or warning. According to the medical report, Esmeraldo’s wounds would establish that he was shot in the back twice and also on his left side, giving him no means of retaliation or escape, and without any risk to Bugarin. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that treachery attended the killing of the victim, the crime is homicide, not murder.

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without slightest provocation on the part of the victims. Bugarin’s attack on Cristito was sudden and unexpected. In such a rapid motion, Bugarin shot Cristito, affording the latter no opportunity to defend himself or fight back. The alleged provocation on Cristito’s part was uncorroborated and not proven. The deliberate swiftness of Bugarin’s attack significantly diminished the risk to himself that may be caused by the retaliation of the victim. The evidence sufficiently established that Bugarin deliberately and consciously adopted the means of executing the crime against his defenseless 72-year-old father-in-law. Lastly, with respect to Maria Glen, while she was already forewarned of the danger to her life, treachery may still be appreciated where the victim was unarmed, defenseless, and unable to flee at the time of the attack, as in this case. Bugarin already commenced his attack with a manifest intent to kill Maria Glen but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, i.e.,poor aim. Maria Glen was likewise not in any position to defend herself or repel the attack since she was unarmed. Thus, the trial court aptly appreciated treachery as a circumstance to qualify the crimes to murder and attempted murder. The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals finding accused-appellant Nestor Bugarin guilty beyond reasonable doubt.