Palaganas v.

People
G.R. No. 165483 – September 12, 2006
Justice Chico-Nazario

Case:

Topic: Homicide
Petitioner: Rujjeric Z. Palaganas
Respondent: People of the Philippines

FACTS:
Version of the Prosecution

 January 16, 1998: At around 8PM, brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael, all
surnamed Ferrer were having a drinking spree in their house because Melton,
who was already living in San Fernando, La Union visited his 3 brothers and
mother at their house in Sitio Baloking Polcation, Pangasinan
 At 9:45PM the three brothers decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke bar located
at the corner of Malvar and Rizal Streets, Poblacion, Manaog to continue their
drinking spree and sing
 While enjoying, at 10:30PM Jaime Palaganas arrived together with his brother
and Virgilio Bautista. Later, when Jaime was singing, Melton Ferrer sang along
with him as he was familiar with the song (MY WAY). Then, the appellant struck
Servillano Ferrer with the microphone, hitting the back of his head
 A rumble ensued between the two groups. Edith Palaganas, owner of the bar,
arrived and pacified them. Subsequently, the Ferrer brothers went outside.
They saw the appellant standing about 8 meters together with the petitioner
then shot them.
 Servillano got shot first at the left side of the abdomen, followed by Melton.
Consequently, both were brought to the hospital. Servillano discovered that
Melton was fatally hit in the head while Michael in the right shoulder.
 Version of the Defense

 January 16, 1998: At around 11PM, after a drinking session at their house,
the brothers Ferrer, occupied a table inside the Videoke Bar and started
drinking and singing.
 After the Ferrers’ turn in singing, the microphone was handed to the
appellant, and sang. On his 3rd song (MY WAY), Jaime was joined by Tony
Ferrer, who sang loudly and in an obviously mocking manner. Thereafter, the
appellant was insulted and the rumble ensued.
 Ferdinand then ran towards the house of his brother, the appellant, and
sought the help of the latter. The appellant proceeded the place. Before
reaching the bar, however, he was suddenly stoned by the Ferrer brothers.
 The brothers Palaganas then urged to run towards the opposite direction as
the Ferrer brothers. While the Ferrer brothers pelting them with large
stones, Rujjeric noticed that his brother was carrying a gun, on instinct, he
grabbed the gun, faced the brother and fired one shot in the air.
 The Ferrer brothers continued throwing stones and when Rujjeric was again
hit several times, unable to bear the pain, closed his eyes and pulled the
trigger.

Ruling of the RTC

 October 28, 1998: The trial court rendered its decision finding the petitioner
guilty only of the crime of Homicide and two (2) counts of Frustrated
Homicide. However, he was acquitted of the charge of Violation of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2985 in relation to Section 261 of the Omnibus election code.
On the other hand, he was acquitted of all the charges against him.
 The trial court averred that there was no conspiracy between petitioner and
Ferdinan in killing Melton and wounding Servillano and Michael. According
to the trial court, the shooting was instantaneous without any prior plan or
agreement with Ferdinand to execute the same. The petitioner is solely
 liable for killing Melton and wounding Servillano and Michael, and that
Ferdinand is not criminally responsible for the act of petitioner.
 The trial court declared that there was no treachery that will qualify the
crimes of murder and frustrated murder since the Ferrer brothers were
given the chance to defend themselves during the shooting incident by
stoning the petitioner and Ferdinand. Moreover, the mere absence of
sudden and unexpected attack without slightest provocation will not
constitute the same.
 Corollarily, it is also stated that petitioner cannot successfully invoke self-
defense since there was no imminent danger to his life. Since the Ferrer
brothers were not carrying any weapon, petitioner then was free to run and
take cover, however opted to shoot the victims. Moreover, the use by
petitioner of a gun was not reasonable to prevent the attack since the latter
were equipped with stones. It is also stated that the gun used was
unlicensed.
 As regards the Violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2985, in relation to
Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code, the court acquitted the petitioner
of the offense as his use and possession of a gun was not for the purpose of
disrupting election activities.

Version of the CA

 September 30, 2004: The CA affirmed with modifications the assailed RTC
decision.
 In modifying the Decision of the trial court, the appellate court held that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender 4Article 13, No. 7 of the RPC
should be appreciated in favor of the petitioner since the latter,
accompanied by his counsel, voluntarily appeared before, even prior to its
issuance of warrant of arrest.

4Article. 13. Mitigating Circumstances – The following are mitigating circumstances:

(7.) That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation
of the evidence for the prosecution
  It is also stated that the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in
imposing the penalty upon the petitioner.

ISSUES + HELD:

 W/N THE ELEMETS OF VALID SELF-DEFENSE ARE PRESENT IN THE INSTANT

CASE - NO, PETITIONER’S CONTETION MUST FAIL
a. Petitioner: Contends that the warning shots proved that the Ferrer
brothers were the unlawful aggressors.

b. Court:
5
i. Article 11, paragraph (1), of the RPC provides for the
elements in order that a plea of self-defense may be validly
considered in absolving from criminal liability
ii. As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to
an assault or attack, or threat thereof in an imminent and
immediate manner, which places the defendant’s life in
actual peril
iii. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.
In order to constitute unlawful aggression thus the person
attacked must be confronted by real threat on his life, and
the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not
merely imaginary
iv. In this case, it is clear there was no unlawful aggression on
the part of the Ferrer brothers that justified the deed. There
was no imminent danger to the lives of petitioner and
Ferdinand when they arrived at the bar.

5 ART. 11. Justifying circumstances – the following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
v. It appeared that the Ferrer brothers were merely standing
outside the bar and were not carrying any weapon when the
petitioner started firing his gun.
vi. Assuming, Arguendo, that the Ferrer brothers had provoked
the petitioner to shoot them by pelting the latter with the
stones, the shooting of the Ferrer brothers is still unjustified.
Since the wide distance of (4-5 meters) from the victims does
not constitute actual or imminent danger. Moreover, the
petitioner had several options in avoiding dangers to his life
vii. The fact that the petitioner sustained injuries in his left leg
and shoulder, allegedly caused by the stones, does not
signify that there was an unlawful aggression. There is no
evidence to show that his wounds were serious to indicate
that his life was actually in peril.
viii. Petitioner’s assertion that, despite that he fired a warning
shot, the Ferrer brothers continued to pelt him, will not
matter exonerate him from criminal liability. Since it was not
the last option to avoid the pelting of the stones
ix. It was difficult to believe that the Ferrer brothers were the
unlawful aggressors. As correctly observed by the
prosecution, if the petitioner shot the latter just to defend
himself, it defies reason why he had to shoot the victims at
the vital portion of their body, which even led to the death
of Melton. It is an oft-repeated rule that the nature and
number of wounds inflicted are unremittingly considered
indicia to disprove the plea of self-defense
x. The second element of self-defense requires that the means
employed by the person defending himself must be
reasonably necessary to repel the unlawful aggression of the
victim. The reasonableness of the means employed may take
into account the weapons, physical, and circumstances
showing the there is a rational equivalence between the
means of attack and defense
 xi. In this case, the petitioner’s act of shooting the victims was
not a reasonable and necessary means of repelling the
aggression allegedly initiated by the victims. Moreover, it
was stated by the trial, petitioner’s gun was far deadlier
compared to the stones thrown by the latter

 W/N THE PETITIONER ACQUITTAL ON ALL THE CHARGES IS PROPER – NO,

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT IS BEREFT OF MERIT

i. In resolving criminal cases where the accused invokes self-

defense to escape the liability, this court consistently held
that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes
self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense.
ii. As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove
all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution
iii. In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of
the victims which justified the shootings. Moreover, even if
the Ferrer brothers provoked the petitioner, the latter’s use
of a gun was not a reasonable means of repelling the act of
the Ferrer brothers in the throwing of the stones. The
petitioner failed to established by clear and convincing
evidence his plea of self-defense.
iv. Thus, the court found no compelling reason to deviate from
their findings.
v. They agree with the RTC and CA that petitioner is guilty of
the crime of Homicide for the death of Melton and
Frustrated Homicide for the serious injuries sustained by
Servillano. They do not, however, concur in their ruling that
petitioner is guilty of the crime of Frustrated Homicide as
 regards to Michael. Therefor, the petitioner is guilty only of
the crime of Attempted Homicide.
vi. Under 6Article 6 of the RPC states and defines the stages of
a felony
vii. Based on the foregoing provision, the distinction between
the frustrated and attempted felony:
 In frustrated felony, the offender has performed
all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony as consequence; whereas in
attempted felony, the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts
 the reason for the non-accomplishment of the
crime is some cause independent of the will of
the perpetrator; on the other hand, in attempted
felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the
crime is a cause or accident other than the
offender’s own spontaneous desistance.

viii. If there was no intent to kill on the part of the accused, and
the wound sustained by the victim were not fatal, the crime
crime committed may be serious, less, or slight physical
injury.
ix. With regard to the appreciation of aggravating circumstance
of use of an unlicensed firearm, they agree with the trial
court and the appellate court that the same must be applied

6Article. 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted felonies – Consummated felonies, as

well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable
a. There is Frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as consequence but nevertheless do not produce it by reason or
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
b. There is an Attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
 against petitioner in the instant case since the same alleged
in the information. Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstances
x. Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally
apply to all crimes such as those mentioned in Art 14 of the
RPC. It has the effect of increasing the penalty to its
maximum period, but cannot increase the same to the next
higher. It must always be alleged in the information.
Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
xi. However, a special aggravating circumstance cannot be
offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Voluntary
surrender of petitioner in the case is merely ordinary
mitigating. Thus, it cannot be offset the special aggravating
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm. In accordance
with 7Art 64, paragraph 3 of the RPC, the penalty imposable
should be in its maximum period
xii. In Criminal Cases No. U-9610, the both courts proper amount
of civil indemnity is P50k and for Moral damages is P50k
pursuant to the prevailing Jurisprudence. However, based on
the Funeral, Burial, and Hospital expenses, the proper
amount of actual damages should be P42,374.18k instead of
P43,556k. Temperate damages in the amount of P25k cannot
established since the amount cannot prove its certainty.
Exemplary damages should be awarded in this case since the
presence of unlicensed firearm was established. The award
of exemplary damages for homicide is P25k
xiii. In Criminal Cases No. U-9608 and 9609, they agree with both
courts as to the award of actual damages and its amounts
since it was supported with documentary proof. The moral

7Art. 64. (3) When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act,
they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.
 damages also consisted with prevailing jurisprudence.
However, exemplary damages should be awarded in this
case since special aggravating circumstance was established.
Hence, the award of exemplary damages for homicide is
P25K.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of CA dated September 30, 2004

is hereby AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
 In Criminal Case No. U-9609, the petitioner is found guilty of the crime of
attempted homicide. The penalty imposable on the petitioner is prison
correccional there being a special aggravating circumstance and applying
the Indeterminate Sentence of Law, the penalty becomes 4 yrs and and 2
months of arresto mayor as minimum period and 6 yrs of prison
correccional
 U-9608, The penalty imposable on the petitioner for the frustrated
homicide is prison correccional