ROWENO POMOY vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Doctrines/Principles:
Article 12, paragraph 4. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — The following are
exempt from criminal liability:
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.
FACTS:

 1990 – Policemen arrested Tomas Balboa, a master teacher of the Concepcion College of Science
and Fisheries in Concepcion, Iloilo, for he was allegedly connected with a robbery. He was
brought to the Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary Company at Camp Jalandoni in Iloilo
where he was detained.
 Roweno Pompoy, a member of the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company, directed the latter to
come out, for tactical interrogation at the investigation room. Petitioner had a gun hanging from
his bolster. After that, two gunshots were heard. Petitioner was seen holding his .45 caliber pistol
facing Balboa who was lying in a pool of blood. The latter died.
Facts according to the Prosecution:

 Added to the above facts, when Pomoy and Balboa were in the building near the investigation
room, 2 gunshots were heard. When they came to the source of the gunshot sounds, Pomoy was
seen holding the .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood, about 2 feet
away.
 When the Commanding Officer arrived, he disarmed Pomoy, and had Balboa brought to the
hospital but was stopped by a doctor in the premises, saying it was unnecessary as Balboa is
already deceased.
 Upon the request of the wife of Balboa, an autopsy was conducted in NBI Iloilo with findings by
the medico-legal officer, as follows: Cause of Death: Hemorrhage, massive secondary gunshot
wounds on chest and abdomen.
Facts according to the Defense:

 Defense had the ff. witnesses:

o Ema Basa (lone eyewitness to the incident): while working about 2pm she heard some
noise and exchange of words that were unclear but seemed like trouble. She opens the
door, and seeing one meter away, finds Pomoy and Balboa grappling for possession of
the gun from Pomoy’s holster. It all happened so fast that the gun was pulled out of the
holster, a shot was fired, but she wasn’t sure who really pulled the trigger.
o Eden Legaspi: she also heard the commotion from outside, but remained seated where
she was. She witnessed Ema Basa go and open the door. Eden Legaspi only stood up
after shots were fired and heard one of the two men fell down.
o Dr. Mallo Jr. (the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy): he found 2 entrance
wounds on Balboa, one’s trajectory going upward, and other downward.
o Pomoy (petitioner): noted that once he opened the door to meet Balboa, the latter
suddenly approached him to take hold of the gun in the holster. Pomoy also said that he
loaded and cocked his gun before going to Camp Jalandoni that day. Though Balboa is
 shorter, Pomoy notes Balboa is bigger in build. Pomoy however, prevented Balboa from
taking his gun. After a few seconds of grappling, the gun was forced out of the holster, it
fired to the right side of the victim.
Trial Court and CA’s Decisions:

 Petitioner was held guilty based on the ff: 1) Petitioner had substantial control of the gun, 2) the
gun was locked prior to the grabbing incident, hence unlocked but the petitioner, 3) location of
the wounds do not support the assertion of the grabbing of the gun, 4) as the OSG said, an
“accident” was unlikely since there were two gunshot wounds, on two different angles and distant
parts of the body, instead of one. OSG said that it is an oft-repeated principle that the location,
number and gravity of the wounds inflicted on the victim have a more revealing tale of what
actually happened during the incident.
 Appellate court cited People v. Reyes saying that revolvers are not prone to accidental firing since
it need to be cocked and pressure is needed to be exerted on the trigger.
 CA also debunked the alternative plea of self-defense because petitioner failed to prove the
attendance of unlawful aggression.
 CA altered the trial court’s ruling in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
public position. It ruled that in this case, there was no showing of a premediate plan, nor
did the petitioner take advantage of his public position. Hence there were neither
aggravating nor mitigating circumstances given.

ISSUES:
a.) WON the prosecution failed to overturn the defense. – YES, prosecution failed.
b.) WON Pomoy had “full control” of the gun. – NO
c.) WON the safety lock feature, requirement of pressure and two gunshots necessarily conclude an
effort to kill instead of an accident. – NO
d.) WON the number and location of the gunshot wounds necessarily conclude deliberate intent. –
NO
e.) WON there was an exempting circumstance of accident (Art. 12, par. 4). – YES
f.) WON there was self-defense. – NO
RULING:
Petition is granted and the assailed decision REVERSED. Petitioner is ACQUITTED.
RATIO:
a.) CA failed to see the prosecution’s failure to overturn the allegations of the accident, as an
exempting circumstance in Art. 12, which exculpates the actor when the harm was done without
his fault or negligence but rather on circumstances unforeseen or out of his control. This, in
determining whether an “accident” attended the incident, court must take into account the dual
standards of (1) lack of intent to kill and (2) absence of fault or negligence.
b.) POMOY HAD NO FULL CONTROL. The Petitioner was NOT in control of the gun when it
fired, mainly through the testimonial evidence of Erna Basa. According to the cross, when she
began to see the incident, the gun was still in the holster, at the side of the petitioner. She also
said both the petitioner and the deceased had their hands on the gun, while it was INSIDE the
 holster, at that point they were both already grappling for possession. She mentions that both
gunshots happened during the grappling, but because of the wrestling of the two, she could not
see where the gun was pointed towards. This was because as Pomoy’s right hand and Balboa’s
left hand were scuffling for possession, Pomoy continued to use his left hand to subdue Balboa.
The foregoing account clearly demonstrates that the petitioner did NOT have control of the
gun to consider any willful intent to kill the deceased. According to the witness, the deceased
persistently tried to wrest the weapon from the petitioner, while he resolutely tried to thwart those
attempts. The CA therefore, had no firm basis to conclude that Pomoy had full possession of the
gun.
c.) NO CLEAR SHOWING OF DETERMINED EFFORT. Since it is now undisputed that both
petitioner and victim struggled aggressively for possession of the gun, the eyewitness account of
Basa clearly illustrated the fact that in the “fierce and vicious” frenzied grappling, it supports the
conclusion that the safety lock was accidentally released, and the force of either man was strong
enough to fire the gun, putting the necessary pressure.
d.) THE LOCATION OF THE WOUNDS ARE IRRELEVANT. . In this case though, they are
inconsequential where 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.
e.) The ELEMENTS of ACCIDENT WERE ALL PRESENT in this case.
Elements:
1) The accused was at the time performing a lawful act with due care;
2) The resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and
3) On the part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury.

 From the facts, it is clear that all these elements were present. At the time of the incident,
petitioner was an investigator for the PNP. Thus, he was in the lawful performance of his duties
that, under the instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter’s cell for a routine
interrogation. Also, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner
tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from his
holster.

 The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim’s death was limited only to acts committed in
the course of the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. The removal of the
gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of the two successive shots all of
which led to the death of the victim were sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the very least, these factual circumstances
create serious doubt on the latter’s culpability.
f.) There was NO SELF DEFENSE. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of
accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a
premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent danger. Apparently, the fatal
shots in the instant case did not occur out of any conscious or premeditated effort to overpower, maim
or kill the victim for the purpose of self-defense against any aggression; rather, they appeared to be the
spontaneous and accidental result of both parties’ attempts to possess the firearm.