G.R. No.

165483             September 12, 2006

RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
PROBLEM:
In 1998, some Ferrer brothers were drinking and singing at a videoke bar. Later, one
Jaime Palaganas arrived at the bar with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio. When Jaime
was singing, one Ferrer sang along with him, apparently mocking Jaime. Jaime took
offense over this and saw that as an insult. Jaime then struck Servillano Ferrer at the
back of the head with a mic and a rumble ensued. Ferdinand ran out of the bar.
Meanwhile, Edith (sister of Jaime and owner of the bar) pacified them. The Ferrer
brothers went outside, and there they saw Ferdinand pointing at them and told Rujjeric
to shoot them. Servillano was hit in the abdomen, Melton Ferrer was fatally hit in the
head. Ferdinand and Rujjeric left the place.
However, the defense contends that stones were thrown at them first, and after being
hit several times, unable to bear the pain, he closed his eyes and pulled the trigger.
The RTC found Rujjeric guilty of homicide, but Ferdinand was acquitted. The CA
affirmed the same. Whether the CA was correct in affirming the decision. Whether
accused should have been acquitted on the ground of self-defense.
ANSWER:
Yes. The CA was correct. There is no self-defense.
Unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense. There was no unlawful
aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers that justified the act of shooting them.
There were no actual or imminent danger to the lives of Rujjeric and Ferdinand when
they proceeded and arrived at the bar.
Furthermore, the act of shooting the Ferrer brothers was not a reasonable and
necessary means of repelling the aggression allegedly initiated by the Ferrers. As
stated by the trial court, the gun was far deadlier compared to the stones thrown by the
Ferrers.
No. The accused should not be acquitted.
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. The accused has the burden 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.
Verily, he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to an
acquittal on the ground of lawful self-defense.