Manaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

150723, 11 July 2006

(ATM homicide, inunahan, bumalikwas)

Facts:
Needing money to buy medicines for his daughter, Joselito Bautista (victim) went to an
atm (BPI Kalayaan Branch) to withdraw money during midnight. Joselito entered the
wrong PIN and his card was captured by the machine. He could not withdraw, so he
started pounding and kicking the atm. Ramonito Manaban, the bank security guard,
advised him to return the coming morning. Joselito kept on pounding and striking the
atm, Manaban tried to calm him down and referred him to the ATM customer service
over the phone. At one point in the incident, Joselito showed to Manaban his gun tucked
on his waist. Joselito continued raging and striking the machine, Manaban could no
longer pacify him so he fired a warning shot. Joselito then confronted Manaban. Joselito
turned his back “bumalikwas”, and thinking that Joselito is getting his gun to shoot him,
Manaban shot Joselito Bautista, “inunahan na niya”. Manaban died of a gunshot wound.
Medico legal testified that the point of entry of the bullet was at the back, right side of the
body, and there was no exit point. Medico legal further testified that the bullet wound was
fatal because the bullet hit the victim’s right lung, lacerated parts of the liver, stomach
and the pancreas. Manaban was charged with murder, qualified by treachery as the
victim’s wound is in the back, but trial court found him guilty of homicide and CA
affirmed the trial court’s decision. Manaban filed a petition for review to the SC
contending he only acted in self-defense.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable to the case

Ruling:
No. Self-defense is not applicable. Under the paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code, the three requisites of self-defense as justifying circumstance which may
exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self-defense. Unlawful
aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack a person. For self-
defense to be applicable, there must be an actual attack or imminent danger, which puts
the defendant’s life at peril.
 In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. First, the victim
was shot at back. Second, when the victim was shot, victim’s gun was still inside a locked
holster tucked in his waist. Third, as Manaban testified, when victim turned his back at
Manaban, Manaban was already pointing his loaded service firearm at the victim. The
allegation that victim was about to shoot him is mere speculation. Besides, if he really
feared that victim was about to get his gun and shoot him, Manaban could have easily
disabled victim by shooting his leg or his arm. Aggression presupposes that the person
acting in defense was in actual or imminent peril, not just imaginary. Absent of such
actual or imminent peril in one’s life or limb, there is no justification for taking one’s life
or inflicting injuries to another. SC affirmed trial court’s decision that accused is guilty of
homicide.

SC held that Manaban is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender but not obfuscation. Under paragraph 6 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is appreciated where the accused acted upon
an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. The requisites of
the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation are: (1) that there should be an act both
unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) that the act which produced
the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. The act of Bautista in
turning around is not unlawful and sufficient cause for Manaban to lose his reason and shoot
Bautista. The threat was only in the mind of Manaban and is mere speculation which is not
sufficient to produce obfuscation which is mitigating.