View full case

PEOPLE v. AUGUSTO LORETO RINGOR

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Augusto Loreto Ringor, Jr., was found guilty of the crimes of murder and illegal possession of firearms. In Criminal Case No. 13102-R, Ringor was charged with the murder of Marcelino Florida, Jr. The prosecution alleged that Ringor, armed with a .38 caliber handgun, attacked and shot Florida multiple times, leading to his death. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was alleged due to the sudden and unprovoked attack. In Criminal Case No. 13100-R, Ringor was charged with the illegal possession of a .38 caliber revolver without any legal authority or permit. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, forensic reports, and the recovery of the firearm used in the crime. Ringor admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defense.

ISSUES:

  1. Did accused-appellant act in self-defense?

  2. Did accused-appellant prove the elements of self-defense?

  3. Whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

  4. Whether the crime committed was murder aggravated by treachery.

  5. Whether or not the amendatory law making the "use of an unlicensed firearm" as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide can be applied in this case.

  6. Whether or not the amendatory law would be considered an ex post facto law.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled that accused-appellant did not act in self-defense.

  2. Accused-appellant failed to prove the elements of self-defense. He was not able to establish unlawful aggression by the victim. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, especially the waitress who witnessed the incident, were firm in stating that the victim was unarmed and did not exhibit any aggressive behavior towards accused-appellant. The trajectories of the gunshot wounds on the victim also contradicted accused-appellant's claim of self-defense.

  3. The imputation of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim cannot be believed. Absent the element of unlawful aggression by the deceased, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.

  4. The trial court properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of treachery, which qualified the crime to murder. The accused-appellant fired several shots at the victim suddenly, without warning, and from behind, giving the victim no chance to flee or defend himself.

  5. The amendatory law making the "use of an unlicensed firearm" as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide cannot be applied in this case.

  6. The amendatory law would be considered an ex post facto law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In asserting self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove the elements and justify the killing. If the accused fails to prove self-defense, conviction is inevitable.

  • To establish self-defense, the elements must be proven: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim, (2) reasonable means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending themselves.

  • In self-defense, there must be unlawful aggression by the victim.

  • In murder cases, the presence of treachery qualifies the crime.

  • The amendatory law making the "use of an unlicensed firearm" as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide cannot be applied if it is not favorable to the accused, as it would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.