FACTS:

Facts:

On January 16, 1998, the Ferrer brothers (Servillano, Melton, and Michael) were having a drinking spree at their house in Poblacion, Manaoag, Pangasinan. They then went to Tidbits Videoke bar to continue their drinking and singing. Inside the bar, a confrontation broke out between the Ferrer brothers and Jaime Palaganas, Ferdinand Palaganas, and Virgilio Bautista when Melton Ferrer sang along with Jaime's song. The confrontation escalated and resulted in shootings. Petitioner Rujjeric Z. Palaganas and his brother Ferdinand Z. Palaganas were charged with various crimes. The trial court found Rujjeric guilty of Homicide and two counts of Frustrated Homicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modification. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the CA decision.

The incident occurred on January 16, 1998, at Tidbits Café and Videoke Bar. The Ferrer brothers were drinking and singing at a table when Jaime Palaganas, Ferdinand Palaganas, and Virgilio Bautista arrived and occupied a nearby table. Jaime and Tony Ferrer sang the song "My Way" in a mocking manner, leading to a brawl between the two groups. Rujjeric Palaganas, who came to help Ferdinand, fired a shot in the air after being stoned by the Ferrer brothers. As a result, Melton was fatally shot, Servillano was wounded, and Michael was injured. Rujjeric was found guilty of Homicide and two counts of Frustrated Homicide but acquitted of election code violations. Ferdinand was acquitted of all charges.

Rujjeric Palaganas was convicted of Homicide and two counts of Frustrated Homicide for shooting the Ferrer brothers. The trial court found that there was no conspiracy between Rujjeric and Ferdinand and that Rujjeric's use of force was instantaneous. The court also found that there was no treachery involved in the incident. Rujjeric was acquitted of a charge related to election code violations. The petitioner appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty imposed.

The appellant in this case was charged with attempted homicide and frustrated homicide. The incidents occurred on November 16, 2004, and the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. For attempted homicide, the appellant was sentenced to a minimum of four years and two months of prision correcional and a maximum of ten years of prision mayor. The appellant was also ordered to pay damages to the victim. For frustrated homicide, the appellant was sentenced to a similar prison term and ordered to pay damages to the victim.

ISSUES:

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the judgment of conviction of the trial court?

2. Did the Court of Appeals err in not acquitting the accused-appellant on the ground of lawful self-defense?

3. Whether the shooting of the Ferrer brothers is justified despite their alleged provocation.

4. Whether the petitioner acted in self-defense.

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to acquittal on the ground of lawful self-defense.

6. Whether the petitioner is guilty of frustrated homicide or attempted homicide as regards to Michael.

7. Whether the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm should be considered as a generic or special aggravating circumstance.

8. Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm should be considered as a generic or special aggravating circumstance.

9. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner in Criminal Case No. U-9610 is correct.

10. Whether the civil liability of petitioner is proper.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the judgment of conviction and in not acquitting the accused-appellant on the ground of lawful self-defense. The Court explained that for self-defense to be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal liability, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself must concur. Unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. In this case, there was no evidence of unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers that justified the act of the accused-appellant in shooting them. Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant.

2. The shooting of the Ferrer brothers is not justified. Even if the Ferrer brothers provoked the petitioner to shoot them, the shooting is still unjustified because at the time the provocation occurred, the petitioner was not in a state of actual or imminent danger. The petitioner had several options to avoid the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers, such as running away, taking cover, or seeking help from the proper authorities.

3. The petitioner did not act in self-defense. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner's life and limb were in actual peril. The wounds sustained by the petitioner were not serious and severe. Firing a warning shot was not the last and only option the petitioner had to avoid the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers. The petitioner's use of a gun was not a reasonable and necessary means to repel the alleged aggression of the Ferrer brothers, especially considering that the petitioner's gun was far deadlier compared to the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers.

4. The petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of lawful self-defense.

5. The petitioner is guilty only of the crime of attempted homicide as regards to Michael.

6. The aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm should be considered as a special aggravating circumstance.

7. The use of an unlicensed firearm should be considered as a special aggravating circumstance.

8. The penalty imposed on the petitioner for the homicide in Criminal Case No. U-9610 is modified. The penalty is now twelve (12) years of prision mayor as a minimum period up to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as a maximum period, considering the special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm and the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

9. The petitioner is ordered to pay exemplary damages amounting to P25,000.00 in addition to the actual damages and moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals are reduced to P42,374.18.

PRINCIPLES:

• In order for self-defense to be validly considered in absolving a person from criminal liability, the elements of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself must concur.

• Unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon.

• The presence of unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not be appreciated.

• The means employed in self-defense must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. The reasonableness of the means employed takes into account the weapons, physical condition of the parties, and other circumstances showing a rational equivalence between the means of attack and defense.

• When an accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense. The burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense.

• A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but do not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. It is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution.

• If the accused intended to kill the victim, used a deadly weapon, and the victim sustained non-fatal wounds, the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. However, if the wounds sustained were not fatal or mortal, the crime committed is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.

• The use of an unlicensed firearm is considered a special aggravating circumstance, which must be alleged, charged, and proven during trial. It cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

• Special aggravating circumstances cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances.

• With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is considered a special aggravating circumstance.

• Actual damages for loss of earning capacity cannot be awarded without documentary evidence.

• Temperate damages may be awarded when some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded when there is a presence of a special aggravating circumstance.

• The penalty for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal.

• The use of an unlicensed firearm is considered a special aggravating circumstance.

• The Indeterminate Sentence Law allows for the imposition of a minimum and maximum penalty within the prescribed range.

• Exemplary damages may be awarded to serve as a deterrent to similar wrongful acts.

• The court has the authority to modify the amount of damages awarded by the lower court if it finds them excessive or improper.