View full case

PEOPLE v. CA

FACTS:

On December 1, 1984, Navy Captain Eladio C. Tangan was driving alone on Roxas Boulevard when a car driven by Generoso Miranda suddenly swerved to the right and cut Tangan's path. Tangan blew his horn several times and they engaged in a chase. When they reached Airport Road, Tangan slowed down to make a U-turn, and Miranda passed him and got out of his car with his uncle. An argument ensued, with both parties exchanging expletives. Tangan went back to his car and got his .38 caliber handgun. The accounts of the subsequent events were conflicting. According to the prosecution witnesses, Tangan pointed his gun at Generoso Miranda and shot him in the stomach. The defense claimed that during their grappling, the gun fell and accidentally went off, hitting Generoso. Generoso Miranda died on the way to the hospital. Tangan was charged with homicide and illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. He was acquitted of illegal possession of firearm but convicted of homicide. The trial court ordered him to suffer an indeterminate penalty and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The heirs of Generoso filed a petition for review with the Supreme court, while Tangan appealed to the Court of Appeals, which increased the award of civil indemnity.

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to modify the judgment of the Court of Appeals by convicting accused-appellant of homicide without appreciating any mitigating circumstance in his favor. The Office of the Solicitor General later withdrew its motion for extension of time after discovering its error in filing the motion. Meanwhile, the accused petitioner filed a separate petition for review under Rule 45. Since the petition for certiorari filed by the Solicitor General remained unresolved, the two cases were consolidated. The Solicitor General also filed a manifestation asking to be excused from filing a comment to Tangan's petition for review to avoid taking contradictory positions. The Court held that the prosecution cannot use the remedies of special civil action on certiorari, petition for review on certiorari, or appeal in criminal cases, and that the writ of certiorari cannot be used by the State in a criminal case to correct factual findings or evaluation of the evidence. The Court also found that the Solicitor General's petition for certiorari violated the accused's right against double jeopardy. During the trial, the accused did not invoke self-defense, but claimed that the victim was accidentally shot. The trial court and the Court of Appeals appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense in favor of the accused. The burden of proving the crime remained with the prosecution.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused acted in self-defense.

  2. Whether the shooting was accidental.

  3. Whether the shooting was accidental or intentional

  4. Whether the accused acted in incomplete self-defense

  5. Whether the accused had sufficient provocation to claim self-defense

  6. Whether the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and passion and obfuscation can be appreciated

  7. Whether the retroactive application of the death penalty is favorable to the accused.

  8. Whether the amendment to P.D. 1866, which treats the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance, can be applied retroactively.

  9. Whether the accused should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.

RULING:

  1. The court found that the accused did not act in self-defense. The trial court ruled that the accused did not establish the three requisites of self-defense: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling.

  2. The court also found that the shooting was not accidental. The trial court ruled that the shooting occurred while the accused and the victim were grappling for possession of the gun, and that the accused did not lose possession of the gun during the scuffle. The Court of Appeals agreed with this finding.

  3. The shooting was intentional and not accidental based on the position and trajectory of the gunshot wound and the nature of revolver mechanisms.

  4. The accused did not act in incomplete self-defense as there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

  5. The accused did not have sufficient provocation to claim self-defense as the provocative acts of the victim were not proportionate to inciting violence.

  6. The mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation and passion and obfuscation are not applicable as there was no act sufficient to produce a condition of mind and the acts were done in the spirit of revenge and lawlessness.

  7. The retroactive application of the death penalty is not favorable to the accused due to the proscription of the imposition of death penalty under the 1987 Constitution. In addition, the subsequent restoration of the death penalty in 1994 cannot be retroactively applied to the accused.

  8. The amendment to P.D. 1866 cannot be applied retroactively to the accused because it will result in the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty, which is unfavorable to the accused. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information, as required by Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

  9. The accused should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal, with the medium period of such penalty being applied in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Incomplete self-defense is considered a mitigating circumstance and does not shift the burden of proving the crime charged. The majority of the requirements of self-defense, particularly the requisite of unlawful aggression, must be present for incomplete self-defense to be successfully appreciated. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be established. (Article 13, Revised Penal Code)

  • The assessments of credibility of witnesses made by the trial court are accorded great weight and respect on appeal, unless it is shown that significant facts and circumstances were overlooked or disregarded which may affect the outcome of the case. The trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, providing indicators of truthfulness or falsehood. (Jurisprudence)

  • The medical report or autopsy is material in determining the truthfulness of events narrated by witnesses.

  • In self-defense, the element of unlawful aggression must come from the victim.

  • Mere threatening or intimidating attitude and exchange of insults do not constitute unlawful aggression without physical assault.

  • The shooter can still be held responsible for the consequences of a fatal wound, even if there was no intention to kill.

  • The person defending themselves must lack sufficient provocation, which must be proportionate to incite violence, in order to claim self-defense.

  • Sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance is different from sufficient provocation as an element of self-defense.

  • The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation requires an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce a condition of mind, not far removed from the commission of the crime.

  • The retroactive application of laws is generally disallowed when it results in a penalty greater than that which could have been imposed at the time the offense was committed.

  • The imposition of the death penalty is prohibited if it is not favorable to the accused due to the proscription under the Constitution or the absence of retroactive application.

  • Amendments to laws cannot be applied retroactively if they result in the imposition of a more severe penalty or disadvantage the accused.

  • The aggravating circumstances alleged in an information must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for them to be considered by the court in the determination of the accused's guilt or the imposition of the penalty.