View full case

SHERWIN DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Sherwin Dela Cruz was charged with Homicide for the death of Jeffrey Wernher Gonzales. According to the prosecution, petitioner went to Sykes Asia Inc. and approached the victim from behind, pointing a gun at the back of his head. There was a struggle and petitioner shot Jeffrey four times, causing his death. The defense claimed that petitioner went to Sykes Asia to fetch his wife, and he approached Jeffrey to introduce himself. Jeffrey reacted negatively and pointed a gun at petitioner. Petitioner grappled with Jeffrey for the gun and it accidentally fired, hitting Jeffrey in the forehead. Petitioner fled the scene. The RTC found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and pay damages. Both parties filed appeals. The CA affirmed the RTC decision with modifications on civil liability. The Court found that petitioner failed to prove self-defense as the elements were not present. The court denied petitioner's appeal. The trial court concluded that petitioner exceeded the bounds of self-defense when he inflicted excessive and fatal injuries on Jeffrey, even when the alleged unlawful aggression had already ceased.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused acted in self-defense.

  2. Whether the alleged unlawful aggression continued after the initial struggle.

  3. Whether the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was continuous and imminent.

  4. Whether the means employed by the petitioner were reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of the alleged attack.

  5. Whether the petitioner's claim of self-defense is believable in light of the circumstances.

  6. Whether the element of unlawful aggression is present in the case, thus justifying self-defense.

  7. Whether the prosecution was guilty of suppression of evidence for not presenting the testimonies of the security guards.

  8. Whether there is a basis to doubt the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the elements of homicide are present in the case.

  9. Whether the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm should be appreciated.

  10. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

  11. Whether the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals are proper.

RULING:

  1. The court held that the accused did not act in self-defense. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which was not impeached, established that the victim tried to shield himself from the accused who was already in possession of a gun. When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or wound the former aggressor. The accused went beyond the call of self-preservation and inflicted excessive and fatal injuries even when the alleged unlawful aggression had already ceased.

  2. The court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that the alleged unlawful aggression on the part of the victim continued after the initial struggle. The prosecution witnesses maintained that the victim used the fire extinguisher to shield himself from the accused, who was already in possession of the gun. There was no proof that the victim aimed and intended to smash the fire extinguisher on the accused's head.

  3. The alleged unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not continuous and imminent.

  4. The means employed by the petitioner were not reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of the alleged attack.

  5. The petitioner's claim of self-defense is not believable given the circumstances.

  6. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Since there was no evidence of unlawful aggression, there is no basis to argue for self-defense.

  7. The burden of evidence that the accused acted in self-defense shifts to the accused after admitting responsibility for the killing. The defense did not present proof that the prosecution prevented the security guards from testifying, and therefore, there is no suppression of evidence.

  8. The determination of whether the accused acted in self-defense is a question of fact, and it is within the province of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses. Absent any showing that the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate crucial facts, there is no reason to disturb their ruling that the accused did not act in self-defense.

  9. The use of an unlicensed firearm was alleged in the Information and was proven during trial. Under the law, the use of an unlicensed firearm is considered an aggravating circumstance in cases of homicide. Thus, the penalty imposable on the accused should be in its maximum period.

  10. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals finding the petitioner guilty of the crime of Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

  11. The Supreme Court modified the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals, but affirmed their imposition. The petitioner is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the following: P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P3,022,641.71 as damages for loss of earning capacity. For the civil indemnity and the damages for loss of earning capacity, an interest of 6% per annum is imposed, computed from the time of finality of the Decision until full payment.

PRINCIPLES:

  • When an unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one resorting to self-defense has no right to kill or wound the former aggressor.

  • The plea of self-defense cannot be entertained if it is uncorroborated by separate competent evidence and is extremely doubtful in itself.

  • Unlawful aggression must be continuous and imminent to justify a claim of self-defense.

  • The means employed in self-defense must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack.

  • The belief of an impending attack or threatening attitude is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression.

  • The number and nature of wounds are considered important indications that disprove a plea of self-defense.

  • Failure to inform the police of the alleged aggression and surrender the weapon used undermines a claim of self-defense.

  • Self-defense requires the presence of unlawful aggression.

  • The burden of evidence shifts to the accused to prove self-defense after admitting responsibility for the killing.

  • The determination of self-defense is a question of fact, and the trial court's assessment of credibility is given deference.

  • The use of an unlicensed firearm is considered an aggravating circumstance in cases of homicide.

  • The Court of Appeals' findings of fact are generally binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, and it will not normally disturb the same unless it is shown that the appellate court committed an error in its appreciation of facts or that its conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.

  • The imposition of damages in criminal cases is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code and the Rules of Court.