In Philippine law, claiming self-defense requires proving that the accused was in imminent danger and had no other recourse. This case clarifies that self-defense must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tuardon emphasizes that inconsistencies in the accused’s testimony and alignment with medical findings are critical in evaluating self-defense claims. Furthermore, the case underscores that for treachery to be appreciated, the attack must be sudden, unexpected, and without any provocation from the victim, ensuring the execution of the crime without risk to the aggressor. This ruling provides essential guidance for assessing claims of self-defense and the presence of treachery in criminal cases.

Was It Self-Defense or Murder?: Examining the Shooting in Kabankalan Public Plaza

The case of The People of the Philippines v. Edwin Tuardon y Rosalia stemmed from the events of January 17, 1999, during the Sinulog Festival in Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental. Edwin Tuardon was charged with murder for the death of PO1 Jerry Dagunan and frustrated murder for the injuries inflicted on Edwin T. Flores. The prosecution alleged that Tuardon, along with Ronnel Dima-ala, conspired to attack the victims, while Tuardon claimed he acted in self-defense. The central legal question was whether Tuardon’s actions were justified as self-defense or constituted the crimes of murder and frustrated murder, considering the circumstances surrounding the shootings of Dagunan and Flores.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tuardon guilty of murder and frustrated murder, dismissing his self-defense claim. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision with modifications on the monetary awards. Undeterred, Tuardon appealed to the Supreme Court, insisting that he acted in self-defense against Dagunan, who he claimed initiated the aggression. He further argued that even if he were liable, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not present, thereby negating the charges of murder and frustrated murder.

The Supreme Court, in analyzing the case, began by reiterating a fundamental principle: in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, an exception arises when the accused admits to the killing but invokes self-defense. In such instances, the burden shifts to the accused to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, as emphasized in People of the Philippines v. Samson, G.R. No. 214883, September 2, 2015. This principle requires the accused to demonstrate that their actions were justified under the law.

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) outlines the elements of self-defense: 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. Unlawful aggression is the most critical element; without it, the claim of self-defense cannot stand. As stated in Flores v. People of the Philippines, 705 Phil. 119 (2013), the absence of unlawful aggression negates the possibility of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.

In evaluating Tuardon’s claim, the Supreme Court found his testimony inconsistent and unreliable. Tuardon’s account of the events leading to Dagunan’s death was contradicted by medical evidence and the testimony of eyewitness Flores. The medico-legal report indicated that Dagunan was shot at the back of his head, which directly opposed Tuardon’s claim that he shot Dagunan while the latter was attempting to draw his gun. This discrepancy was critical in discrediting Tuardon’s version of the events. Further, Flores’s testimony painted a picture of a sudden and unexpected attack, leaving Dagunan with no chance to defend himself.

The Court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony, particularly when corroborated by medical findings. It reiterated that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of oversight or misapplication of facts. This principle underscores the judiciary’s reliance on firsthand accounts and expert evidence in determining the veracity of claims in criminal cases.

Turning to the charge of murder, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of treachery. Treachery, as defined in Article 14, Paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that directly and specially ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, depriving the victim of any real chance to defend himself.

The prosecution successfully established that Tuardon’s attack on Dagunan was attended by treachery. Flores testified that Tuardon rushed towards Dagunan, who was in the act of urinating, and shot him from behind. This sudden and unexpected attack, without any provocation from Dagunan, clearly indicated the presence of treachery. The Supreme Court found that Tuardon deliberately employed a method that ensured the execution of the crime without any risk to himself, thus affirming the conviction for murder.

However, the Supreme Court differed with the lower courts regarding the charge of frustrated murder related to the shooting of Edwin Flores. While the RTC and CA classified the attack as frustrated murder due to its suddenness and the fact that Flores was unarmed, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere suddenness of an attack does not automatically equate to treachery. Treachery requires a deliberate and conscious adoption of means to ensure the success of the crime without risk to the aggressor.

The evidence presented indicated that the shooting of Flores was not premeditated or consciously adopted. Both Flores and Tuardon testified that the shooting occurred because Flores was rushing towards Tuardon after witnessing the shooting of Dagunan. This suggests that the act was impulsive rather than a deliberate attempt to ensure the success of a planned attack. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that Tuardon could only be convicted of frustrated homicide, not frustrated murder, as there was no treachery or any other qualifying aggravating circumstance present.

In line with this determination, the Supreme Court adjusted the penalty to be imposed, referencing Ibanez v. People, G.R. No. 190798, January 27, 2016, which clarifies the penalties for frustrated homicide. The Court also adjusted the monetary awards to align with prevailing jurisprudence. People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, provides a summary of damages that may be awarded for different crimes, ensuring that the awards reflect the nature and severity of the offenses committed.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Edwin Tuardon acted in self-defense when he shot and killed PO1 Jerry Dagunan and injured Edwin Flores, or whether his actions constituted murder and frustrated murder. The court examined the presence of unlawful aggression and treachery in the events.
What is the most critical element of self-defense?	The most critical element of self-defense is unlawful aggression. Without unlawful aggression from the victim, there can be no valid claim of self-defense under Philippine law.
What is treachery in the context of murder?	Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that directly and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party might make. It requires a sudden and unexpected attack.
Why was Tuardon not convicted of frustrated murder for shooting Flores?	The Supreme Court determined that the shooting of Flores was not attended by treachery because it was not premeditated or consciously adopted. The act appeared to be impulsive, as Flores was rushing towards Tuardon after witnessing the initial shooting.
What is the difference between murder and homicide?	Murder is homicide qualified by circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or cruelty. Homicide is the unlawful killing of another person without any qualifying circumstances.
What evidence is needed to prove self-defense?	To prove self-defense, the accused must present clear and convincing evidence that they were subjected to unlawful aggression, the means they used to defend themselves were reasonably necessary, and they did not provoke the attack. Inconsistencies can weaken a claim for self-defense.
What was the significance of the medico-legal report in the case?	The medico-legal report was crucial because it revealed that Dagunan was shot in the back of the head, contradicting Tuardon’s claim that he shot Dagunan while the latter was drawing a weapon. This discrepancy undermined Tuardon’s self-defense argument.
How did the Supreme Court modify the lower court’s decision?	The Supreme Court affirmed Tuardon’s conviction for murder in Criminal Case No. 99-2257 and modified his conviction in Criminal Case No. 99-2258 from frustrated murder to frustrated homicide, adjusting the penalty and monetary awards accordingly.
What are the current monetary awards for murder and frustrated homicide?	For murder, the awards are: (i) P75,000.00, as civil indemnity; (ii) P75,000.00, as moral damages; (iii) P75,000.00, as exemplary damages; and (iv) P25,000.00, as temperate damages. For frustrated homicide: (i) P30,000.00, as civil indemnity; (ii) P30,000.00, as moral damages; (iii) P20,000.00, as exemplary damages; and (iv) P25,000.00, as temperate damages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tuardon serves as a critical reminder of the stringent requirements for claiming self-defense and the specific elements that constitute treachery. By meticulously examining the evidence and testimonies, the Court ensured that justice was served in accordance with the law. This case reinforces the importance of aligning legal claims with factual and medical evidence, offering valuable lessons for future legal proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Tuardon, G.R. No. 225644, March 01, 2017