1

[ G.R. No. 248130, December 02, 2020 ]

TOPIC: Justifying circumstance (self-defense)

Crime charged: Homicide

Decision of RTC: Convicted of homicide

Decision of CA: Decision of RTC affirmed

Decision of SC: decision reversed; acquitted

Information:

That on or about May 20, 2013 in the Municipality of Baggao, Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the said accused PRUDENCIO GANAL y Badajos armed with a handgun, with intent
to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot JULWIN ALVAREZ Y
JAVIER thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death.

Facts:

Petitioner admitted the killing but invoked self-defense and defense of relative. Hence, the order of trial was
reversed.

Defense's Version:

At about 7 o'clock in the evening of May 20, 2013, Castillo and Ubina were drinking Ginebra Kuatro Cantos in
petitioner's house in Santor, Baggao, Cagayan. By 9:30 o'clock in the evening, petitioner's neighbor Angelo
Follante (Angelo), arrived uninvited and insisted to join the drinking session. Petitioner refused because Angelo
was already very drunk. Angelo then challenged petitioner to a fight but the latter advised him to just go home.
Angelo got enraged and picked up stones to throw at petitioner but Ubina was quick to take the stones away.
Petitioner eventually prevailed on Angelo and the latter left. Petitioner and his companions then resumed
drinking.

Thirty (30) minutes later, stones were hurled at the roofs of the adjacent houses of petitioner and his father,
Ganal, Sr. Ganal, Sr. went out to check and saw Angelo together with his uncle Julwin - the deceased. The two
were in the middle of the road near the front gate. Ganal, Sr. approached and asked them to go home because his
wife was suffering from hypertension and should not be disturbed. Julwin replied that he did not care if Ganal,
Sr.'s wife died, he would kill all of them, including petitioner. Ganal, Sr. tried to pacify the two, assuring them
that they would settle whatever problem they had the following day.

Julwin, then holding palm-sized stones in both hands, managed to push open the gate. As Ganal, Sr. tried to pull
back the gate, Julwin hit him with a stone in the chest. Ganal, Sr. fell on the plant box made of hollow blocks
and passed out.

Petitioner, from the main door of his house, saw what happened. Julwin, who had a knife tucked in his
waistband and holding two (2) stones, advanced towards him. Petitioner thus rushed inside his house, got his
gun, and fired a warning shot into the air. Ganal, Sr. this time had regained consciousness and hid near the gate.
Angelo ran away but Julwin continued advancing towards him. When Julwin was about two (2) to three (3)
meters away from him, petitioner thought that the victim was intent on killing him. Petitioner fired at Julwin,
who in turn, pointed a finger at him, threatening to kill everyone inside the house. Afraid that Julwin would
make good on his threat, petitioner fired all the rounds in his gun. Julwin fell within a meter from petitioner's
door.

Petitioner borrowed the cellphone of his mother Erlinda Ganal and called the Baggao Police Station. He asked
assistance from PO3 Marcelino and committed to surrender himself. When the police officers arrived, petitioner
admitted he killed Julwin, turned over his gun, and voluntarily surrendered.

Ganal, Jr. vs People G.R. No. 248130

The Prosecution's Version

In the evening of May 20, 2013, feast day of the patron saint of Santor, Baggao, Cagayan, Angelo dropped by
petitioner's house. On his way to petitioner's house, Angelo had in his pockets stones, around 2 inches in
diameter, for driving away dogs along the way. When petitioner saw the stones, he ordered Angelo to surrender
them and went to get his gun. Petitioner showed the gun to Angelo and told the latter to go home if he did not
want any trouble.

Instead of going home, Angelo went to Julwin's house. He saw Julwin sitting on a rocking chair outside the
house. After telling Julwin what happened, Angelo momentarily went inside the house but when he returned
outside, Julwin was nowhere to be found. Angelo went out to look for Julwin and saw the latter walking toward
petitioner's house and go through the slightly opened gate. Thereafter, petitioner and Julwin had a confrontation.
Suddenly, petitioner shot Julwin in the chest. Angelo ran away in fear and heard three (3) more shots. Petitioner
followed him so he ran to the house of one Gilbert Narag. Angelo later went back to Julwin's house when he
heard that the latter's body was brought there by the police. The post mortem examination showed that Julwin
died due to "severe hemorrhage secondary to multiple gunshot wounds and lacerations."

The Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court found petitioner guilty of homicide. It did not give credence to petitioner's claim of self-defense
on the ground that the force he employed was not commensurate to Julwin's supposed unlawful aggression. The
nature and number of wounds (5 bullet wounds and 2 lacerations) revealed petitioner's intent to kill. More, there
was no incomplete self-defense because petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that there was
unlawful aggression on Julwin's part. Nor did it give credence to petitioner's claim of defense of property
because the force employed by petitioner was not reasonably necessary. Petitioner could not also avail of
defense of uncontrollable fear because he was unable to show that Julwin's actuations reduced petitioner to a
mere instrument devoid of free will and acting merely out of compulsion.

On appeal, petitioner faulted the trial court for rendering the verdict of conviction. In the main, he argued that
the three (3) justifying circumstances of self-defense, defense of ascendant, and lawful defense of property
rights should have been appreciated. Julwin was unlawfully aggressive towards his father, Ganal, Sr., pushing
his way through the gate while carrying palm-sized stones in his hands and having a knife tucked in his
waistband. Despite firing a warning shot, Julwin still continued advancing towards him while threatening to kill
everyone in the house. The exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury can also
be appreciated in his favor. In the alternative, incomplete self-defense may also be considered.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in full.

Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of relatives should be appreciated in
his favor.

Ruling: Yes, it should be appreciated.

Petitioner invokes the first and second justifying circumstances under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, viz.:

ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees,
and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second

Ganal, Jr. vs People G.R. No. 248130

requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in
case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.

We note that petitioner's primary invocation is self-defense and his claim of defense of relative should be
deemed subsumed therein. As it was, petitioner witnessed up close how Julwin threw stones onto the roofs of
his and his father's houses, pushed his way through the gate, knocked petitioner's father unconscious, hitting the
latter with a large stone on the chest, shouted threats that he would kill petitioner and his family, and advanced
toward petitioner even after petitioner had already fired a warning shot. Clearly, petitioner was immediately put
on the defensive when Julwin started disturbing the peace of his home and posing a risk to his safety and that of
his family.
To successfully claim self-defense, an accused must satisfactorily prove these elements: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself.21

The first element, unlawful aggression, is present here. People v. Nugas22 explains the nature of unlawful
aggression, thus:

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-
defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the
presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real
peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary
threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression,
namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at
least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful
aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an
offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a
revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent
unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his
hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.
(Emphasis supplied)

Actual or material unlawful aggression contemplates the offensive act of using physical force or weapon which
positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Here, Julwin committed a series of
offensive acts that patently revealed his intent to harm petitioner.

The test is whether the aggression from the victim puts in real peril the life or personal safety of the person
defending himself or herself; the peril must not be an imagined threat. Here, the attendant circumstances
indubitably speak of the real and palpable peril posed by Julwin on the lives and limbs of petitioner and his
father. The peril was certainly far from fiction or imaginary.

Stones were hurled at the roofs of the adjacent houses of petitioner and his father, Ganal, Sr. Ganal, Sr. went out
to check and saw Angelo in the company of his uncle Julwin - the deceased. The two were in the middle of the
road near the front gate. Ganal, Sr. approached and asked them to go home because his wife was suffering from
hypertension and should not be disturbed. Julwin replied that he did not care if Ganal, Sr.'s wife died, he would
kill all of them, including petitioner. Ganal, Sr. tried to pacify the two, assuring them that they would settle
whatever problem they had the following day.

Julwin, then holding palm-sized stones in both hands, managed to push open the gate. As Ganal, Sr. tried to pull
back the gate, Julwin hit him with a stone on the chest. Ganal, Sr. fell on the plant box made of hollow blocks
and passed out.

Petitioner, from the main door of his house, saw what happened. Julwin, who had a knife tucked in his
waistband and holding two (2) stones, started to advance toward him. Petitioner thus rushed inside his house,
got his gun, and fired a warning shot into the air. Ganal, Sr. this time had regained consciousness and hid near
the gate. Angelo ran away but Julwin just continued moving closer and closer to petitioner who then was

Ganal, Jr. vs People G.R. No. 248130

constrained to shoot him once. But still Julwin did not retreat. He just kept moving closer, this time even
threatening to kill everyone inside petitioner's house. Responding to the situation, petitioner then used up all the
four (4) bullets on Julwin who, as a result, fell dead just within a meter from petitioner's door.

The third element of self-defense, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or
herself, is also present here.26 In fact, both the prosecution and defense were one in saying that it was Julwin
who went to petitioner's house and instigated the incident.

As for the second element, reasonable necessity of the means employed, we disagree with the trial court and the
Court of Appeals, and hold that the same is likewise present. People v. Olarbe27 extensively discussed how
courts may determine the reasonable necessity of the means employed:

In judging pleas of self-defense and defense of stranger, the courts should not demand that the accused conduct
himself with the poise of a person not under imminent threat of fatal harm. He had no time to reflect and to
reason out his responses. He had to be quick, and his responses should be commensurate to the imminent harm.
This is the only way to judge him, for the law of nature - the foundation of the privilege to use all reasonable
means to repel an aggression that endangers one's own life and the lives of others - did not require him to use
unerring judgment when he had the reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent danger of losing his life
or suffering great bodily injury. The test is whether his subjective belief as to the imminence and seriousness of
the danger was reasonable or not, and the reasonableness of his belief must be viewed from his standpoint at the
time he acted. The right of a person to take life in self-defense arises from his belief in the necessity for doing
so; and his belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged in the light of the circumstances as they then
appeared to him, not in the light of circumstances as they would appear to others or based on the belief that
others may or might entertain as to the nature and imminence of the danger and the necessity to kill.

The remaining elements of the justifying circumstances were likewise established.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression does not mean absolute
necessity. It must be assumed that one who is assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think,
calculate and make comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of reason. The law requires rational
necessity, not indispensable need. In each particular case, it is necessary to judge the relative necessity, whether
more or less imperative, in accordance with the rules of rational logic. The accused may be given the benefit of
any reasonable doubt as to whether or not he employed rational means to repel the aggression.

In determining the reasonable necessity of the means employed, the courts may also look at and consider the
number of wounds inflicted. A large number of wounds inflicted on the victim can indicate a determined effort
on the part of the accused to kill the victim and may belie the reasonableness of the means adopted to prevent or
repel an unlawful act of an aggressor. x x x
The courts ought to remember that a person who is assaulted has neither the time nor the sufficient tranquility of
mind to think, calculate and choose the weapon to be used. For, in emergencies of this kind, human nature does
not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is
apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to hold the actor not
responsible in law for the consequences. Verily, the law requires rational equivalence, not material
commensurability, viz.:

It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between
the means of attack and defense. ℒαwρhi ৷ What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of
which will enter the principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is
exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness
thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. 

Here, though petitioner inflicted five (5) bullet wounds and two (2) lacerations on Julwin, the number of wounds
alone should not automatically lead to the conclusion that there was a determined effort on petitioner's part to
kill the victim. Petitioner was overcome by the instinct of self-preservation on seeing that Julwin brashly entered
into his property and even knocked his father unconscious for getting in the way. Julwin was determined to
inflict injury on petitioner - he brought two (2) large stones and knife for the purpose.

the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner PRUDENCIO GANAL, JR. is ACQUITTED of HOMICIDE on ground of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense.

Ganal, Jr. vs People G.R. No. 248130