TOPIC B.

Chapter Two: Justifying and Exempting Circumstances

Art. 11.
Self-defense

CASE NAME Nacnac vs. People

CASE NUMBER G.R. No. 191913
DATE March 21, 2012
PONENTE Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr.

CASE PROPER

PARTIES Petitioner:
SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac

Respondent:
People of the Philippines

NATURE Motion for Reconsideration of the SC Resolution dated August 25, 2010, affirming the July
20, 2009 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 entitled
People of the Philippines v. SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac.

FACTS  On February 20, 2003, SPO2 Nacnac (accused-appellant), the SPO1 Doddie Espejo
(victim) and several other police officers were on duty. Nacnac, being the highest-
ranking officer during the shift, was designated the officer-of-the-day.
 Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, Espejo, together with then SPO1 Basilio, took the
patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When Nacnac saw this, he stopped the
victim and his colleague from using the tricycle.
 Espejo told Nacnac that he needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous
disagreement with a security of a local bar. Nacnac still refused. He told Espejo that
he is needed at the station and, at any rate, he should stay at the station because he
was drunk.
 This was not received well by Espejo. He told Nacnac in Ilocano: “Iyot ni inam kapi”
(Coitus of your mother, cousin!). Espejo alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Basilio did
the same, went inside the office, and left Nacnac and Espejo alone.
 Espejo took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster on
the right side of his chest. Nacnac then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning
shot. Undaunted, Espejo still drew his gun. Nacnac then shot the victim on the head,
which caused the Espejo’s instantaneous death.
 Nacnac later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police.
 The RTC found Nacnac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. It
held that the claim of self-defense by Nacnac was unavailing due to the absence of
unlawful aggression on the part of Espejo.
 On appeal, CA affirmed the findings of RTC. It held that the essential and primary
element of unlawful aggression was lacking. It gave credence to the finding of the
trial court that no one else saw the victim drawing his weapon and pointing it at
accused Nacnac.

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

  In its comment dated April 27, 2011, the OSG avers that petitioner is entitled to an
acquittal, or at the very least, not one but two mitigating circumstances.

ISSUE (s) Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the petitioner’s acts constitutes a valid
self-defense.

HELD YES.
LEGAL BASIS
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code states that anyone who acts in defense of his person
or rights do not incur any criminal liability, provided that the following circumstances
concur:
(i) unlawful aggression;
(ii) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
(iii) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

APPLICATION OF LEGAL BASIS

Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element of self-defense; and ordinarily, there is a
difference between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s gun at a
target in determining the presence of unlawful aggression. The former cannot be said to
be an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, while the latter is generally
considered unlawful aggression. Here, a warning shot fired by fellow police officer
(petitioner) was left unheeded as the victim reached for his own firearm and pointed it at
petitioner. Petitioner was justified in defending himself from an inebriated and
disobedient colleague.

As to the second circumstance above, the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the
accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia of the means
employed by the accused, which must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and
the extent of the attack sought to be averted. Here, the lone gunshot was a reasonable
means chosen by petitioner in defending himself in view of the proximity of the armed
victim, his drunken state, disobedience of an unlawful order, and failure to stand down
despite a warning shot.

There is also lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself or
herself in this case. Petitioner gave the victim a lawful order and fired a warning shot
before shooting the armed and drunk victim. There was no evidence on petitioner
sufficiently provoking the victim prior to the shooting. Petitioner was only defending
himself on the night he shot his fellow policer.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated
July 20, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner SPO2
Lolito T. Nacnac is ACQUITTED of homicide on reasonable doubt. The Director of the
Bureau of Prisons is ordered to immediately RELEASE petitioner from custody, unless he is
being held for some other lawful cause, and to INFORM this Court within five (5) days
from receipt of this Decision of the date petitioner was actually released from
confinement.

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

 SO ORDERED.

Prepared by: Arnel A. Manalastas (Use at your own risk)

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012