Palaganas v.

People

Facts:
This is among infamous cases where persons were killed on account of Frank Sinatra's My
Way. The decision even began with the song. It's so funny.

Brothers Servillano, Melton and Michael Ferrer were having their drinking spree at their house
but later decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke Bar to continue their drinking spree and to sing.

Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista.
When Jaime Palaganas was singing, Melton Ferrer sang with him. Jaime got irritated and
insulted. He felt that he was being mocked by Melton that caused him to go to the latter’s table
and uttered statements which began the fight.

After either being chased away from the rumble in the bar or leaving in his own accord,
Ferdinand went and sought help from Rujjeric Palaganas, who was in his house. They went to
the bar and upon seeing the Ferrers instructed Rujjeric to shoot them. Rujjeric Palaganas shot
Servillano, Melton and Michael with the use of unlicensed firearm. As a result, Melton was killed,
Servillano was fatally wounded and Michael was shot in his right shoulder.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Rujjeric Palaganas was guilty of the crime of homicide and 2 counts of
frustrated murder.

(2) Whether or not the use of the unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance
which should be appreciated by the court at the case at bar.

(3) Whether or not self-defense can be invoked.

Held:
1. No. Rujjeric Palaganas is only guilty of homicide for the death of Melton Ferrer,
frustrated homicide for fatally wounding Servillano Ferrer and attempted homicide for
shooting Michael at his right shoulder. The trial court explained that there was no
conspiracy between petitioner and Ferdinand in killing Melton and wounding Servillano
and Michael. According to the trial court, the mere fact that Ferdinand "pointed" to where
the Ferrer brothers were and uttered to petitioner "Araratan, paltog mo lara!" (They are
the ones, shoot them!), does not in itself connote common design or unity of purpose to
kill. It also took note of the fact that petitioner was never a participant in the rumble
inside. There was also no treachery since the Court reasoned that the sudden and
unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims, was
absent. They were given the chance to defend themselves.
2. Yes, the unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance. An aggravating
circumstance was provided for under Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by
Republic Act 8294 which is a special law that was passed stating that: if homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Voluntary surrender of the petitioner in this case is
merely an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

3. Petitioner cannot successfully invoke self-defense since there was no actual or imminent
danger to his life at the time he and Ferdinand saw the Ferrer brothers outside the
videoke bar. It noted that when petitioner and Ferdinand saw the Ferrer brothers outside
the videoke bar, the latter were not carrying any weapon. Petitioner then was free to run
or take cover when the Ferrer brothers started pelting them with stones. Petitioner,
however, opted to shoot the Ferrer brothers.