G.R. No. 132130 -31 May 29, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS SUMIBCAY Y REPOLLO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 6, 1989, in San Manuel, Pangasinan, accused-appellant Jesus Sumibcay, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, confronted Flordeliza Sampilo at her sari-sari store. He cursed and threatened to kill her, then fired a shot that missed. Flordeliza hid upon the instruction of her husband, Glicerio. Glicerio then approached Sumibcay with his arms raised, pleading, “No, I will not fight, Manong.” As Glicerio advanced to within two meters, Sumibcay shot him in the neck. Glicerio died the following day. The incident was witnessed by Flordeliza and another bystander, Lynette De Leon. The prosecution established a prior altercation between the parties the day before.
The defense presented a starkly different version, claiming self-defense and accident. Sumibcay testified that he was merely passing by when Flordeliza hurled insults and ordered Glicerio to get a gun. He alleged that Glicerio then poked a gun at him, leading to a struggle for possession. During the scuffle, the gun accidentally fired towards Flordeliza and then, as he twisted the weapon, it discharged again, hitting Glicerio in the neck.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly rejected the defense of self-defense and accident, and convicted accused-appellant of Murder and Attempted Murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of self-defense and accident was correctly rejected. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. Sumibcay’s account failed to meet this burden. His claim of a struggle for the gun was inconsistent with the physical evidence and credible testimonies. The prosecution witnesses consistently testified that Sumibcay was the initial aggressor who fired at Flordeliza first and then deliberately shot the unarmed and surrendering Glicerio, who had his arms raised and was pleading for peace. The trajectory of the fatal wound, entering the neck, also contradicted a narrative of a struggle where the gun was accidentally twisted.
Furthermore, the qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was properly appreciated for the killing of Glicerio. The attack was sudden and deliberate, executed in a manner that ensured the victim had no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. Glicerio was unarmed, with his arms raised in a non-threatening manner, rendering him helpless. This method directly and specially ensured the execution of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court modified the penalties and awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the heirs.