G.R. No. 196945 SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
DANILO REMEGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Danilo Remegio was charged with homicide for shooting Felix Sumugat on December 12, 1998. The parties stipulated that Remegio killed Sumugat, but Remegio invoked self-defense, reversing the order of trial. The defense version stated that Remegio, as caretaker of land, approached Sumugat who was cutting an uprooted tree with a chainsaw. After a verbal altercation, Sumugat drew a revolver. Remegio wrestled the gun away, but Sumugat then advanced with the running chainsaw. Remegio claimed he fired a warning shot, parried the chainsaw, lost his balance, and accidentally shot Sumugat in the chest.
The prosecution’s initial witnesses, through a joint affidavit, claimed Remegio threatened and shot Sumugat first in the foot and then in the chest. However, during trial, these witnesses recanted, with one stating he did not witness the event and another executing an affidavit of retraction, leaving the prosecution with no credible eyewitness testimony to counter Remegio’s account. The Regional Trial Court convicted Remegio of homicide, rejecting his claim of self-defense, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner successfully proved the elements of self-defense to justify his acquittal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and acquitted Remegio. When an accused admits the killing and pleads self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found that Remegio satisfactorily proved the three elements of self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. First, there was unlawful aggression from Sumugat, who initially drew a gun and, after being disarmed, advanced with a running chainsaw—a weapon capable of causing grievous harm. This aggression was continuous and present at the moment of the shooting.
Second, the means employed to repel the aggression was reasonable. Remegio used the very gun he wrested from Sumugat. Given the immediate danger posed by a running chainsaw at close range, the use of a firearm was a proportionate response. Third, there was lack of sufficient provocation on Remegio’s part. Merely telling Sumugat to stop cutting the tree trunk was a legitimate act of a caretaker and cannot be considered unlawful provocation that would deprive him of the right to self-defense. The Court emphasized that the lower courts erred in finding provocation and in concluding the aggression had ceased. Since all elements of self-defense were established, no criminal liability attaches. The petition was granted and Remegio was acquitted.