FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231783. January 19, 2018.]
EDGARDO DJ MARTINEZ, SR., petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 19, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 231783 (Edgardo DJ Martinez, Sr. v. People of the Philippines). — After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant Petition for Review and to AFFIRM the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 5 October 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36185. The CA affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated 24 September 2013 in Criminal Case No. 2009-0202, finding Edgardo DJ Martinez, Sr. (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide for the death of Michael Centeno (Michael or the victim). aScITE
The crux of the present case lies in the issue of whether the victim committed unlawful aggression against petitioner. While admitting that he had indeed killed Michael, petitioner interposed that he was merely acting in self-defense when he shot the victim twice. 1 Petitioner points out that the attempt of Michael to draw a gun from the back of the latter's waist, taken together with the victim's behavior during their encounter, allegedly placed petitioner's personal safety in peril. These actions of Michael supposedly amounted to unlawful aggression that impelled petitioner to shoot the former. 2
We find no merit in the present petition.
We find that petitioner, having pleaded self-defense, failed to overcome the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the elements 3 of the justifying circumstance of self-defense as defined under Section 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. 4 Quoting the trial court, the CA correctly found that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and the police investigation report belied the claim of petitioner that the victim was armed with a gun, which the latter allegedly had tried to draw before he was shot. 5 Moreover, we note that the testimonies of the witnesses presented by petitioner were plagued with inconsistencies that deserve scant consideration.
Secondly, even if we were to admit, for the sake of argument, that Michael was armed and that he drew a gun from his waist, the fact remains: there was no imminent unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening. It must be so offensive and positively strong, like aiming a revolver at another with the intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack. It must not be a mere threatening attitude, such as pressing one's right hand to one's hip where a revolver is holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance or like aiming to throw a pot; 6 nor should it be a mere act of pointing one's gun at a target. Even the act of merely drawing a gun from the waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. 7 (Emphasis supplied)
There being no finding of unlawful aggression committed by the victim against petitioner, self-defense — whether complete or incomplete — cannot be appreciated. 8 DETACa
Lastly, as for the prayer 9 for this Court to further mitigate the penalty imposed upon him in light of the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, we note that the RTC 10 had already mitigated the penalty accordingly, and that the trial court's ruling was later affirmed by the CA. Finally, in addition to awarding civil damages in the amount of P50,000, we award moral damages in the amount of P50,000. This additional award is in accordance with existing jurisprudence regarding crimes resulting in the death of a victim wherein there are corresponding divisible penalties such as those for homicide.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated 5 October 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36185, upholding the Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2009-0202, is AFFIRMED with the modification that petitioner is ordered to pay civil damages in the amount of P50,000 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000, both of which shall earn interest at 6% per annum from the finality of the judgement until paid in full.
SO ORDERED." JARDELEZA, J., took no part; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated January 17, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 12.
2.Id. at 15-16.
3. (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
4.People v. Dulin, 760 Phil. 24 (2015).
5.Rollo, p. 56.
6.Supra note 23.
7.Nacnac v. People, 685 Phil. 223 (2012).
8.Supra note 23.
9.Rollo, pp. 11, 19-21.
10.Id. at 39.