Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 262 views

    SP02 Lolito Nacnac Vs People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Kenon Joseph Hinanay
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the petitioner, SPO2 Lolito Nacnac, acted in self-defense when he shot and killed his colleague, SP01 Doddie Espejo. According to the court, the victim unlawfully aggressed the petitioner by disobeying a lawful order, becoming drunk and inebriated, throwing insults at the petitioner, and drawing and pointing his firearm at the petitioner despite the petitioner firing a warning shot. The court also found that the petitioner used reasonable means, firing a single shot, to defend himself from the armed and drunken victim. Finally, the court found no evidence that the petitioner sufficiently provoked the victim prior to the shooting. Therefore, the petitioner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SP02 Lolito Nacnac Vs People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Kenon Joseph Hinanay
    262 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the petitioner, SPO2 Lolito Nacnac, acted in self-defense when he shot and killed his colleague, SP01 Doddie Espejo. According to the court, the victim unlawfully aggressed the petitioner by disobeying a lawful order, becoming drunk and inebriated, throwing insults at the petitioner, and drawing and pointing his firearm at the petitioner despite the petitioner firing a warning shot. The court also found that the petitioner used reasonable means, firing a single shot, to defend himself from the armed and drunken victim. Finally, the court found no evidence that the petitioner sufficiently provoked the victim prior to the shooting. Therefore, the petitioner

    Original Title

    SP02 Lolito Nacnac vs People of the Philippines

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the petitioner, SPO2 Lolito Nacnac, acted in self-defense when he shot and killed his colleague, SP01 Doddie Espejo. According to the court, the victim unlawfully aggressed the petitioner by disobeying a lawful order, becoming drunk and inebriated, throwing insults at the petitioner, and drawing and pointing his firearm at the petitioner despite the petitioner firing a warning shot. The court also found that the petitioner used reasonable means, firing a single shot, to defend himself from the armed and drunken victim. Finally, the court found no evidence that the petitioner sufficiently provoked the victim prior to the shooting. Therefore, the petitioner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    262 views2 pages

    SP02 Lolito Nacnac Vs People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    Kenon Joseph Hinanay
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the petitioner, SPO2 Lolito Nacnac, acted in self-defense when he shot and killed his colleague, SP01 Doddie Espejo. According to the court, the victim unlawfully aggressed the petitioner by disobeying a lawful order, becoming drunk and inebriated, throwing insults at the petitioner, and drawing and pointing his firearm at the petitioner despite the petitioner firing a warning shot. The court also found that the petitioner used reasonable means, firing a single shot, to defend himself from the armed and drunken victim. Finally, the court found no evidence that the petitioner sufficiently provoked the victim prior to the shooting. Therefore, the petitioner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SP02 Lolito Nacnac vs People of the Philippines

    G.R. No. 191913 March 21, 2012


    VELASCO, J.:
    Facts
    On February 20, 2003, SP01 Eduardo Basilio together with the victim SP01 Doddie Espejo took
    the patrol tricycle of the Police Station for the reason that the victim needed to go to Laoag City to settle a
    previous disagreement with a security guard of a local bar. The petitioner who was then the officer in
    charge forbade them for the reason that they are on duty so they are obliged to stay in the station. The
    victim who was then drunk got angry and throw a slur to the petitioner “Iyot ni inam kapi” (Coitus of
    your mother, cousin!) and alighted from the tricycle. Moment after that, the victim and the petitioner were
    left alone inside the office. The victim them took a few step and drew his .45 caliber gun. The petitioner
    fired a warning shot with his M-16 armalite upward. Undaunted, the victim pointed his gun to the
    petitioner so the petitioner shot the victim on the head, which caused his immediate death. The Petitioner
    surrendered voluntarily.
    The RTC and Court of appeals’ ruling disregard all the evidences of the petitioner of his claim
    that it was a self defense and sentenced him beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
    The petitioner came to Supreme Court for a motion of reconsideration exerting the following
    issues:
    1. Whether the CA erroneously held that the victim’s drawing of his handgun or pointing it at the
    petitioner is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression based on existing jurisprudence.
    2. Whether the CA incorrectly appreciated the photo showing the victim holding his handgun in a peculiar
    manner despite the fact that no expert witness was presented to testify thereto.
    3. Whether petitioner has met the second and third requisites of self-defense.

    Issue

    Whether the Petitioner’s act be justified on the ground of a self defense.

    Ruling

    Yes, the petitioner’s act was justified on the ground of self defense. The requisites of self defense
    have been proven present.

    Unlawful aggression.

    The victim here was a trained police officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order
    in order to settle a score with someone using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police
    officer, his superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at petitioner.
    Petitioner was, therefore, justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague.
    Even if We were to disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, there would still
    be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 

    Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

    The lone wound inflicted on the victim supports the argument that petitioner feared for his life
    and only shot the victim to defend himself. 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

    Lack of Sufficient provocation


    As gleaned from the findings of the trial court, petitioner gave the victim a lawful order and fired
    a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. Absent from the shooting incident was any
    evidence on petitioner sufficiently provoking the victim prior to the shooting.

    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.

    You might also like