19 Manaban V Court of Appeals

Manaban vs Court of Appeals
Justifying Circumstances
G.R. No. 150723. July 11, 2006.*
Carpio, J.
RAMONITO MANABAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Ramonito Manaban, a security guard, was convicted of the crime

homicide for killing UP Police Force, Joselito Bautista. At around 1:25 am on October
11, 1996, victim Bautista went to withdraw money from an ATM in BPI Kalayaan
Branch. Bautista needed money to buy medicine for his daughter who complained of
difficulty of breathing. He was drunk. Upon arrival at the bank, Bautista proceeded to
the ATM booth but because he could not effectively withdraw money, he started
kicking and pounding on the machine. For said reason, the bank security guard,
Ramonito Manaban, approached and asked him what the problem was. Bautista
complained that his ATM was retrieved by the machine and that no money came out of
it. After Manaban had checked the receipt, he informed Bautista that the Personal
Identification Number (PIN) entered was wrong and advised him to just return the next
morning. This angered Bautista all the more and resumed pounding on the machine.
Manaban then urged him to calm down and referred him to their customer service over
the phone. Still not mollified, Bautista continued raging and striking the machine. When
Manaban could no longer pacify him, he fired a warning shot. That diverted the
attention of Bautista. Instead of venting his ire against the machine, he confronted
Manaban. After some exchange of words, a shot rang out fatally hitting Bautista.”
Dr. Vargas, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Medico-Legal Officer, conducted an

autopsy on Bautista’s cadaver. Dr. Vargas testified that Bautista died of a gunshot
wound. According to him, the point of entry of the bullet was at the back, on the right
side of the body and there was no exit point. He stated that he was able to recover the
slug from the left anterior portion of the victim’s body and that he later submitted the
slug to the NBI Ballistics Division. Dr. Vargas further stated that the bullet wound was
fatal because the
Dr. Vargas testified that Bautista died of a gunshot wound. According to him, the point
of entry of the bullet was at the back, on the right side of the body and there was no
exit point. bullet hit the right lung and lacerated parts of the liver, stomach and the
pancreas. Based on the location of the gunshot wound, Dr. Vargas deduced that the
assailant must have been behind the victim, on the right side, when he shot the victim.
Dr. Vargas also testified that the absence of signs of near-fire indicates that the
distance between the muzzle of the gun and the point of entry was more than 24
inches.
The trial court held that the defense failed to establish self- defense as a justifying
circumstance. According to the trial court, unlawful aggression, which is the most
essential element to support the theory of self-defense, was lacking in this case.
Furthermore, the trial court held that Bautista could not have surprised Manaban with a
preemptive attack because Manaban himself testified that he already had his gun
pointed at Bautista when they were facing each other. The trial court found that,
contrary to Manaban’s claim, Bautista was not about to draw his gun to shoot
Manaban. Evidence show that Bautista’s gun was still tucked in his waist inside a
locked holster. The trial court likewise rejected Manaban’s claim of exemption from
criminal liability because he acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury. However, the trial court credited Manaban with two mitigating
circumstances: voluntary surrender and obfuscation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of
Appeals later reconsidered and modified its decision with respect only to the award of
loss of earning capacity. Using the formula 2/3 [80 – age at the time of death] x [gross
annual income – 80% gross annual income], the Court of Appeals recomputed the
award for loss of earning capacity. In its Resolution dated 8 November 2001, the Court
of Appeals reduced the award for the loss of the victim’s earning capacity from
P1,418,040 to P436,320.
ISSUE/S: WON PETITIONER MANABAN WAS ACTING IN SELF-

DEFENSE.
RULING: NO. THERE WAS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, AN

INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE FOR SELF- DEFENSE, ON THE PART OF
THE VITIM
When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing the victim and the
burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.27 The
accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-
defense are present.
Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three requisites to prove
self-defense as a justifying circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal
liability are:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression;
and (
3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person defending
himself.
Self-defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.31 Thus, without prior unlawful and
unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete self-
defense.
Unlawful aggression— actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict

physical injury upon a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not
considered unlawful aggression,34 unless the threat is offensive and menacing,
manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. There must be an actual,
sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant’s life
in real peril.
In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. First, Bautista
was shot at the back as evidenced by the point of entry of the bullet. Second, when
Bautista was shot, his gun was still inside a locked holster and tucked in his right waist.
Third, when Bautista turned his back at Manaban, Manaban was already pointing his
service firearm at Bautista. These circumstances clearly belie Manaban’s claim of
unlawful aggression on Bautista’s part. Manaban testified:
The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned his
back at Manaban is mere speculation. Besides, Manaban was already aiming his
loaded firearm at Bautista when the latter turned his back. In that situation, it was
Bautista whose life was in danger considering that Manaban, who had already fired a
warning shot, was pointing his firearm at Bautista.
Bautista, who was a policeman, would have realized this danger to his life and would
not have attempted to draw his gun which was still inside a locked holster tucked in his
waist. Furthermore, if Manaban really feared that Bautista was about to draw his gun to
shoot him, Manaban could have easily disabled Bautista by shooting his arm or leg
considering that Manaban’s firearm was already aimed at Bautista.
Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and
the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary.
Voluntary Surrender and Obfuscation
The trial court credited Manaban with two mitigating circumstances: voluntary
surrender and obfuscation.
It is undisputed that Manaban called the police to report the shooting incident. When
the police arrived, Manaban surrendered his service firearm and voluntarily went with
the police to the police station for investigation. Thus, Manaban is entitled to the
benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Under paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance
of passion and obfuscation is appreciated where the accused acted upon an impulse
so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
The requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation are: (1) that
there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind;
and (2) that the act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.40
The act of Bautista in turning around is not unlawful and sufficient cause for Manaban
to lose his reason and shoot Bautista. That Manaban interpreted such act of Bautista
as preparatory to drawing his gun to shoot Manaban does not make Bautista’s act
unlawful. The threat was only in the mind of Manaban and is mere speculation which is
not sufficient to produce obfuscation which is mitigating.41 Besides, the threat or
danger was not grave or serious considering that Manaban had the advantage over
Bautista because Manaban was already pointing his firearm at Bautista when the latter
turned his back. The defense failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the
cause that allegedly produced obfuscation.
Awards of Damages
The records reveal that Bautista was 36 years old at the time of his death and not 26
years old as stated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.43 Moreover, the annual
salary of Bautista at the time of his death was already P60,864 and not P60,600.44 We
likewise modify the formula applied by the Court of Appeals in the computation of the
award for loss of earning capacity. In accordance with current jurisprudence,45 the
formula for the indemnification for loss of earning capacity is:
Net Earning = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual – Living Expenses]
Capacity Income (GAI)
= 2/3(80 – age of deceased) x (GAI – 50% of GAI)
Using this formula, the indemnification for loss of earning capacity should be:
Net Earning = 2/3 (80–36) x [P60,864 – (50% x Capacity P60,864)]
= 29.33 x P30,432 = P892,570.56
Thus, we reduce the actual damages granted from P111,324 to P69,500. We likewise
reduce the indemnity for death from P75,000 to P50,000 in accordance with prevailing
jurisprudence.53
In the resolution:
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of

Appeals dated 21 May 2001 and its Resolution dated 8 November 2001. We find
petitioner Ramonito Manaban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Homicide. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and taking into account the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, Ramonito Manaban is hereby sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six years and one day of prision mayor
as minimum to 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Ramonito
Manaban is ordered to pay the heirs of Joselito Bautista: P892,570.56 as indemnity for
loss of earning capacity; P69,500 as actual damages; and P50,000 as indemnity for
death
SO ORDERED.

19 Manaban V Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 Manaban V Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 Manaban V Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manaban vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 150723. July 11, 2006.*

RAMONITO MANABAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF

Petitioner Ramonito Manaban, a security guard, was convicted of the crime

Dr. Vargas, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Medico-Legal Oﬃcer, conducted an

ISSUE/S: WON PETITIONER MANABAN WAS ACTING IN SELF-

RULING: NO. THERE WAS NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION, AN

(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;

Unlawful aggression— actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict

Voluntary Surrender and Obfuscation

Net Earning = Life Expectancy x [Gross Annual – Living Expenses]

Capacity Income (GAI)

= 2/3(80 – age of deceased) x (GAI – 50% of GAI)

Net Earning = 2/3 (80–36) x [P60,864 – (50% x Capacity P60,864)]

= 29.33 x P30,432 = P892,570.56

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the Court of

You might also like