Scribd
Upload
91 views1 page

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012 involved a case where a police officer, SPO2 Nacnac, shot and killed his colleague, SPO1 Espejo during a confrontation. The Supreme Court ruled that Nacnac acted in self-defense. It found that Espejo unlawfully aggressed Nacnac by ignoring a lawful order, becoming drunk, drawing his firearm, and pointing it at Nacnac despite a warning shot. The Court also found that shooting Espejo was a reasonable means for Nacnac to defend himself, and that Nacnac did not sufficiently provoke Espejo prior to the shooting. The Court therefore concluded

Uploaded by

Mark Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views1 page

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012 involved a case where a police officer, SPO2 Nacnac, shot and killed his colleague, SPO1 Espejo during a confrontation. The Supreme Court ruled that Nacnac acted in self-defense. It found that Espejo unlawfully aggressed Nacnac by ignoring a lawful order, becoming drunk, drawing his firearm, and pointing it at Nacnac despite a warning shot. The Court also found that shooting Espejo was a reasonable means for Nacnac to defend himself, and that Nacnac did not sufficiently provoke Espejo prior to the shooting. The Court therefore concluded

Uploaded by

Mark Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No.

191913, March 21, 2012

Facts:

On February 20, 2003, SPO2 Nacnac, the SPO1 Espejo and a number of other police officers were on duty.
Nacnac, being the highest-ranking officer during the shift, was designated the officer-of-the-day. Shortly
before 10:00 in the evening, Espejo, together with then SPO1 Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the
station grounds. When Nacnac saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle.
Espejo told Nacnac that he needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security
of a local bar. Nacnac still refused. He told Espejo that he is needed at the station and, at any rate, he
should stay at the station because he was drunk. This was not received well by Espejo. He told Nacnac in
Ilocano: Iyot ni inam kapi (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). Espejo alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Eduardo
Basilio did the same, went inside the office, and left Nacnac and Espejo alone. Espejo took a few steps and
drew his .45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest. Nacnac then fired his
M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, Espejo still drew his gun. Nacnac then shot the
victim on the head, which caused the Espejo’s instantaneous death. Nacnac later surrendered to the
stations Chief of Police.

Issue:

Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the petitioner’s acts constitutes a valid self-defense.

Ruling:

YES. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides that anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights
do not incur any criminal liability, provided that the following circumstances concur: (i) unlawful
aggression, (ii) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (iii) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an
indispensable element of self-defense; and ordinarily, there is a difference between the act of drawing
one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s gun at a target in determining the presence of unlawful aggression.
The former cannot be said to be an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, while the latter is
generally considered unlawful aggression.

Here, a warning shot fired by fellow police officer was left unheeded as the victim reached for his own
firearm and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was justified in defending himself from an inebriated and
disobedient colleague. 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. There is also lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself or herself in this case. Petitioner gave the victim a lawful order and fired
a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. There was no evidence on petitioner
sufficiently provoking the victim prior to the shooting. Petitioner was only defending himself on the night
he shot his fellow policer.

You might also like