Baxinela vs People of the Philippines

ECOND DIVISION
 
EDUARDO L. BAXINELA, G.R. No. 149652
Petitioner-Appellant,
Present:
 
-         versus PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GARCIA, JJ.
Respondent-Appellee.
Promulgated:
March 24, 2006
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
 
 
DECISION
 
AZCUNA, J.:
 
 

GR No. 149652 March 24, 2006

Fact: On or about October 19, 2996, SPO2 Eduardo Baxinela (accused) while armed with a handgun,
shot Ruperto F. Lajo, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wonds which directly caused his death.
Baxinela pleaded not guilty on the charge against him. During the pre-trial, Baxinela claimed the
justifying circumstance of self defense in the incident. The defense was the first to present evidence,
the presented witnesses Insp. Joel Regiman, Romy Manuba and SPO4 Nepomuceno Legarda. To
rebut the claim of self defense, the prosecution presented the following witnesses namely: Abelardo
Alvarez, Rolando Gabriel, Salvador Advinduda, and Janet Lajo. After receiving all of the evidence, the
Regional Trial Court found the version of the prosecution more convincing, and rendered a decision
convicting Baxirela. On appeal, th Court of Appeals modified Baxinela’s conviction ny disallowing the
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in denying the justifying circumstance of self defense or in the alternative
the lawful performance of official duty

HELD: No. By invoking self defense Baxinela in effect admits killing Lajo, thus, shiting upon hi the
burden of evidence. On the first requisite of self defense, which ststes that unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim, on this requisite alone, Baxinela’s defense fails. As the evidence shows, there
was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at the moment. None of the acts could
conceivably be deemed lawful aggression on the part of the victim. Essentially, Baxinela is trying to
convince th court that he should be abscond from criminal liability by reason of a mistake of fact. It
was held in the case that a mistake of fact will exempt a person from criminal liability so long that
alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith.

The Court of Appeals decision was modified.