POMOY vs.

PEOPLE investigators—of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed at the Iloilo
Provincial Mobile Force Company. Thus, it was in the lawful performance of his
G.R. No. 150647. September 29, 2004 duties as investigating officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he
fetched the victim from the latter’s cell for a routine interrogation.

He cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions to

Doctrines:
prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to others. As he so
Self-defense Inconsistent with Accident.—Self-defense is inconsistent with the assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun locked when he left his
exempting circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other house; he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the premises of
hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to his working area.
defend oneself from imminent danger.
At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to cause
Facts: injury to the deceased, much less kill him. Furthermore, Nicostrato Estepar, the
guard in charge of the detention of Balboa, did not testify to any behavior on the
1. Policemen arrested Tomas Balboa, a master teacher of the Concepcion part of petitioner that would indicate the intent to harm the victim while being
College of Science and Fisheries in Concepcion, Iloilo, for he was allegedly fetched from the detention cell.
connected with a robbery. He was brought to the Headquarters of the
Philippine Constabulary Company at Camp Jalandoni in Iloilo where he (2) No, the requisites of self-defense were not met.
was detained. Roweno Pomoy, a member of the Iloilo Provincial Mobile
Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in
Force Company, directed the latter to come out, for tactical interrogation at
which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily
the investigation room. Petitioner had a gun hanging from his bolster. After
contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from
that, 2gunshots were heard. Petitioner was seen holding his .45 caliber pistol
imminent danger. Apparently, the fatal shots in the instant case did not occur out
facing Balboa who was lying in a pool of blood. Balboa died.
of any conscious or premeditated effort to overpower, maim or kill the victim for
2. Version of the Defense: Balboa allegedly tried to grab the handle of
the purpose of self-defense against any aggression; rather, they appeared to be
Pomoy’s gun. Balboa was not able to take actual holdof the gun because of
the spontaneous and accidental result of both parties’ attempts to possess the
his efforts in preventing him. He and Balboa grappled in taking control of
firearm.
his gun. Balboa was accidentally shot.
3. RTC of Iloilo City found Pomoy guilty of the crime of homicide. CA
modified the RTC decision, removing aggravating circumstance of abuse of
public position

Issues: (1) Whether the shooting was a result of an accident

(2) Whether the requisites of self-defense were met

Ruling: (1) Yes, the shooting was an accident.

The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused was at the time
performing a lawful act with due care; 2) the resulting injury was caused by mere
accident; and 3) on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to
cause the injury. From the facts, it is clear that all these elements were present. At
the time of the incident, petitioner was a member—specifically, one of the