The Supreme Court ruled that Roweno Pomoy was not guilty of homicide because the shooting of Tomas Balboa was accidental. The Court emphasized that when a person performing a lawful act causes injury by accident, without fault or intent, they are exempt from criminal liability. This means that if someone is legitimately carrying out their duties and an unforeseen accident occurs resulting in harm, they cannot be held criminally responsible, provided there was no negligence or malicious intent involved.

A Deadly Grapple: Can an Officer Be Held Liable for an Accidental Shooting During Interrogation?

In January 1990, policeman Roweno Pomoy escorted robbery suspect Tomas Balboa from his jail cell for interrogation. During the escort, a struggle ensued when Balboa attempted to seize Pomoy’s service weapon. In the ensuing grapple, the gun discharged, fatally wounding Balboa. The central legal question revolves around whether the shooting was a deliberate act of homicide, or a tragic accident for which Pomoy should not be held criminally liable. The trial court initially found Pomoy guilty of homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals, albeit with modifications to the penalty. However, the Supreme Court undertook a careful reexamination of the facts, focusing especially on eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence to determine the true nature of the incident.

The Supreme Court leaned heavily on the testimony of Erna Basa, the sole eyewitness to the event, who stated that Balboa and Pomoy were in a struggle for possession of the gun. Basa’s account indicated that both men had their hands on the weapon as it was discharged, strongly suggesting that Pomoy did not have full control of the firearm when it fired. This was a crucial point, as it directly challenged the prosecution’s argument that Pomoy intentionally shot Balboa. Furthermore, Pomoy testified that his service pistol had a safety lock. He also explained how the gun could have fired accidentally during the struggle. He also said that semi-automatic pistols are prone to accidental discharge in a violent struggle, a factor the Court found compelling.

The Court also addressed the location of the wounds on Balboa’s body. The Court stated that they did not necessarily prove intent. The Court emphasized that given the chaotic nature of the struggle and the shifting positions of both men, the trajectory of the bullets could not definitively indicate deliberate aiming by Pomoy. Additionally, the court noted that Pomoy’s actions immediately following the incident such as shock and disbelief are not definitive proofs of guilt.

To fully understand this ruling, it is critical to consider the legal definition of an accident under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that:

“Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intent of causing it” is exempt from criminal liability.

In light of this legal principle and the evidence presented, the Supreme Court found that all elements of accident were present in the case. Pomoy, as a police officer, was performing a lawful act. Specifically, he was carrying out his duties by interrogating a suspect. Furthermore, the Court said he took due care to prevent harm, and the resulting injury was caused by accident. The elements of accident are: 1) performing a lawful act with due care, 2) injury caused by mere accident, and 3) no fault or intent to cause the injury. Thus, finding no fault or intent on Pomoy’s part, the Court acquitted him of the homicide charge. The Court also dismissed the alternative plea of self-defense due to its incompatibility with the presence of the exempting circumstance of accident.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the shooting of Tomas Balboa by Roweno Pomoy was a deliberate act of homicide or a tragic accident for which Pomoy should not be held criminally liable.
What is the legal definition of “accident”?	Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, an “accident” occurs when a person performing a lawful act with due care causes an injury without fault or intent. If these elements are met, the person is exempt from criminal liability.
What evidence did the Supreme Court rely on to reach its decision?	The Supreme Court heavily relied on the eyewitness testimony of Erna Basa, who witnessed the struggle for the gun, as well as Pomoy’s testimony regarding the safety features of his service pistol and the circumstances of the shooting.
Why did the Court dismiss the argument about the location of the wounds?	The Court stated the chaotic nature of the struggle meant trajectory of the bullets did not prove intention. With shifting positions of both men, the trajectory of the bullets could not definitively indicate deliberate aiming by Pomoy.
What does it mean to be acquitted of a crime?	To be acquitted means that the court found the accused not guilty of the crime charged. In this case, Roweno Pomoy was acquitted of homicide, meaning he was found not responsible for the death of Tomas Balboa.
Why was the alternative plea of self-defense dismissed?	The court dismissed self-defense due to inconsistency with circumstances. The Court noted the elements of accident occurred which are not the same as self-defense.
Was Roweno Pomoy negligent in this case?	The Court said that Pomoy took precautions such as locking the service gun. The court therefore determined he was not liable or at fault for the accident.
Is motive required to charge Pomoy with a crime?	Yes. Criminal intent needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, he did not prove he was trying to intentionally hurt or fire the weapon at Balboa.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case illustrates the importance of considering all the facts and circumstances when determining criminal liability, particularly when an accident is claimed. It also highlights the legal protection afforded to individuals who, while performing lawful duties, cause unintended harm without fault or intent. This ruling underscores the need for careful assessment and application of the elements of “accident” as an exempting circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Roweno Pomoy v. People, G.R. No. 150647, September 29, 2004