Lawyereering

Facts:

Roberto dela Cruz and San Antonio were currently living together when Macapagal (victim, San Antonio’s ex-live-in partner) went to their apartment, holding a gun and banged the door of the bedroom ahere dela Cruz was demanding him to go out. Dela Cruz opened the door, and upon seeing that Macapagal was pointing the gun at him, he immediately went back to the room and closed the door. The next time he went out, he, too, was already holding a gun. The two immediately grappled each other and not long after, shots were heard and Macapagal fell dead on the floor. Appellant told San Antonio to call the police and when they arrive, he surrendered the gun he used and told the police that he shot Macapagal in self defense.

Issue

Whether or not Roberto Dela Cruz’s act warrants self-defense as justifying circumstance.

Ruling

No. Three conditions must concur to extenuate him:

(a) Unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed; Presuppose an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person – not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude – but most importantly at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. In this case, the victim banged at the bedroom door with his gun but the appellant, upon seeing the victim pointing a gun at him was able to prevent at this stage harm to himself by promptly closing the door. He could have stopped there. Instead, he confronted the victim.

 (b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression; The number of wounds sustained by the victim would negate this component of self defense. The four gunshot wounds indicate a determined effort to kill.

(c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself; When the appellant confronted the victim, instead of taking precautionary measures, appellant could no longer argue that there was no provocation on his part

Facts

Petitioner Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja, Jose Calica, and Miguel Lumasac were drinking gin in the hut of Crisanto Reguyal in Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora. An angry Leon Lumasac suddenly arrived at the said place, holding a  bolo in his right hand and looking for his brother Miguel. Petitioner and Jose tried to  pacify Leon. But when Senoja approached Leon, the latter tried to hack him so he embraced Leon and Jose took Leon’s bolo. Then, Leon and Senoja talked things out and later reconciled.

Subsequently, Leon walked out of Crisanto’s hut followed by Senoja. Suddenly, about ten meters from the hut, Exequiel Senoja stabbed Leon at the back. When Leon turned around, Exequiel  Senoja continued stabbing him until he fell to the ground. Then, Exequiel Senoja ran towards the barangay road and threw away the “kolonial” knife he used in stabbing Leon. The latter died on the spot.

Issue

Whether or not Senoja’s act constitute complete self-defense.

Ruling

No. It is the well-considered finding of this Court that while Leon Lumasac had ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to go home, accused Exequiel Senoja was now the unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their confrontation. It bears mentioning that appellant contradicted himself with respect for (sic) the reason why he left the hut. First, it was to pacify Leon and the second reason was that he was going home.

Facts

Joselito Bautista, who had taken alcoholic drinks earlier, went 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. Manaban was charged with the crime of murder.

Issue

Whether or not there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the security guard.

Ruling

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.

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. Absent such actual or imminent peril to one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the life or inflicting injuries on another.

Facts

Jimmy Rubiso has been working as a welder at the Jaspe Light and Steel Industries. On November 6, 1992, while he was welding a tiller, Serafin Hubines, Jr. passed by and kicked it. When he confronted Jimmy, the latter asked, “Why, do you want to fight?” Then Hubines boxed Jimmy on his chest. He fell down on a sitting position. At that point, Hubines pulled his gun. Jimmy immediately stood up and held Hubines’ hands. They grappled for its possession and both fell on the ground. Then the gun exploded. According to Jimmy, he was not sure who “caused” the shot. He noticed that many people approached them. Jimmy lied down on his stomach and covered his ears. That was the time he heard three or more shots. He stood up and saw Hubines lying on the ground full of blood.

Issue

Whether or not Hubines’ drawing of the gun constitutes unlawful aggression.

Ruling

Appellant insists that when the victim pulled out his gun, both grappled for its possession. They fell and there were bursts of gunfire. He must have killed the victim but he was only defending himself.

Assuming that Hubines had a gun and pulled it, however, records show that he did not manifest any aggressive act which may have imperiled the life and limb of herein appellant. It is axiomatic that the mere thrusting of one’s hand into his pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a weapon is not unlawful aggression. Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that one’s life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression.

Facts

Private complainant Andy Merto, bearing a grudge against the Ladislao Espinosa, went to the house of the latter. While standing outside the house, private complainant Merto shouted violent threats, challenging Espinosa to face him outside.

Sensing Merto’s agitated state and fearing for the safety of his family, Espinosa went out of his house to reason with and pacify Merto. However, as soon as he drew near the private complainant, the latter hurled a stone at Espinosa. Espinosa was able to duck just in time to avoid getting hit and instinctively retaliated by hitting the left leg of Merto with a bolo scabbard. Merto fell to the ground. Espinosa then continuously mauled Merto with a bolo scabbard, until the latters cousin, Rodolfo Muya, restrained him.

Issue

         Whether or not the continuous hacking of Espinosa while the victim is on the ground is reasonable to warrant a complete self-defense.

Ruling

No, a perusal of the facts shows that after petitioner was successful in taking down private complainant Merto the former continued to hack the latter, who was, by then, already neutralized by the blow. This fact was clearly established by the testimony of Rodolfo Muya, who recounted having seen the petitioner continuously hacking the private complainant with the bolo scabbard, even as the latter lay almost motionless upon the muddy ground. Clearly, this continuous hacking by the petitioner constitutes force beyond what is reasonably required to repel the private complainants attack and is therefore unjustified.

Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner merely used a scabbard in fending off the unlawful aggression the totality of the circumstances shows that after the aggressor was taken down to the ground, the petitioner ceased to be motivated with the lawful desire of defending himself. He was, by then, acting with intent to harm the private complainant whose aggression had already ceased.

Facts

As Conrado was combing his hair and preparing to leave for the Manila City Hall, the victim, Orlando, suddenly appeared from behind, grabbed him by the left shoulder and jerked him around so that they were face to face. Conrado noticed Orlando holding a balisong,and he ran to the dark room of his stall.

Orlando pursued him and tried to force open the locked dark room door by kicking it and stabbing it with the fan knife. The door suddenly gave way and, as it opened, Orlando charged at Conrado, but he was able to evade the attack. Snatching a pair of scissors nearby, Conrado retaliated but the scissors fell from his grasp because it was parried by Orlando. Conrado then grabbed the hand of Orlando holding the balisong and they grappled to gain possession thereof. He eventually wrested control of the knife and as he stood momentarily, Orlando picked up the scissors and again lunged at him.

With nowhere to go, Conrado was forced to defend himself from the onslaught of Orlando who was armed with the nine-inch long pair of pointed scissors. Suddenly, Orlando collapsed and fell bloodied to the floor.

Issue

         Whether or not the number/severity of the Orlando’s wound would negate self-defense as justifying circumstance.

Ruling

No. The record reveals that while indeed numerous wounds were sustained by the victim, the Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the autopsy admitted that of the thirty-five (35) wounds supposedly inflicted, thirty-three (33) were scratches and contusions while only six (6) were penetrating or stab wounds. As regards the finding that petitioner suffered only one hand wound, it should be stressed that the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted on the accused does not, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove self-defense, the actual wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary. It is sufficient that the aggression be attempted so as to give rise to the right to prevent it. The act of a person armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another constitutes unlawful aggression because it signifies the pursuers intent to commit an assault with this weapon

Facts

On the night, accused Timoteo Escarlos together with his friends were watching a benefit dance.

While thereat, Kgd. Antonio Balisacan who was then drunk, passed in front of accused and told him, ‘You are here again to create trouble.’ Escarlos was offended so he answered back saying ‘Why do you say that to me when I am not doing any trouble here.’ Antonio Balisacan told him, ‘OKINNAM KETDI’ (vulva of your Mother) and without warning boxed him. He intended to box back but he noticed that the victim was pulling out a kitchen knife, so for fear of his life, he grabbed the weapon from Antonio Balisacan and used the knife in stabbing the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. He stabbed him twice and when the victim was about to fall down, he was able to hit him for the third time.

Issue

Whether or not Antonio Balisacan’s act of pulling out a kitchen knife constitutes an unlawful aggression.

Ruling

No. The alleged assault did not come as a surprise, as it was preceded by a heated exchange of words between the two parties who had a history of animosity. Moreover, the alleged drawing of a knife by the victim could not have placed the life of Escarlos in imminent danger. The former might have done it only to threaten or intimidate the latter.

Even assuming arguendo that there was an altercation before the stabbing incident and that some danger did in fact exist, the imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment Escarlos disarmed the victim by wresting the knife from the latter. After the former had successfully seized it, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would have necessitated the need to kill the latter. Hence, Escarlos became the unlawful aggressor when he stabbed the victim.

Facts

On December 11, 1997, the petitioner Alexander P. Rugas was charged with Frustrated Homicide

Alexander Rugas invoked self-defense. When he was in the house of his aunt at Barangay Taclobo, San Fernando, Romblon. His aunt had asked him to take care of her children. While he was in the kitchen slicing lemon, he heard someone shouting outside the house: Get out those who are brave! He then pocketed the knife he was using and went out of the house to find out what the commotion was all about.

As synthesized by the trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals, the prosecution was able to establish the following:

At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of September 16, 1997, Herberto (or Gerberto) Rafol was conversing with Perla Perez in the street fronting the house of Anda Romano in barangay Taclobo, San Fernando, Romblon, when the accused Alexander P. Rugas, suddenly stabbed him at his left thigh. He faced him to know who stabbed him but the accused stabbed him on his stomach. He ran and shouted for help. Somebody helped him in boarding him to a tricycle and he was brought to the hospital at Cajidiocan.

Issue

Whether or not there is an unlawful aggression.

Ruling

In the present case, the defense claimed that the victim shouted while in the street Get out those who are brave. So that accused got out and asked why are you like that? Then a fistfight ensued. The Court opines that the accused herein voluntarily and practically face a fight. The rule is when one agrees to engage in a fight, he cannot plead self-defense because there is no unlawful aggression to speak of.