Self-defense.docx

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Nacnac vs. People
GR No. 191913, March 21, 2012

FACTS:
February 20, 2003, in Dingras, Ilocos Norte, accused SPO2 Lolito I. Nacnac shoot one SPO1 Doddie Espejo with a gun resulting into the latter's death. Accused claims the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
On that fateful night of February 20, 2003, 10:00 in the evening, the victim, together with then SPO1 Eduardo Basilio, took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds. When accused-appellant saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague from using the tricycle. The victim told accused-appellant that he (the victim) needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar. Accused-appellant still refused. He told the victim 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 the victim. He told accused-appellant in Ilocano: "Iyot ni inam kapi" (Coitus of your mother, cousin!). The victim took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber gun which was tucked in a holster. Accused-appellant then fired his M-16 armalite upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, the victim still drew his gun. Accused-appellant then shot the victim on the head, which caused the latter's instantaneous death.
The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. The RTC held that the claim of self-defense by the accused was unavailing due to the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. CA affirmed the findings of the RTC.

ISSUE: WON there is unlawful aggression to avail the justifying circumstance of self-defense.

RULING:
Ordinarily, the act of the [deceased] of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of appellant." However, The victim here was a trained police officer. He was inebriated and had disobeyed a lawful order in order to settle a score with someone using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police officer, his superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. Even if We were to disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. A police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately. Given this factual backdrop, there is reasonable basis to presume that the appellant indeed felt his life was actually threatened.

People vs. Campos
GR No. 176061, July 4, 2004

FACTS:
Prosecution eyewitness Lester Huck Baldivino (Lester) was tending his sari-sari store when [the victim] Romeo Abad (64 years old), his maternal uncle, came to buy cigarettes and candies. They were in this bantering mood, when Lester, who was facing the highway, suddenly heard footsteps and immediately saw Danny Boy Acabo (Acabo) running towards his uncle's direction, closely followed by Bingky Campos (Campos). Before Lester can utter a word of warning, Danny swiftly stabbed Romeo with a "plamingko".
Danny categorically admits that he stabbed Romeo. However, he boldly claims that he did it in self defense. He avers that on that fateful night of August 19, 2001, he and Bingky were attacked along the way home by four unknown persons for no apparent reason. He observed that one of the men was pulling an object from his waistband which he thought was a bladed weapon so he drew his own knife and thrust it at the man rushing at him, hitting the latter on the right side of his body.
The RTC convicted the accused with murder attended by the aggravating circumstance of treachery and disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his age. The CA found no error in the appreciation of the evidence and applicable law by the trial court.

ISSUE: WON there was self-defense.

RULING:
Danny's testimony shows that there was only an attempt, not by Romeo but by Jaime and Iko, to attack him. Following his version, Danny then became the aggressor and not the victim. Even if the version of Danny is given a semblance of truth, that there was an attempt to hurt him, though intimidating, the same cannot be said to pose danger to his life and limb. This conclusion was drawn from the fact that no bladed weapon was found at the alleged scene of the crime and nobody testified about it. For this reason, Danny's observation that one of the men was pulling an object from his waist is not a convincing proof of unlawful aggression. "[A] threat, even if made with a weapon or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient."19 An intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough. Furthermore, Danny's actuation in not reporting the incident immediately to the authorities cannot take out his case within the ambit of the Court's jurisprudential doctrine that the flight of an accused discloses a guilty conscience. The justifying circumstance of self-defense may not survive in the face of appellant's flight from the scene of the crime coupled with his failure to promptly inform the authorities about the incident.

People vs. Mapait
GR No. 172606, November 23, 2011

FACTS:
Glen Remigio (Glen), his wife, Nila Remigio (Nila), and their two children, Raymond and Genevieve were traveling on board their family vehicle, a Tamaraw FX. While they were passing along Carolina Village, two men waved at them signalling their request to hitch a ride. Glen accommodated the two men allowing them to board the vehicle at the rear. When the vehicle neared Masinag Market, the two men suddenly brandished knives that each pointed at Glens and Nilas necks, warning them not to make any wrong move if they did not want to be harmed. Upon the vehicle reaching Kingsville Village, the man behind Glen suddenly stabbed Glen on the neck. Thereafter, the two men alighted and fled. One of the assailants was Jonie Araneta y Nugas. Later the information was amended after the other assailant was identified to be Melanio Nugas y Mapait.
Albeit admitting having stabbed Glen, Nugas maintained that he did so in self-defense. He claimed that the Tamaraw FX driven by Glen was a passenger taxi, not a family vehicle; that when he and Araneta boarded the vehicle, about four other passengers were already on board; that he argued with Glen about the fare, because Glen was overcharging; that when he was about to alight Glen punched him and leaned forward as if to get something from his clutch bag that was on the dashboard; that thinking that Glen was reaching for a gun inside the clutch bag, he stabbed Glen with his left hand from where he was seated in order to protect himself (Inunahan ko na sya).
Nugas was convicted of murder. That even granting to be true Nugas version that Glen had pushed and punched him, his stabbing of Glen could not be a reasonable and necessary means to repel the attack, for, by all standards, fists were no match to knives.

ISSUE: WON the act of Nugas was a reasonable necessity to prevent Glen from further committing a felony against the accused.

RULING:
The RTC found that Nugas did not establish the requisites of self-defense. The CA concurred.
The Court upholds both lower courts. Nugas did not credibly establish that Glen had first punched him and then reached for his clutch bag on the dashboard, making Nugas believe that he had a gun there. For one, as the CA pointed out, Nugas admitted not actually seeing if Glen had a gun in his clutch bag. And, secondly, the CA correctly found and declared Nugas testimony about Glen punching him to be improbable. Consequently, Nugas had absolutely no basis for pleading self-defense because he had not been subjected to either actual or imminent threat to his life. He had nothing to prevent or to repel considering that Glen committed no unlawful aggression towards him.
With unlawful aggression, the indispensable foundation of self-defense, not having been established by Nugas, it is superfluous to still determine whether the remaining requisites of self-defense were attendant.

People vs. Patotoy
GR No. 102058, August 26, 1996

FACTS:
A fistfight ensued after Sergio Patotoy was irked when the victim Manuel Verano succeeded in getting Sergio Patotoy's wife as a dancing partner. The people pacified them and advised them to go home. While the victim went home, co-accused went to his house five meters away to get a bolo then returned. Appellant, Bonifacio Patotoy learning of the boxing incident went to the plaza where the incident occurred and immediately approached co-accused and asked him what happened. Co-accused told him that he was mauled by the victim. Thereafter, he encouraged appellant, his son, to go and kill the victim. When appellant reached the victim's house, appellant rushed to where the victim was and suddenly stabbed the victim. Appellant's co-accused who was following him likewise stabbed the dying victim resulting to its death.
Appellant admitted having killed Manuel, however, he only did so to protect his father when he witnessed the victim Manuel lunged towards the accused and appeared to draw at the same time "something" from his waist. Appellant promptly drew his fan knife and instantly stabbed Manuel on his breast. Acknowledging that he killed Manuel, he voluntarily surrendered to the Brgy. Captain.

ISSUE: WON there was unlawful aggression.

RULING:
This element, in the case before us, is sorely wanting. No veritable physical force on the part of Manuel has been shown that could have really endangered appellant's life. Manuel's alleged act of drawing "something" from his waist certainly is not the "unlawful aggression" meant in the law that would justify a fatal strike at the victim with such lightning-speed as appellant has delivered. In fact, no weapon, supposedly in the person of Manuel, is shown to have been found. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense cannot exist nor be an extenuating circumstance.

People vs. Gonzales
GR No. 195534, June 13, 2012

FACTS:
The records show that the victim went to the house of the appellant at the invitation of Edmundo. When the victim arrived, he was met by the appellant who was armed with a .22 caliber firearm. The appellant and Edmundo immediately fired at the victim six (6) times, hitting him three (3) times. The victim expired before he could receive medical treatment. The appellant denied the charge and claimed that he had acted in self-defense. He narrated that he was at his house watching television when the victim suddenly arrived, armed with a short firearm. The victim shouted invectives at the appellant and threatened to kill him. When efforts by the appellant to pacify the victim proved to be futile, the appellant retrieved his own firearm inside his house. A struggle for the possession of the appellants firearm then ensued between the appellant and the victim which caused the appellants gun to discharge three times; thus, hitting the victim. 
The RTC found the prosecutions version more consistent with the physical findings that the victim was not shot at close range. The RTC rejected the appellants self-defense theory in the absence of evidence of unlawful aggression. 

ISSUE: WON there is self-defense.

RULING:
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is patently absent. The records fail to disclose any circumstance showing that the appellants life was in danger when he met the victim. What the evidence shows is that the victim was unarmed when he went to the house of the appellant. Likewise, there was also no evidence proving the gravity of the utterances and the actuations allegedly made by the victim that would have indicated his wrongful intent to injure the appellant.
even granting that it was the unarmed victim who first acted as the aggressor, we find that the means employed by the appellant in repelling the attack - the use of a firearm, the number of times he fired at the victim and the number of gunshot wounds sustained by the victim - were not reasonably necessary. On the contrary, we find that the number of gunshot wounds reveals a clear intent to kill, not merely to repel the attack of the unarmed victim. 
The records disclose that the struggle between the victim and the appellant occurred after the appellant fired at the victim. In other words, the third requisite was not established given the sufficient provocation by the appellant in placing the victims life in actual danger. Thus, any aggression made by the victim cannot be considered unlawful as it was made as an act of self-preservation to defend his life. 

Note: In addition to the above considerations, the appellants claim of self-defense was also belied by his own conduct after the shooting. The records show that the appellant went into hiding after he was criminally charged. Self-defense loses its credibility given the appellants flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities about the incident.
 
People vs. Credo
GR No. 197360, July 3, 2013

FACTS:
Randy Credo approached Joseph and suddenly punched the latter on the chest, causing him to fall down. Randy then immediately ran away Joseph, on the other hand, stood up, gathered his things consisting of a lemon and an egg, and gave Randy a chase. There, he met Randy, who was already accompanied by his co-appellants.
Accused-appellants Ronald Credo a.k.a. "Ontog," Randy Credo and Rolando Credo y San Buenaventura was convicted by the trial court for hacking six times Joseph Nicholas y Arroyo which was witnessed by Russel (son of the victim). The scene was also witnessed by another person, Francis Nicolas Credo (Francis), a resident of the area. Francis was able to note that Joseph was unarmed. Joseph died of the incident and was, in fact, holding a lemon in his right hand and an egg in his left hand.
Rolando and Randy denied any participation in the hacking incident, claiming that it was Ronald alone who killed Joseph. They also claimed that the killing was done in defense of Ronald and Randy's mother whom Joseph was, at the time of the incident, about to hack.
The RTC ruled in favor of the victim which was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE: WON there was defense of relatives.

RULING:
We agree with the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals which gave weight to the accounts of the two eyewitnesses, Russel and Francis.
Based on the afore-quoted provision, both self-defense and defense of relatives require that unlawful aggression be present in order to be held valid. According to the trial court, the fact that Joseph was unarmed effectively belied the allegation of Ronald that he was prompted to retaliate in self-defense when Joseph first hacked and hit him on his neck. The trial court further pointed out that if Joseph indeed hacked Ronald on the neck, "it is surprising that the latter did not suffer any injury when according to them (Ronald, Rolando and Flora Credo), Joseph was running fast and made a hard thrust on Ronald, hitting the latter's neck."
Since the criterion for determining whether there is a valid self-defense and a valid defense of relatives require that there be unlawful aggression perpetrated by the victim on the one making the defense or on his relative, it is safe to conclude that when the trial court held that there can be no valid self-defense because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, it was, in effect, likewise saying that there can be no valid defense of a relative for lack of an essential requisite.