People vs. RabanalFacts:Sometime in August of 1996, Bonnie Rabanal, a security guard of McDonalds was approached by Rudy Pascua, who was armed and intoxicated suddenly kicked the podium that fell on him. Furthermore, the said Rudy Pascua was collecting P100 but Rabanal refused to give in. Pascua demanded that Rabanal should surrender his firearm. While Pascua was reaching for the firearm of Rabanal, the latter pushedthe former and grabbed his gun. At that very moment pulled the gun and fired a shot for 4 times. Rabanal take possession of Pascuaâ
s firearms and surrender it tothe security agency as proof that someone attempted to kill him and later to Camp Crame. For the reason that Pascua was a body guard of one named Fernanadez andmight have influenced in Dagupan area, he refuses to surrender in the said area. The lower court finds Rabanal of the crime Murder and sentenced to suffer death penalty and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased.Issues:1.Whether or not Rabanal is guilty of the crime murder?2.Whether or not the indemnity is reasonably imposed?Decision of the Supreme Court:Decision of the lower court was modified from the crime of murder to the crime of homicide and deleted the award of damages was deleted.Ruling:1 ) For self â
defense to prosper, the accused must proved that the elements thatwould constitute a self â
defense must be present: (1) unlawful aggression on thepart of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent orrepel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. It presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening orintimidating attitude at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life, limb or rightis either actual or imminent. Actual peril to ones life means that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence, or imminent in that the danger ison the point of happening. This cannot be said in this case because the victimwas unarmed when he was shot by accused-appellant. Indeed, the danger had already ceased when the victim laid his gun down on the pavement, thus enabling accused-appellant to push him away. It must be remembered that the means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct more than reason, that moves or impels the defense; and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon the imminent danger of such injury.2) They affirmed the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Such award requires no proof other than the death of the victim. Likewise, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is consistent with controlling case law taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victims family brought about by his death. However, the award of P26,000.00 for the Eternal Garden plot, P60,000.00 for the coffin of the victim and P100,000.00 for the wake and other expenses incurred in connection with the death of the deceased, amounting to a total of P186,000.00, should be modified. The trial court did not present any computation to justify such an amount. Infact, other than the bare allegations of the victims widow to this effect, the records are totally bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial courtsaward for burial and other expenses. The rule is that every pecuniary loss mustbe established by credible evidence before it may be awarded. Credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts or other credible evidence. Thus, the amount of actual damages should accordingly be reduced to P66,000.