People vs.

Rabanal Facts: Sometime in August of 1996, Bonnie Rabanal, a security guard of McDonalds was a pproached by Rudy Pascua, who was armed and intoxicated suddenly kicked the podi um that fell on him. Furthermore, the said Rudy Pascua was collecting P100 but R abanal refused to give in. Pascua demanded that Rabanal should surrender his fi rearm. While Pascua was reaching for the firearm of Rabanal, the latter pushed the former and grabbed his gun. At that very moment pulled the gun and fired a s hot for 4 times. Rabanal take possession of Pascuaâ s firearms and surrender it to the security agency as proof that someone attempted to kill him and later to Cam p Crame. For the reason that Pascua was a body guard of one named Fernanadez and might 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 deat h 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 o f homicide and deleted the award of damages was deleted. Ruling: 1 ) For self â defense to prosper, the accused must proved that the elements that would constitute a self â defense must be present: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defe nding himself. Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must re st firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unla wful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, wh ether complete or incomplete. In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggressio n is a primordial element. It presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attac k or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude at the time the defensive action was taken against the agg ressor. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. Actual peril to ones life means that the danger mu st be present, that is, actually in existence, or imminent in that the danger is on the point of happening. This cannot be said in this case because the victim was unarmed when he was shot by accused-appellant. Indeed, the danger had alread y ceased when the victim laid his gun down on the pavement, thus enabling accuse d-appellant to push him away. It must be remembered that the means employed by t he person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an u nlawful aggression. What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the cons ideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent d anger 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 d epend 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, pursu ant to prevailing jurisprudence. Such award requires no proof other than the dea th 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 an d anguish of the victims family brought about by his death. However, the award o f P26,000.00 for the Eternal Garden plot, P60,000.00 for the coffin of the victi m and P100,000.00 for the wake and other expenses incurred in connection with th e 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. In fact, other than the bare allegations of the victims widow to this effect, the r ecords are totally bereft of any receipt or voucher to justify the trial courts award for burial and other expenses. The rule is that every pecuniary loss must be established by credible evidence before it may be awarded. Credence can be gi ven only to claims which are duly supported by receipts or other credible eviden ce. Thus, the amount of actual damages should accordingly be reduced to P66,000.

00, which is borne out by the evidence. People vs. Genblazo Facts: Sometime in January of 1988 at Quezon Street at Quezon, Obein and Opalsa are wal king their way home when Gneblazo together with 6 other men throw stones at them and they retaliated. Upon their notice however, that Genblazo was drawing his k nife the two friends run away from Geneblazo. Unfortunately for Opalsa, Geneblaz o was able to get a hold on him and stabbed him twice. A police in the name of S PO1 Quiogue get noticed of the commotion outside his house and decided to check on it. Then he fired his gun at the time he noticed the two men brawling as a si gn for them to stop, but they never did. SPO1 then tried to separate the two but Geneblazo hit him in his fingers and Geneblazo run away and surrender to office r Baloyloy. On the other hand, the SPO1 together with Obien and the Brgy. Captai n brought Opalsa to the hospital but declared to be dead on arrival. Issue: Whether or not Geneblazo was guilty of the crime murder? Decicion of S.C.: They Modified the decision of the lower court from murder to homicide. Ruling: For self-defense to prosper, it must be established that: (1) there was unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression was reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It is quite apparent that it was n ot the victim who committed the unlawful aggression but the accused-appellant hi mself. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitu de -- there has to exist a real danger to the life or personal safety of the per son claiming self-defense. The prosecution failed to prove that the qualifying c ircumstance of treachery was present in this case. Treachery must be proven as c learly and as cogently as the crime itself. The essence of treachery is the sudd en and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving th e latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commissio n without risk to himself. People vs. Jaurigue Facts: On September 13, 1942, Amado Capina approached Avelina Jaurigue while feeding he r dogs. Amado confessed his love for Avelina, but his loved was turned down by t he latter. Amado reacted by kissing, embracing, and touching the breast of Aveli na. Avelina retaliated with a slapped on the face, fist blow, and kicked him. Si nce then Avelina armed herself with a knife. By September 15 Amado climbed up th e house into the room of Avelina, and Avelina was able to get noticed of that an d screamed for help. Moment after, her parents come to her aid and able to found out that Amado was in the room and Amado ask for forgiveness. The following mor ning Amado together with his parents ask for apology. On the evening of Septembe r 20, Amado noticed Avelina in the church and decided to sat next to Avelina. S uddenly Amado place hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife , which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punis hing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the l eft side of the neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound. Issue: Whether or not Jaurigue was guilty of the crime Homicide? Decision of S.C.: Guilty of the crime Homicide and reduced to two degrees. Ruling: Stabbing to death the deceased Amado Capina, in the manner and form and under th e circumstances above indicated, the defendant and appellant committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least thr

ee mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her fav or. Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation. She is a God-fearing young woman, typical of our country girls, wh o still possess the consolation of religious hope in a world where so many other s have hopelessly lost the faith of their elders and now drifting away they know not where. Baxinela vs. People Facts: On October 19, 1996, Baxinela and Regimen was in Playboy Disco Pub located at th e 2nd flr. Of Kingsmen bldg. they saw someone with a handgun visibly tucked at t he back of his waist. The man started walking at the door even before Regimen co uld come to him. As the man passed by their table, Baxinela from behind holds th e manâ s arm and ask why he did have a gun with him. Upon suspicion that the man is taking out his gun, he shoot the man. The security guards pick up the man who a ppeared to be Sgt. Lajo, while Baxinela reported the event to SPO4 Advincula. Issue: Whether or not Baxinela is guilty of Homicide? Decision of S.C.: The crime of Homicide was affirmed with modification. Ruling: For self-defense to prosper, it must be established that: (1) there was unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression was reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression contemplates a n actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an im minent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Th e attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impen ding attack would not be sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no imminen t threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment. Just before Baxinela sh ot Lajo, the former was safely behind the victim and holding his arm. It was Laj o who was at a disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor when he grabbed Lajoâ s shoulder and started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, i t appears that he was just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly, reaching for his wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlaw ful aggression on the part of Lajo. The defense of fulfillment of a duty. In order to avail of this justifying circu mstance it must be shown that: 1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty o r the lawful exercise of a right or office. While the first condition is present , the second is clearly lacking. Baxinelaâ s duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinel a was doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety , edginess or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by firin g upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be conside red due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or ha rm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the pub. Essentially, Baxinela is trying t o convince the Court that he should be absolved of criminal liability by reason of a mistake of fact, a doctrine first enunciated in United States v. Ah Chong. It was held in that case that a mistake of fact will exempt a person from crimin al liability so long as the alleged ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith. In examining the circumstances attendant in the present case, the Court finds that there was negligence on the part of Baxinela. Lajo, when he was shot, was simply turning around to see who was accosting him. Moreov er, he identified himself saying "I am MIG." These circumstances alone would not lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that Baxinelaâ s life was in peril . Thus, his act of shooting Lajo, to the mind of this Court, constitutes clear n egligence. The the use of unnecessary force or wanton violence is not justified when the fulfillment of their duty as law enforcers can be effected otherwise. A

"shoot first, think later" attitude can never be countenanced in a civilized so ciety. Cabuslay vs. Sandingangbayan Facts: PNP Provincial director received a reliable intelligence report of a plot to ass assinate the Mayor and Vice- mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte. In response to the said information, he dispatched PNP personnel to conduct mobile checkpoint s along national highway. In the morning of August 5, 1992, a man driving a red Honda motorcycle going to the direction of Pagadian City approached the checkpoi nt. The driver of the red Honda was a collector in the name of Paquito Umaas, an d around the vicinity other than the policemen was Mr. Zaragoza, a technician o f the said street. The police asked Paquito to show his ID. Paquito took the ID out and when it reached Cabuslay, he opened fire at Paquito. Cabuslay consumed t he entire magazine of his gun. Then, the policemen took Paquito to the Hospital but declared dead on arrival by Dr. Caga. On August 10, the brgy. Captain of Bul ua, Cagayan de Oro requested NBI forensic to examine the body of Paquito for gun powder nitrate. The result showed that Paquito was Negative of Gunpowder Nitrate . Also, there was a post mortem examination that showed that the cause of death was due to multiple gunshot wounds. Issue: Whether or not Cabuslay was guilty of Homicide? Decision of the S.C.: Affirmed the decision of the lower court with modifications. Ruling: For self-defense to prosper, it must be established that: (1) there was unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression was reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It accorded full faith and credenc e to the testimony of Zaragosa as it was 'categorical, straightforward, spontane ous and consistent. Moreover, it observed that no proof was adduced to show that Zaragosa was moved by some evil motive to falsely testify against the accused C abuslay. The Sandiganbayan likewise noted grave deficiencies in the evidence of the defense as follows: (1) The physical existence of the handgun allegedly used by the victim Paquito was not established as the same was not presented before the court during the trial; (2) The affidavit executed by Gualberto Dayot Pascoï  presented by the defense to impeach the credibility of Zaragosaï was taken under intimidating and dubious circumstances, which fact creates doubt as to the affid avit's voluntariness and credibility; (3) The medical certificate purportedly ev idencing that Regencia had been shot has no probative value as the doctor who ex ecuted the same did not testify during trial. Notably, the medical certificate w as executed by a doctor different from the one who treated Regencia's wound; (4) The number of gunshot wounds inflicted upon the victim betrays petitioner's cla im of reasonable necessity of the means used to repel the unlawful aggression al legedly displayed by the victim. In order that defense of a stranger may be appr eciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by the vi ctim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. Unl awful aggression refers to an attack or a threat to attack, positively showing t he intent of the aggressor to cause injury. It presupposes not merely a threaten ing or an intimidating attitude, but an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, which imperils one's life or limb. Thus, when there is no peril, there is no unlawful aggression. Next, petitioner contends that the killing of Paquito resulted from the lawful performance of his duty as police o fficer. However, such justifying circumstance may be invoked only after the defe nse successfully proves that the accused acted in the performance of a duty, and the injury or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due perform ance or lawful exercise of such duty. These two requisites are wanting in this c ase. The victim was not committing any offense at the time. Petitioner has not s ufficiently proven that the victim had indeed fired at Regencia. Killing the vic

tim under the circumstances of this case cannot in any wise be considered a vali d performance of a lawful duty by a man who had sworn to maintain peace and orde r and to protect the lives of the people. As aptly held in People v. de la Cruz, Performance of duties does not include murder. Murder is never justified, regar dless of the victim.