You are on page 1of 23

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.

12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

Art.11 Self-defense/defense of rights

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW (1) People vs. Samson


CASE DIGESTS G.R. No. 214883 September 2, 2015
By: Alba, Ma. Angela
JD4401-BATCH 2018
ART.11 Self-Defense and Doctrine: Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts
the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.
Art.12 Exempting Circumstance
The requisites of self-defense under Art. 11, RPC are: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
Art.11 Self-defense/defense of rights.................................... 1
repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
(1) People vs. Samson ............................................................. 1 defending himself.
(2) Soplente v. People .............................................................. 3
(3)People vs. Antonio ............................................................... 5 There can be no self- defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the
victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted
(4)People vs. Tangan ............................................................... 6 to self-defense. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least
(5)People v. Narvaez ................................................................ 7 a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. There is an unlawful
(6) People vs Boholst-Caballero ............................................... 8 aggression on the part of the victim when he puts the life, limb, or right of
the person invoking self-defense in actual or imminent danger.
(7)People vs Chua Hiong ......................................................... 9
Defense of strangers ............................................................ 10 The reasonable necessity of the self-defense utilized by an accused is to
(8) People vs Toring ............................................................... 11 defend himself “depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the
physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the
State of necessity ................................................................. 13
aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also
(9) VICKY C. TY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ............ 13 the place and the occasion of the assault.
Fulfillment of duty ................................................................ 13
Facts: Accused Christina Samson was charged with the crime of parricide,
(10) Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan ............................................. 13
defined and penalized under Article 246 of the RPC. During arraignment,
(11) Baxinela vs. People ......................................................... 15 Samson pleaded not guilty and invoked the justifying circumstance of self-
(12) Pomoy v. People ............................................................. 15 defense.
(13) Angcaco vs. People ........................................................ 16
On June 27, 2002, Cristina was in their house together with her children
Obedience to an order ............................................................ 16 when her drunk husband Gerry Delmar arrived. Gerry asked if she already
(14) Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan ........................................... 18 cooked food and when she said that she hadn’t because she had no money
Art.12 Exempting Circumstance.......................................... 19 to buy food, Gerry scolded and uttered words against her and then slapped
her. They had an altercation. Cristina’s father arrived and pacified them.
Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear ................................... 19
Gerry left but after 30 minutes, he returned. He pointed a knife at Cristina’s
(15)TY vs. People ................................................................... 19 neck. Cristina begged Gerry not to hurt her and to pity their children if
Entrapment vs. Instigation................................................... 20 something happens to her. Gerry continued pointing the knife and told
Cristina to stop talking or otherwise, he will put a hole in her neck. Then,
(16)People v. Feliciano ........................................................... 20
Gerry slapped Cristina’s face twice. While Gerry was still holding the knife,
(17) ROBERTO CHANG v. PEOPLE ...................................... 22 Cristina pushed him and he fell on the ground. She took the knife which
Gerry was holding and begged him not to come near her. She was holding
the knife near her chest pointed at Gerry when he suddenly grabbed her and

1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

that was the time that the knife went in contact with his chest. When she
saw her husband bloodied, she shouted for help and her father and brother The question now is: was there unlawful aggression when Cristina killed her
came and brought Gerry to the hospital. Her relatives told her that Gerry husband?
died in the hospital.
The Court answers in the affirmative.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision finding accused Samson’s self-defense
untenable. It stated that although there could have been an unlawful Contrary to the conclusion of the CA that Gerry’s aggression had already
aggression at the start when Gerry repeatedly slapped Cristina and held a ceased when he was disarmed, it is the Court’s view that the aggression still
knife at her throat, it already disappeared when he put down the knife. continued. Her perceived peril to her life continued and persisted until she
put an end to it.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in not appreciating the justifying
circumstance of self-defense in favor of Cristina. It must be noted that after she was able to take hold of the knife from her
husband, he did not stand down but, instead, continued to move towards
Held: Yes, the CA erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of her despite her plea that he should not come nearer. He grabbed her by the
self-defense. arm which could have precipitated her well- grounded belief that her life was
still in danger if he would be able to wrest the weapon from her. It was not
Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the farfetched to presume that, being stronger, he could have easily
admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the overpowered her and eventually killed her.
burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. The requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed is met if the
When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon person invoking self-defense used a weapon or a manner equivalent to the
him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing means of attack used by the aggressor. The reasonable necessity of the self-
evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts defense utilized by an accused is to defend himself “depends upon the
the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the
size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the
To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the
upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence assault.” Moreover, the nature and location of wounds are considered
of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the important indicators whether or not to disprove a plea of self-defense.
RPC, viz.: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the In the case at bench, the lone stab wound located on the victim’s chest
part of the person defending himself. supports the argument that Cristina feared for her life and this fear impelled
her to defend it by stabbing him. It was a reasonable means chosen by her
Among the requisites of self-defense, the most important that needs to be in view of the attending circumstances, to wit: that her stronger husband,
proved by the accused, for it to prosper, is the element of unlawful who had earlier pointed the said knife to her throat, approached her and
aggression. It must be proven first in order for self-defense to be grabbed her arm, despite her plea that he refrain from coming near her; and
successfully pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or that she had no other available means or any less deadly weapon to repel
incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the the threat other than the knife in her hand. She did not have the time or
person who resorted to self-defense. When the Court speaks of unlawful sufficient tranquillity of mind to think, calculate and choose the weapon to
aggression, it is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real be used. In predicaments like this, human nature does not act upon the
imminent injury, upon a person. There is an unlawful aggression on the part processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-
of the victim when he puts the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self- preservation. When it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon
defense in actual or imminent danger. There must be actual physical force or this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction that act or to mitigate his
actual use of a weapon. It is present only when the one attacked faces real liability.
and immediate threat o his life. It must be continuous, otherwise, it does not
constitute aggression warranting self-defense.

2
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

Moreover, the fact that Gerry was no longer armed does not negate the Nicanor and admonished them not to make trouble, but despite the
reasonableness of the means employed by Cristina. Perfect equality between intervention, Gulle, Notarte and Leyson watched the Soplente cousins still.
the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is Gulle, along with Bebing Go, then accosted the Soplente cousins and
not required. What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the inquired where they came from. Nicanor politely answered that they were
consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the staying with Susing Cafi. Since Gulle and the others knew that Susing was a
imminent danger to which the accused is exposed, and the instinct more local resident, they were satisfied with the answer and they left the Soplente
than reason, that moves or impels his defense; and the proportionateness cousins alone. Gulle however noticed that Nicanor smelled of liquor.
thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon the imminent
danger of such injury. The group of Leyson and the Soplente cousins continued to watch the
singing contest being held nearby. Some of Leysons companions were
The last requisite to be considered is lack of sufficient provocation on the barangay tanods and volunteers, thus, they were equipped with canes while
part of the person defending himself. The Court cannot sustain the trial Leyson was armed with a handgun.
court’s observation that it was Cristina who provoked her husband when she
suddenly pushed him. Her shoving him cannot be considered a sufficient While awaiting the announcement of winners at about 12:30 am the next
provocation proportionate to the act of aggression. She merely capitalized day, the group of Leyson repaired to a place away from the stage to relieve
on a window of opportunity, when her husband removed the knife away themselves. Some of the spectators began dispersing at this point. Notarte
from her throat, to save herself from what she had perceived to be a danger and Besinga were along one side of San Pedro St. while the others, including
to her life. Anybody, in her situation would have acted in the same Gulle, were on the left side. Suddenly, a commotion ensued as the Soplente
reasonable way. cousins passed by. Gulle, Besinga and Leyson offered the following accounts
of what had transpired then.
(2) Soplente v. People
G.R. No. 152715, July 29, 2005 Gulle testified that he saw Notarte fall to the ground, which was followed by
By: ARID, Hannah Mhae G. a gun burst which he presumed came from Leysons handgun. He saw
Leyson, by then clearly wounded, chasing Rogelio. However, Gulle did not
Doctrine: In order for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must see the actual stabbing of either Notarte or Leyson.
be present: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the Besinga testified that he saw the commotion at a distance of about thirty
part of the person defending himself. (30) meters while he was walking towards the group of Leyson at the right
side of San Pedro St. When he was barely three (3) meters away from them,
Facts: (Background) Originally, Rogelio and his first cousin Nicanor were he saw Rogelio and Leyson approaching each other saying something
jointly charged with frustrated homicide for the wounding of Leyson and with unintelligible. Notarte was beside Leyson at this juncture. Rogelio then
homicide for the killing of Notarte. stabbed Leyson, who drew a gun and fired in the air. Besinga did not notice
(Facts proper) A group consisting of Leyson( victim of frustrated the others but his companions were nearby mingled with the people going
homicide), Notarte (was killed), Gulle, Ewing Bayani, Ralowe Velayo, Ebol home.
Bayani, Reynaldo Jamerlan and Bond de Vera were drinking and conversing
in the early evening of 3 May 1988 in a town fiesta in General Santos City. Leyson, who survived the attack and sustained a wound on his left arm,
They were at the store of a certain Diola which was situated near the stage claimed to have been taken by surprise when the Soplente cousins suddenly
where the amateur singing contest was to be held. attacked Notarte and himself. The assault was so sudden and fast that while
During the singing contest, which started at around 10:00pm Cambarijan he was standing with arms akimbo, he was stabbed by Rogelio. Leyson
approached Gulle to tell him that Rogelio and Nicanor Soplente (the two reacted by drawing his gun and firing a shot in the air to prevent further
accused) had asked him and Estoy Provido, who was tough among the attack. Notarte who was a little to the rear but very near his right side was
group. Without telling anybody except Leyson and Notarte about the attacked by Nicanor at the same instant that Rogelio had attacked his
incident, Gulle went to the house of policeman Rudy Penequito to get help. companion, Leyson. The assaults were done simultaneously with lightning
Penequito instructed Gulle to refrain from accosting the Soplente cousins to speed, with Rogelio concentrating on Leyson and Nicanor on Notarte. Rogelio
avoid disturbing the singing contest. Penequito also approached Rogelio and fled after the firing of the gun. (But Leyson did not testify whether Nicanor

3
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

had also taken flight.) Leyson tried to go after Rogelio used but since he was Rogelio na self-defense tinggap ng rtc dun lang kay Leyson dun sa frustrated
bleeding profusely, a policeman assisted him in going to the Canda clinic for homicide pero hindi kay Notarte which inaffirm ng CA)
medical treatment. He learned the next day that Notarte died as a result of
the stabbing. Issue: W/N CA erred when it held that on the basis of unlawful aggression
alone, Rogelios evidence fell short of being clear and convincing. (Note:
Accused Rogelio’s version: He admitted having stabbed both Leyson and Rogelio vehemently argues that a holistic appreciation of the evidence as
Notarte, but claimed that he did so in self-defense. That while on the way presented by both the prosecution and the defense will show that self-
home, Rogelio suddenly found himself surrounded by around ten (10) defense lies in his favour).
persons led by Leyson. He shouted at Nicanor to run and the latter
immediately scampered away. Leyson drew his gun and fired at Rogelio but
the latter was able to parry it by tapping the base of Leysons hand holding Held: YES, SC ruled in Rogelio’s favour. In order for self-defense to
the gun. Forthwith, Rogelio stabbed Leyson once. As Notarte had started prosper, the following requisites must be present: (1) unlawful aggression;
mauling Rogelio after Leyson had fired his gun, Rogelio also stabbed (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
Notarte. He stabbed both Leyson and Notarte to protect himself from being (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
killed by the group who were armed with canes and a lead pipe aside from On the first element, Rogelios testimony showed that there was indeed
Leysons gun. Rogelio managed to escape after that and he sought refuge in unlawful aggression on the part of Notarte. Based on the uncontradicted
the house of Susing. testimony of Rogelio, he was kicked by Notarte immediately after he stabbed
Leyson. Viewed in an isolated context, the act of kicking Rogelio by Notarte
Before dawn, a policeman arrived at Susings house and Rogelio voluntarily might seem insufficient as an act of unlawful aggression, considering that
gave himself up. The knife he used was also turned over to the police. He Notarte just witnessed his friend, Leyson, being stabbed. Perhaps, this was
was brought to the police substation at Lagao. A few hours later, Nicanor the context in which the lower courts appreciated Rogelios claim of self-
was also picked up by the police. defense. After all, the immediate vindication even of a stranger is recognized
as a justifying circumstance.
RTC: RTC held that Nicanor had no participation in the fatal incident which
occurred in the early morning of 4 May 1988. It also found that there was As concluded by the trial court, the Soplente cousins were surrounded by
no evidence of conspiracy. Accordingly, it absolved Nicanor of the crimes Leyson and his companions, some of whom were armed. Animosity between
charged in both Criminal Case Nos. 5093 and 5094.On the other hand, these two sets had been fostered just a few hours earlier. Leyson had drawn
Rogelios claim of self-defense was deemed legally justified with respect to first and fired first. At this juncture, Rogelio had every reason to believe that
Leysons injury but not with respect to Notartes death. Thus, while Rogelio it was not only Leyson who meant him harm, but that Leysons companions
was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 5093, he was found guilty of the crime of were of the same mindset. The fact that Leysons aggression had already
homicide in Criminal Case No. 5094.mNotwithstanding the above findings, been repelled did not eliminate the threat to Rogelios well-being in the
the lower court ordered both Nicanor and Rogelio to jointly and severally hands of Leysons companions. The kicks employed by Notarte did nothing
indemnify the family of Notarte for the latters death and to pay the but remind Rogelio that the threats to his life or limb had not ceased, even if
hospitalization expenses of Leyson. those from Leysons had.
Both Nicanor and Rogelio filed their respective notices of appeal from the
above decision. Later however, Nicanor withdrew his notice of appeal and The Court of Appeals implied that it has not been indubitably ascertained
opted to merely move for a reconsideration of the portion of the decision that Notarte had kicked Rogelio, or that Notarte was armed or otherwise
making him solidarily liable for monetary awards in favor of the victims. The attacked Rogelio. But the same time, it cannot be disputed that Notarte was
lower court granted Nicanors motion thereby totally absolving him from both no neutral bystander with no interest in the confrontation at hand. Notarte
criminal and civil liability. was one of Leysons confederates, present at the crucial moment for the
same malevolent intentions towards Rogelio as that of his cohorts.
CA (On Rogelio’s appeal): Concluding that there was no unlawful
aggression on the part of Notarte which would justify Rogelios claim of self- At the commencement of the attack, Rogelio could not have been obliged to
defense, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. (Note that yu’ng claim ni view Notarte, or any other member of the posse for that matter, as a less
menacing threat than Leyson. We have to understand that these events

4
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

occurred spontaneously in a matter of seconds or even simultaneously. (3)People vs. Antonio


Rogelio bore no superhuman power to slow down time or to prevent the G.R. No. 144933. July 3, 2002
events from unfolding at virtual warp speed, to be able to assess with By: Bernardo, Gerard
measured certainty the appropriate commensurate response due to each of
his aggressors. Even those schooled in the legal doctrines of self-defense Topic: Self Defense
would, under those dire circumstances, be barely able to discern the legally
defensible response and immediately employ the same. Our laws on self- Doctrine: Where an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits
defense are supposed to approximate the natural human responses to authorship of the crime. The burden of proof is thus shifted on him to prove
danger, and not serve as our inconvenient rulebook based on which we all the elements of self-defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part
should acclimatize our impulses in the face of peril. of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.
It would be wrong to compel Rogelio to have discerned the appropriate
calibrated response to Notartes kicking when he himself was staring at the Facts: The facts as presented by the prosecution: The victim, Jomar Ephan,
evil eye of danger. That would be a gargantuan demand even for the coolest was engaged in a drinking session with Reynaldo Ephan and Roselito Dacillo
under pressure. The Court has been reasonable enough to recognize some in front of a store. Accused-appellant arrived and bought cigarettes. Then,
unreason as justifiable in the law of self-defense. he ordered Jomar, Reynaldo and Roselito to count the cigarettes he bought,
but the three told accused-appellant to let the storekeeper do the counting.
The second element which is reasonable necessity of the means employed Rebuked, accused-appellant left the store. He returned minutes later and
to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression was likewise present in the case suddenly stabbed the victim at the back, after which he immediately fled.
at bar. The knife Rogelio habitually carried was the only weapon he had in The victim was rushed by his companions to the hospital but died the
his person. It was but logical that the knife would be the only thing he could following day.
use against his attackers since the latter were collectively armed with canes
and a handgun. The facts as presented by the defense: accused-appellant was in the house
of his friend, Fernando Gelig. While they were drinking liquor, accused-
Anent the third element of self-defense, there was no evidence to show appellant went out and bought cigarettes from a store across the street. As
that Rogelio had provoked Notarte into a fight. The lower courts finding on a token of friendship, accused-appellant offered the cigarettes to the people
this point is backed by the evidence on record. As the lower court held, it is in front of the store, but nobody accepted his offer. Accused-appellant went
a fact that Rogelio had not done anything to provoke the victim prior to or at back to the house of his friend. After a short while, he went back to the
the time of the fatal encounter. same store to buy “pulutan.” For no reason at all, somebody struck him with
a stool hitting him on the left eyebrow. Accused-appellant fell on the ground
but the group of the deceased, who were then in front of the store, ganged
up on him. The deceased attempted to hit accused-appellant but because
the former was very drunk, he missed and fell on his belly. It was at this
point when accused-appellant got hold of a knife he saw under the table and
stabbed the deceased at the back.

Issue: Whether other the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was
the unlawful aggressor.

Held: No. The Accused is guilty of murder.

The trial court did not err in rejecting accused-appellant’s self-defense


theory. Where an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits
authorship of the crime. The burden of proof is thus shifted on him to prove
all the elements of self-defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part

5
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the pointed his hand to victim and the latter slapped it, saying, “Huwag mo
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. akong dinuduro! Sino ka ba, ano ba ang pinagmamalaki mo?” accused
countered, “Ikaw, ano ang gusto mo?” With this, the accused went to his car
In the case at bar, even if we sustain the version of accused-appellant that and got his .38 caliber handgun on the front seat.
the initial act of aggression came from the group of the deceased, still we
cannot uphold his plea of self-defense. As testified by accused-appellant Prosecution claims that accused pointed the gun to victim and shot him at a
himself, the deceased who was at that time very drunk tried to hit him but distance of about a meter. The shot hit the stomach of the victim causing
missed and fell on the ground. At that point, unlawful aggression ceased and the latter to fall and while still conscious, the victim told his uncle who is also
it was no longer necessary for him to stab the deceased. It was accused- riding his car, to get the gun. The latter grappled for the possession of the
appellant, therefore, who became the aggressor when he, despite the gun and during their grappling, one Rosalia Cruz intervened and took hold of
condition of the deceased, proceeded to stab the latter at the back. His act the gun and after Rosalia Cruz has taken hold of the gun, a man wearing a
can no longer be interpreted as an act of self-preservation but a perverse red T-shirt took the gun from her. The man in T-shirt was chased by the
desire to kill. Hence, he cannot successfully claim the benefit of self-defense. victim’s uncle who was able to get the gun where the man in red T-shirt
Furthermore, if it were true that the companions of the deceased ganged up placed it.
on him, his attack should have been directed against them and not against
the deceased who was already defenseless and lying on the ground. The defense argues self-defense as a justifying circumstance claiming that
after the gun was taken by the accused from inside his car, the victim and
his uncle started to grapple for possession of the gun and during the
grappling, and while the victim and his uncle were trying to wrest away the
(4)People vs. Tangan gun from the accused, they fell down at the back of the car of the accused.
G.R. No. 105830&103613, Feb. 23, 2001 According to the accused, he lost the possession of the gun after falling at
By: Donna Bigornia the back of his car and as soon as they hit the ground, the gun fell, and it
Topic: Mitigating circumstance; Incomplete self-defense
exploded hitting the victim.
Tangan was charged with homicide and he was separately charged with
Doctrine: Incomplete self-defense is not considered as a justifying act but
illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. The lower court convicted him of
merely a mitigating circumstance; Absence of unlawful aggression on the
homicide. The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense
part of the victim can never equate to self-defense, complete or incomplete.
and the ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the
The element of unlawful aggression in self-defense must not come from the
part of the offended party and of passion and obfuscation were appreciated
person defending himself but from the victim. A mere threatening or
in his favor. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. The accused filed a
intimidation is not sufficient.
petition for review.

Facts: The victim is Generoso, 29 yo optometrist while the accused is a


Issue: Whether or not there is incomplete self-defense. Hence, the accused
Navy Captain Eladio Tangan. While both the victim and the accused were
is entitled to a special mitigating circumstance.
driving in their own respective cars along Roxas Boulevard heading south.
The victim was moving ahead of the accused. Then suddenly, firecrackers
Held: No. Accused is guilty.
were thrown in victim’s way, causing him to swerve to the right and cut path
of the accused. The accused blew his horn several times to which the victim
Article 11 of the revised penal code provides that the following do not incur
responded by slowing his vehicle down to let the accused pass. Accused
any criminal liability:
accelerated and overtook the victim, but when he got in front, the victim
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
reduced speed. The victim tried four or five times to overtake on the right
following circumstances concur:
lane but the accused kept blocking his lane. As he approached Airport Road,
First: Unlawful aggression.
the accused slowed down to make a U-turn. It is then that the victim passed
Second: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
him, pulled over and got out of the car with his uncle. The accused also
Third: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
stopped his car and got out. As the victim got near the car of the accused,
himself.
the victim loudly retorted, “Putang ina mo, bakit mo ginigitgit ang sasakyan
ko?” The accused and the victim then exchanged expletives. The accused
6
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

Also, Article 13 of the revised penal code provides the mitigating (5)People v. Narvaez
circumstance, one of which is those mentioned in the preceding Chapter, By: Joen
when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. Doctrine: The elements of Self Defense are First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
In order that incomplete self-defense as a mitigating circumstance may be Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
successfully appreciated, it is necessary that a majority of the requirements himself.
of self-defense be present, particularly the requisite of unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression by itself or in combination Facts: On August 1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez
with either of the other two requisite suffices to establish incomplete self- together with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were
defense. Absent the unlawful aggression, there can never be self- defense, fencing the land of George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. At
complete or incomplete, because if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto
other two requisites of defense will have no basis. Narvaez. At that time, appellant was taking his rest. Narvaez then talked to
In this case, the requirement of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim the group of Davis. Narvaez said “'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my
is absent. The element of unlawful aggression in self-defense must not come house and if possible we will talk it over what is good,'. The deceased
from the person defending himself but from the victim. A mere threatening Fleischer, however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant
or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. The exchange of insulting words and apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting
invectives between the accused and the victim, no matter how him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing there
objectionable, could not be considered as unlawful aggression, except when is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise hitting him. Rubia and
coupled with physical assault. There being no lawful aggression on the part Davis died.
of either antagonists, the claim of incomplete self-defense falls. The accused
undoubtedly had possession of the gun, while the victim tried to wrestle the It appears, however, that this incident is intertwined with the long drawn out
gun from him. It may be said that the former had no intention of killing the legal battle between the Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer
victim but simply to retain possession of his gun. However, the fact that the was the secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the assistant manager, on
victim subsequently died as a result of the gunshot wound, though the the one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whom was
shooter may not have the intention to kill, does not absolve him from appellant.
culpability. Having caused the fatal wound, the accused is responsible for all
the consequences of his felonious act. He brought out the gun, wrestled with May land na pinetition nina Narvaez para madistribute sa kanilang settlers.
the Mirandas but anticipating that the gun may be taken from him, he fired However, the land was awarded to the Company.
and fled.
On May 29, 1950, the settlers filed Civil Case No. 240 in the Court of First
Furthermore, the third requisite which is the lack of sufficient provocation on Instance of Cotabato which then consisted only of one sala, for the purpose
the part of the person defending himself is also absent as it is not supported of annulling the order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
by evidence. By repeatedly blocking the path of the Mirandas for almost five which affirmed the order of the Director of Lands awarding the contested
times, Tangan was in effect the one who provoked the former. The repeated land to the company. The settlers as plaintiffs, lost that case in view of the
blowing of horns, assuming it was done by Generoso, may be irritating to an amicable settlement which they had repudiated as resulting from threats and
impatient driver but it certainly could not be considered as creating so intimidation, deceit, misrepresentation and fraudulent machination on the
powerful an inducement as to incite provocation for the other party to act part of the company. They appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No.
violently. Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense is 28858-R) which likewise affirmed on August 16, 1965 the decision of the
different from sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance. As an Court of First Instance in favor of the company.
element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the part of the person
defending himself; while as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its Dahil dito lumipat si Narvaez sa adjacent parcel of land na nirerentahan nya
presence on the part of the offended party. sa Company. Kaso di sya nakabayad kaya nag fence na sina Rubia.

Issue: (1) Whether or not there was a valid self defense or defense of right.

7
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

(6) People vs Boholst-Caballero


Held: (1) NO. The elements of Self Defense are First. Unlawful aggression; By: De Castro
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending DOCTRINE: The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the
himself civilized world finds justification in man's natural instinct to protect, repel,
and save his person or rights from impending danger or peril; it is based on
1st element. The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a
continuance of the fencing would have resulted in the further chiselling of human being.
the walls of appellant's house as well as the closure of the access to and
from his house and rice mill-which were not only imminent but were actually FACTS: Accused was married to her husband (Francisco Caballero) in 1956.
in progress. There is no question, therefore, that there was aggression on The marriage was not happy and before 1957 ends the couple was
the part of the victims: Fleischer was ordering, and Rubia was actually separated. In the evening of January 2, 1958, Francisco Caballero and two
participating in the fencing. This was indeed aggression, not on the person of companions, Ignacio and Kakong, drank tuba in a house in Ipil, Ormoc City.
appellant, but on his property rights. In any case, Fleischer had given him When they proceeded to go home, they saw the wife of Francisco (Accused)
up to December 31, 1968 within which to vacate the land. He should have standing at the corner of the yard. The accused called Francisco and when
allowed appellant the peaceful enjoyment of his properties up to that time, latter approached her she stabbed him with a knife. Upon examination, Dr.
instead of chiselling the walls of his house and closing appellant's entrance Samson found a punctured wound on the left lumbar region of the victim.
and exit to the highway (nagfence agad August 1968 palang). Hence there Victim Francisco was ordered to be transferred to Cebu hospital because of
was unlawful agression. lack of facility in the hospital in Ormoc. In the meantime, the accused went
to Police and surrender informing them that she stabbed her husband
3rd element. Third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of (victim). When victim was brought to Cebu via “MV Ormoc” the victim died
sufficient provocation on the part of appellant who was defending his at noontime from the stab wound sustained by him.
property. As a matter of fact, there was no provocation at all on his part,
since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced The defense of the accused is that their marriage was marked by quarrels
by the victims and their laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to caused by her husband gambling and drinking, and that she was maltreated
stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. by her husband. The victim left her with their daughter. When her daughter
became sick she went to the victim and asks help but he drove her away
2nd element. Appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since and said “I don’t care if you all would die”. On the night of the alleged
not all the elements for justification are present. He should therefore be held stabbing, she went out caroling with her friend and after the proceeds were
responsible for the death of his victims, but he could be credited with the divided she went home.
special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to
paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. “Before she could leave the vicinity of the house of Crispina, she met
her husband, Francisco, who upon seeing her, held her by the collar of
her dress and asked her: “Where have you been prostituting? You are a
son of a bitch.”; she replied: “What is your business. Anyway you have
already left us. You have nothing to do with us”; upon hearing these
words Francisco retorted: “What do you mean by saying I have nothing
to do with you. I will kill you all, I will kill you all”; Francisco then held
her by the hair, slapped her face until her nose bled, and pushed her
towards the ground; to keep herself from falling she held on to his waist
and as she did so her right hand grasped the knife tucked inside the belt
line on the left side of his body; because her husband continued to push
her down she fell on her back to the ground; her husband then knelt
over her, held her neck, and choked her saying: “Now is the time I can
do whatever I want. I will kill you”; because she had “no other

8
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

recourse” as she was being choked, she pulled out the knife of her In the case of appellant Cunigunda Caballero, We find the location of the
husband and thrust it at him hitting the left side of his body near the fatal wound as a valuable circumstance which confirms the plea of self-
“belt line” just above his left thigh; when she finally released herself defense.
from the hold of her husband she ran home and on the way she threw
the knife.” REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
ISSUE: WON accused-appellant stab her husband in the defense of her The second element, that is, reasonable necessity for the means employed,
person is likewise present. The accused who being strangled and choked by a
furious aggressor and rendered almost unconscious by the strong pressure
HELD: Yes, accused-appellant acted in defense of her person and on her throat had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon within
hence acquitted by the court. her reach to save herself from impending death. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed in self-defense does not depend upon the harm done but
The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. The knife tucked in her
finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his husband’s belt afforded the accused the only reasonable means with which
person or rights from impending danger or peril; it is based on that impulse she could free and save herself from being strangled and choked to death.
of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being. To
the Classicists in penal law, lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION:
on the part of the State to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the aggression, that is,
person unlawfully attacked, and therefore it is inconceivable for the State to adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense.
require that the innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without The accused did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the aggression or
resistance; while to the Positivists, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, attack on her person by her husband. While it was understandable for the
an act of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggressor. accused to be angry at his wife for finding her on the road in the middle of
the night, however, he was not justified in inflicting bodily punishment with
Our law on self-defense is found in Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: intent to kill by choking his wife’s throat. All that the accused did was to
“ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.—The following do not incur any criminal provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband,
liability:
which is not a sufficient provocation under the law of self-defense.
“1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:
“First. Unlawful aggression; (7)People vs Chua Hiong
“Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; By: Rhio
“Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”
Doctrine: Self-defense applies to the crime of libel.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
With her husband kneeling over her as she lay on her back on the ground Facts: Federico Chua Hiong is the uncle of Cesareo Gacheco. Gacheco and
and his hand choking her neck, the accused had no other recourse but to his family were defeated in a civil case in the CFI of Manila, which, if not
pull out the knife inserted at the left side of her husband’s belt and plunge it overturned by the SC, would lead to Gacheco and co. losing 2/3s of the
at his body hitting the left back portion just below the waist, described by inheritance left by a Paulino Gacheco. Hiong sided with the party that
the attending physician as the left lumbar region. The fact that the blow defeated Gacheco. This created tension and Gacheco wrote the Chief Finance
landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong indication Agent of the Department of Finance charging Hiong with tax evasion and
of the truth of the accused’s testimony, for as she lay on the ground with her using a fake citizenship. He then wrote a letter to Vice President Fernando
husband bent over her it was quite natural for her right hand to get hold of Lopez accusing Hiong of illegal transactions with the government.
the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s belt and thrust it at that section
of the body nearest to her hand at the moment. A letter was written by a certain Benito Solipco to Hiong. (The SC says
Solipco was undoubtedly if not Gacheco himself, acting under Gacheco’s
inducement.) It said that the members of the Go Family Association, of
which Gocheco belonged, told Solipco that they will make every vengeance
9
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

against Hiong, such as paying some persons to kill him, or reporting him to as it is the most natural thing that my enemies should cowardly hide behind
every Philippine Government Authority that he is a communist and other the cloak of anonymity, but, one need not stretch the imagination too far to
kinds of vengeance. The letter warned Hiong to be careful as the Go Family be able to guess the “mastermind behind these threats... For what could be
wee all his enemies now and that they will make every vengeance against better or more convenient to my enemies than my untimely death, or for
him at all cost. The letter was contained in an envelope along with a rope that matter, my deportation from this country had they been able to prove
which contained a note saying “this serves for your personal use.” Hiong their charges filed with the different government agencies. What better or
received threats on the phone and was denounced as a communist through more convenient weapon can my enemies avail of then a this systematic and
anonymous letters. Gocheco then caused to be published articles entitled malicious persecution in order to coerce or cajole me into submitting to their
“Doubtful Citizenship” in the Feb 11, 1952 issue of the Manila Chronicle. It demands that I should desist from proceeding with the civil case I have
said that while the Commissioner of Immigration had certain evidences instituted against the Gocheco family which shall ultimately reduce them to
supporting the Filipino citizenship of Hiong, the Commisisoner’s decision was the poverty of the proverbial church-mouse?” Because of the article above,
based on questionable proofs. It then proceeded to enumerate the evidences Hiong was found guilty of libel by the RTC. He now appeals.
such as:
Issue: Whether or not Chua Hiong’s libelous publication was a proper act of
1. Mr. Frederico M. Chua Hiong and his family, as shown, by the Master List self-defense
of alien registered in 1941 with the Bureau of Immigration, were registered
under reg nos. 199-461 to 199466. Held: Yes. Self-defense applies to the crime of libel. Self-defense is a man’s
2. The proceedings of the Board of Special Inquiry at the Port of Manila, inborn right. In a physical assault, retaliation becomes unlawful after the
under Chinese Board Report No. 1451, show that Mr. Chua Hiong was attack has ceased, because there would be no further harm to repel. But
admitted into the country as legitimate minor son of Chua Pe on September that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name. Once the
23, 1913. aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself
3. A certified Chinese Marriage Certificate secured from the local Civil of all necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with another libel
Registrar shows that his marriage was performed by the Chinese Consul at which, if adequate, will be justified. Granting that the “Seriously Speaking”
the Chinese YMCA in 1926. column of the Manila Chronicle caused by Hiong was libelous, is it
4. Affidavits sworn to by residents of Aparri, Cagayan, the place where the unnecessarily libelous? It was intended to counteract the impression left in
alleged mother (of Hiong) lives, and submitted by the Chief of Police at the the mind of the public by the article “Doubtful Citizenship” which Gocheco
instance of the investigator in this case, show that the alleged mother has caused to be published in the Manila Chronicle on Feb. 11, 1952. Hiong was
never left Aparri, much less the Philippines, and therefore could not give living as a Filipino, his livelihood depended mainly upon enterprises only
birth to Hiong who was born in China Filipinos can engage in. It is perfectly conceivable that any attempt to assail
his Filipino citizenship should meet the keenest defense from him. To flout in
In response, Hiong caused Seriously Speaking to be published in the Manila public the genuineness of one’s citizenship is slanderous, nobody would dare
Chronicle. It said: “This investigation was only one of a series of other deny, the more so Hiong’s case for obvious reasons. The Doubtful
investigations conducted by different agencies of our government at the Citizenship column makes it appear that his citizenship was acquired through
instigation of Mr. Gocheco, who appears to be obsessed with a persecution questionable means and that an investigation is currently being conducted
mania in order to besmirch my name and reputation and harass me and my with respect to the legality of his citizenship. Gocheco’s purpose was to
family. To my eternal shame and misfortune, Mr. Cesario T. Gocheco is my malign Hiong. Because he lost in the civil case, Gocheco decided to air his
nephew. As such, he is cognizant of all of the facts of my life for he has grievances through the press. Hiong’s Seriously Speaking Column is not
known me for the past 25 years….Why then this sudden concern over my necessarily libelous because Hiong is entitled to show Gocheco’s motive
citizenship? Why this mad desire to bring harm to me and my family? The behind Doubtful Citizenship and to dispel the bad impression about him of
reason is not hard to find – personal revenge is the moving passion in this those who had read it.
drama of intrigues and persecution to which I and my family have been
subjected.…It is easy to imagine the gloom, despondency and despair, that
must have seized the Gocheco family when the above decision was handed
down as that would divest them of everything that they now have and thus
face stark poverty…It is obvious that the name “Benito Sulipco” is fictitious,

10
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

Defense of strangers who was thirty years old, died due to massive hemorrhage secondary to the
stab wound on the abdomen.
(8) People vs Toring
By: Rhio
The death weapon, a kitchen knife made of stainless steel and with a red-
colored handle, was recovered from the house of Luis Toring. According to
Doctrine: Where the accused was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil
Patrolman Pantaleon P. Amodia, the police found out during the investigation
motive at the time of the assault, he cannot claim the full benefit of the
that Luis Toring had left the weapon with “Camilo” Berdin. When the police
justifying circumstance of defense of relative
confronted Berdin, the latter led them to the house of Toring which Berdin
entered. When he emerged from the house, Berdin handed the weapon to
Facts: In the evening of May 25, 1980, a benefit dance was held at sitio
the police.
Naga, Babag II, Lapu-lapu City for the last canvassing of votes for the
candidates for princesses who would reign at the sitio fiesta. As one of the
An information for murder was filed against Toring. Subsequently, however,
candidates was the daughter of Samuel Augusto, he and the members of his
the information was amended to include
family attended the affair.
Diosdado Berdon and Carmelo Berdin as defendants. The three were
charged therein with conspiracy in killing Samuel Augusto in a treacherous
Also present were members of the kwaknit gang, a group which was noted
manner. Berdon, it was alleged, “conveniently supplied the death weapon”
for their bird-like way of dancing and their propensity for drunkenness and
which Toring used in stabbing Samuel while Berdin allegedly concealed the
provoking trouble. Its president, called the “alas” king, was Luis Toring. The
weapon to prevent its discovery by the police. The crime was purportedly
group was then outside the dancing area which was ringed by benches.
committed with the attendance of the generic aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation and nighttime.
At around 10:45 p.m., Samuel’s daughter was proclaimed the winner in the
contest. Beer and softdrinks having been served the parents of the
All three accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. At the trial, Luis
candidates by the officers of the Naga Chapel Association which took charge
Toring, alias “Lowe,” testified that he was not the president of the Kwaknit
of the affair, Samuel was tipsy when, after his daughter’s proclamation, he
gang. He went to the benefit dance in the company of Venir Ybanez, Joel
stepped out of the dancing area to answer the call of nature.
Escobia, Ely Amion, Abel Pongase, Abe Berdon, Genio Berdin and Alex
Augusto. Toring and his group were standing outside the dancing area when,
At that moment, barangay tanod Felix Berdin saw Luis Toring, Carmelo
at around eleven o’clock in the evening, Samuel, a known tough guy
Berdin and Diosdado Berdon proceed to a dark area while whispering to each
(“maldito”), approached them and held Venir Ybanez by his collar. Then
other. Diosdado Berdon handed a knife to Luis Toring, who then approached
Samuel thrust the butt of his shotgun on the chin of Joel Escobia, proceeded
Samuel from behind, held Samuel’s left hand with his left hand, and with his
to another group who were also gangmates of Toring, and again, with the
right hand, stabbed with the knife the right side of Samuel’s abdomen. Upon
barrel of his shotgun, hit Eli Amion’s chest several times.
seeing Felix running towards them, Luis Toring pulled out the knife and,
together with Carmelo Berdin and Diosdado Berdon, ran towards the dark.
Reacting to what he saw, Toring got his kitchen knife which was tucked in
Felix tried to chase the three but he was not able to catch them. He returned
his waist, approached Samuel from the latter’s right side and stabbed him
to where Samuel had slumped and helped others in taking Samuel to the
once as he did not intend to kill Samuel. Toring then ran towards the dark
hospital.
portion of the area and went home. There, he left the knife and proceeded to
the hut by the fishpond of one Roman.
According to Maria Catalina Sorono, who was six (6) meters away from
Samuel and Luis when the assault occurred, Diosdado Berdon and Carmelo
Toring was sleeping in the hut with his older brother, Arsenio, when, at
Berdin were poised to deliver fist blows on Samuel just before Luis Toring
around 4:00 o’clock in the morning of May 26, 1980, Edgar Augusto, the
stabbed him. Diosdado gave the knife to Luis Toring As soon as she saw the
younger brother of Samuel, shot them. Arsenio was hit on the left leg and he
stabbing of Samuel, Maria Catalina shouted for help. The three assailants
stayed two months in the hospital for the treatment of his wound.
ran towards the direction of the fields. Jacinto Lobas and Mario Andog
responded to her shouts and brought Samuel to the Opon Emergency
At 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 26, 1980, Toring surrendered to two
Hospital where he died on arrival. According to the necropsy report, Samuel,
Philippine Constabulary soldiers.12 They brought him to the police of Lapu-

11
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

lapu City on May 28, 1980.13 When the police asked him about the knife he they have different surnames. At any rate, this allegation on relationship
used in stabbing Samuel, Toring told them to go to Carmelo Berdin because was not rebutted by the prosecution.
he was the only person who knew where Toring hid it. Asserting that he was
the one who returned the knife to his own house, Toring testified that Issue: Whether Toring should be exonerated on the ground that his assault
Carmelo Berdin used to see him hide his weapons upstairs because Berdin on Samuel was justified because he acted in defense of his first cousin, Joel
was a frequent visitor of his.
Held: No. The appreciation of the justifying circumstance of defense of a
In court, Toring testified that he never saw Diosdado at the dance. However, relative, however, hinges in this case on the presence of unlawful aggression
in his sworn statement dated May 28, 1980 and marked as Exhibit D, Toring on the part of the victim. Corollarily, the claim of Toring that Samuel was, at
stated that he took the knife from Diosdado to stab Samuel. the time of the assault, carrying a shotgun to intimidate Toring’s group must
be proven.
On October 28, 1980, a day after the last day of hearing, the lower court
rendered a decision discrediting Toring’s claim that the killing of Samuel was Understandably, no prosecution witness attested that they saw Samuel with
justified because it was done in defense of a stranger pursuant to Article 11 a firearm. The prosecution even recalled to the witness stand Samuel’s
(3) of the Revised Penal Code. The lower court found that Toring was the widow who asserted that her husband did not own any firearm. Going along
“aggressor acting in retaliation or revenge by reason of a running feud or with the prosecution’s evidence, the lower court arrived at the rather
long-standing grudge” between the Kwaknit gang and the group of Samuel, gratuitous conjecture that Samuel could not have had a shotgun with him
who, being the son of the barangay captain, was a “power to be reckoned because no one without a permit would carry a firearm without risking arrest
with.” It mentioned the fact that a year before the incident in question, by the police or the barangay tanod. At the same time, however, the lower
Toring was shot by Edgar Augusto (Samuel’s brother) and hence, in his court described Samuel as the son of the barangay captain who “had the run
desire to avenge himself, Toring, “needed but a little excuse to do away with of the place and had his compelling presence felt by all and sundry.
the object of his hatred.”
Defense witness Joel Escobia was, besides Toring, the only witness whose
It noted that while Toring testified that Samuel was aiming his shotgun at sworn statement was taken by the police on May 26, 1980, the day after the
the chest of Ely Amyon (Amion), prosecution witness Joel Escobia claimed fatal assault on Samuel. In his sworn statement, Escobia attested that as he
that he was at the receiving end of Samuel’s thrusts with the butt of his was about to dance with a girl, Samuel stopped him, pointed his shotgun at
shotgun. To the court, such discrepancy is fatal to the defense because in him, took a bullet from his jacket pocket, showed it to Escobia and asked
appreciating the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, the court him, “Do you like this, Dong?” to which Escobia replied, “No, Noy, I do not
must know “with definiteness the identity of the stranger defended by the like that.” Samuel then placed the bullet in the shotgun and was thus
accused.” pointing it at Escobia when Toring came from behind Samuel and stabbed
the latter. Even on cross-examination at the trial, Escobia did not depart
Toring seeks his exoneration by contending that his assault on Samuel was from his statement. In fact he added that Samuel pointed the shotgun at his
justified because he acted in defense of his first cousin, Joel Escobia. Article chin and told him to eat the bullet.
11 (3) of the Revised Penal Code provides that no criminal liability is
incurred by anyone “who acts in defense of x x x his relatives x x x by There is no reason to doubt Joel Escobia’s assertion of Samuel’s unlawful
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and aggression inasmuch as his sworn statement and testimony in court had not
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, been successfully discredited by the prosecution which also failed to prove
and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person that Joel had reason to prevaricate to favor Toring. The presence of unlawful
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.” The first and aggression on the part of the victim and the lack of proof of provocation on
second requisites referred to are enumerated in paragraph (b) in the same the part of Toring notwithstanding, full credence cannot be given to Toring’s
article on self-defense as: (a) unlawful aggression, and (b) lack of sufficient claim of defense of a relative. Toring himself admitted in court as well as in
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Joel Escobia, whose his sworn statement that in 1979, he was shot with a .22 caliber revolver by
chin was hit with the butt of Samuel’s shotgun, is the first cousin of Toring Edgar Augusto, Samuel’s brother. It cannot be said, therefore, that in
their fathers being brothers although no explanation appears on record why attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence
or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin.

12
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

Rather, he was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil motive because of issue the checks to effect her mother’s immediate discharge.
a “running feud” between the Augusto and the Toring brothers. As the Ty suggests in the prefatory statement of her Petition and Memorandum that
defense itself claims, after the incident subject of the instant case occurred, the justifying circumstance of state of necessity under par. 4, Art. 11 of the
Toring’s brother, Arsenio, was shot on the leg by Edgar Augusto. Indeed, Revised Penal Code may find application in this case.
vendetta appears to have driven both camps to commit unlawful acts
against each other. Hence, under the circumstances, to justify Toring’s act of Issue: WON the justifying circumstance of state of necessity is applies in
assaulting Samuel Augusto would give free rein to lawlessness. this case.

State of necessity HELD: NO.

(9) VICKY C. TY vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the actor from
G.R. No. 149275 September 27, 2004 liability under par. 4, Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) that the evil
By: Grande, Jonicocel sought to be avoided actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be greater
than the one done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other practical and less
Doctrine: The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the harmful means of preventing it.
actor from liability under par. 4, Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) that In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
greater than the one done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other practical anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. Ty
and less harmful means of preventing it. could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a
crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other
Facts: Petitioner Vicky C. Ty’s mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at the forms of security instead of post-dated checks to secure her obligation.
Manila Doctors’ Hospital. Being the patient’s daughter, Ty signed the Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater
"Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or
Admission. Ty’s sister, Judy Chua, was also confined at the hospital.The total imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the
hospital bills of the two patients amounted to ₱1,075,592.95. issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty’s own failure to
Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed payment of the pay her mother’s hospital bills.
obligation. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew several postdated
checks payable to the hospital. The 7 checks, each covering the amount of Fulfillment of duty
₱30,000.00 were all dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to
the hospital due to insufficiency of funds, with the "Account Closed" advice. (10) Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of "an By: Jovero, John Tristram V.
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury." She averred that she was forced to
issue the checks to obtain release for her mother whom the hospital
inhumanely and harshly treated and would not discharge unless the hospital Doctrine: In invoking fulfillment of duty as a justifying defense, it must be
bills are paid. She alleged that her mother was deprived of room facilities, shown that the acts of the accused relative to the crime charged were
such as the air-condition unit, refrigerator and television set, and subject to indeed lawfully or duly performed; the burden necessarily shifts on him to
inconveniences such as the cutting off of the telephone line, late delivery of prove such hypothesis.
her mother’s food and refusal to change the latter’s gown and bedsheets.
She also bewailed the hospital’s suspending medical treatment of her Facts: The prosecution established that in the evening of April 5, 1988,
mother. The "debasing treatment," she pointed out, so affected her mother’s Villanueva, Flores, Calma, De Vera, Panlican and Licup were at the residence
mental, psychological and physical health that the latter contemplated of Salangsang as guests at the barrio fiesta celebrations between 5:00 and
suicide if she would not be discharged from the hospital. Fearing the worst 7:30 p.m.. The company decided to leave at around 7:30 p.m., shortly after
for her mother, and to comply with the demands of the hospital, Ty was the religious procession had passed. As they were all inebriated, Salangsang
compelled to sign a promissory note, open an account with Metrobank and reminded Villanueva, who was on the wheel, to drive carefully and watch out

13
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

for potholes and open canals on the road. With Licup in the passenger seat offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of
and the rest of his companions at the back of his Tamaraw jeepney, such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
Villanueva allegedly proceeded at 5-10 kph with headlights dimmed.
Suddenly, as they were approaching a curve on the road, they met a burst It is interesting that nothing in the evidence suggests that the accused were
of gunfire and instantly, Villanueva and Licup were both wounded and acting under an official order to open fire at or kill the suspects under any
bleeding profusely. and all circumstances. Even more telling is the absence of reference to the
victims having launched such aggression as would threaten the safety of any
Both Flores and Villanueva, contrary to what the defense would claim, one of the accused, or having exhibited such defiance of authority that
allegedly did not see any one on the road flag them down. Flores would have instigated the accused, particularly those armed, to embark on a
remembered that there were two sudden bursts of gunfire which very rapidly violent attack with their firearms in self-defense. In fact, no material
succeeded each other, and that they were given no warning shot at all evidence was presented at the trial to show that the accused were placed in
contrary to what the defense would say. He claimed the bullet holes on the real mortal danger in the presence of the victims, except maybe their bare
Tamaraw jeepney were on the passenger side and that there were no other suspicion that the suspects were armed and were probably prepared to
bullet holes at the back or in any other portion of the vehicle. conduct hostilities.

According to the defense, Yapyuco and his men were investigating a physical Besides, even assuming that they were as the accused believed them to be,
injuries case when Yu suddenly received a summon for police assistance the actuations of these responding law enforcers must inevitably be ranged
from David, who supposedly was instructed by Pamintuan, concerning a against reasonable expectations that arise in the legitimate course of
reported presence of armed NPA members in Quebiawan. Yapyuco allegedly performance of policing duties. The rules of engagement, of which every law
called on their main station in San Fernando for reinforcement but at the enforcer must be thoroughly knowledgeable and for which he must always
time no additional men could be dispatched. Hence, he decided to respond exercise the highest caution, do not require that he should immediately draw
and instructed his men to put on their uniforms and bring their M-16 rifles or fire his weapon if the person to be accosted does not heed his call. Pursuit
with them. Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach of his without danger should be his next move, and not vengeance for personal
suspects, hence Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno took post in the middle of the feelings or a damaged pride. Police work requires nothing more than the
road at the curve where the Tamaraw jeepney conveying the victims would lawful apprehension of suspects, since the completion of the process
make an inevitable turn. As the jeepney came much closer, Pamintuan pertains to other government officers or agencies.
announced that it was the target vehicle, so he, with Cunanan and Puno
behind him, allegedly flagged it down and signaled for it to stop. He claimed Petitioners rationalize their election to aim their fire directly at the jeepney
that instead of stopping, the jeepney accelerated and swerved to its left. by claiming that it failed to heed the first round of warning shots as well as
This allegedly inspired him, and his fellow police officers Cunanan and Puno, the signal for it to stop and instead tried to flee. While it is possible that the
to fire warning shots but the jeepney continued pacing forward, hence they jeepney had been flagged down but because it was pacing the dark road
were impelled to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously, gunshots with its headlights dimmed missed petitioners’ signal to stop, and compound
allegedly came bursting from the direction of Naron’s house directly at the to it the admitted fact that the passengers thereof were drunk from the
subject jeepney. party they had just been to, still, we find incomprehensible petitioners’ quick
resolve to use their firearms when in fact there was at least one other
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are justified under Article 11 (5) of vehicle at the scene – the Sarao jeepney owned by Yapyuco – which they
the Revised Penal Code. could actually have used to pursue their suspects whom they supposedly
perceived to be in flight.
Held: We find that the requisites for justification under Article 11 (5) of the
Revised Penal Code do not obtain in this case. No explanation is offered why they, in that instant, were inclined for a
violent attack at their suspects except perhaps their over-anxiety or
The availability of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or lawful impatience or simply their careless disposition to take no chances. Clearly,
exercise of a right or office under Article 11 (5) of the Revised Penal Code they exceeded the fulfillment of police duties the moment they actualized
rests on proof that (a) the accused acted in the performance of his duty or in such resolve, thereby inflicting Licup with a mortal bullet wound, causing
the lawful exercise of his right or office, and (b) the injury caused or the injury to Villanueva and exposing the rest of the passengers of the jeepney

14
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

to grave danger to life and limb – all of which could not have been the
necessary consequence of the fulfillment of their duties. Addendum: The Court will, however, attribute to Baxinela the incomplete
defense of fulfillment of a duty as a privileged mitigating circumstance. In
(11) Baxinela vs. People Lacanilao v. Court of Appeals, it was held that if the first condition is fulfilled
By: Jesus Ros Lapuz, Jr. but the second is wanting, Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable
so that the penalty lower than one or two degrees than that prescribed by
Doctrine: In order to avail of the justifying circumstance of lawful law shall be imposed. Accordingly, the Court grants in favor of Baxinela a
performance of official duty, it must be shown that: 1) the accused acted in privileged mitigating circumstance and lower his penalty by one degree. His
the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and entitlement to the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is
2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence also recognized, thereby further reducing his penalty to its minimum.
of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office.
The Court commiserates with our policemen who regularly thrust their lives
Facts: Baxinela was charged of homicide for the death of one Ruperto Lajo. in zones of danger in order to maintain peace and order and acknowledges
Accused Baxinela then claimed the justifying circumstance of self-defense the apprehensions faced by their families whenever they go on duty. But the
specifically the alternative defense of fulfilment of official duty under Article use of unnecessary force or wanton violence is not justified when the
11 paragraphs 1 and 5 of the RPC. To substantiate his claim, Baxinela fulfillment of their duty as law enforcers can be effected otherwise. A "shoot
presented 3 witnesses, himself included, wherein they narrated that while first, think later" attitude can never be countenanced in a civilized society.
they were inside a bar, they saw the deceased with a gun tucked at the back
of his waist and when Baxinela approached the deceased to ask why he is
carrying a gun, the latter quickly drew the gun on Baxinela which prompted (12) Pomoy v. People
the accused to shoot the victim which led to his death. The prosecution on G.R. No. 150647. September 29, 2004
the other hand refuted his claims and likewise presented their own witnesses By: Mano
wherein they all testified that it was Baxinela who in fact drew his gun first
and shot the victim. Doctrine: The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victims death was
limited only to acts committed in the course of the lawful performance of his
The RTC gave more credence to the evidence presented by the accused and duties as an enforcer of the law. The removal of the gun from its holster, the
convicted Baxinela of Homicide for the death of Lajo -- to which the CA release of the safety lock, and the firing of the two successive shots -- all of
affirmed. which led to the death of the victim -- were sufficiently demonstrated to
have been consequences of circumstances beyond the control of petitioner.
Issue: Whether the Justifying Circumstance of lawful performance of official
duty is applicable in the case of Baxinela. Facts: Policemen arrested Tomas Balboa (victim), a master teacher of the
Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries for he was allegedly connected
Held. No. with a robbery. He was brought to the Headquarters of the Philippine
In order to avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the Constabulary Company at Camp Jalandoni where he was detained. Petitioner
accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a Roweno Pomoy, a member of the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company,
right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the directed the latter to come out of the jail, for tactical interrogation at the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful investigation room. Petitioner had a gun hanging from his bolster. As
exercise of a right or office. While the first condition is present, the second is Petitioner was holding the doorknob with his right hand to open the door,
clearly lacking. Baxinela’s duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a the victim, who was two meters away from him, suddenly approached him
gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was and grabbed his gun, but all of a sudden he held the handle of his gun with
doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through his left hand; he released his right hand from the doorknob and, with that
anxiety, edginess or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his right hand, he held the handle of his gun. Tomas Balboa was not able to
duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo take actual hold of the gun because of his efforts in preventing him (Balboa)
cannot be considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed from holding the handle of his gun. Petitioner used his left hand to parry the
no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the bar. move of the victim. He and the victim grappled and in two or three seconds

15
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

the gun was drawn from its holster as both of them held the gun; more
grappling followed and five seconds after the gun was taken from its holster Petitioner advanced self-defense as an alternative. Granting arguendo that
it fired. Balboa was accidentally shot and died. RTC found Petitioner guilty of he intentionally shot Balboa, he claims he did so to protect his life and limb
homicide. from real and immediate danger.

a. Whether the shooting of Tomas Balboa was the result of an accident. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in
which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily
YES. contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from
imminent danger. Apparently, the fatal shots in the instant case did not
The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused was at the time occur out of any conscious or premeditated effort to overpower, maim or kill
performing a lawful act with due care; 2) the resulting injury was caused by the victim for the purpose of self-defense against any aggression; rather,
mere accident; and 3) on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no they appeared to be the spontaneous and accidental result of both parties
intent to cause the injury. From the facts, it is clear that all these elements attempts to possess the firearm.
were present. At the time of the incident, petitioner was a member --
specifically, one of the investigators -- of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Since the death of the victim was the result of an accidental firing of the
stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company. Thus, it was in the service gun of petitioner -- an exempting circumstance as defined in Article
lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer that, under the 12 of the Revised Penal Code – the Court said that a further discussion of
instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter’s cell for a whether the assailed acts of the latter constituted lawful self-defense is
routine interrogation. unnecessary.

Iit was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner (13) Angcaco vs. People
tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried By:Marasigan
to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty-
bound to prevent the snatching of his service weapon by anyone, especially Doctrine: For the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a lawful duty to be
by a detained person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to appreciated, the following must be established: (1) that the offender acted
in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty; and (b) that the injury or offense
facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in the vicinity, including
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such
petitioner himself. right or office.

Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary Facts: Petitioner John Angcaco and his co-accused in the trial court were
precautions to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to members of the Integrated National Police of Taytay, Palawan. At the time of
others. As he so assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun locked the incident, they were serving a warrant of arrest issued by the Municipal
when he left his house; he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially Trial Court of Taytay on Restituto Bergante, who was wanted in connection
within the premises of his working area. with a robbery case. Edep was acting station commander, while Restituto
Bergante was the barangay captain of Bato, Taytay, Palawan.
At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to
At around 4 oclock in the morning of September 25, 1980, Noe Bergante
cause injury to the deceased, much less kill him. The participation of
and his brother Noel Bergante and his cousin Freddie Ganancial were
petitioner, if any, in the victims death was limited only to acts committed in awakened by the sound of gunfire while they were asleep in their house in
the course of the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. Bato, Taytay, Palawan. Their mother, who was frightened, fainted and had
The removal of the gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and to be helped by Noe. Noel went to the kitchen and, from there, saw Protacio
the firing of the two successive shots -- all of which led to the death of the Edep fire his carbine, as he shouted, Kapitan, you come down, this is [a]
victim -- were sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of peace officer. He was apparently referring to Restituto Bergante. Noel
answered that his father was not in the house, having gone to Puerto
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the very least, these
Princesa. Edep then ordered the men in the house to come out. Noel
factual circumstances create serious doubt on the latters culpability. accordingly went to the gate and later called Noe to also come out of the
house. Noe and his cousin, Freddie Ganancial, did as bidden.
b. Whether Petitioner was able to prove self-defense.

16
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

Once they were outside the house, Noe and Freddie were flanked by which took place, whereas in open court, the latter is subjected to cross-
petitioner Angcaco on the right side and accused Ramon Decosto on the left examination by counsel for the accused.
side. Decosto pointed an armalite at the two and warned them not to run.
Noe and Freddie joined Noel Bergante. Protacio Edep approached Freddie However, where the discrepancies between the affidavit and the witness
saying, You are tough, and pushed him. Then, shots rang out from the testimony on the stand are irreconcilable and unexplained and they refer to
armalite and short firearm of Decosto and Edep, as a result of which Freddie material issues, such inconsistencies may well reflect on the witness candor
Ganancial turned around and dropped to the ground face down. Decosto was and even honesty and thus impair his credibility. Hence, we have recognized
around three meters away from Freddie. as exceptions to the general rule instances where the narration in the sworn
statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court or where the
omission in the affidavit refers to a substantial detail which an eyewitness,
In fright, Noe and Noel ran inside the house. After a few seconds, Noe saw,
had he been present at the scene at the time of the commission of the
through the window, Lota and Angcaco turning over the body of Freddie
crime, could not have failed to mention. The case at bar is such an instance.
Ganancial. After briefly leaving the body, both came back 15 minutes later.
Noe said Lota brought with him an object wrapped in a newspaper, which Noe Bergante pointed to Decosto and Edep as the ones who shot Freddie
Noe surmised was a knife. Lota placed the object in the right hand of Freddie Ganancial. However, in his affidavit, dated November 24, 1980, Noe pointed
Ganancial. to Decosto as the lone assailant. Noe also failed to mention the presence of
Angcaco at the scene at the time of the commission of the crime. Noe tried
On January 31, 1996, the trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner to explain these material omissions in his affidavit by claiming that he
guilty of murder. Petitioner Angcaco filed an appeal with the Court of mentioned these details to the fiscal but the latter must have forgotten to
Appeals, which affirmed with modification the trial court”s decision. include them in the affidavit because he (the fiscal) was in a hurry to leave
that day. This explanation is too pat to be accepted. To begin with, Noe
Issues: admitted that the investigating fiscal, Fiscal Vergara, explained to him the
contents of the affidavit before he (Noe) signed it. Noe, therefore, could
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED have noticed the omission of such vital matters which concerned the
AND/OR MISCONSTRUED THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE identification of the persons responsible for his cousins death and called
THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF DEFENSE OF [THE] PERSON OR attention to such omission. The identity of the malefactors is too important a
RIGHTS OF A STRANGER ARE PRESENT. detail for anyone who allegedly witnessed the incident to overlook its
omission in the very statement of the incident one is giving. The omissions
II. WHETHER OR NOT DUE PROCESS OR THE RIGHTS OF
suggest Noes ignorance of the details of the incident as well as his readiness
PETITIONER-ACCUSED HAS BEEN VIOLATEDWHEN THE
to perjure himself in order to implicate all of the accused in this case.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED OR FAILED TO
APPRECIATE THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE
AND ITS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND On direct examination, Noel, like his brother, identified Edep and Decosto as
REASONABLE DOUBT. the assailants of Freddie Ganancial. However, Noels affidavit, dated
November 24, 1980, only mentioned Decosto as the person responsible for
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN NOT the killing of Freddie Ganancial. Worse, Noel executed an affidavit earlier on
ACQUITTING [PETITIONER] APPELLANT. September 26, 1980, in which he identified Jardiolin, Mario Toledo, Lydio
Lota, and Mario Gonzales as the companions of Decosto at the time of the
Held: commission of the crime. But, in his testimony, Noel said that Decostos
companions were Edep, Angcaco, Felizarte, and Lota. When confronted with
First. Petitioner Angcaco argues that the prosecution evidence failed to prove
the discrepancy, Noel said that he really meant to refer to Angcaco, instead
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He points out inconsistencies and
of Jardiolin, and to Ramon Decosto instead of Toledo. When further
contradictions in the testimonies and affidavits of prosecution witnesses Noel
questioned, Noel said that he was referring to Lota when he mentioned the
and Noe Bergante.
name of Toledo, thus creating more confusion with his answers. These
We agree with accused-appellants contention. Generally, contradictions contradictions, when taken together with Noels claim that he had known
between the contents of the witness affidavit and his testimony in court do Jardiolin, Felizarte, and Angcaco for a long time, cast serious doubts on his
not impair his credibility because affidavits are usually taken ex parte and, credibility.
for that reason, often incomplete and inaccurate. An affidavit will not always
disclose all the facts and will even at times, without being noticed by the Second. The conviction of petitioner Angcaco must, however, be upheld in
witness, inaccurately describe the occurrences related therein. Thus, we view of his admission that he shot Freddie Ganancial. The rule is that while
have time and again held that affidavits are generally inferior to testimonies the prosecution has the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused, once
in court. Affidavits are often prepared only by the investigator without the the defendant admits commission of the act charged, although he invokes a
affiant or witness having a fair opportunity to narrate in full the incident justification for its commission, the burden of proof is shifted to him to prove
17
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

the said justifying circumstance. Petitioner Angcaco cannot rely on the


weakness of the evidence for the prosecution, for even if it is weak, it cannot As has been discussed, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Noe and
be disbelieved after he has admitted the killing itself. This is because a Noel Bergante cannot be given credence. As we already stated, even the
judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. It is presumed that trial court acquitted accused Decosto and Edep, both of whom were
no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of an act implicated as the assailants. Without evidence of the manner the aggression
unless moved by the desire to reveal the truth. was made or how the act resulting in the death of the victim began and
developed, it is not possible to appreciate the qualifying circumstance of
Petitioner claims that he acted in defense of Sgt. Protacio Edep, whom treachery.
Freddie Ganancial was about to strike with a bolo. We do not agree. For
petitioner to successfully claim the benefit of Art. 11, par. 3 of the Revised Nor can evident premeditation be appreciated in this case. Evident
Penal Code, there must be proof of the following elements: (1) unlawful premeditation requires proof of the following elements: (1) the time when
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or the accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly
repel it; and (3) the person defending be not induced by revenge, indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse
resentment, or other evil motive. of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon
the consequences of his act. None of these elements has been shown in this
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which must be sufficiently case.
proven by the defense, is present when there is actual or imminent peril to
one’s life, limb, or right. There must be actual physical force or actual use of Obedience to an order
a weapon by the victim himself. In this case, it is contended that the victim,
who was armed with a bolo, approached Edep menacingly. But, there is no (14) Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan
other competent evidence to corroborate this self-serving claim. G.R. Nos. 103501-03. February 17, 1997
By: Pangilinan, Gene Alexis
Nor can petitioners claim that the killing was done in fulfillment of a
lawful duty be sustained, as the Court of Appeals ruled. For this
Doctrine:
justifying circumstance to be appreciated, the following must be
established: (1) that the offender acted in the lawful exercise of a As a recipient of a directive coming from the highest official of the land no
right or a duty; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the less, good faith should be read on a subordinate government official’s
necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or compliance, without hesitation nor any question, with said order.
office.
Even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not
In this case, the mission of petitioner and his colleagues was to aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would only
effect the arrest of Restituto Bergante. As Edep himself explained, be a mistake of fact committed in goodfaith.
the standard procedure in making an arrest was, first, to identify
themselves as police officers and to show the warrant to the
arrestee and to inform him of the charge against him, and, second, Facts:
to take the arrestee under custody. But, it was not shown here that President Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the
the killing of Ganancial was in furtherance of such duty. No evidence president’s office and in cash what the Manila International Airport Authority
was presented by the defense to prove that Ganancial attempted to (MIAA) owes the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), to
prevent petitioner and his fellow officers from arresting Restituto which Tabuena replied, “Yes, sir, I will do it.” About a week later, Tabuena
Bergante. received from Mrs. Fe Roa– Gimenez, the private secretary of Marcos, a
Presidential Memorandum reiterating the verbal instruction to pay
Third. On the other hand, we think the Court of Appeals erred in
immediately the PNCC with P55m in cash as partial payment of MIAA’s
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery against petitioner.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the account with PNCC.
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself In obedience to President Marcos’ verbal instruction and memorandum,
arising from the defense which the offended party might take. For treachery Tabuena, with the help of Dabao and Peralta, caused the release of P55
to exist, two conditions must be present: (1) there must be employment of Million of MIAA funds by means of 3 withdrawals and delivered the money to
means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend Mrs. Gimenez. The first withdrawal was for P25m, the second for P25m, and
himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted.
18
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

the third for P5m. It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Even if the real liability is only about P34.5 Million, it will not nevertheless
Gimenez issued a receipt for all the amounts she received from Tabuena. affect Tabuena’s good faith so as to make him criminally liable. What is more
significant to consider is that the MARCOS Memorandum is patently legal
Tabuena and Peralta were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the (for on its face it directs payment of an outstanding liability) and that
Sandiganbayan of having malversed the total amount of P55 Million of the Tabuena acted under the honest belief that the P55 million was a due and
MIAA funds during their incumbency as General Manager and Acting Finance demandable debt and that it was just a portion of a bigger liability to PNCC.
Services Manager of MIAA. Thus, even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is
not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would
Issue: only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith.
Whether or not the accused are entitled to the justifying circumstance of
obedience to an order. The subordinate who, in following an order of a superior, failed to observe all
auditing procedures of disbursement, cannot escape responsibility for such
Held: omission but where he acted in good faith, his liability should only be
Yes. The MARCOS Memorandum directed Tabuena to pay immediately PNCC administrative or civil in nature, not criminal. Such was inevitable under the
the sum of P55 Million, and that was what Tabuena precisely did when he circumstances. Tabuena did not have the luxury of time to observe all
delivered the money to Mrs. Gimenez. Such delivery, no doubt, is in effect auditing procedures of disbursement considering the fact that the MARCOS
delivery to the Office of the President inasmuch as Mrs. Gimenez was Memorandum enjoined his “immediate compliance” with the directive that he
Marcos’ secretary then. Furthermore, Tabuena had reasonable ground to forward to the President’s Office the P55 Million in cash.
believe that the President was entitled to receive the P55 Million since he
was certainly aware that Marcos, as Chief Executive, exercised supervision Art.12 Exempting Circumstance
and control over government agencies. And the good faith of Tabuena in Irresistible force/uncontrollable fear
having delivered the money to the President’s office (thru Mrs. Gimenez), in
strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum, was not at all affected
even if it later turned out that PNCC never received the money. (15)TY vs. People
G.R. No. 149275. September 27, 2004
Tabuena had no other choice but to make the withdrawals, as what the By: Radovan, Althea
MARCOS Memorandum required him to do. He could not be faulted if he had
to obey and strictly comply with the presidential directive. Marcos was Doctrine: A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show that the
undeniably Tabuena’s superior—the former being then the President of the compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not
Republic who unquestionably exercised control over government agencies only without will but against his will as well.
such as the MIAA and PNCC. In other words, Marcos had a say in matters
involving inter-government agency affairs and transactions, such as Facts: Petitioner Ty was charged with 7 counts of violation of B.P 22
directing payment of liability of one entity to another and the manner in (Bouncing Checks Law). The evidence for the prosecution shows that Ty’s
which it should be carried out. And as a recipient of such kind of a directive mother Chua Lao So Un and sister was confined at the Manila Doctors’
coming from the highest official of the land no less, good faith should be Hospital(hospital). The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to
read on Tabuena’s compliance, without hesitation nor any question, with the P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed
MARCOS Memorandum. Tabuena therefore is entitled to the justifying payment of the obligation in installments. To assure payment of the
circumstance of “Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a obligation, she drew several postdated checks against Metrobank payable to
superior for some lawful purpose.” The subordinate-superior relationship the hospital. The seven (7) checks, each covering the amount of
between Tabuena and Marcos is clear. And so too, is the lawfulness of the P30,000.00, were all deposited on their due dates. But they were all
order contained in the MARCOS Memorandum, as it has for its purpose dishonored by the drawee bank and returned unpaid to the hospital due to
partial payment of the liability of one government agency (MIAA) to another insufficiency of funds, with the “Account Closed” advice.
(PNCC). For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks because of “an
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.” She averred that she was forced to
issue the checks to obtain release for her mother whom the hospital
19
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

inhumanely and harshly treated and would not discharge unless the hospital ● To begin with, there was no showing that the mother’s illness was
bills are paid. so life-threatening such that her continued stay in the hospital
RTC - rendered a decision finding Ty guilty of violation of B.P.22 and suffering all its alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-
imprisonment. grounded apprehension of her death.
CA - affirmed RTC decision but the penalty of imprisonment was set aside ● Secondly, it is not the law’s intent to say that any fear exempts one
and instead Ty was sentenced to pay a fine of P60,000.00 equivalent to from criminal liability much less petitioner’s flimsy fear that her
double the amount of the check. mother might commit suicide. In other words, the fear she invokes
Further, the Court of Appeals rejected Ty’s defenses of involuntariness in was not impending or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition
the issuance of the checks and the hospital’s knowledge of her checking and to make her a mere instrument without will, moved exclusively
account’s lack of funds. It held that B.P. 22 makes the mere act of issuing a by the hospital’s threats or demands.
worthless check punishable as a special offense, it being a malum
prohibitum. What the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and 2. No. The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the
not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating actor from liability under this paragraph: (1) that the evil sought to be
to its issuance. avoided actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be greater than the one
done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other practical and less harmful means
ISSUE: of preventing it.
(1) Whether the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant
Ty’s exemption from criminal liability? In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
(2) Whether the justifying circumstance of State of Necessity is anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
applicable in this case? anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. Ty
could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a
HELD: crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other
1. NO. For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation.
successfully invoked, the ff. Requisites must concur:
(1) existence of an uncontrollable fear; - the threat that caused the Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater
uncontrollable fear is of such gravity and imminence tha the ordinary man injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or
would have succumbed to it. imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor.34 In this case, the
(2) the fear must be real and imminent; - It should be based on a real, issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty’s own failure to
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. A mere threat of a future pay her mother’s hospital bills.
injury is not enough. It should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote. A
person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the compulsion
was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without Entrapment vs. Instigation
will but against his will as well. It must be of such character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape. (16)People v. Feliciano
(3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that By: Kaye
committed.
Doctrine: The general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a
In this case, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent. Ty crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or
claims that she was compelled to issue checks—a condition the hospital that the criminal act was done at the decoy solicitation of persons seeking to
allegedly demanded of her before her mother could be discharged—for fear expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were
that her mother’s health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane present and apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in
treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide. This that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually committed,
is speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere
law. deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was
committed by him, free from the influence or instigation of the detective.

20
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided


Facts: On February 22, 2006, at around 10pm, PO2 Monte, who was due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. Moreover,
stationed at the police headquarters, received a telephone call from a this Court has ruled time and again that a buy-bust operation is employed to
concerned citizen. The caller reported that an illegal drug trade was being trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. In fact, there is a fine
operated by a certain Janggo at the Rodriguez Compound, Pasig City. Such distinction between entrapping a criminal versus instigating him to commit
information validated the letter-complaint the police had earlier received the crime, to wit:
from the Barangay Captain of Barangay Rosario, implicating a similar person
called Janggo in drug-related activities. Immediately after receiving the ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. While it has been said that
telephone call, a buy-bust operation against Janggo was organized. PO2 the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose
Monte was designated as poseur-buyer and, for that purpose, he was given of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and
two PhP 100 bills where he put his initials BVM. After coordinating with the while instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment,
PDEA, the buy-bust team and the confidential informant went to the target has often been condemned and has sometimes been held to
area on board a passenger-type jeepney. prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the
general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a
After parking their vehicle about 50 meters away from the house of Janggo, crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed
PO2 Monte and the informant proceeded towards it. They approached in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the decoy
Janggo and then saw a woman standing on the doorway. The informant solicitation of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that
introduced PO2 Monte to Janggo as a regular buyer of shabu. The latter then detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and
asked PO2 Monte how much he intended to buy, to which he answered, apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this true
P200.00. Janggo then asked the woman standing near the doorway if she in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind
had any shabu. The woman then pulled a plastic sachet from her right habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes
pocket which she handed to Janggo, who, in turn, handed it to PO2 Monte. evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the
detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was
Upon receiving and examining the plastic sachet, PO2 Monte took off his committed by him, free from the influence or instigation of
baseball cap, the pre-arranged signal to signify the consummation of the the detective. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a
sale. The back-up operatives then rushed to assist PO2 Monte. supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in
Subsequently, in open court, Janggo was identified as accused-appellant a prosecution for larceny, provided the original design was
Feliciano, while the woman standing near the doorway as accused-appellant formed independently of such agent; and where a person
Laurora. The other persons apprehended inside the house were identified as approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner
the other accused Ruelo, Maglalang, and the now deceased May Estrella. or the public authorities, and, being authorised by them to do
so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is
RTC and CA: accused are guilty of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale nevertheless committed. It is generally held that it is no
of dangerous drugs) and of Section 15 (use of dangerous drugs). defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the
purchase was made by a spotter, detective, or hired
Accused-appellants countered that the lower court erred in admitting the informer; but there are cases holding the contrary.
seized dangerous drugs as evidence considering that the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation had sufficient time to obtain a warrant of
arrest. Clearly, in this case, the buy-bust operation was proper. All the essential
elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been established, i.e., (1)
Issue: Was the buy-bust operation valid? the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
Held: YES. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place.
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
It is settled that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust
resorted to for trapping and capturing criminals. It is legal and has been transaction. In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish these

21
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

elements beyond moral certainty. Accused-appellants sold the shabu for PhP to accept the same, he uttering that Magat may have misunderstood their
200 to PO2 Monte posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified agreement as the money would not be going to the Municipality. Magat thus
as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was consulted with Victor Puyat, president of GDI. Magat met with then NBI
actual exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally, accused- Deputy Director Epimaco Velasco who advised him to file a complaint with
appellant Feliciano was fully aware that he was selling and delivering a the NBI. On even date, Magat thus gave a sworn statement before the NBI.
prohibited drug. After the lapse of several days, Magat contacted San Mateo and asked him if
their position was still the same to which the latter replied in the affirmative,
(17) ROBERTO CHANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES he adding that if no payment was made, GDI would be closed. Magat
G.R. No. 165111. July 21, 2006. thereafter told San Mateo that he would deliver the P125,000 on June 19,
By: Apol Pen 1991 at the Makati Sports Club.

Doctrine: There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes On the morning of June 19, 1991, Magat informed the NBI that the payment
to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of was to be made that day around lunchtime. The NBI immediately formed a
the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the team to conduct an entrapment. On the request of the NBI, Magat brought
crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the hundred peso bills to be added to the boodle money to be used in the
criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the entrapment operation. The genuine as well as the boodle money and the
criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In brown envelope where the money was placed were then laced with
instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and fluorescent powder. At 11:30 a.m., San Mateo arrived and joined Magat at
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. his table. The two took lunch after which San Mateo stood up and watched
those playing billiards. At 12:00 noon, Chang and his driver Feraren arrived
Facts: Petitioner Roberto Chang (Chang) was the Municipal Treasurer of and joined Magat at the table, after Chang and Feraren were through with
Makati who was tasked to, among other things, examine or investigate tax their lunch, Magat told Chang and San Mateo that GDI was ready to pay and
returns of private corporations or companies operating within Makati, and asked them if they could give him the Certificate of Examination showing
determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of Income Tax assessed on them that GDI had no more tax liability to the municipality. Chang thereupon
and collect payments therefor. Petitioner Pacifico San Mateo (San Mateo) handed to Magat the Certificate of Examination issued to GDI with an
was the Chief of Operations, Business Revenue Examination, Audit Division, annotation reading “NO TAX LIABILITY INVOLVED,” following which Magat
Makati Treasurer’s Office. By virtue of Letter-Authority issued by the Office gave Chang the brown envelope. Chang then passed the brown envelope on
of the District Treasurer (District IV), Makati Treasurer’s Office examiners to his driver Feraren who in turn passed it on to San Mateo who opened it
Vivian Susan C. Yu and Leonila T. Azevedo conducted an examination of the and peeped at its contents. The NBI agents announced that they were being
books of accounts and other pertinent records of Group Developers, Inc. arrested. After their arrest, Chang, San Mateo and Feraren were brought to
(GDI) covering the period from January 1985 to December 1989 in order to the NBI headquarters where their respective hands were tested and found
verify the true and correct amount of tax due from its business operations. positive for fluorescent powder. Sandiganbayan convicted herein petitioners
The examiners found that GDI incurred a tax deficiency inclusive of penalty San Mateo and Chang and acquitted Feraren for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA
in the total amount of P494,601.11. The Office of the Treasurer thus issued 3019 and are hereby sentenced to each suffer the indeterminate penalty of
an Initial Assessment Notice GDI for it to pay the tax deficiency within four imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum to fifteen
days from receipt. The assessment notices were personally received by (15) years as maximum and to each suffer the penalty of perpetual
Mario Magat (Magat), Chief Operating Officer of GDI. Magat and San Mateo disqualification from public office.
met for lunch at the Makati Sports Club. Chang later joined the two, and the
three agreed that if GDI could pay P125,000, the assessment would be Issues: 1.) Whether or not the elements of the offense for which the
“resolved.” petitioners were charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt; and
2.) Whether or not what transpired on June 19, 1991 was instigation and not
San Mateo went to Magat’s office at GDI to pick up the check for the an entrapment.
settlement of GDI’s deficient tax liability. When Magat handed over to San
Mateo Interbank Manager’s Check No. 301715603 in the amount of Held: 1.) Yes. Peligrino v. People restates the elements of the above-quoted
P125,000 payable to the Municipal Treasurer of Makati, San Mateo refused offense as summed up in Mejia v. Pamaran, to wit: (1) the offender is a

22
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW|CASE DIGESTS|ART.11 Self-Defense and Art.12 Exempting Circumstance|JD4401|BATCH2018

public officer (2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a share, a


percentage, or a benefit (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person
(4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government (5) in
which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to
intervene.

From a review of the records of the case, this Court finds that all the above-
stated elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
Petitioners’ disclaimer of having demanded or requested anything from GDI
to settle its assessed deficiency tax does not persuade in light of, among
other things, San Mateo’s willingness and interest to meet in April, first week
of May and May 29, 1991 by his own account, with the officials of GDI
outside his office, despite the receipt in April 1991 by Magat of the First and
Second Deficiency Assessment Notices giving GDI four and three days,
respectively, from receipt to settle the assessed deficit taxes; the admitted
refusal of San Mateo to accept the check dated May 29, 1991 for P125,000
which was payable to the order of the Municipality; and petitioners’ handing
over to Magat the Certificate of Examination dated May 28, 1991 on which
was annotated “NO TAX LIABILITY INVOLVED.” San Mateo’s justification
behind such refusal—that he had no authority to accept an amount less than
the assessment amount—is too shallow to merit belief, he being the Chief of
Operations, Business Revenue Examination, Audit Division of the Treasurer’s
Office, who had, on those various meetings, gone out of his way to negotiate
the settlement of the assessed deficiency tax.

2.) No. What transpired on June 19, 1991 was entrapment and not
instigation.

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure
the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime.
There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The
difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In
entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea
and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law
officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused
who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.

From the evidence for the prosecution, it was clearly established that the
criminal intent originated from the minds of petitioners. Even before the
June 19, 1991 meeting took place, petitioners already made known to Magat
that GDI only had two options to prevent the closure of the company, either
to pay the assessed amount of P494,601.11 to the Municipality, or pay the
amount of P125,000 to them.

23