THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA

JAURIGUE, defendants. AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant.

C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946

DE JOYA, J.:

FACTS:
The deceased Amado Capina had been courting the defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue.
On September 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a dog under her house, Amado approached
her and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he thereupon suddenly embraced
and kissed her and touched her breasts, on account of which Avelina, resolute and quick-
tempered girl, slapped Amado. Since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife, whenever she
went out, evidently for self-protection. On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed
up the house of defendant and appellant, and surreptitiously entered the room where she was
sleeping but was able to wake up when Amadeo touched her forehead.

One day, Avelina entered the chapel to attend some religious matters. Upon observing the
presence of the defendant, Amado Capina went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and
sat by her right side, and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed
his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity
and honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife which she had in a pocket of her dress,
with the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. The appellant stabbed Amado once at
the base of the left side of the neck causing his death. Avelina surrendered herself, saying: "Kayo
na po ang bahala sa aquin," meaning: "I hope you will take care of me," or more correctly, "I
place myself at your disposal."

ISSUE:
Whether or not Avelina Jaurigue is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense.

RULING:

NO. The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a
state of legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman's honor. When the deceased sat by the side of
defendant and appellant on the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and placed his
hand on the upper portion of her right thigh, without her consent, there was and there could be no
possibility of her being raped. But when she gave Amado Capina a thrust at the base of the left
side of his neck causing his death the means employed by her in the defense of her honor was
evidently excessive. Although the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily
and unconditionally surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said chapel and the further fact that
she had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few
moments before, and upon such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary
loss of reason and self-control, should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAMERTO NARVAEZ

G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983

MAKASIAR, J.:

FACTS:

At about 2:30PM of August 22, 1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez together
with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George
Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer. The place was in the boundary of the highway and
the hacienda owned by George Fleischer. At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he
heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he arose and there he saw the fencing
going on. If the fencing would go on, appellant would be prevented from getting into his house
and the bodega of his ricemill thus he said 'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my house and if
possible we will talk it over what is good,' addressing the deceased Rubia, who is appellant's
compadre. Fleischer, however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant apparently
lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down,
Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia,
likewise hitting him Both Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of the shotting'

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant is said to have a mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense.

RULING:

YES. Appellant admitted having shot them from the window of his house with the shotgun
which he surrendered to the police authorities. He claims, however, that he did so in defense of
his person and of his rights, and therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. Defense
of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying circumstance under Art. 11, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code. It was found that the third element of defense of property is present since he
was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise produced by the victims and their
laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk things over with him was no
provocation at all. Thus, he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense since there is an unlawful aggression and only one of the other two elements are missing.
G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP, accused-appellant.

DECISION

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FACTS:

On December 22, 1995, Buenaventura Wapili was having a high fever and was heard
talking insensibly to himself in his room. Unable to pacify Wapili, his brother-in-law
called Pastor Bonid to help him "pray over" Wapili, but they could not enter the latter's
room as he became wild and violent. Suddenly, Wapili bolted out of his room naked and
chased Leydan. The accused, SPO1 Ernesto Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told
Wapili to put down his weapons or they would shoot him. But Wapili retorted "pusila!"
("fire!") and continued advancing towards the police officers and eventually Ulep shot
him and even shot him more that “blew his brains out.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was in the course of the performance of his official duty as a
police officer thus can be entitled to a justifying circumstance.

RULING:

NO. Before the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Art. 11, par. 5, of
The Revised Penal Code may be successfully invoked, the accused must prove the
presence of two (2) requisites, namely, that he acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or an office, and that the injury caused or the offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office. The second requisite is lacking in the instant case. Thus,
the accused is only entitled to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of a duty of lawful exercise of right.
NOEL GUILLERMO y BASILIANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 153287 June 30, 2008

BRION, J.:

FACTS:

Victim’s Version

Vicente Alon averred that at 5:40 in the afternoon of July 21, 1996, with his company,
were at the public market of Cuartero, at the restaurant of Melecio Heyres to eat where
Noel Guillermo and his companion were at the restaurant drinking beer. At around 5:40
o’clock in the afternoon of July 21, 1996, Eddie Roque together with his friends were
inside the restaurant of Mrs. Heyres at Cuartero Public Market to leave their tools of the
chain saw [sic] and to eat and drink

Noel Guillermo hugged or embraced Winnie Alon and stabbed him three times (3) on
[sic] the neck with a Batangueño knife. Arnel Socias went around, then behind,

and stabbed Winnie Alon once, on the left side of his body, just below his left armpit,
with a pointed object, but he could not determine what weapon was used. Joemar Palma
also helped in stabbing Winnie Alon once, hitting him at the right side of his body.18

Winnie Alon resisted trying to struggle [sic], but could not move because he was ganged
up by the three.

Petitioner’s Version

Noel Guillermo testified that at 5:30 in the afternoon of July 21, 1996, he was in Cuartero
at the restaurant of Melecio Heyres, husband of Gertrudes Heyres, together with Arnel
Socias and Joemar Palma drinking beer,

Winnie Alon challenged Arnel Socias to a contest on clean or straight cutting of wood.
Arnel declined the challenge claiming that he is only an assistant to his brother-in-law.
Winnie Alon got angry and told him that he has long been in [the] chain saw [sic]
business but "you’re stupid" ("gago ka!"). Arnel responded: "If the wood is crooked and
you would deviate from line, you’re stupid.

The discussion took a bad turn when the matter of cutting by chainsaw was raised.
Winnie challenged Arnaldo to a contest to determine who could do the cleanest cut. He
declined and claimed he does not know how to operate a chainsaw. To this, Winnie
retorted, "You are already old in that business, but your finished product is still crooked.
You are all dumb." He countered, "If the wood itself is crooked, you cannot have a
straight lumber. You are dumb if you insist you can." At that point, Winnie stood up and
grabbed him by the collar.
ISSUE:

RULING: