People v.

Jaurige (CA 384)

Article 11: Self Defense-Reasonable Necessity

Facts: Avelina Jaurigue and Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, were prosecuted for the crime of murder for
which Nicolas was acquitted while Avelina was found guilty of homicide by the Court of Tayabas.
At about 8:00 pm of September 20, 1942, Amado Capina, deceased victim, went to the chapel of
Seventh Day Adventists to attend religious services and sat at the front bench facing the altar. Avelina
Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father for the same purpose and sat on the
bench next to the last one nearest the door. Upon seeing Avelina, Amado went and sat by Avelina’s right
side from his seat on the other side of the chapel, and without saying a word, placed his hand on the upper
part of her right thigh.
Avelina, therafter, 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. Amado seized her right hand but
she quickly grabbed the knife on her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the
neck inflicting upon him a mortal wound about 4 ½” deep. Amado Capina died a few minutes after.
Events prior:
7 days prior to incident, Amado approached Avelina and professed his love for her which was
refused, and thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her breasts. She then slapped
him, gave him fist blows and kicked him. Since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife whenever she
went out.
2 days after, Amado climbed up the house of Avelina and entered the room where she was
sleeping. She felt her forehead and she immediately screamed for help which awakened her parents and
brought them to her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden and asked forgiveness.
In the morning of the day of the incident, Avelina received information that Amado had been
falsely boasting in the neighborhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked
him to elope with her and that if he should not marry her, she would take poison; and that Avelina again
received information of Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day.

Issues: Whether or not the defendant should be completely absolved of all criminal responsibility because
she is justified in having acted in the legitimate defense of her honor.

Held: No. The incident happened in a chapel which was lighted with electric lights, and there were already
several people, about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant
and other dignitaries of the organization; and under the circumstances, there was and there could be no
possibility of her being raped. And when she gave Amado a thrust at the base of the left side of his neck,
inflicting upon him a mortal wound 4 ½” deep, causing his death a few moments later, the means
employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under the facts and
circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal liability.
If the appellant had killed Amado, when the latter climbed up her house late at night, and secretly
entered her bedroom, undoubtedly for the purpose of raping her, as indicated by his previous acts and
conduct, instead of merely shouting for help, she could have been perfectly justified in killing him.
Manaban vs. CA (GR 150723)
Article 11: Self Defense-Unlawful Aggression

Facts: At around 1:25 o’clock in the morning of October 11, 1996, the victim, Joselito Bautista, who was
a member of the UP Police Force, took his daughter, Frinzi, who complained of difficulty in breathing, to
the UP Health Center. The doctors gave him prescriptions and so Bautista, who was intoxicated, went to
BPI Kalayaan to withdraw some money from its ATM. When Bautista could not withdraw money, he
started kicking and pounding the machine which caught the attention of herein petitioner. Bautista said
that the machine captured his card and that he did not get the money he badly needed. Ramonito
Manaban, the bank security guard said that the PIN entered was incorrect that is why the card was
captured. Angered by what Manaban said, Bautista then continued kicking and pounding the machine.
The former advised the latter to call the customer service but Baustista continued raging and striking the
machine. Failing to pacify the victim, petitioner fired a warning shot, and according to him fired the second
one hitting, and eventually, killing Bautista. Manaban said that he feared that Bautista would pull his gun
first and might kill him so he fired his gun and shot Bautista.
The trial court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. This
decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modification respect only to the award of loss of
earning capacity.

Issues: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable.

Held: No. Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the RPC, the 3 requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying
circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person defending himself. Self-defense is
founded on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression. Thus, without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete
or incomplete self-defense.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical
injury upon a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression,
unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.
There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the
defendant’s life in real peril.
In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. First, Bautista was shot at
the back as evidenced by the point of entry of the bullet. Second, when Bautista was shot, his gun was
still inside a locked holster and tucked in his right waist. Third, when Bautista turned his back at Manaban,
Manaban was already pointing his service firearm at Bautista. These circumstances clearly belie
Manaban’s claim of unlawful aggression on Bautista's part.
The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned his back at
Manaban is mere speculation. Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat
to his life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Absent such actual
or imminent peril to one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking
the life or inflicting injuries on another.