G.R. No.
168818             March 9, 2007 unlawful aggressor when he continued to shoot Butad even as he already lay defenseless on
NILO SABANG, Petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts:
On January 17, 1997, in the midst of a drinking spree on the eve of the fiesta in Liloan,
Ormoc City, an intoxicated Nicanor Butad uttered the ominous words "I will shoot you" to
Randy Sabang, to the horror of young Sabang's father, Nilo, and the other onlookers. Within
moments, Butad himself lay dead from four gunshot wounds on his body. Nilo Sabang,
petitioner herein, who was charged with and later convicted for the homicide, admits to the
killing of Butad, but claims that the shooting was accidental and done as a means of
defending his son. An array of witnesses for the prosecution and the defense provides a
competing set of particulars as to the shooting. Ultimately, the prosecution’s version,
supported by the physical evidence, stands out as the truth.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner may claim defense of relative as a defense
Ruling:
No. In  order to successfully claim that he acted in defense of a relative, the accused must
prove the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
person killed or injured; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the unlawful aggression; and (3) the person defending the relative had no part in provoking
the assailant, should any provocation been given by the relative attacked. Unlawful
aggression is a primary and indispensable requisite without which defense of relative,
whether complete or otherwise, cannot be validly invoked.
The presence of four (4) gunshot wounds on Butad’s body negates the claim that the killing
was justified but instead indicates a determined effort to kill him. Even assuming that it was
Butad who initiated the attack, the fact that petitioner was able to wrest the gun from him
signifies that the aggression which Butad had started already ceased. Petitioner became the
the ground.
G.R. No. 153875 August 16, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROLANDO DAGANI y REYES and OTELLO SANTIANO Y LEONIDA,  Accused-Appellants.
Facts:
At about 4:45 in the afternoon of September 11, 1989, a group composed of Ernesto Javier
(Javier), Lincoln Miran (Miran), and two other individuals had been drinking at the canteen
located inside the compound of the Philippine National Railways (PNR) along C.M. Recto
Avenue, Tondo, Manila. All of a sudden, appellants, who were security officers of the PNR
and covered by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, entered the canteen and approached
the group. Appellant Dagani shoved Miran, causing the latter to fall from his chair. Dagani
then held Javier while Santiano shot Javier twice at his left side, killing the latter.
Issue:
Whether or not claim of self-defense may be availed of by accussed
Ruling:
No.  It was unable to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of Javier. They
were unable to present evidence that the victim actually fired his gun. No spent shells from
the .22 caliber pistol were found and no bullets were recovered from the scene of the
incident. Javier also tested negative for gunpowder residue. Moreover, the trial court found
appellant Dagani’s account of the incident to be incredible and self-serving. In sum, the
defense presented a bare claim of self-defense without any proof of the existence of its
requisites.
Even if it were established that Javier fired his gun as the appellants so insist, the imminence
of the danger to their lives had already ceased the moment Dagani held down the victim and
grappled for the gun with the latter. After the victim had been thrown off-balance, there
was no longer any unlawful aggression
that would have necessitated the act of killing. When an unlawful aggression that has begun
no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound
the former aggressor. When Javier had been caught in the struggle for the possession of the
gun with appellant Dagani, the grave peril envisaged by appellant Santiano, which impelled
him to fire at the victim, had then ceased to a reasonable extent, and undoubtedly, Santiano
went beyond the call of self-preservation when he proceeded to inflict the excessive and
fatal injuries on Javier, even when the alleged unlawful aggression had already ceased.
G.R. No. 165483             September 12, 2006
identified as petitioner. Petitioner then shot them hitting Servillano first at the left side of
the abdomen, causing him to fall on the ground, and followed by [Melton] who also fell to
the ground. When Servillano noticed that [Melton] was no longer moving, he told Michael
"Bato, bato." Michael picked up some stones and threw them at petitioner and Ferdinand.
The latter then left the place. Afterwards, the police officers came and the Ferrer brothers
were brought to the Manaoag Hospital and later to Villaflor Hospital in Dagupan. Servillano
later discovered that [Melton] was fatally hit in the head while Michael was hit in the right
shoulder.

RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS, petitioner,

vs.
Issue:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Whether or not petitioner may validly claim he acted in self-defense

Ruling:
Facts:
No. In resolving criminal cases where the accused invokes self-defense to escape criminal
On January 16, 1998, brothers Servillano, [Melton] and Michael, all surnamed Ferrer were
liability, this Court consistently held that where an accused admits killing the victim but
having a drinking spree in their house and decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke bar to
invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing
continue their drinking spree and to sing. Inside the karaoke bar, they were having a good
evidence that he acted in self-defense.As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused
time, singing and drinking beer.
to prove all the elements of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence
Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas arrived together with Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio Bautista. and not on the weakness of the prosecution.
At that time, only the Ferrer brothers were the customers in the bar. The two groups
There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the Ferrer brothers which justified the act
occupied separate tables. Later, when Jaime Palaganas was singing, [Melton] Ferrer sang
of petitioner in shooting them. The SC also ruled that even if the Ferrer brothers provoked
along with him as he was familiar with the song [My Way]. Jaime however, resented this and
the petitioner to shoot them, the latter's use of a gun was not a reasonable means of
went near the table of the Ferrer brothers and said in Pangasinan dialect "As if you are
repelling the act of the Ferrer brothers in throwing stones. It must also be emphasized at
tough guys." Jaime further said "You are already insulting me in that way." Then, Jaime
this point that both the trial court and the appellate court found that petitioner failed to
struck Servillano Ferrer with the microphone, hitting the back of his head. A rumble ensued
established by clear and convincing evidence his plea of self-defense. In this regard, it is
between the Ferrer brothers on the one hand, and the Palaganases, on the other hand.
settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said
Virgilio Bautista did not join the fray as he left the place. During the rumble, Ferdinand went
findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. In the present case, we find
out of the bar. He was however pursued by Michael. When Servillano saw Michael, he also
no compelling reason to deviate from their findings. Verily, petitioner failed to prove by
went out and told the latter not to follow Ferdinand. Servillano and Michael then went back
clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to an acquittal on the ground of lawful self-
inside the bar and continued their fight with Jaime.
defense.
Meantime, Edith Palaganas, sister of Jaime and the owner of the bar, arrived and pacified
them. Servillano noticed that his wristwatch was missing. Unable to locate the watch inside
the bar, the Ferrer brothers went outside. They saw Ferdinand about eight (8) meters away
standing at Rizal Street. Ferdinand was pointing at them and said to his companion, later
G.R. Nos. L-30527-28 March 29, 1974
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
PIO RICOHERMOSO, SEVERO PADERNAL, JUAN PADERNAL, ROSENDO PERPEÑAN,
MACARIO MONTEREY and RITO MONTEREY, defendants, JUAN PADERNAL and SEVERO
PADERNAL, defendants-appellants.
Facts:
Geminiano de Leon, together with his common-law wife, son Marianito de Leon and one
Rizal Rosales, chanced upon Pio Ricohermoso. Owning a parcel of land, which Ricohermoso
cultivated as kaingin, Geminiano asked about his share of palay harvest and added that she
should be allowed to taste the palay harvested from his land. Ricohermoso said Geminiano
could collect the palay anytime.
Upon returning from his trip to Barrio Bagobasin, Geminiano dropped by Ricohermoso’s
house and asked him about the palay, to which the latter answered defiantly that he will not
give him the palay, whatever happens. Geminiano remonstrated and that point (as if by
prearrangement), Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo, while his father-in-law Severo Padernal
got an axe, and attacked Geminiano. At the same time and place, Ricohermoso’s brother-in-
law Juan Padernal suddenly embraced Marianito. They grappled and rolled down the hill, at
which point Marianito passed out. When he regained consciousness, he discovered that the
rifle he carried beforehand was gone and that his father was mortally wounded.
The defendants shifted the responsibility of killing in their version of the case.
Issue:
Whether or not appellant Juan Padernal can invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance
of a greater evil or injury
Ruling:
No. Juan Padernal’s reliance on the justifying circumstance is erroneous because his act in
preventing Marianito from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, the aggressors in
this case, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to the
assailants and not  an act to prevent infliction of greater evil or injury. His intention was to
forestall any interference in the assault.
The circumstances surrounding the killing of Geminiano de Leon alevosia  or treachery. His
hands were raised and he was pleading for mercy with Severo Padernal, when Ricohermoso
struck him on the neck with a bolo. The fact that an exchange of words preceded the assault
would not negate the treacherous character of the attack. Geminiano did not expect that
Ricohermoso would renege on his promise to give him palay and that he would adopt a
bellicose attitude. Juan Padernal's role of weakening the defense, by disabling Marianito de
Leon, was part and parcel of the means of execution deliberately resorted to by the
assailants to insure the assassination of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to themselves
(Par. 16, Article 14, Revised Penal Code).
G.R. No. L-18660 December 22, 1922
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FELIPE DELIMA, defendant-appellant.
Facts:
Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where he was serving sentence.
Some days afterwards the policeman Felipe Delima, who was looking for him, found him in
the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance,
and demanded his surrender. The fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The
policeman dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired his revolver, but the bullet did not
hit him. The criminal ran away, without parting with his weapon. These peace officer went
after him and fired again his revolver, this time hitting and killing him.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant may claim justifying circumstance of act done in the performance
of a duty
Ruling:
Yes. Article 8, No. 11, of the Penal Code being considered, Felipe Delima committed no
crime. That killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the
obligation to surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit
assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand, which compelled the policeman to
resort to such an extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstances.
G.R. Nos. L-1940-42             March 24, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
IGNACIO LAGATA, defendant-appellant.
Facts:
On October 3, 1946, the accused, a provincial jail guard was in charge to look after six
prisoners (Jesus, Tipace, Eusebio, Mariano, Abria and Labong) who were tasked to clean the
capitol plaza. Afterwards, Lagata ordered the six prisoners to pick up some gabi in the
nearby nursery. The nursery was grassy, talahibs plants were about half meter tall, almost
the same height as a human being. When Lagata called them to assemble, only five showed
up, Labong missing. He ordered the five to look for Labong, however, they failed to locate
the latter.
Lagata later on fired the five prisoners, causing the injury of Abria, and the death of Tipace.
Issue:
Whether or not defendant may claim justifying circumstance of act done in the performance
of a duty
Ruling:
No. It is clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace. Lagata could have fired
at him in self defense or if absolutely necessary to avoid his escape. The record does not
show that Tipace was bent on committing any act of aggression "he was running towards
and then around me". How could anyone in his senses imagine that Tipace intended to
escape by running towards and around the very guard  he was supposed to escape from?
There is no question that the escape of Labong scared appellant according to him because of
the experience of other guard who were dismissed from office or even prosecuted because
of prisoners who had escaped under their custody and that it was his duty to fire against the
prisoner if he wanted to be exempt from any responsibility. Even if appellant sincerely
believe, although
erroneously that in firing the shots be acted in the performance of his official duty the
circumstances of the case show that there was no necessity for him to fire directly against
the prisoners so as seriously wound one of them and kill instantaneously another. While
custodians of prisoners should necessity would authorize them to fire against them. Their is
the burden of proof as to such necessity. The summary liquidation of Prisoner under flimsy
pretexts of attempts of escape, which has been and is being practiced in dictatorial system
of government has always been and is shocking to the universal conscience of humanity.
G.R. No. 149152             February 2, 2007
RUFINO S. MAMANGUN, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Facts:
On July 31, 1992, at about 8:00 in the evening, in Brgy. Calvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan a
certain Liberty Contreras was heard shouting, "Magnanakaw…Magnanakaw." Several
residents responded and thereupon chased the suspect who entered the yard of Antonio
Abacan and proceeded to the rooftop of Abacan’s house.
On the same evening, desk officer of the Meycauayan PNP Police Station, upon receiving a
telephone call that a robbery-holdup was in progress in Brgy. Calvario, immediately
contacted and dispatched to the scene the crew.
The three policemen, i.e., petitioner, Diaz and Cruz, each armed with a drawn handgun,
searched the rooftop. There, they saw a man whom they thought was the robbery suspect.
At that instance, petitioner Mamangun, who was walking ahead of the group, fired his
handgun once, hitting the man. The man turned out to be Gener Contreras (Contreras) who
was not the robbery suspect.
Issue:
Whether or not the death of the victim was the necessary consequence of the petitioner’s
fulfillment of his duty
Ruling:
No. The Court denies the instant petition and affirms Sandiganbayan’s decision after finding
the petitioner’s testimony to be nothing but a concocted story designed to evade criminal
liability. Per Sandiganbayan’s observations, the defense was self-serving for the accused and
biased with respect to his co-policemen-witnesses because:
1. After supposed introductions and forewarnings uttered allegedly by Mamangun, it is
contrary to human experience for a man (who is not the suspect) to attack one of
three policemen with drawn guns
2. Mamangun’s admission that he did not ask the victim “Why did you try to hit me, if
you are not the one?” clearly belies their claim
3. The location of the entry of bullet belies their claim because it appears that the
victim instinctively shielded himself instead
Additionally, petitioner’s pretense that Contreras struck him was not initially reported to the
desk and was only conveniently remembered when the investigator found a pipe in the
crime scene.
Acts in the fulfillment of duty  and  self-defense  does not completely justify the petitioner’s
firing the fatal gunshot. The element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was
absent, which leads to the failure of the petitioner’s plea. Also, there can only be incomplete
justification (a privileged mitigating circumstance) in the absence of a necessary justifying
circumstance the injury was caused by necessary consequence of due performance of duty.
G.R. No. L-4445             February 28, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MANUEL BERONILLA, FILIPINO VELASCO, POLICARPIO PACULDO, and JACINTO
ADRIATICO, defendants-appellants.
Facts:
Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Velasco and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal
from the judgement of the Abra CFI, which convicted them of murder for the execution of
Arsenio Borjal, the elected mayor of La, Paz, Abra (at the outbreak of war), which was found
to be aiding the enemy.
Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats was succeeded by Military Mayor
Manuel Beronilla, who was appointed by Lt. Col. Arbold, regimental commander of the
15th Infantry of the Phil. Army, operating as guerilla unit in Abra. Simultaneously upon his
appointment, Beronilla received a memorandum which authorized him to appoint a jury of
12 bolo men to try persons accused of treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy.
Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra, to escape bombing in Bangued, he was
placed under custody and tried and sentenced to death by the jury based on various
complaints made by the residents. Beronilla reported this to Col. Arnold.
Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the executioner, digger and jury, were indicted
for the murder of Borjal. Soon after, President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation
8, which granted amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance of the resistance to
the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by justifying circumstances
for obedience to lawful order of superior
Ruling:
Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers, which as military
subordinates, they could not question and obeyed in good faith without the being aware of
its illegality.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest, prosecution and
trial of Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of superiors. Additionally, it could not
be established that Beronilla received the radiogram from Colonel Volckmann, overall area
commander, which called attention to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence. Had
Beronilla known the violation, he would not have dared to report it to Arnold. The conduct
of the accused also does not show malice on their part because of the conduct of the trial,
defense through counsel given to Borjal, suspension of trial based on doubts of illegality and
death sentence review sent to the superior officers.
Criminal intent then could not be established. The maxim here is actus non facit reum, nisi
mens rea  (Crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained
of to be innocent).
G.R. Nos. 103501-03 February 17, 1997 the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal.
This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly
LUIS A. TABUENA, petitioner,
without question. Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the
vs.
questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. The questions of the court
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing and
Facts: insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta may not have raised the issue as an error, there is
nevertheless no impediment for the court to consider such matter as additional basis for a
Then President Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the president's reversal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to review,
office and in cash what the MIAA owes the Philippine National Construction Corporation and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be found in the
(PNCC), to which Tabuena replied, "Yes, sir, I will do it." About a week later, Tabuena judgment appealed from whether they are made the subject of assignments of error or not.
received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential
Memorandum dated January 8, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as MARCOS Memorandum)
reiterating in black and white such verbal instruction. In obedience to President Marcos'
verbal instruction and memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Dabao and Peralta, caused
the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means of three withdrawals.

The position of the prosecution was that there were no outstanding obligations in favor of
PNCC at the time of the disbursement of the P55 Million. On the other hand, the defense of
Tabuena and Peralta, in short, was that they acted in good faith. Tabuena claimed that he
was merely complying with the MARCOS Memorandum which ordered him to forward
immediately to the Office of the President P55 Million in cash as partial payment of MIAA's
obligations to PNCC, and that he (Tabuena) was of the belief that MIAA indeed had liabilities
to PNCC. Peralta for his part shared the same belief and so he heeded the request of
Tabuena, his superior, for him (Peralta) to help in the release of P5 Million.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner’s actions are covered by justifying circumstances for
obedience to lawful order of superior

Ruling:

Yes. Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation. Tabuena
acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order emanated from the
Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official
of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face,