Article 9 Art.
14: Aggravating
 Grave Felony - capital or afflictive penalties [This
felonies are punished for 6 years and 1 day or
more.]
 Less Grave Felony - correctional penalties [The
highest of correctional penalties is up to 6 years. So
if the crime carries with it a penalty which is up to
six years, for example, 1 month one 1 day up to 6
years, that felony is classified as less grave.
 Light Felony - arresto menor or P200 fine
On Fine
 The issue of the P200 fine
 Art. 26 - P200 up is correctional penalty, less than
P200 is light penalty
 Art. 9 - P200 or below is penalty for light felony
Ergo, a light felony can be punished with correctional
penalty of P200.
Sa Art. 9, it states that light felonies are fined with
exactly P200 but in Art. 26, the fine of exactly P200 is a
correctional penalty. So lahi na ang classification of
penalties, lahi sad nang classification of felonies. So
when we talk about classification of felonies, the
governing law is Art. 9. When we talk about
classification penalties, the governing law is Art. 26. So
therefore, according to Art. 9, a crime which is fined
with exactly P200 is considered a light felony but Art. 26
states that the fine of P200 is considered correctional
felony. Therefore we can say that light felonies can be
punished by correctional penalties only when we talk
about the fine of P200. Because otherwise, if the fine
other than P200, then we go back Art. 9, the crime is
less grave felony.
Article 9: enumerates the classification of felonies
according to their penalties.
Read the cases of;
PP vs. Delima
Balunueco vs. CA
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
Art. 11: Justifying
Art. 12: Exempting
Art. 13: Mitigating
Art. 15: Alternative
This articles talk about the presence of circumstances
which could affect the penalty of a crime. If you have
the codal and take a look at book II, it will define the
crime and the penalty of that crime. But the penalty in
book II may not be the actual penalty that would be
imposed.
E.g. If the crime committed is homicide, the law states
that for homicide, the punishment is reclucion temporal
- 12 years and one day to 20 years. But this might not
be the actual penalty that the court imposes because it
will take into consideration certain circumstances. And
these are what we call modifying circumstances.
Justifying - exonerate from criminal liability. So the
offender will not incur criminal liability if there is a
justifying circumstance. E.g self-defense; hence, even if
the accused is found of the court to have committed the
crime he will not go to jail due to a justifying
circumstance. Meaning his act was justified.
Exempting - also has the same effect as a justifying
circumstance. There will be no criminal liability if the
presence of an exempting circumstance. If present, will
exonerate the accused from criminal liability because
there is lack of freedom and intelligence. E.g. A minor or
an insane person will not incur criminal liability.
Mitigating - as the word implies, it means that the
accused will incur criminal liability but the penalty will
be reduced. So in a homicide where the law prescribes
12 years and 1 day up to 20 years, that might not be the
penalty that will be actually imposed by court if there
are circumstances that will warrant the mitigation of
the penalty. E.g. In self-defense, when the 3 requisites
are not present it will not be a justifying but a mitigating
circumstances. Meaning, dili justified, dili completely off
the hook but he will be given a lesser penalty. The same
is through will minority, we said that minority is an
exempting circumstance. If the minor is below 15, he is
TOTALLY exempted from criminal liability. But if the is
OVER 15 but BELOW 18 who acted with DISCERNMENT,
he will be criminally liable. But his penalty will be
reduced. Because his age, although not an exempting
circumstance, it will be taken into consideration as a
mitigating circumstance.
Aggravating - as the word suggest, have the effect of
increasing naman the penalty. Mu-maximum or
maximize. E.g. In the case of homicide. The law says
that the penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment. It is unconstitutional to prescribe a
penalty higher than the law prescribes. So when the law
says that the highest penalty is 20 years, it cannot go
beyond. So aggravating will not have the effect of
increasing but rather have the effect of maximizing. The
penalty that must imposed is that which is prescribe by
law.
Alternative - circumstances which may have the effect
of a mitigating or aggravating circumstances. These are
intoxication, education, relationship. Kaning
relationship, as a general rule, will have the effect of
an aggravating circumstance if the crime is against
persons. If relatives hurt kill each other, the penalty is
higher. That is the effect of relationship. But if the
crime is against property such as theft, such as
malicious mischief, estafa, the relationship will have
the effect of a mitigating circumstance. It will lower
the penalty. Ergo, if it is a crime against persons it will
maximize the penalty but if it is a crime against
property it will reduce the penalty. That is why
relationship is an alternative circumstance because it
has the effect of either mitigating or aggravating
depending on the case.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY-JEMMAA
Art. 11-Justifying circumstance (3DEFO)
1. Self-defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoid evil
5. Fulfillment of aduty
6. Obedience to an order for lawful
purpose
Comments ;
 In the instances of 3D (Self dense, defense in
relatives, defense of stranger) there is no
criminal liability, provided that all 3 requisites
must concur.
 There are 3 requisites. (for self-defense)
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself. (kinahanglan
dili ikaw ga una-una)
Note: they must all be present. Absent one of
them, they’re will be no more justifying
circumstance. There maybe a mitigating
circumstance.
 The first requisite (Unlawful aggression) is
always needed whether were talking about
justifying or mitigating circumstance. There
must be unlawful aggression. “UNLAWFUL
AGRESSION means that there must be an
attack, an the attack must be physical it is not
enough that ther is intidmidation which is not
accompany by a physical attack. A mere threat
(like patyon teka!) without any physical act will
not not considered unlawful aggression.
 To constitute unlawful aggression there must
be an attack, an assault in which that will justify
the victim in which later will become an
accused the commission of the crime by the
victim.
 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
The first two requisites are necessary and the
third requisites instead of lack of provocation,
the third requisites (will change)”the person
who was defending the relatives must not be
the one who gave provocation.
 The Defense of stranger
The first two requisite must be present and
third is ” that the accused what not motivated
by revenge, hatred, ill-will or malice.
“ A attack B, Kintahay you want to save
B from A so ni apil ka but the truth is niapil kay
not to save B but you are motivated was not to
save but galagot kang A. there is clear
incomplete defense of stranger”.
The Avoidance of evil , the Fulfillment of a duty and
the Obedience to an order for lawful purpose. (wala siya
ga discuss og mayo, therefore read nlang!)
Juan and Pedro had a quarrel during a drinking
session. Pedro started the quarrel. Determined
to kill juan, pedro tried to stab juan with a knife,
but lost his balance and fell face down to the
ground. While pedro was in such situation, juan
got a big stone and hit pedro with it, killing him.
Was there unlawful aggression?
PP VS. Antonio GR 144933 July 3 2002
Comments;
 In the case of PP VS. Antonio GR 144933 July 3
2002 there is NO more unlawful aggression.
 At the onset there was unlawful aggression
because pedro started the quarrel so there was
provocation, then pedro also tried to stab(at
the begging there is ) juan But at the very
moment when the killing was made the
unlawful aggression did not exist at all. Why?
Because when pedro lost his balance fell face
down at that moment there was no more
unlawful aggression. Hence there was no
unlawful aggression, there was no self-defense
there will be no more justifying circumstance.
As a matter of fact there probably there is
treachery. Why? It is true that pedro started
and there was unlawful aggression but that
unlawful aggression did not exist anymore it
was already stop! That unlawful aggression
stop.
 In order that there will be justifying
circumstance, all 3 requisites must concur at
the very moment when the crime is committed.
But when na lacking na ang usa requisites then,
there will be no more justifying circumstance.
Either JC or MC.
 All the time unlawful aggression must be
present whether in justifying circumstance or in
mitigating circumstance it was its requisites.
RETALIATION FROM SELF-DEFENSE
WITHOUT PROVOCATION, Enchong tried
to stab Gerad with knife. Owing to his
training in martial arts, Gerard was able to
avoid the thrust, and he grappled for the
knife. He was able to take the knife from
enchong. After having done, he stabbed
and killed enchong.
Is there self defense?
Comments;
 There is no self-defense. The unlawful
aggression was there onset but was
stopped! When He was able to take the
knife from enchong the aggression was
already stopped. Because gereald killed
enchong without unlawful aggression
he can now be held criminally liable.
Justifying Defense of relatives
Of the 3 requisites of defense of
relatives, unlawful aggression is a
condition sine qua non, for without it
any defense is not possible is not
possible or justified.
Defense of relatives
 The first two req. must be present and
the third is replace; ”the person who
was defending the relatives must not
be the one who gave provocation. The
unlawful must always be present.
 Kinsa’y giunlawfull agrresion? Ang
relative.
JUSTIFYING
The 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 meaning, manifestly
showing the showing intent the cause injury.
Comments;
  The threat must be couple with physical
act. The assault there must be showing
is intended carried out.
 A mere threat or intimidation does not
suffice unlawful aggression. But if there
was a threat couple with the drawing of
weapon that is unlawful aggression.
(note without the drawing of weapon
there is no unlawful aggression).
Defense of Relatives
Apart from the first 2 requisites,
the persons defending must have
no part in the provocation.
PPV. Mendez, august 14 2002
Even If the person defending has a
grudge against the victim, the
justifying circumstance will still
apply in the defense of relatives,
but not if the person defended is
the stranger. In the latter case, the
person defending must not be
motivated by any ill-will against the
victim.
Comments;
Even If the person defending has a grudge
against the victim, the justifying
circumstance will still apply in the defense
of relatives,
Why? Grudge is requisite of defense of
stranger that the one who was defending
must not be motivated by revenge, ill-will
or malice
Defense of stranger
Apart from the 2 requisites, the
person defending must not be
induced by revenge, resent or other
motive.
Art.11 Avoidance of greater Evil
3 requisites
1. Evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
2. Injury feared be greater
than the one done to avoid
it;
3. There is no other practical
and less harmful means of
preventing it.
Comments;
 For example; the fire man incident.
 If there is a avoidance of greater
evil, even the act is actually a crime,
the act still justify hence there was
no criminal liability. The 3 requisites
must be present.
ART 11. (5) Fulfillment of a lawful duty
1. Offender acted in the lawful exercise of a
right or duty
2. Injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due
performance of such right or office
Comments;
 He must be acting in a real duty.
The accused was not held liable in De lima case.
Even there was no unlawful aggression
but if the following instance as stated above is
present the hence the offender will not incur
criminal. Liability even there was no unlawful
aggression (De lima case- the victim was
running away even he was shot..)
Art 11 (6)
Any person who acts in obedience to an order
issued by a superior fro some lawful purpose.
Comments;
 f the order is unlawful, all of the person
involved including the one who gave the
unlawful they are all be criminal liable.
  Example; even if the order is unlawful, the
accused have known the illegality of the order
then he can be liable.
ART. 12 RPC-EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE (as amended by RA
9344)
(MIPAFF)
M-Minor
I-Insane
P-Prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause
A-Accident without fault or intentions
F-irritable force
F-uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury
Comments;
 There is no freedom on the part of the
offender, so minority the age where
absolute exeption from criminal liability
below 15 years old.
 Take note the world 15 or below.
It includes exactly 15
If the offender karon ga birthday dili pa siya liable but
ugma liable na siya. Because when we say over 15 (does
not mean 16) but rather it means 15years and 1 day.
If the offender is exactly 15 or below 15 yrs old there is
absolutely no criminal liability even if the offender
acted with discernement or he knew that what he was
doing was wrong.
But once he reaches the age of over 15 (15yrs and 1 day
upward) he will now incur criminal liability and the CL is
Conditional. If he is 15yrs and 1 day up to 18yeras
below (17 and 365 days).
When the offender reaches his 18 birthday the offender
will now have full responsibility.
- The offender has a conditional criminal liability-
meaning his criminal liability is condition on the
presence of discernment. when he can already
discrn from what is right and from wrong, then he
will have a mitigated criminial liability.
- But if he did not act with discernment, then he will
have no criminal liability. It is possible that a minor
above 15 but below 18 yrs old can still be exempt
from criminal liability provided that he did not act
with discrnement.
- But the 15yrs old below exempt at all times,
regardless of discernment.
Minority
The prosecution has the burden to prove
that the minor acted with discernment by
evidence of physical appearance, attitude
or deportment before, during and after
the commission of the act and even
during trial.
Minority is presumed. If alleged,
minority has to be taken into account
despite lack of proof, i.e Birth certificate
Minority to be considered in fixing bail.
Comments;
The prosecution has the burden to prove that
the minor.
And that the minority is acted will discernment
Insanity
“insanity exists when there is complet”
-Deprivation of intelligence in commiting
the act. Mere abnormality in the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability. The
accused must be so insane as to be
incapable of entertaining a criminal intent.
(PP V. Estrada, cited in PP V. Valledor
2002)
- When there is a mere abnormality in
the mental faculties, there could be
mitigating circumstance.
Comments;
 Insanity- Must be total lack of knowledge of
consequences of his act. But insanity may not
be permanent, there maybe some period that
the accused has sane or unsound mind
(meaning lucid interval). When the accused
 acted with lucid interval he will be held criminal
liable.
 If there was complete deprivation of
intelligence and he was not free to decide what
to do then the person will not criminally held
liable.
 But if murag lang siyg buang (possible
mitigating)
TEST ON INSANITY AS EXEMPTING
1. TEST OF COGNITION- whether or
not there was complete
deprivation of intelligence.
2. TEST OF VOLITION- Whether or
not there was total deprivation of
freedom of will.
Comments;
SCHIZOPHRENIA
This is only mitigating, not exempting.
There is no total deprivation of
consciousness of the offender of his
acts.
Comments;
 Is only mitigating.
 Refer to the definition.
ACCIDENT
REQUISITES;
1. Accused was performing a
lawful act with due care,
2. Injury is caused by mere
accident
3. There was no fault or intent to
cause injury
“ An accident is a fortuitous
circumstance, event or happening; an
event happening wholly or partly
through human agency, an event which
under the circumstance is unusual or
unexpected by the person to whom it
happens. (Toledo v. people 2004)
ACCIDENT vs. CULPA vs. INTENT
1. If there is intent, offender is
liable even if another person
was hurt or a different crime
resulted (error in personae,
aberration ictus, prater
intentionem).
2. If there is no intent but there is
a culpa, offender is still liable,
but for a lesser crime/penalty
3. If there is no intent nor culpa ,
there could either be mistake of
fact or accident and hence, no
liability.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR;
Requisites;
1. Existence of an uncontrollable
fear
2. Fear must be real and imminent
3. Fear of an injury is greater than
or at least equal to that
committed.
Comments;
 There must be fear and it must be
imminent.
 Example the person was gisugo to rob
something in the house threaten plus if
dili niya buhaton they would killed him.
Even the person was caught still cannot
be held liable because there was
uncontrollable fear , hence the offender
can be exempt from CL.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
Absolutory cause- is circumstance
which is present prior to or
simultaneously with the offense by
reason of which the accused who acts
with criminal intent, freedom and
intelligence does not incur a criminal
liability for an act which constitutes a
crim.
Comments;
 No criminal liability will attach to the
offender. Where the estafa, or theft the
malice mischief is commited between
parents and children, there is no CL. That is
not a exempting circumstance but rather a
justifying circumstance. Why? There a
reasons why you are force to commit the
act , and that is justifying circumstance.
Whereas exempting there is a lack of
freedom on the part of offender.
 But in absolutory cause that act is not
justify, there is freedom (that why it’s not
exempting) but still no CL.
 IF there IS SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
there is no attempted.
 Accessories are refer those person who
assisted the criminal after the crime has
already been committed. Could be exempt
from CL because he is a relative.
“ nangawat imong cousin but imong siyang
gihide, still you are not CL because of the
relationship it is considered as “a natural
instinct”. However there is another law
knowned as “obstruction of justice” you
are no more considered as accessories
under RPC , BUT YOU CAN STILL HELD
LIABLE IN SPECIAL PENAL law BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ANY RELATIONSHIP
OR MORE. you are no more accessories
but considered as “principal”
If you caught your own daughter (minor)
having carnal knowledge right at that
moment you kill (YOUR OWN CHILD)-the
penalty is Desterio. No imprisonment/CL.
But IF you caught your Son having carnal
knowledge and killed the penalty is higher
and it is considered PARRICIDE.
ENTRAPMENT FROM INSTAGATION
Entrapment- ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of capturing
violators (who have already decided to
commit a crime).
Instigation- accused is induced to
commit the crime (he has not yet
decided to commit the crime)
Comments;
 When there is entrapment the accused be
charge with the offence and CL. But if
there is Instagation the accused is not CL.
 In a by-bass operation it is a from
entrapment and it is valid.
 The instigator (you’re the one INDUCED
HIM TO COMMIT A CRIME) is still
criminally liable and it is POSSIBLE the one
who instigated may NOT BE CL.
 “POSSIBLE” MAY OR MAY NOY BE CL.
Entrapment from Instigation
“Chicks mo, Dong?
(PP vs. Shirley Caio 2014)
Comments;
There were 2 police men nagsuroy-suroy sa certain
place (kamagayan). Then a certain woman approach
this two and ask “CHICKS MO,DONG?
And the reply was (bec. The intention in to entrap the
woman) the police men said; do you have? Yes,I have.
Ako sa kuhaon. :p
Right then, the two police men insisted that the woman
must join them in the QL motel. The woman was
arrested.
The contention of the woman; is that I don’t chick’s’ at
that moment, in fact they are the one wanted. the
contention of the woman here will boil down to
“INDUCEDMENT” .
ISSUE: was there an inducement?
According to the supreme Court, the statement “chicks
mo, dong’? is the statement a very big difference.
 If the woman did not ask first “chick mo, dong? Then it
would have been a case of instigation. In which the
police men can be held CL.
The fact that it was the woman who first offer, the
supreme court says that the mere “sugo” of the police
men to get the “chicks” is mere entrapment.
Entrapment is lawful. Instigation is not.
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126968. April 9, 2003]
Ricardo Balunueco, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and
the People of the Philippines, respondents.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
On appeal by certiorari is the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals affirming with modifications the
decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City,
Branch 68, convicting accused RICARDO BALUNUECO of
homicide for the death of Senando Iguico and frustrated
homicide for injuries inflicted upon his wife Amelia
Iguico.
Of the five (5) original accused, [3] only petitioner
Ricardo, accused Reynaldo, Juanito, all surnamed
Balunueco, and Armando Flores were indicted in two (2)
Informations, the first for homicide[4] and the second for
frustrated homicide.[5] Again, of the four (4) indictees,
only Ricardo and Reynaldo were brought to the
jurisdiction of the court a quo, while Juanito and
Armando have remained at large. Accused Reynaldo
died on 17 November 1986. Accordingly, as against him,
the criminal cases were dismissed. Thus, only the
criminal cases against petitioner Ricardo Balunueco are
subject of this appeal.
As principal witness for the prosecution, Amelia
Iguico narrated that on 2 May 1982 at around 6:00
oclock in the evening she was coddling her youngest
child in front of her house at Bagong Tanyag, Taguig,
when she saw accused Reynaldo, his father Juanito and
brothers Ricardo and Ramon, all surnamed Balunueco,
and one Armando Flores chasing her brother-in-law
Servando Iguico. With the five (5) individuals in hot
pursuit, Servando scampered into the safety of Amelias
house.
Meanwhile, according to private complainant
Amelia, her husband Senando, who was then cooking
supper, went out of the house fully unaware of the
commotion going on outside.Upon seeing Senando,
Reynaldo turned his attention on him and gave chase.
Senando instinctively fled towards the fields but he was
met by Armando who hit him with a stone, causing
Senando to feel dizzy. Reynaldo, Ricardo, and Armando
cornered their quarry near a canal and ganged up on
him. Armando placed a can on top of Senandos head
and Ricardo repeatedly struck Senando with an ax on
the head, shoulder, and hand. At one point, Ricardo lost
his hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo and
then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his
knees. To shield him from further violence, Amelia put
her arms around her husband but it was not enough to
detract Ricardo from his murderous frenzy. Amelia was
also hit on the leg.[6]
Dr. Maximo Reyes, NBI Senior Medico-legal officer,
declared that on 3 May 1982 he conducted a post
mortem examination on the body of the deceased
Senando Iguico and issued an Autopsy Report, which
contained the following findings:[7] (a) two (2) stab
wounds and nine (9) gaping hack wounds; and, (b)
cause of death was hemorrhage, acute, profuse,
secondary to multiple stab and hack wounds.
In his defense, accused Ricardo narrated a different
version of the incident. He testified that at that time he
was fetching water when he heard somebody shouting:
Saya, saya, tinataga,referring to his brother Reynaldo.
When he hurried to the place, he saw his brother
Ramon embracing Senando who was continuously
hacking Reynaldo. Thereafter, Senando shoved Ramon
to the ground and as if further enraged by the intrusion,
he turned his bolo on the fallen Ramon. Ricardo
screamed, tama na yan, mga kapatid ko yan. But the
assailant would not be pacified as he hacked Ramon on
the chest. At this point, Servando, [8] the brother of
Senando, threw an axe at him but Reynaldo picked it up
and smashed Senando with it.
 Manuel Flores, another witness for the defense,
gave a substantially similar version of the story. He
testified that on the fateful day of the incident, while
doing some carpentry work in front of his mothers
house, he saw Senando Iguico,[9] a.k.a. Bulldog, with a
bolo on hand trailing brothers Reynaldo alias Sayas and
Ramon while walking towards Bagong Bantay.Suddenly,
Senando confronted the two (2) brothers and started
hacking Reynaldo, hitting him on the head, arm and
stomach. Seeing that his brother was absorbing fatal
blows, Ramon embraced Senando but the latter shoved
him (Ramon) and directed his fury at him instead.
Ricardo went to the rescue of his brothers but he too
was hacked by Senando.
The trial court disbelieved the version of accused
Ricardo, thus he was found guilty of homicide in Crim.
Case No. 49576 and frustrated homicide in Crim. Case
No. 49577. It reasoned that the testimony of Amelia
Iguico was clear, positive, straightforward, truthful and
convincing. On the other hand, according to the trial
court, the denial of Ricardo was self-serving and
calculated to extricate himself from the predicament he
was in. Further, the trial court added that the wounds
allegedly received by Ricardo in the hands of the victim,
Senando Iguico, if at all there were any, did not prove
that Senando was the aggressor for the wounds were
inflicted while Senando was in the act of defending
himself from the aggression of Ricardo and his co-
conspirators.[10]
The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction of
accused Ricardo, giving full faith to the direct and
positive testimony of Amelia Iguico who pointed to him
as the one who initially axed her husband Senando on
the head, shoulder and hand.[11] While the appellate
court upheld the conviction of Ricardo of homicide for
the death of Senando Iguico, it however ruled that his
conviction for the wounding of Amelia Iguico, although
likewise upheld, should be for attempted homicide only.
On the wounding of Amelia, the appellate court had this
to say - [12]
For while intent to kill was proven, Amelias hack wound
in her left leg was not proven to be fatal or that it could
have produced her death had there been no timely
medical attention provided her, hence, the stage of
execution of the felony committed would only be
attempted.
Petitioner now imputes errors to the Court of
Appeals: (a) in not taking into consideration the fact
that petitioner, if indeed he participated, had acted in
defense of relatives; (b) in giving due credence to the
self-serving and baseless testimony of Amelia Iguico,
the lone and biased witness for the prosecution; and, (c)
in failing to consider the several serious physical injuries
sustained by petitioner and his brother Reynaldo
Balunueco.
In a reprise of his stance at the trial, petitioner
argues that assuming he participated in the killing of
Senando, he acted in defense of his full-blood relatives:
Reynaldo whom he personally witnessed being boloed
by the deceased in the arms, head and stomach; and
Ramon who also became a victim of the deceaseds fury
after he was pushed by the deceased and had fallen to
the ground. Under such circumstances, the act of
Senando in hacking him after he tried to rescue his
brothers, gave rise to a reasonable necessity for him to
use a means to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression. Considering further that there was lack of
sufficient provocation on his part, his acts were
therefore justified under Art. 11, par. (2), of The Revised
Penal Code.
In effect, petitioner invokes the justifying
circumstance of defense of relatives under Art. 11, par.
(2), of The Revised Penal Code. The essential elements
of this justifying circumstance are the following: (a)
unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) in case
the provocation was given by the person attacked, the
one making the defense had no part therein.
Of the three (3) requisites of defense of relatives,
unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, for
without it any defense is not possible or justified. In
order to consider that an unlawful aggression was
actually committed, it is necessary that an attack or
material aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an
injury shall have been made; a mere threatening or
intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the
commission of an act which is punishable per se, and
allow a claim of exemption from liability on the ground
that it was committed in self-defense or defense of a
relative. It has always been so recognized in the
decisions of the courts, in accordance with the
provisions of the Penal Code.[13]
Having admitted the killing of the victim, petitioner
has the burden of proving these elements by clear and
convincing evidence. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is
weak it cannot be disbelieved if the accused has
admitted the killing.[14]
In the case at bar, petitioner Ricardo utterly failed
to adduce sufficient proof of the existence of a
positively strong act of real aggression on the part of
the deceased Senando. With the exception of his self-
serving allegations, there is nothing on record that
would justify his killing of Senando.
First, Ricardos theory that when he reached the
crime scene he found Senando repeatedly hacking his
brother Reynaldo who thereafter retaliated by smashing
an axe on the victims head is implausible in light of the
seriousness of the wounds sustained by the deceased as
compared to the minor injuries inflicted upon petitioner
and his two (2) brothers. The fact that three (3) of the
assailants suffered non-fatal injuries bolsters the fact
that Senando tried vainly to ward off the assaults of his
assailants.
Second, Ricardo failed to present himself to the
authorities. He may have accompanied the injured
Reynaldo to the hospital after the encounter but still he
failed to present himself to the authorities and report
the matter to them. The natural impulse of any person
who has killed someone in defense of his person or
relative is to bring himself to the authorities and try to
dispel any suspicion of guilt that the authorities might
have against him. This fact assumes a more special
significance considering that his co-accused, Juanito and
Armando, have remained at large.
Third, petitioner had a rather erratic recollection of
people and events. He vividly remembered how
Reynaldo was injured by Senando but conveniently
failed to recall the events leading to the fatal wounding
of the deceased. At another point, he testified that
Reynaldo axed Senando but later retracted his
statement by declaring that it was in fact Senando who
hacked Reynaldo.[15] We observe that the killing
occurred within or near the premises of the deceased.
This proves per adventure the falsity of petitioners
claim that it was Senando, rather than he and his kin,
who had initiated the unlawful aggression.
On the other hand, private complainant pointed to
petitioner as one of the principal actors in the slaying of
her husband Senando and the court a quo found her
testimony worthy of belief. The unbending
jurisprudence is that findings of trial courts on the
matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the
highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal.[16]The lower court also declared, and we agree,
that private complainants relationship with the
deceased does not disqualify her from testifying in the
criminal case involving her relative or automatically
sully her testimony with the stain of bias.
On the injuries sustained by Amelia, we are of the
opinion that, contrary to the finding of the lower court
as affirmed by the appellate court, petitioners homicidal
intent has not been indubitably established. As held in
People v. Villanueva,[17] the intent to kill being an
essential element of the offense of frustrated or
attempted homicide, said element must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence, and with the same
degree of certainty as required of the other elements of
the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be
drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to
prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt.
The facts as borne out by the records do not
warrant a finding that petitioner intended to kill Amelia.
Contrarily, the circumstances of the instant case
indicate the opposite: (a) that while petitioner was
repeatedly assaulting the deceased, Amelia embraced
her husband in an attempt to avert further infliction of
pain upon him; and, (b) when he hit Amelia once on the
left leg, a wound of slight nature, he did not do anything
more to pursue his homicidal urge[18] but instead
allowed her to scurry away. This set of details reinforces
this Courts belief that petitioner had no intention of
killing Amelia but nonetheless wounded her either
because she unwittingly exposed herself in the so-called
line-of-fire when she embraced her husband, or that it
was intended more to deter her from further THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-
interfering. Had killing Amelia actually crossed appellee,
petitioners mind, he would have opted to hit his quarry vs.
on the vital portions of her body or strike her several FELIPE DELIMA, defendant-appellant.
times more to attain his objective. But these he never
did. Tancinco & Rosales for appellant.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.
Considering that the injuries suffered by Amelia
were not necessarily fatal and required a medical
attendance of four (4) days, [19] we hold that the offense
committed by petitioner is only that of slight physical ROMUALDEZ, J.:
injuries. Under Art. 266, par. (1), of The Revised Penal
Code, this is punishable by arresto menor the duration Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where he
of which is from one (1) to thirty (30) days. [20] was serving sentence.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of
Some days afterwards the policeman Felipe Delima,
Appeals in Crim. Case No. 49576 finding petitioner
who was looking for him, found him in the house of
Ricardo Balunueco guilty of Homicide is AFFIRMED, and
Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in
there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance,
the shape of a lance, and demanded his surrender. The
petitioner is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The
six (6) years, two (2) months and ten (10) days of prision
policeman dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired
mayor minimum, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years,
his revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal
eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion
ran away, without parting with his weapon. These
temporal medium, as maximum. Consistent with
peace officer went after him and fired again his
prevailing jurisprudence, his civil liability to the heirs of
revolver, this time hitting and killing him.
Senando Iguico is fixed at P50,000.00. The assailed
Decision in Crim. Case No. 49577 for Attempted
The policeman was tried and convicted for homicide
Homicide, on the other hand, is MODIFIED. Petitioner
and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the accessory
Ricardo Balunueco is found guilty only of Slight Physical
penalties. He appeals from that judgment which must
Injuries for the wounding of Amelia Iguico, and is
be reversed.
accordingly sentenced to suffer a straight prison term of
ten (10) days of arresto menor, and to pay the costs.
That killing was done in the performance of a duty. The
SO ORDERED. deceased was under the obligation to surrender, and
had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the
concur.
hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such
an extreme means, which, although it proved to be
fatal, was justified by the circumstances.lawphil.net
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT Article 8, No. 11, of the Penal Code being considered,
Manila Felipe Delima committed no crime, and he is hereby
acquitted with the costs de oficio. So ordered.
EN BANC
Araullo C.J., Street. Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor,
G.R. No. L-18660 December 22, 1922 Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.