G.R. No. 72976.

July 9, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

FLORENTINO EDUARTE @ Tinong, defendant-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the defense of relatives can be invoked by the accused-appellant (Florentino
Eduarte) in his favor.

Facts:

Fredeswindo Eduarte – relative defended, husband of the sister of Roberto Trinidad

Roberto Trinidad – victim, killed by Florentino Eduarte
Florentino Eduarte – defendant/accused for killing(shot) Roberto Trinidad; raising the defense of relatives
(see defendant claim)

Prosecution

Florentino Eduarte, Fredeswindo Eduarte and Julie Eduarte are brothers. Fredeswindo Eduarte married
the sister of Roberto Trinidad. Fredeswindo lost control of himself and suspecting that his wife had an
illicit relation with another man, he quarrelled with his wife. He became violent and made loud outburst
to the extent of getting a scissor inside the house. Seeing the intention of Fredeswindo Eduarte, Roberto
Trinidad pacified him. Instead of being appeased, Fredeswindo Eduarte thrusted the scissor he was
holding to his brother-in-law Roberto Trinidad. Thereafter, Roberto Trinidad drove his jeep and together
with Sonny Testado, went to the Municipal Building of Dolores, Abra to seek the help of policemen. On
their way back and while approaching their house, Roberto Trinidad and Sonny Testado saw Fredeswindo
Eduarte lying flat on the road through the head lights of the jeep. Roberto Trinidad stopped his jeep.
Without putting off the light of the jeep, he alighted to help Fredeswindo Eduarte. When Roberto
Trinidad was in the act of extending assistance and asking what happened to Fredeswindo Eduarte,
Florentino Eduarte, who was beside the road, shot him, which caused his death.

Defendant

When Florentino Eduarte arrived at the place of incident, he saw Roberto Trinidad (victim) clubbing his
brother who was lying, face downward and his shirt soaked with blood.

After trial, the lower court adjudged the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder. The accused-appellant maintains that he is innocent of the crime as charged invoking the
justifying circumstance of defense of relatives (refer to claim of defendant).

Held:

No justifying circumstance of defense of relatives. His testimony that there was unlawful aggression on
the part of Roberto was self-serving and uncorroborated.

 the position of the jeep in relation to Fredeswindo Eduarte. If Roberto Trinidad had any ill
feelings towards his brother-in-law, Fredeswindo Eduarte, he would not have stopped his jeep
and alighted. It was not so hard for him to accelerate the speed of his jeep and run over the body
 who was lying flat on the road, rather than alighting (sic) from his jeep and club him.
 the headlights of the jeep remained lighted. If Roberto Trinidad had an intention to club or to
harm his inebriated and helpless brother- in-law lying on the road, he should have put off the light
of his jeep before alighting.
 Third, failure of Florentino Eduarte to present himself to the authorities and immediate flee
without verifying the actual physical condition of Fredeswindo Eduarte.

The judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED. Accused- appellant Florentino Eduarte is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE without any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance.
G.R. No. L-23734. April 27, 1967.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

TEODORO SABIO, defendant-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense can be invoked by the accused-
appellant (Teodoro Sabio) in his favor.

Facts:

Romeo Bacobo – victim, gave foot-kick greeting to Teodoro Sabio

Teodoro Sabio – defendant/accused for giving fist blow to Romeo Bacobo; raising self-defense due to
unlawful aggression of Romeo Bacobo (foot-kick greeting)

At about six p.m. of April 12, 1963, Teodoro Sabio was squatting with a friend, Irving Jurilla, in the
plaza of Central Manapla, Manapla, Negros Occidental. Romeo Bacobo and two others — Ruben Miñosa
and Leonardo Garcia — approached them. All of them were close and old friends.

Romeo Bacobo then asked Sabio where he spent the holy week. At the same time, he gave Sabio a "foot-
kick greeting", touching Sabio's foot with his own left foot. Sabio thereupon stood up and dealt Romeo
Bacobo a fist blow, inflicting upon him a lacerated wound, 3/4 inch long, at the upper lid of the left eye. It
took from 11 to 12 days to heal and prevented Romeo Bacobo from working during said period as
employee of Victorias Milling Co., Inc.

Sabio was thereafter prosecuted for less serious physical injuries. In the municipal court he was found
guilty. In the Court of First Instance, however, to which he appealed, he was found guilty but with the
mitigating circumstance of provocation.

Held:

No justifying circumstance of self-defense. Appellant's submission that it (foot-kick) amounts to unlawful

aggression cannot therefore be sustained. A playful kick — the lower court rejected defendant's claim that
it was a "vicious kick" — at the foot by way of greeting between friends may be a practical joke, and may
even hurt; but it is not a serious or real attack on a person's safety. As rightly found by the Court of First
Instance, such kick was only a mere slight provocation.
[G.R. Nos. 76493-94. February 26, 1990.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

VIRGILIO URIBE, defendant-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense can be invoked by the accused-
appellant (Virgilio Uribe) in his favor.

Facts:

Gaspar Tibay – victim

Virgilio Uribe – defendant/accused for killing (shot) Gaspar Tibay; raising self-defense due to unlawful
aggression by Gaspar Tibay (see claims by defendant)

Prosecution

On March 31, 1982, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, appellant Virgilio Uribe, Sgt. Vicente
Cabanacan, Sgt. Tobias Lubitos and an unidentified person entered the July 22nd Canteen at Camp Petik,
RECOM 8, Palo, Leyte where they drank a pocket size bottle of Fundador. Sgt. Cabanacan called Tibay
and told the latter to have a seat and offered Tibay a drink. Somehow, the conversation took a sudden turn
and there was an argument between Uribe and Tibay concerning guard duties. Uribe boxed Tibay. Tibay
went out of the canteen but Uribe followed him outside and boxed Tibay once more. Tibay ran towards
the guardhouse. Uribe followed, fired two (2) shots at Tibay who fell dead.

Defendant

Uribe maintains: (1) that in the course of their argument regarding guard duties, Tibay raised his T-shirt
from his hip to make it known that he had a gun and moved to draw the same; (2) that as Tibay was going
out from the canteen he said "Follow me outside and we will shoot it out outside." which amounts to an
unlawful aggression on the part of Tibay; (3) that Tibay grabbed an armalite from a certain guard
Corredo, chamberloaded it, positioned himself in the Guard House and aimed the same at appellant
prompting the appellant to defend himself by shooting at him first which shows that the appellant was
forced to use his .45 caliber service pistol in repelling the aggression and that in defending his life there
was a necessity and he employed reasonable means; and that (4) there was lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the appellant because as the incoming sergeant of the Guard that afternoon of the incident,
he had the right to confront the deceased why he was not in uniform as required by military regulation.

Accused-appellant Virgilio Uribe was charged with the crimes of murder and illegal possession of firearm
in two separate informations filed with the then Court of First Instance of Leyte.

Held:

No justifying circumstance of self-defense. Appellant Virgilio Uribe is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of HOMICIDE without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance. The appellant's
contention that he was forced to shoot Tibay to defend himself because he saw the latter armed with an
armalite aimed at him is not worthy of belief. Vicente Cabanacan, then staff sergeant of the PC and
stationed at Regional Command No. 8 and who was with both Uribe and Tibay at the July 22nd canteen
during the incident categorically stated that the appellant hit the victim first. This testimony was
corroborated by Genoveva Barredo, cashier of the July 22nd Canteen who was also present during the
incident. This evidence negates the appellant's contention that there was unlawful aggression on the part
of Tibay. The appellant was the aggressor. The victim was running away from him, apparently looking
for a safe sanctuary.
[G.R. No. 89684. September 18, 1990.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

GERARDO SAZON, alias "INSIK", accused-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense can be invoked by the accused-
appellant (Gerardo Sazon) in his favor.

Facts:

Wilfredo Longno alias Inday – victim

Gerardo Sazon alias Insik – defendant/accused shot the victim; claimed self-defense due to unlawful
aggression by Longno (see claims by defendant)

Prosecution

On September 17, 1983, at about 8:00 o'clock P.M., Gerardo Sazon and his cousin, Cornelio Altejos, were
drinking softdrinks at the store of Gloria Aposaga when Longno passed by. Thereupon, appellant and
Altejos left their softdrinks half-consumed and followed Longno. Shortly thereafter, appellant and Altejos
arrived and appellant accosted and pointed a gun at Longno, saying, "Maano ka?" ("What are you going
to do?"). Longno then faced appellant and said, "Brod, tiruha lang." ("Brod, just shoot.").

Apparently irked by the response, appellant fired the gun, hitting Longno in the left forearm. Dullete,
Canoso and Ramos then scampered for safety as appellant and the wounded Longno grappled for the gun.
It was while the two were thus struggling that Altejos stabbed Longno in the chest, after which both
appellant and Altejos ran away. Rushed to the St. Paul's Hospital, Wilfredo Longno died. Later, it was
established that the cause of death was hemorrhage, secondary to stab wound.

Defendant

Sazon claims that the deceased had a revolver tucked in his waist and was about to draw the same. He,
therefore, parried the gun but it fired hitting one of appellant's left fingers which was later amputated. It
was then that appellant pulled out his gun and shot Longno in the forearm. Appellant and Longno
afterwards grappled for the gun. Altejos allegedly tried to separate appellant and Longno but he was
brushed aside by the latter. In the course of their struggle, Altejos then shouted to appellant, "I stabbed
Inday, run," and so he and Altejos ran away.

After trial, appellant was found guilty and sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Held:

No justifying circumstance of self-defense. Accused-appellant Gerardo Sazon is declared GUILTY

beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The defense failed to establish the primary element of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and, therefore, the plea of self-defense must fail. The
narrations of the sequence of events by the accused, and by the lone alleged eyewitness for the defense,
Jose Randera, are unconvincing primarily on account of their inherent inconsistency and conflict with
each other.
[G.R. No. L-31139. October 12, 1984.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

ABRAHAM ANTONIO & LEOPOLDO PEDRIGOSA, defendants-appellant.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger can be invoked by the
accused-appellant (Abraham Antonio) in his favor.

Facts:

Teodoro Casa – victim

Abraham Antonio – defendant/accused hit the victim with a bottle and a stone; claimed defense of
stranger (Renato Moral) due to unlawful aggression by Tedoro Casa (see claims by defendant)

In Criminal Case No. CCC-VIII-160-Rizal (19290) of the Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal, the State
charged Renato Moral, as principal, and Leopoldo Pedrigosa and Abraham Antonio, as accomplices, of
the crime of murder.

Prosecution

It had been established that when the deceased Teodoro Casa descended from their second floor
apartment to answer a call of nature at their backyard, he was followed by the accused Renato Moral who,
without any provocation, stabbed the deceased saying: "Yayariin kita"; that when the said deceased tried
to escape by running away, he was pursued by Renato Moral and Alexander Moral who took turns in
stabbing him, as a result of which he fell to the ground; that while the deceased was lying prostrate on the
ground, Abraham Antonio hit him on the head with a bottle and a stone; that, not to be outdone, Leopoldo
Pedrigosa also hit the victim on various parts of his body with a stone; and that it was only when Renato
Moral said: "Bagsak na iyan. Patay na iyan" that they stopped.

Defendant

The accused Abraham Antonio, for his part, invoked defense of stranger, claiming that when he saw his
friend Renato Moral being attacked by Teodoro Casa and Ceferino Cerbo, he came to the succor of his
friend by throwing a stone at the latter's assailants.

Held:

No justifying circumstance of defense of stranger. As could be seen, there was no unlawful aggression on
the part of the deceased Teodoro Casa since it was the accused Renato Moral who stabbed the deceased
without any provocation and, hence, the aggressor. The accused Abraham Antonio and Leopoldo
Pedrigosa were correctly adjudged guilty as accomplices in the commission of the crime. It is an
established fact that after Renato Moral and Alexander Moral had delivered mortal stab wounds upon the
deceased Teodoro Casa, the accused Abraham Antonio and Leopoldo Pedrigosa took turns in hitting him
with beer bottles and stones.
Rafael Nadyahan vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 193134, March 2, 2016

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense can be invoked by the accused-
appellant (Rafael Nadhayan) in his favor.

Facts:

Mark Pagaddut – victim

Rafael Nadyahan – defendant/accused stabbed Pagaddut with a knife; claimed self-defense due to
unlawful aggression by Mark Pagaddut (see claims by defendant)

Defendant

In the evening of 26 May 2004, petitioner was driving his motorcycle on the way to Poblacion with Mark
Apilis at his back. As they reached the marker of the junction road going to Bontoc, they were flagged
down by Marcial Acangan (Acangan), who was then accompanied by Elias Nabejet (Nabejet), Moreno
Binwag (Binwag) and Mark Pagaddut (Pagaddut). Acangan asked petitioner for a ride home and the latter
readily obliged. Acangan further asked that they be treated to a drink. Petitioner refused and explained
that he had already spent his last money on drinks earlier in the day. He slapped petitioner on the forehead
and kicked his foot. Petitioner did not back down. At that instance, he saw Acangan's companions pick up
pieces of wood. Before petitioner could leave, he was struck on the back with a piece of wood by
Nabejet. Upon reaching the parking area of the KMS Line, petitioner was met by Binwag. Petitioner even
managed to ask Binwag why his group was ganging up on him when he was hit by Pagaddut with a belt
buckle. As petitioner was starting to lose consciousness, he thrust his knife and stabbed Pagaddut before
both of them fell down. Petitioner then spent four days in Barangay O-ong before going to San Jose City
in Nueva Ecija to have his wounds treated. He went back to Ifugao to surrender.

Prosecution
Portrayed petitioner as the aggressor. Acangan narrated that he and Pagaddut had just come from
Viewer's Live Band located at the market where they had a few drinks. While Acangan was about to start
the engine, petitioner and Apilis, who were riding a motorcycle, approach them. After saying that he has
no problem with Pagaddut, petitioner suddenly wielded a knife. When petitioner saw Pagaddut, he
kicked the latter in the chest. Petitioner turned his ire on Pagaddut and stabbed his upper right buttock.
Acangan followed them and upon reaching the station of the KMS Line, he saw petitioner pull the knife
from Pagaddut's body.

Pagaddut expired at the hospital. Dr. Antonio Ligot testified that the victim had three stab wounds: 1) one
was perforating and penetrating wound on the anterior chest wall on the right side; 2) other is perforating
and penetrating stab wound at the base of the right side of the neck; and 3) one was a stab wound on the
right upper arm.

Finding an incomplete self-defense, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide. The trial court lent credence to the version of the defense that petitioner is not the aggressor.
However, the trial court found that there is an incomplete self-defense on the part of petitioner. On 17
December 2009, the appellate court rendered its decision affirming petitioner's conviction.
Held:
There is incomplete self-defense. The trial court correctly sentenced petitioner to four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor minimum, as
maximum.

Under Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law. There being an incomplete
self-defense, the penalty should be one (1) degree lower or from reclusion temporal to prision mayor to be
imposed in its minimum period considering the presence of one ordinary mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender pursuant to Article 64 (2).

We agree with the trial court that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of petitioner.

The court gives more weight to the account that the accused was not the aggressor. His narration that
Marcial Acangan requested him to take Marcial Acangan home was supported by the statement in the
affidavit of Marcial where the accused said THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE
MARCIAL IS A FRIEND. It is illogical that after saying that, accused alighted from the motorcycle and
chased his friend with a knife without any provocation. There was also no mention in Marcial's affidavit
that accused kicked and stabbed the victim. He narrated it in his oral testimony because it was in the
affidavit of the other witnesses.

The court rules and so holds that there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused to invite
the attack from Marcial Acangan and his companions. In fact he acceded to the request of Marcial to take
him home. His subsequent refusal or failure to buy drinks as requested definitely is not sufficient
provocation for the attack by the group of the victim.

The following circumstances, as cited by the appellate court, negate the presence of a reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. First, there is intrinsic disproportion between a
knife and a belt buckle. We mention this disproportionality because we do not believe that the
circumstances of the case dictate a contrary conclusion. Second, physical evidence shows that the
accused-appellant suffered only a lacerated wound on the forehead. Contrary to what the accused-
appellant wishes to imply, he could not have been a defender reeling from successive blows inflicted by
the victim and Binwag. Third, the victim Pagaddut and his companions were already drunk before the
fatal fight. This state of intoxication, while not critically material to the stabbing that transpired, is still
material for purposes of defining its surrounding circumstances. Fourth, and as the trial court aptly
observed, the knife wounds were all aimed at vital parts of the body. The depth of these wounds shows
the force exerted in the accused-appellant's thrusts while the locations are indicative that the thrusts were
all meant to kill, not merely disable the victim, and thereby avoid his drunken thrusts.
Doctrine:
Acts of self-defense; Privileged mitigating circumstance, Ordinary mitigating circumstance