Name: LOGIC

Pineda, Hannah Francesca S.

20212632

Evaluating legal reasoning

In the case of NOE T. TOLEDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, evaluate the legal reasoning
used following the format (50 pts):

1) Issue
Is the accused-appellant exempted from the criminal liability on the basis of self-defense and killed
by accident?

2) Rule
The According to the petitioner, he was able to demonstrate all pertinent facts for full self-
petitioner's defense, as demonstrated by:
simultaneous
employment of The petitioner acted in self-defense, as would be clear from a comprehensive evaluation
the two of the case's records. Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
defenses, Code implies that the accused must have intended to use reasonable means to stop or
according to resist the unlawful aggression of the other party. He is aware of the consequences of his
the court, is an deliberate acts. The defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and irresistible
abnormality master of men of all human affairs, and of the law. From necessity, and limited by it,
since they are proceeds the right of self-defense. The right begins when necessity does and ends where
inherently it ends. The basis of exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised Penal
incompatible. Code is the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or the absence
In the context of negligence on the part of the accused. The accused does not commit either an
of criminal intentional or culpable felony. The accused commits a crime but there is no criminal
law, liability because of the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free
unintentional will or voluntariness of the act. The petitioner failed to prove that the victim was killed
self-defense is by accident, without fault or intention on his part to cause it. The petitioner was
not a valid burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence, the essential requisites for the
defense. exempting circumstance under Article 12, paragraph 4.

3) Facts
1. The design of the appellant's bolo was created by a blacksmith on September 16, 1995. Late in
the day, the appellant spotted a group of people drinking gin at the residence of Ricky Guarte's
parents when he returned home to Tuburan, Odiongan, Romblon. The residence of the appellant
is about five (5) meters from that of the Guarte spouses. The appellant requested silence from
the Ricky group. Then the appellant entered his house and went to bed.
 2. 2. Gerardo Faminia, Eliza Guarte's brother, arrived at the Guarte residence around 9:00
p.m. and inquired about any leftovers. After Eliza made him dinner, Ricky escorted
Gerardo home. As Ricky and his family were getting ready for bed, they heard stoning
in their home. The stoning was performed three (3) times. Ricky got out of bed and
looked in a window. He observed the appellant stoning their home.

3. 3. Ricky went to the appellant's house after leaving the house. Ricky enquired as to
why his uncle, the appellant, had stoned their house. Instead of saying anything, the
appellant came up to Ricky at his front door and unannouncedly stabbed him in the
abdomen with a bolo. Eliza had followed his son Ricky and cried for aid when she
realized that Ricky had been stabbed. Lani heard Eliza screaming for help and hurried
out of the house. Lani noticed Ricky hunching down and using his hands to support his
body. Lani assisted Ricky in rising up so they could get to the main road. Lani
questioned Ricky about the stabbing, and Ricky responded that the appellant was
responsible. Ricky was later taken to the provincial hospital in Romblon. Ricky had an
operation the very evening at the Romblon Provincial Hospital under the hands of Dr. Noralie
Fetalvero. Ricky had one (1) stabbing wound, however because of the massive blood loss, he
passed away during the operation. The petitioner was determined to be guilty on all charges by
the court.

4) Analysis
We can see how important specifics and supporting evidence are to a case's outcome in Noe T.
Toledo v. People of the Philippines. It is up to the evidence and justification to support a
defendant's claim that the offense he committed was committed in self-defense. Since the idea of
self-defense is so broad, it must be established as legitimate. In this instance, there was a fatal
outcome as a result of the hostility between Toledo and his neighbor. It is difficult to prove that
the injury was exclusively self-defense-related. The legal system will continue to favor such
measures. When determining whether an allegation of self-defense is admissible, consideration
must be given to the justification criteria of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. Toledo's claim
that he acted in self-defense was rejected because his conduct and the supporting evidence fell
short of what was required to qualify for the article's exemption. According to the Supreme Court,
"Self-defense, as a justification The following requirements must be met in order for a
circumstance to qualify as one that exempts a person from criminal responsibility: (1) unlawful
aggression on the victim's part; (2) the reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel
such aggression; and (3) the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person using self-
defense, reasonable evidence that the putting the accused's life in danger. Because even if the
prosecution's evidence is poor, it cannot be dismissed once the accused has admitted to the
murder, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence rather than that of the prosecution.
Toledo's case was analyzed in light of the earlier decision, and it was found that the self-defense
components were lacking. There was no evidence of "unlawful aggression on the side of the
victim" or "reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the assault." Logically speaking,
Toledo's argument was unreasonable. In the petitioner's account, the victim and the petitioner
would have struggled so fiercely that
 the petitioner would have been struck by the door. Even though he was only five inches from the
door, the petitioner failed to show any concrete evidence that either his home's door or he had
been injured. Second, if the door broke into the sala of the petitioner's home, the victim must have
fallen on top of it. It is difficult to imagine how the petitioner's bolo could have possibly hit the
victim in the stomach. The petitioner's claim that the victim's stomach was accidentally struck by
the bolo is refuted by his claim that he was able to move aside and avoid being crushed by the
door. Lastly, it was illegal under criminal law to claim that the crime was both unintentional and
self-defense, as shown by the fact that Toledo was unable to provide any concrete evidence to
support his claim that the victim had a balisong. If there was an unlawful aggression, Toledo's
method of stabbing the victim was not reasonable.

5) Conclusion

The evidence shows that Ricky hasn't engaged in any illegal aggression. The appellant's account
of the events does not sustain the conclusion that there was unlawful aggression. Illegal aggression
cannot simply be a posture of intimidation or menace; it must be an actual, sudden, unexpected
attack or the threat of one. The appellant's claim of self-defense cannot succeed unless this
element is present. Furthermore, the appellant's claim of self-defense is not supported by enough
evidence. Self-defense claims cannot be legally regarded when they are not only unsupported by
any additional credible evidence but also highly dubious on their own. Therefore, with the
mitigating factor of his voluntary surrender, NOE TOLEDO is hereby declared GUILTY beyond
a reasonable doubt of murder and is given a sentence of an undetermined number of years in jail,
with a minimum of reclusion from society and a maximum of twelve years and one day.