Republic of the Philippines

Province of Leyte
Department of Justice
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Tacloban City

Pedrina Santos, I.S. no. 1234

Complainant, For: Homicide

-versus-

Juan de la Cruz,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

The respondent, Juan de la Cruz, was charged with the crime of

Murder in a complaint filed by Pedrina Santos, spouse of Pedro
Santos.

In support of the complaint, the herein complainant attached the

following documents, to wit:

1) Affidavit of Cardo Dalisay;

2) Death Certificate of Pedro Santos;
3) Police Spot Report; and
4) Autopsy report of Pedro Santos.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Based on the affidavits and counter affidavits submitted by the

complainant and the respondent and the evidence presented, the
foregoing facts were established:

That, on the night of January 1, 2018 at around 9:00 p.m. at

Brgy. 123, Tacloban City, deceased Pedro Santos, together with his
cousin Cardo Dalisay, went to a bar in Burgos St. On that evening,
the respondent Juan de la Cruz and his friends were at the same

1|Resolution
 bar. It was undisputed that there was an altercation which ensued
between Pedro Santos and Juan de la Cruz because the former
accidentally bumped the latter while they were dancing. Both were
under the influence of alcohol. The respondent, angered, stabbed
Pedro Santos twice using a “balisong” which resulted to the
immediate death of the deceased.

In the autopsy report conducted by Dr. Vice Ganda, stating

among other things that the deceased suffered mortal wounds in the
left upper quadrant of his body which directly penetrated his heart and
another wound in the right lower quadrant of his body which caused
his immediate death.

In the sworn affidavit of Cardo Dalisay, he averred that Pedro

Santos was dancing when he accidentally bumped Juan de la Cruz who
was holding a bottle of beer and spilled all over him. Pedro Santos
immediately said sorry but Juan de la Cruz pushed him. An altercation
ensued between the parties. He tried to pacify them but he was held
by Juan de la Cruz’s friends. He then saw the respondent getting a
knife from his pocket and stabbed the deceased twice in his trunk.

The respondent, in his counter affidavit, denied the allegations

and came up with his own version of what transpired that night. He
stated that while he was dancing he accidentally bumped Pedro Santos
who was under the influence of alcohol and then the latter suddenly
punched him in the face. When he asked calmly what is the problem,
Pedro Santos replied angrily “Maato ka?” and immediately wiped all
the bottles of beer on top of their table thus breaking or shattering
those bottles when it the ground. The respondent, fearing that Pedro
Santos would kill him, got a balisong from his pocket and stabbed the
deceased. He claimed that there was an imminent danger upon his life.

ANALYSES, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From an analyses of the facts presented and upon personal

examination of the complainant and his witness and the evidence to
support the complaint, thereby shows that there is a reasonable
ground to believe that a crime has been committed.

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code specifically states:

2|Resolution
 “Art. 249. Homicide – Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of
any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article,
shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.

The facts of the case before us squarely fall under the crime of
Homicide. The elements of the crime are as follows:

a) That a person was killed;

b) That the accused killed him without justifying circumstances;

c) That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed;

d) That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying

circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide and
infanticide.

It is clear that the abovementioned elements are present. The

deceased, Pedro Santos, died because of the stabbed wounds inflicted
by the respondent as evidenced by the autopsy report. The intent to
kill is also evident due to the fatal stabbed wounds the deceased
received from the respondent.

The respondent, as for his defense, admitted killing Pedro Santos

on the ground of self-defense. Well – entrenched is the rule that where
the accused invokes self – defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self –
defense. He must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the
weakness of the prosecution. For, even if the prosecution is weak, it
could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted to the
killing. (People vs. Sazon, September, 18, 1990, 189 SCRA 700)

Article 11, first paragraph of the Revised Penal Code provides,

in order for the justifying circumstances of self-defense to be
appreciated, the following requisites must concur, to wit: (1) Unlawful
aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.

3|Resolution
 Unlawful Aggression is an indispensable requisite. It is a
statutory and doctrinal requirement that for the justifying circumstance
of self defense, the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine
qua non. There can be no self – defense, complete or incomplete
unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression again the person
defending himself. (People vs. Bayocot, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 285)

For the right to exist, it is necessary that we be attacked or

assaulted, or at least we have been threatened with an attack in an
immediate and imminent manner.

The defendants failed to persuade the Investigation Prosecutor

that the killing was indeed done in self-defense. It can be gleamed that
there was no unlawful aggression as there was no actual or imminent
danger that would in any way justify the killing of the deceased, Pedro
Santos. Hence, the theory of self-defense must fail.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most

respectfully recommended that an information for the crime of
Homicide be filed against the respondent Juan de la Cruz.

Tacloban City, Philippines, 3rd day of January, 2018

Atty. Maria la del Barrio

Assist. Provincial Prosecutor

Approved by:

Atty. Mario de Boro

Chief Provincial Prosecutor

Copy furnished :
Juan de la Cruz, Brgy. 54321, Tacloban City

4|Resolution