7 RODOLFO GUEVARRA AND JOEY

GUEVARRA v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 170462, February 05, 2014
ISSUE
ISSUE:

Did the CA err in failing to appreciate the presence of the Justifying

Circumstance of self-defense as established by the petitioners and instead
give full credence to the testimony of the prosecution’s lone witness?
RULING
RULING:
- No. There was no self-defense.
By invoking self–defense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the
commission of the acts for which they were charged, albeit under
circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated them. With this
admission, the burden of proof shifted to the petitioners to show that the
killing and frustrated killing of David and Erwin, respectively, were attended
by the following circumstances: (1)

2
 unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the persons resorting to self–defense.
Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful
aggression. The element of unlawful aggression must be proven first in order for self–defense
to be successfully pleaded. There can be no self–defense, whether complete or incomplete,
unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to
self–defense.
The Court found the absence of the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the
victims. As the prosecution fully established, that the petitioners did not act in self–defense
in killing David and wounding Erwin. The petitioners were, in fact, the real aggressors.

2
G.R. No. L-11302 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. BENJAMIN P.
AGUILAR, ET AL.
DECISION
"The undersigned accuses Benjamin Aguilar y Perez and Jose Oliveros
y Olat of the crime of multiple slight physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence,