PEOPLE v. DAGMAN 5.

Despite the severity of the attack, Magbual managed to escape death by pretending to
Topic: Belief of offender as basis for stage of offense: be dead. This ruse likely caused the attackers to believe that he was already deceased
and ceased their assault.
BLUE: Victim —
RED: Accused-Appellant —Luis, Andres, Isabelo, Juan,
Anastasio, Valentin and Luciano US v. LIM SAN
PURPLE: Weapons(s) —Lance, bolos, clubs, stone
Attempted Frustrated

ISSUE: W/N the accused should be charged with FRUSTRATED MURDER rather than
● The accused begins to commit the ● The accused performs all of the
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE?
crime of murder by taking overt acts that they believe are necessary
acts or substantial steps towards to commit the crime of murder.
its commission. ● Has the intent to cause the death
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
● However, the accused of another person and takes
involuntarily desists or is concrete steps to carry out this
CFI: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
prevented from completing the intent.
crime by some external factor or ● However, despite their full intent
SUMMARY: circumstance beyond their own and effort, the result (death) does
Magbual was attacked by the group of Dagman driven by revenge due to a land dispute. He was will. not occur due to reasons beyond
at a disadvantage because the attackers were dominated in numbers. First, he was hit by ○ This external factor their control or will.
could be, for example, ○ These reasons could
Dagman with a stone, which caused him to fall. Then he was attacked by Luis with a lance, and
the timely intervention include medical
sustained wounds from bolos and clubs directed at him. The victim managed to escape the
of law enforcement, the intervention, the
attack by playing dead. The attackers had the belief that the victim was already dead by checking victim escaping, or any victim's unexpected
his nose if there was still respiration. situation that stops the resilience, or other
accused from carrying unforeseen factors.
FACTS: out the crime.

1. Elias Magbual, an employee, was attacked by a crowd of people, estimated to be

around forty in number, while he was working at the hacienda "La Esperanza." The IN CLASSIFYING A CRIME AS FRUSTRATED
attack was treacherous in nature. 1. Intent to Take Life: The assailants had a specific and clear intent to kill the victim.
2. The motive behind the attack was related to a land dispute. It is mentioned that the 2. Deadly Weapons: The presence of lethal weapons suggests a greater level of danger
individuals who attacked Magbual had previously been dispossessed of portions of the and intent to cause serious harm or death.
land by a judicial order. This suggests that the attack might have been motivated by 3. Striking Vital Body Parts: If vital parts of the victim's body were struck during the
revenge or animosity stemming from the land dispute. assault, it indicates that the assailants aimed to cause fatal injuries.
3. The attack began with the crowd shouting "Avance" (which means "Advance" in 4. Violence of the Attack: A brutal and aggressive attack suggests a high level of intent
Spanish), and Magbual attempted to escape. However, he was hit in the breast by a to cause harm or death.
stone thrown by Anastasio Dagman, causing him to fall. 5. Statement of Purpose to Kill: If the aggressors explicitly state their intention to kill
4. Subsequently, he was attacked by Luis Pacunla with a lance. Magbual made another the victim, it provides clear evidence of their intent.
attempt to flee but fell again, receiving wounds from bolos (machetes) and clubs 6. Belief of Killing: If the aggressors believed they had successfully killed the victim, it
wielded by the accused. indicates their intent to commit murder.
 7. Presence of Independent Causes Saving the Victim: Despite the assailants' intent circumstances, including the nature of the wounds inflicted, the verbal statement stating to kill,
and actions, if there were external factors or circumstances beyond their control and the actions such as checking the victim's nose for signs of respiration. Deadly weapons were
that saved the victim's life. also used, and blows were directed at vital parts of the victim's body, indicating a high level of
○ such as the victim "playing possum" (pretending to be dead), intent to cause significant harm or death. The violence of the attack was substantial.
this can be a crucial element in classifying the crime.
● Given these factors, it becomes increasingly evident that the subjective phase of the The crime was accomplished with alevosia, which was carried out in a manner that ensured the
crime was entirely passed, and from a subjective standpoint, the crime was indeed safety of the assailants while depriving the victim of the opportunity to defend themselves. This
complete. suggests a treacherous and deliberate approach to the attack.
○ The assailants had a clear and deliberate intent to kill, and they believed
they had achieved this intent. The victim did not die, but this was attributed to a chance or accident or reasons independent of
the criminal act performed by the defendant.
FRUSTRATED MURDER THAN FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
● Attorney-General and a majority of the court recommend classifying the crime as
frustrated murder rather than attempted murder.
○ Presence of Treachery: The qualifying circumstance of treachery in the
attack. Treachery, in legal terms, refers to a situation where the offender
takes advantage of superior strength or employs means to ensure the
victim's inability to defend themselves or retaliate. In this case, the
treacherous nature of the attack suggests a deliberate intent to kill.
○ Use of Prohibited Arms: Another aggravating circumstance mentioned is
the use of prohibited arms by the assailants.
○ Performance of Acts of Execution: The offenders performed all the acts of
execution that should precede the commission of the felony, which would
typically result in the victim's death.
■ However, these acts did not produce the intended outcome due to
an external factor—Magbual's ruse of feigning death.
○ Intent to Take a Life: This intent is inferred from various circumstances
surrounding the attack, including the nature of the wounds inflicted, the cry
of the accused ("Vamos a matarle," which translates to "Let's kill him"), and
their attempt to check if Magbual was still alive by fingering his nose to see
if respiration continued.
HOLDING:
The crime committed against the victim is FRUSTRATED MURDER due to the presence of
treachery.

RATIO:
The accused believed that he had performed all the acts necessary to consummate the crime of
murder. They had a clear intent to take the life of the victim, which was evident from various
US v. LIM SAN
Topic: Belief of offender as basis for stage of offense:
BLUE: Victim — Keng Kin
RED: Accused-Appellant —Lim San
GREEN: Witness(es) — Chua Hung, Gregorio Mariano
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — Bolo
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of ATTEMPTED MURDER or FRUSTRATED MURDER?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CFI: ATTEMPTED MURDER
FACTS:
1. At around 10PM, during a time when it was somewhat dark. The only source of light
was a lamp hanging from the ceiling of a store across the street.
2. Keng Kin was not expecting to be attacked. He was preoccupied with his dog and was
wholly unsuspicious, directing his attention solely toward his pet.
3. Lim San launched a surprise attack on Keng Kin without any warning. He carefully
avoided disturbing Keng Kin's quiescent (peaceful or inactive) state until the very
moment of the blow.
4. Lim San attacked with great rapidity and force, driving his bolo straight into Keng
Kin's face. The first blow had a devastating impact, penetrating Keng Kin's left eye,
slightly cutting the brain, and completely destroying the eye.
5. Due to the sudden and forceful attack, Keng Kin had no opportunity to defend
himself, escape the blow, or mitigate its consequences. He was wholly surprised and
unable to offer any resistance.
PRESENCE OF TREACHERY AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR
● Lim San, committed the crime maliciously and treacherously. He employed methods
that were designed to ensure that he faced no risk from any potential defense by the
victim.
● The combination of factors, including the darkness, distracted attention, lack of
warning, suddenness of the assault, and the accused's careful maneuvering to avoid
detection until the last moment, constitutes alevosia.
○ Alevosia is an aggravating circumstance under subdivision 2 of article 10 of
the Penal Code. It involves methods that tend to ensure the attacker's safety
while preventing any defense by the victim.
WITNESSES' TESTIMONIES
● Chua Huang & Gregorio Mariano —
○ Testified that the accused, Lim San, assaulted Keng Kin without any
apparent cause or provocation.
○ Keng Kin was standing just outside the street limits, paying attention to a
dog he had with him when the accused suddenly attacked him with a bolo.
○ Claimed to have seen the accused in the act of the assault, fully recognized
him, and later identified him as the person who committed the offense.
RECLASSIFICATION TO FRUSTRATED MURDER
Defendant's Belief and Desistance: In the case at hand, it becomes clear that the defendant
believed he had performed all the acts necessary to consummate the crime of murder. As a result,
he voluntarily desisted from striking further blows, thinking that he had already killed Keng Kin.
However, death did not result due to reasons entirely beyond the defendant's control.
Reclassification as Frustrated Murder: Given the defendant's genuine belief that he had
completed all the acts necessary for murder and the subsequent desistance, coupled with the fact
that death did not occur for reasons beyond the defendant's will, the court reclassifies the crime
as frustrated murder.
HOLDING:
The court found the defendant, Lim San, guilty of the crime of FRUSTRATED MURDER.
RATIO:
Lim San believed that he had performed all of the acts necessary to consummate the crime of
murder. He thought he had killed Keng Kin and voluntarily desisted from further acts of
violence.
Despite Lim San's intent and actions, death did not result for reasons entirely beyond his
control. In this case, Keng Kin survived due to external factors or intervention, such as receiving
prompt medical assistance.
The court also considered the treacherous and malicious nature of the attack, which included
elements of surprise and alevosia. Alevosia is a factor that tends to ensure the attacker's safety
while preventing any defense by the victim.
CRUZ v. PEOPLE 8. Accused asked her not to tell anyone and threatened her. AAA tried to seek help from
Topic: Overt acts and necessary causal relation with intended crime; Attempted, consummated Jess (houseboy), but failed to do so.
rape or acts of lasciviousness?; 9. After 30 mins later, when AAA went back to her tent he caught the accused touching
BBB’s private parts. BBB was awake, but she was trembling.
BLUE: Victim — AAA & BBB
10. After the incident, AAA and BBB returned with their employers and still continued to
RED: Accused-Appellant —Norbero Bartolome
work for them.

ISSUE: W/N the actions of the accused constitutes ATTEMPTED RAPE, or ACTS OF
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED
LASCIVIOUSNESS?
● Simbang gabi (December 21) — there were many people, the tents were near the road
PROCEDURAL HISTORY and municipal hall
● AAA continued working for him and his wife until December 30, 1994, despite the
RTC: ATTEMPTED RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIOVIOUSNESS involving
alleged attempted rape on December 21, 1994.
different victims
● Questions how AAA could have been undressed without waking up if she had gone to

CA: AFFIRMED ATTEMPTED RAPE case, but ACQUITTED ON ACTS OF sleep only an hour before.
LASCIVIOUSNESS charge ○ He mentions that her bra was locked at her back, implying that undressing
her would be difficult without her noticing.
● Disputes AAA's account of the duration of the struggle, suggesting that it is
SUMMARY:
inconceivable that such a prolonged struggle could occur without her either
AAA & BBB were employed by Norberto. One night at 1AM, AAA was awakened by Norberto
consenting or the incident being fabricated.
as he was on top of her, mashing her breasts and touching her private part, and realized that she
● Raises questions about whether he himself was also naked during the alleged incident
was already naked. Due to AAAs resistance, the accused was not able to advance his sexual
and whether there is evidence of intent to penetrate.
desires. He threatened AAA if she ever disclosed to anyone what happened, but AAA tried to
● Alleges that AAA and her mother demanded a settlement of P80,000.00 under threat
seek help from the houseboy, but failed to do so. Upon returning to the tent, she caught the
of filing a case against him, implying that there may be ulterior motives for her
accused touching BBB’s private parts, and that she was trembling.
accusations.

FACTS:
WHY ATTEMPTED RAPE? — RTC & CA
1. AAA & BBB were employed by Noberto and Belinda to help them in selling their
● Climbing on top of the undressed AAA such that they faced each other, with him
plastic wares
mashing her breasts and touching her genitalia with his hands, constituted attempted
2. The two boarded a passenger jeepney owned by Noberto, and they were accompanied
rape,
by the spouses and a driver.
● He committed such acts "with intent of having carnal knowledge of her by means of
3. Upon reaching La Union, at 8PM, two tents were fixed in order for them to have a
force, and if the accused did not accomplish his purpose that is to have carnal
place to sleep.
knowledge of the said AAA it was not because of his voluntary desistance but
4. The next night, at 1AM, AAA and BBB went to sleep, and then less than an hour later
because the said offended party succeeded in resisting the criminal attempt of said
AAA was awakened when she felt that somebody was on top of her.
accused to the damage and prejudice of said offended party."
5. Noberto was mashing her breasts and touching her private part, and realized that she
was totally naked.
WHAT IS AN ATTEMPT?
6. Accused ordered her not to scream, or else she would be killed.
● Justice Claro M. Recto in People v. Lamahang —
7. AAA fought back and kicked Norberto twice, thus the latter was not able to pursue his
○ An attempt is an act that is a "beginning of the execution" of an offense.
lustful desires.
 ■ It is when a person starts to take actions that directly lead to the
commission of a specific offense.
○ To qualify as an attempt, the act in question must have a "logical relation" to
a particular offense.
■ There should be a clear and natural connection between the act
and the specific offense it is intended to result in.
○ Attempt involves overt acts by the perpetrator. These acts must be such
that, if they were allowed to continue without external obstacles or
voluntary desistance, they would naturally lead to the commission of the
intended offense.
○ For an act to be considered an attempt, it must have an "unavoidable
connection" with the offense it aims to commit.
■ This means that there should be a direct cause-and-effect
relationship between the act and the intended offense.
SETTLED DEFINITION OF RAPE
● People v. Campuhan — Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean
mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the
penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case.
There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the
labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface
thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are
required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural s i t u s or location beneath
the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some
degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the
labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.
A grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum
is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the
penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not
acts of lasciviousness.
OVERT ACTS
1. Equivocal Conduct: The law requires a direct and overt act because in many cases, the
accused's behavior, when limited to mere acts of preparation, remains unclear or
equivocal. In other words, it's often challenging to determine a person's intent solely
based on preparatory actions.
2. Lack of Equivocal Quality: To establish a crime, the equivocal quality of the accused's
conduct must be eliminated. In simpler terms, the actions taken by the accused should
clearly indicate a criminal intent, leaving no room for ambiguity or doubt.
3. Commencement of the Crime: An overt act is considered a commencement of the
commission of the crime. It's the point at which the accused moves from mere
preparation to taking concrete steps toward the actual commission of the crime.
4. Direct Movement Towards the Crime: The overt act should represent a direct
movement towards the commission of the offense after the necessary preparations
have been made. This means that it doesn't have to be the final or last step towards
completion, but it must be a clear progression in that direction.
5. Causal Relation: The overt act must have a causal relationship to the intended crime.
In other words, there should be a direct and necessary connection between the act and
the offense it aims to facilitate.
6. Immediate and Necessary Relation: As stated, the overt acts must have an immediate
and necessary relation to the offense. This means that they must play a significant role
in furthering the criminal objective.
IN DETERMINING ATTEMPTED RAPE
● ​People v. Dominguez, Jr. — The gauge in determining whether the crime of
attempted rape had been committed is the commencement of the act of sexual
intercourse, (i.e., penetration of the penis into the vagina, before the interruption)
INTERPRETATION OF ACCUSED ACTIONS
● The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her
genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his
clutches and effectively ended his designs on her.
○ Yet, inferring from such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his
intended felony would be highly unwarranted. This was so, despite his lust
for and lewd designs towards her being fully manifest.
○ Such circumstances remained equivocal, or "susceptible of double
interpretation,"
● It was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to cause rape as the
particular injury. Verily, his felony would not exclusively be rape had he been allowed
by her to continue, and to have sexual congress with her, for some other felony like
simple seduction (if he should employ deceit to have her yield to him) could also be
ultimate felony.
MERE PREPARATORY ACTS ≠ OVERT ACTS
● Preparatory acts of the accused —
 ○ Putting up separate tents
○ Allowing his wife to leave for Manila earlier that day
■ Such acts, being equivocal, had NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO
RAPE
■ No certainty what the perpetrator’s intent really was
RATIO:
An attempted rape is committed, when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with
the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the
penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female.
Without such showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed.

The information charged that the petitioner "remove[d] her panty and underwear and la[id] on
ELEMENTS OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
top of said AAA embracing and touching her vagina and breast."
the felony of acts of lasciviousness is consummated when the following essential elements
concur, namely: With such allegation of the information being competently and satisfactorily proven beyond a
(a) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person of reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. His embracing
either sex; and
her and touching her vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her.
(b) the act of lasciviousness or lewdness is committed either
(i) by using force or intimidation; or
The lack of evidence showing his erect penis being in the position to penetrate her when he
(ii) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious; or was on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts
(iii) when the offended party is under 12 years of age. reflected lewdness and lust for her.

In that regard, lewd is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous; it signifies that form of
immorality that has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on a wanton manner.

COMPARISON TO PEOPLE v. BUGARIN

The accused was held liable only for acts of lasciviousness because the intent to commit rape
"is not apparent from the act described," and the intent to have sexual intercourse with
her was not inferable from the act of licking her genitalia. The Court also pointed out that
the "act imputed to him cannot be considered a preparatory act to sexual intercourse."

"did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of
Rape directly by overt acts, by then and there kissing the nipples and the vagina of the undersigned
[complainant], a minor, and about to lay on top of her, all against her will, however, [he] did not
perform all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of Rape by reason of some
causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is, undersigned complainant push[ed] him
away."

HOLDING:
The accused’s actions of preparatory acts did not amount to attempted rape as his acts did not
have connection with rape as the intended crime. The intent to commit rape should not easily be
inferred against the petitioner, even from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed
overt acts directly leading to rape.
PEOPLE v. BOHOLST-CABALLERO 4. Cumigunda held onto Francisco's waist and discovered a hunting knife tucked inside
Topic: Elements of Self-defense; Clear and convincing evidence as proof: his belt line.
Also: Parricide; Motive and proof of offense 5. As Francisco threatened to kill his spouse while choking her, Cumigunda was fearing
for her life, and she managed to retrieve the hunting knife from Francisco's belt and
BLUE: Victim — Francisco
subsequently thrust it at him, hitting his left side above the thigh.
RED: Accused-Appellant — Cunigunda
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — Knife (alleged), Moro Hunting knife 6. After freeing herself from the altercation, she ran home and discarded the hunting
knife on her way.
7. The following day, Cumigunda surrendered to the police, presented her torn and
ISSUE: W/N the accused is criminally liable for the crime of PARRICIDE, or was she acting in
bloodstained dress as evidence, and provided a different knife to the authorities as
self-defense?
advised to her by the policeman, which became part of the prosecution's evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CFI: PARRICIDE
SELF-DEFENSE AS JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

SUMMARY: ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do

One night, it was January 2nd then, Cunigunda went caroling, and on her way home she not incur any criminal liability:
encountered Francisco who had been drinking tuba with his companions. Francisco was 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
enraged upon seeing Cunigunda as he was under the impression that the latter was engaging in rights, provided that the following
prostitution. Thus, led to violent acts of Francisco where she slapped and pushed Cunigunda, circumstances concur:
and even threatened to kill her while choking her. These events prompted Cunigunda to take the
hunting knife tucked in Francisco’s belt, and stab him with it on his left thigh. First. Unlawful aggression;

After this, she ran home and discarded the hunting knife on her way, but the following day
Cunigunda surrendered to the police, presented her torn and bloodstained dress as evidence,
and provided a different knife to the authorities as advised to her by the policeman, which
became part of the prosecution's evidence.
FACTS:
1. Francisco and Cunigunda Caballero were married, they had a child together, but their
marriage was an unhappy one due to the vices (gambling, drinking, serenading) and
maltreatment of the former to the latter. This led to their separation.
2. In the evening of January 2, 1958 Cunigunda went caroling, and on her way home she
encountered her husband who was drinking tuba (coconut wine) with some
companions.
3. Francisco, upon seeing her, was enraged upon the impression that she had gone
prostituting. This led to violent acts of the former where he held the hair of
Cunigunda, slapped her twice until her nose bled, and was pushed to the ground.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
● Finds its justification in human beings' natural instinct to protect themselves, repel
threats, and safeguard their person or rights from imminent danger or harm.
○ This instinct is considered inherent in human nature.
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE’S DISMISSAL OF THE SELF-DEFENSE CLAIMS
1. Inherently Improbable Testimony: The demonstration of the incident during the
trial, the court did not find her account of the events to be credible or consistent with
the circumstances.
 2. Lack of Physical Injury: The absence of any physical injuries on Cunigunda's body
that required treatment by a physician was noted by the court.
3. Incredible Weapon Identification: Cunigunda's claim that she used a Moro hunting
knife as the weapon in self-defense, as opposed to the knife marked as Exhibit C in
the case, was deemed incredible by the court.
4. Contradictory Statements: The court noted that Cunigunda gave contradictory
statements regarding the report she made to the police authorities, particularly
concerning the nature of the attack, specifically mentioning that she was choked by
her husband.
5. Motive for Attack: Her husband's abandonment of her and her child as a possible
motive for her attack. This implies that the court may have believed that the attack
was driven by factors other than immediate self-defense.
APPELLATE COURT’S REBUTTAL
1. No Other Recourse: According to Cunigundas testimony, she found herself in a
situation where her husband was kneeling over her as she lay on her back on the
ground, with his hand choking her neck.
● She was also threatened with “I will kill you! All of you!”
2. Location of the Wound: The wound inflicted on the husband was in the left lumbar
region, which is consistent with Cunigunda's testimony that she pulled out the knife
from her husband's belt on the left side and thrust it at the nearest section of his body
during the struggle.
3. Physically Possible Act: It disputes the trial judge's observation that it was physically
impossible forCunigunda to access the weapon due to the position of her husband's
knees on her right thigh.
● The argument presented is that there is no evidence in the record to suggest
that her right arm was held or immobilized in such a way that she couldn't
reach for the knife. Instead, it asserts that her right arm was free, allowing
her to access the weapon.
PEOPLE v. AQUINO
● The court's decision was influenced by specific "physical and objective circumstances"
that played a crucial role in determining the truth of the self-defense claim. Some of
these circumstances included:
1. Location of the Wound: The court considered the location of the wound on
the right side of the throat and right arm of the deceased.
● Presumably, the positioning of the wound was consistent with the
self-defense argument presented by the accused.
2. Trajectories of Bullets: This had significance in establishing the sequence
of events and whether the accused's actions were in response to a perceived
threat.
3. Discovery of Bloodstains: Provided valuable information about the
dynamics of the incident and the movements of those involved.
4. Presence of Weapon: The discovery of the deceased's dagger and scabbard
shed light on whether the deceased was armed or posed a threat at the time
of the incident.
LACK OF MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT
● There is a lack of a clear motive for the appellant to attack and kill her husband.
○ While it is generally not indispensable to prove motive in a homicide case,
the absence of motive is considered important in distinguishing between
two opposing theories or versions of events.
1. Appellant's Emotional State: It is mentioned that although Cunigunda and her
husband had separated, she still claimed to love him, and there was no record of any
recent event that could have triggered her to plan and execute the killing. This
suggests that there was no apparent reason for her to harm her husband.
2. Possible Aggression by the Husband: It was the deceased who had a reason for
aggressive behavior.
○ Francisco confronted Cunigunda angrily and accused her of inappropriate
behavior, which escalated to physical violence against her.
○ This is presented as a possible unlawful aggression that Cunigunda had
to defend herself against.
3. Appellant's Conduct After the Incident: Cunigunda went to the city and presented
herself at the police headquarters, reporting that she had stabbed her husband and
surrendering her blood-stained dress.
○ This conduct is presented as a factor supporting her version of events and
her need for self-defense.
THE WEAPON IN QUESTION
● The court is inclined to believe and does believe the appellant's claim that the fatal
weapon used in the incident had a blade of approximately six inches in length.
○ This belief is based on the fact that the wound inflicted on the victim
penetrated through the left lumbar region and reached the large intestine,
causing the discharge of fecal matter. The statement is attributed to Dr. C.
Samson.
 ALL ELEMENTS OF SELF DEFENSE ARE PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR
1. The husband engaged in inappropriate behavior and used physical violence against
her, including slapping her face, pulling her hair, pushing her down, and strangling
her. These actions by Francisco constituted unlawful aggression against Cunigunda.
Cunigunda was strangled and choked by her husband, to the point where she was
almost unconscious due to the strong pressure on her throat.
Burden of Proof: According to settled jurisprudence, when an individual seeks justification
for their actions on the grounds of self-defense, they bear the burden of proving, by clear
and convincing evidence, the presence of the necessary circumstances that justify their use
of force.
● If a person admits to causing injury or even death to another, which could be
considered a felony, they are presumed to be criminally liable for the act unless
they can satisfactorily demonstrate to the court that their actions were a
legitimate act of self-defense.

2. Appellant was facing imminent danger when she was being strangled and choked by
her husband, who was described as a furious aggressor. The situation left her almost
unconscious due to the strong pressure on her throat.
Given the dire circumstances she faced, Cunigunda had no other option but to use any
available means to protect herself from the impending threat of death. As settled in
US. v. PARAS, which held that the reasonable necessity of the means employed in
self-defense is based on the imminent danger of injury, not necessarily the actual harm
inflicted.
The knife tucked in her husband's belt was the only reasonable means available to
Cunigunda to free herself and save her life from being strangled and choked to death.
It suggests that her use of the knife was justified and appropriate under the
circumstances.
HOLDING:
NO. The court determined that Cunigunda's actions were consistent with the principles of
self-defense. Her use of the knife was justified due to the unlawful aggression and imminent
danger posed by her husband. As a result, she was not found guilty of parricide, and her
actions were deemed acts of self-defense.
RATIO:
The court recognized that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the husband, Francisco.
Francisco's aggressive actions, which included physical violence and strangling Cunigunda,
constituted a clear threat to her life and well-being. As Cunigunda faced imminent danger to her
life due to the unlawful aggression by her husband. The court considered the severity of the
threat, which left her almost unconscious due to the strong pressure on her throat.

PEOPLE v. LARA — "It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human
nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of
self-preservation; and when it is apparent, as in this case, that a person has reasonably acted
upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor
irresponsible in law for the consequences."
● Necessitas Non habet legem. Necessity knows no law.
3. While Francisco may have been upset to find his wife on the road late at night, he was
not justified in inflicting bodily harm with the intent to kill by choking her throat.
Cunigunda's use of a knife was viewed as a reasonable response to the imminent peril she was
in. She had no other reasonable means available to protect herself from the life-threatening
aggression of her husband.
The court also found that Cunigunda did not provide sufficient provocation to justify the
aggression or attack by her husband. Her explanation for being out late at night was considered
valid within the context of the Christmas season and caroling traditions.

Cunigunda offered a valid excuse when confronted by her husband for being out late
at night.
● She explained that she had gone caroling with friends to earn money for
their child.
Francisco should have considered his wife's excuse before reacting with extreme
measures, such as attempting to kill her. Jumping to conclusions and taking such
extreme actions without sufficient provocation is not justified under the principles of
self-defense.
PEOPLE v. GANAL stones and with a concealed knife in his waistband. Petitioner, feeling threatened
Topic: Elements of Self-defense; Clear and convincing evidence as proof: and fearing for his life, retreated inside his house, retrieved his gun, and then
fatally shot Julwin when he was about 2-3 meters away.
BLUE: Victim — Julwin (armed with stone and knife)
7. After the shooting, Prudencio Ganal borrowed his mother's cellphone and called the
RED: Accused-Appellant —Prudencio Ganal
GREEN: Witness(es) — Baggao Police Station, requesting assistance. He expressed his intent to surrender
PURPLE: Weapons(s) —Gun and admitted to the killing when the police officers arrived. He handed over his
gun and surrendered voluntarily.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner Ganal Jr. should be acquitted of the crime HOMICIDE and that his acts
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER
be justified as SELF-DEFENSE?
● The petitioner argues that he was immediately placed in a defensive position due to
Julwin's actions. Specifically, he witnessed Julwin throwing stones onto the roofs of
PROCEDURAL HISTORY his and his father's houses, pushing his way through the gate, knocking his father
unconscious with a large stone to the chest, shouting threats to kill the petitioner
CA:: HOMICIDE but mitigated by passion and
and his family, and advancing towards the petitioner even after the petitioner had
obfuscation and voluntary surrender
fired a warning shot.
RTC: AFFIRMED ○ In essence, the petitioner contends that his actions were a response to
Julwin's behavior, which he perceived as a threat to his safety and that of

SUMMARY: his family. This perception of imminent danger, according to the

FACTS: petitioner, justified his use of force in self-defense

1. Around 7PM Prudencio Ganal and his companions were drinking inside his house.
Angelo, an uninvited neighbor who was already very drunk, arrived and insisted on PETITIONER INVOKES ARTICLES 11 (1) (2)

joining the drinking session. Petitioner refused due to Angelo's intoxicated state,
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not
which led to a confrontation. Angelo challenged the petitioner to a fight but was
incur any criminal liability:
eventually persuaded to leave.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
2. 30 minutes later, stones were thrown at the roof of the petitioner and his father, Ganal provided that the following circumstances concur:
Sr.
3. Ganal, Sr. went out to investigate and found Angelo and Julwin in the middle of the First. Unlawful aggression;
road near the front gate.
4. Ganal, Sr. approached and asked them to go home because his wife was suffering from Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it;
hypertension and should not be disturbed. Julwin replied that he did not care if Ganal,
Sr.'s wife died, he would kill all of them.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
5. He attempted to pacify the two and suggested resolving their issues the following day. the person defending himself.
Julwin, holding palm-sized stones in both hands, forcefully entered the property by
pushing open the gate and struck Ganal, Sr. with a stone in the chest, causing him to 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
fall unconscious. of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or

6. Prudencio Ganal, witnessing the attack on his father, reacted by firing a warning legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
shot into the air to deter Julwin from further advancing. Despite the warning shot,
those by consanguinity within the fourth civil
Julwin continued to approach the petitioner with hostile intentions, holding two
degree, provided that the first and second requisites
 prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
present, and the further requisite, in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that
the one making defense had no part therein.
People v. Nugas provides a clear explanation of unlawful aggression and its two forms:
Actual or material unlawful aggression, and imminent unlawful aggression.
Unlawful Aggression as a Primordial Element: Unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim is the fundamental element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression, a killing cannot be justified as an act of self-defense.
Test for Unlawful Aggression: The test to determine the presence of unlawful aggression is
whether the victim's actions put the person defending themselves in real peril of life or
personal safety. It must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.
Three Elements of Unlawful Aggression: To establish unlawful aggression, three elements
must concur:
a. There must be a physical or material attack or assault by the victim.
b. The attack or assault must be actual or imminent.
c. The attack or assault must be unlawful, meaning it is not justified or legally
permissible.
Two Forms of Unlawful Aggression:
a. Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression: Involves a physical attack with physical force or
a weapon. It is an offensive act that clearly indicates the aggressor's intent to cause harm or
injury.
b. Imminent Unlawful Aggression: This form refers to an attack that is impending or about
to happen. It must not consist of mere threatening gestures or attitudes but must be a real
and offensive threat. For example, aiming a loaded revolver at someone with the intent to
shoot or brandishing a knife while making a motion to attack would constitute imminent
unlawful aggression.
ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE PRESENT AT THE CASE AT BAR
Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression: Julwin committed a series of offensive acts that
demonstrated his intent to cause harm. He threw stones at the roofs of adjacent houses and
then physically attacked Ganal, Sr. by hitting him with a stone on the chest. These actions
constituted an actual or material unlawful aggression.
Real Peril to Life or Personal Safety: In this case, Julwin's actions created a palpable and
immediate threat to the lives and safety of both petitioner and Ganal, Sr. The peril was not
imaginary but rather a clear and present danger.
The sequence of events, including the throwing of stones, the physical assault on Ganal, Sr.,
and Julwin's advance toward the petitioner while armed with stones and a knife, all indicated
that Julwin posed a real and imminent threat to the safety of those involved. The petitioner's
decision to fire warning shots and then use his gun when Julwin continued to advance and
threaten further harm can be viewed as a response to the ongoing unlawful aggression.
The case of People v. Olarbe provides a clear guideline for assessing the reasonable necessity
of the means employed in self-defense.
● Courts should not expect the accused to behave with perfect judgment and poise
when faced with an imminent threat to their life or the lives of others.
● The accused must act based on their reasonable belief in the necessity of using
force to repel the aggression.
● The reasonableness of the accused's belief should be judged from their standpoint
at the time of the incident, taking into account the circumstances as they appeared
to them.
In this case, if the petitioner genuinely believed that Julwin posed an imminent threat to his
life and the lives of others, and if this belief was reasonable based on the circumstances as
they appeared to him at the time of the incident, then the use of force may be considered
reasonably necessary for self-defense.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending themselves.
Both the prosecution and the defense agree that it was Julwin who initiated the incident by
going to the petitioner's house and instigating the confrontation. This suggests that the
petitioner did not provoke the situation but rather responded to Julwin's aggressive
actions.
The absence of sufficient provocation is a crucial element in establishing self-defense because
it demonstrates that the person defending themselves did not incite or provoke the aggressive
behavior of the aggressor. In this case, it appears that Julwin's actions were independent of
any provocation by the petitioner, strengthening the petitioner's claim of self-defense.
ON REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED
● The law does not require absolute necessity but rational necessity. When a person is
assaulted, they may not have the tranquility of mind to think, calculate, and make
comparisons as one would in a calm and reasoned state.
○ The law requires that the means employed to repel the aggression be
rationally necessary, not necessarily indispensable.
● The courts may consider the number of wounds inflicted when determining the
reasonable necessity of the means employed.
○ A large number of wounds inflicted on the victim can indicate a determined
effort on the part of the accused to kill the victim, which may raise
questions about the reasonableness of the means used.
● In emergencies involving self-defense, individuals do not have the luxury of time and
calm reflection to choose the perfect weapon or strategy.
○ They must respond quickly and based on their reasonable belief in the
necessity to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.
2. Petitioner initially attempted to scare Julwin off by firing a warning shot. However,
Julwin remained undeterred and continued to approach with malevolent intent. Even
after being shot, Julwin did not retreat and continued to threaten the petitioner and
his family. This situation placed the petitioner in a terrifying and life-threatening
scenario.
3. When faced with such imminent danger, individuals may react instinctively to
protect themselves and their loved ones. Petitioner likely believed that his actions
were necessary to end the threat, as Julwin was still standing nearby, shouting threats,
and showing no signs of backing down.
RATIO: :
The fact that petitioner voluntarily surrendered to the police and admitted to killing Julwin
further supports his claim of self-defense. It demonstrates his willingness to cooperate with the
authorities and take responsibility for his actions. This voluntary surrender and admission are
indicative of his belief that he acted out of necessity to protect himself and his family from an
imminent threat posed by Julwin 's aggressive and hostile behavior.

Emergency: When assessing whether the means employed were reasonable, it is crucial to
understand the urgency and immediacy of the situation. “the right of a person to take life in self- defense arises from his belief in the necessity for doing so; and
his belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged in the light of the circumstances as they then
Imminent Danger: If the threat poses an immediate risk to life or safety, it can influence the appeared to him, not in the light of circumstances as they would appear to others or based on the belief
assessment of reasonable necessity. that others may or might entertain as to the nature and imminence of the danger and the necessity to
kill.”
Instinct Over Reason: Self-defense often relies more on instinct than formal reason. The law
acknowledges that individuals in such situations may not have the time for careful
deliberation.

Proportionateness: It is not solely about matching the force but about whether the response
was reasonably necessary to address the perceived threat.

HOLDING:
YES. In evaluating the number of wounds inflicted by petitioner on Julwin, it is essential to
avoid automatically assuming that a high number of wounds indicates a determined effort to kill.
Instead, we should consider the circumstances surrounding the incident.

1. Julwin entered the petitioner's property with clear intent to cause harm, as evident
from his possession of two large stones and a knife. He had already knocked the
petitioner's father unconscious, and he was advancing towards the petitioner with
hostile intentions. In this context, the petitioner was suddenly confronted with a
dangerous and prepared aggressor.
PEOPLE v. ABUYO 4. Charles kicked the bamboo fence of Leonardo's house, pointed his gun at people, and
Topic: Self defense; defense of a relative yelled for Leo to come out.
5. Leonardo attempted to pacify Charles but was stabbed in the lower left part of his
BLUE: Victim —Cesar (armed with fan knife and gun)
chest by Cesar.
RED: Accused-Appellant — Leo
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — Bolo 6. Leonardo ran toward Leo's house, with Cesar still pursuing him with the fan knife.
7. Leo went outside and confronted Cesar. Cesar attempted to stab Leo.
8. In self-defense, Leo grabbed a bolo from a table and hacked Cesar's right hand,
ISSUE: W/N petitioner should be convicted of HOMICIDE, or were the means employed by Leo
causing him to drop the fan knife.
is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful regression of Cesar?
9. Cesar managed to pick up the fan knife, but Leo stabbed him again in the lower part
of his stomach.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 10. Cesar later died due to the stab injury on his left abdomen and multiple lacerated
wounds on his right hand.
RTC: HOMICIDE
11. Leo voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities after the incident.

The RTC found that Leo employed means that were not reasonably necessary to repel the
unlawful aggression. However, the RTC appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance FIRST AND THIRD REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE PRESENT AT BAR
of incomplete self-defense and the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary Leo is arguing that the first and third requisites of self-defense and defense of a relative are
surrender. present in his case.
● Unlawful Aggression: This aggression included Cesar's attack on Leonardo and his
CA: AFFIRMED RTC
subsequent attempt to stab Leo.

2nd requisites was failed to be proven ○ Leo argues that he and his father were the victims of this aggression, and he
had the right to repel it to protect themselves.
● Lack of Sufficient Provocation: Leo maintains that he did not provoke the attack. He
SUMMARY:
argues that the confrontation originated from Cesar and Charles, who blocked their
Leo and his wife were riding a motorcycle when they encountered Cesar and Charles, armed
way and chased them while they were peacefully traveling home.
with a knife and a gun. Cesar and Charles blocked Leo's path, but Leo swerved and fled to his
○ Leo was already in his father's house when Cesar and Charles initiated the
father's house. Charles followed and created a disturbance.
commotion, further supporting his claim that he did not provoke the attack.

Cesar arrived and stabbed Leonardo Abuyo in the chest. Leonardo sought refuge in Leo's house.
RTC & CA — ABSENCE OF THE 2nd REQUISITE
Leo confronted Cesar in self-defense, and a struggle ensued. Leo eventually used a bolo to
1. Rational Equivalence: The law does not require material commensurability between
defend himself, injuring Cesar, which he later died from the injuries. Leo voluntarily
the means of attack and defense.
surrendered to the authorities after the incident.
● Instead, it demands rational equivalence, which takes into consideration not
only the nature and quality of the weapons used by both the defender and
FACTS:
the assailant but also the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense
1. One night at 7:30PM, Leo Abuyoy Sagrit and his wife were riding a motorcycle,
concerning the unlawful aggression.
heading home.
○ The court assesses whether the means employed by the defender
2. Leo encountered Cesar and his son, Charles, who were armed with a fan knife
were reasonably proportional to the threat posed by the aggressor,
(balisong) and a gun, respectively. Cesar and Charles blocked Leo's way.
considering all relevant factors.
3. Leo swerved the motorcycle to the left and sped toward the house of his father,
Leonardo Abuyo, with Charles in pursuit.
 2. Rational Necessity, Not Indispensable Need: Each case is judged based on the
relative necessity, whether it was more or less imperative, according to the rules of
rational logic.
● The accused may be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt concerning
whether they employed rational means to repel the aggression.
● The CA and RTC concluded that Leo did not meet the requirement of reasonable
necessity. This suggests that, in their judgment, the means Leo employed to defend
himself and his father may have been deemed excessive or disproportionate given the
circumstances.
● It is assumed that someone facing an imminent threat to their life or safety may not
have the time or mental clarity to engage in careful calculation and reasoned
judgment.
1. Subjective Belief: The test for self-defense and defense of a relative is
whether the accused had a subjective belief in the necessity of using force to
protect themselves or others. This belief is subjective, meaning it is based
on the accused's perception of the situation and the imminent danger they
SURVIVAL SITUATION POV
faced at the time.
2. Reasonableness of Belief: The reasonableness of the accused's belief is
evaluated from their standpoint at the time of the incident, considering the
circumstances as they appeared to the accused. It is not judged based on
how the situation might appear to others or on the belief that others may or
might entertain about the nature and imminence of the danger.
● The law recognizes that individuals who are in a situation where they have to defend
themselves or others may act instinctively and in the heat of the moment, without the
luxury of careful deliberation.
Corollarily, the courts should not demand that the accused conduct themselves with the poise
of a person not under imminent threat of fatal harm. It must be assumed that one who is
assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate, and make
comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of reason.
REASONABLE MEANS EMPLOYED
1. Continuation of Unlawful Aggression: The Court acknowledged that even after Leo
had hacked Cesar's right hand and temporarily disarmed him, Cesar's unlawful
aggression did not cease. Cesar remained determined to harm Leo and Leonardo,
making the threat more imminent and dangerous.
2. Lack of Opportunity for Other Options: The Court disagreed with the CA and RTC's
view that Leo had the opportunity to secure Cesar's knife, run away, or strike Cesar in
a less fatal manner to disable him. The Court found it unreasonable to expect Leo to
have made these choices given the pressing and life-threatening situation he was in.
3. Fear as a Motivating Factor: The Court took into consideration Leo's fear as a
motivating factor for his actions. It acknowledged that fear can significantly impact a
person's decision-making and actions when faced with a threat to their life.
4. Assessment of Reasonableness: Ultimately, the Court assessed the reasonableness of
Leo's actions in light of the circumstances he faced, rather than holding him to a
standard of perfect decision-making. It concluded that, given the immediate and
intense threat he and his father were under, Leo's use of force was justifiable as a
means to repel or parry Cesar's threats.
RTC — At this juncture, [Leo] had the CA — To escape, [Leo] could have simply
opportunity to secure Cesar's knife, or run disarmed Cesar again, or even caused him
away, or strike Cesar in order to — and injury to prevent him from further pursuit.
merely to — disable him from further attack.
1. Lack of Equanimity in a Life-Threatening Situation: Leo's actions should be
understood in the context of a life-and-death confrontation, where there is no time for
calm, calculated decision-making. In such high-stress situations, individuals may not
have the luxury of considering alternative courses of action.
2. Immediate Threat and Fear: Leo was confronted with an immediate threat to his life
and his wounded father's life. The argument emphasizes that Leo's fear was
compounded by the sight of his injured father and the unavailability of assistance. His
primary motivation was to protect their lives against the perceived aggressive actions
of Cesar and Charles.\
3. Instinct for Survival: The argument highlights that Leo's actions were driven by a
primal instinct for survival. He acted out of a sense of mortal fear and an urgent need
to defend himself and his father from what he perceived as an unyielding and
dangerous aggressor.
4. Blind Reaction Under Extreme Stress: Leo's response is described as a desperate and
instinctual reaction under extreme stress. The argument suggests that he was not
acting with criminal intent but rather moved by a powerful fear for his life and his
father's life. In this heightened state of fear and panic, Leo may not have been
discerning in his actions or the sites of his strikes.

PEOPLE v. OLARBE —
Instinct of Self-Preservation: The court recognized that individuals who are under the
immediate threat of harm do not have the time or mental composure to think, calculate, or
choose the ideal weapon to use in self-defense. Instead, their actions are driven by the
instinct of self-preservation.
Reasonable Actions in Response to Threat: The court emphasized that, in emergencies of
this nature, people act based on the instinct of self-preservation rather than formal reasoning.
When it is evident that a person reasonably acted in self-defense, the courts have a duty to
consider this and not hold the person legally responsible for the consequences.
Rational Equivalence: The law, as explained in this case, requires rational equivalence
between the perceived danger and the means employed to repel the attack. This means that
the response must be reasonably proportional to the threat faced, and it does not necessarily
require a strict material equivalence between the weapons used by the defender and the
aggressor.
● Self-defense can be justifiable when an individual reasonably believes that their life
or the lives of others are in immediate danger and uses force to protect themselves
or others from that threat.
○ The specific circumstances of each case are crucial in determining
whether the use of force was justified, and the court considered the
immediate and life-threatening situation faced by the accused in this
case.
PEOPLE v. GANAL JR. —
The court in this case also ruled that the accused's killing of the deceased was justified
based on the circumstances presented:
Aggressive Behavior of the Deceased: Similar to the previous case, the deceased engaged in
aggressive behavior, such as wielding a knife and throwing stones. The aggressor's actions
created a dangerous and hostile situation.
Attempted Intervention: The father of the accused attempted to intervene and peacefully
resolve the situation by asking the deceased to go home. However, the deceased's response
escalated the confrontation by physically attacking the accused's father.
Use of Warning Shot: The accused responded initially by firing a warning shot in the air,
which is a common practice to deter an aggressor and signal a willingness to defend oneself.
Continued Aggression: Despite the warning shot, the deceased continued to advance toward
the accused, posing a direct and imminent threat.
Use of Lethal Force: In response to the continued threat, the accused used lethal force by
shooting the deceased multiple times.
Instinct of Self-Preservation: The court emphasized that the accused's actions were
motivated by the instinct of self-preservation, recognizing that individuals facing such
life-threatening situations may not have the opportunity for calm deliberation and are judged
based on their reasonable responses to the perceived danger.
HOLDING:
NO. Leo should be acquitted on the grounds of self-defense and defense of a relative.
Leo was faced with a very real and imminent danger to his life and the life of his father,
Leonardo. The attack by Cesar with a fan knife was considered a serious threat, and Charles'
possession of a gun compounded the danger. Given the circumstances, Leo had to act swiftly to
defend himself and his father, especially since Leonardo was already injured and unable to
provide assistance. Cesar's stomach wound proved to be fatal does not diminish the
reasonableness of Leo's response. Leo's primary concern was to repel the immediate threat to
his life and his father's life.
RATIO:
Individuals facing an immediate and life-threatening situation may not have the luxury of calm
and deliberate decision-making. Leo, in this case, was confronted with a rapidly unfolding
situation where he had to react quickly to protect himself and his father. The law is interpreted
to require an assessment of the rational necessity of an individual's actions based on their
perception at the time of the incident. In Leo's case, the evaluation should consider what
appeared to be necessary for his self-preservation when facing a determined and potentially
lethal aggressor.
Leo's failure to preemptively attack the disarmed Cesar when he lost grip of the knife is
highlighted. This suggests that Leo was not motivated by a desire to kill but rather by a reactive
response to the situation. If Leo had homicidal intentions, he could have attempted to kill both
Cesar and Charles to eliminate any potential threats. However, Leo's actions were primarily
directed at the aggressor who posed an immediate danger. Leo's voluntary surrender to the
authorities after the incident is cited as evidence of his innocence. It is noted that unexplained
flight is often seen as an indication of guilt, but Leo's willingness to face legal authorities
suggests a lack of criminal intent.
PEOPLE v. BALUYOT ● Joselito shouted, "tama na" when he was about 30 meters away from the
Topic: Justifying circumstance of Self-Defense fight. His passenger noticed that the petitioner had reddish hands and was
carrying a bladed weapon. Joselito then witnessed petitioner stab the
BLUE: Victim — Walter Aquino
victim, Walter Aquino, multiple times before fleeing the scene and riding a
RED: Accused-Appellant — Angelito Baluyot
GREEN: Witness(es) — Joselito Labandilo tricycle, leaving him lying on the ground.
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — 2. Alfredo — he saw Aquino approach the petitioner with a bladed weapon, and the
petitioner tried to evade him. Aquino attempted to stab the petitioner, but petitioner
managed to avoid the attack by grabbing Aquino's hands. The two then fell to the
ISSUE: W/N the accused-appellant acted in self-defense, or was there a clear intent to kill?
ground and wrestled for about three minutes, during which time the petitioner was
able to gain control of the bladed weapon and use it to stab Aquino.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ● testified that Aquino drew a bladed weapon from behind while
approaching the petitioner, who was 100 meters away.
RTC: HOMICIDE
● After fending off the attack, the petitioner held Aquino's arms until they
CA: AFFIRMED both fell to the ground.
CONTENTION OF BALUYOT
● Joselito, the main eyewitness, did not actually witness the initial fistfight and failed to
FACTS:
recognize the individuals involved.
1. At around 2:30 p.m. on March 11, 2007, Joselito and his passenger encountered people
○ He contends that Joselito, who was approximately fifty meters away from
in the middle of the road where there appeared to be an ongoing fistfight.
the scene, could not have seen him stabbing Aquino multiple times in
2. He then parked his tricycle about 50 meters away from the commotion.
various body parts.
3. He did not initially recognize the persons involved in the fight, but when he moved
● He asserts that he was able to demonstrate the presence of a real and imminent threat
closer, he identified one of them as Baluyot. He alleged that he knew the petitioner
to his life when Aquino, after blocking and punching him, brandished a knife and
because they reside in the same barangay.
threatened to kill him.
4. Joselito recalled shouting, "tama na" when he was about 30 meters away from the
TWO FORMS OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION — PEOPLE v. PLACER
commotion.
5. His passenger then noticed the petitioner's reddish hands while carrying a bladed Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression: An attack or assault characterized by physical
weapon. hereafter, Joselito saw the petitioner stab the victim multiple times, and force or the use of a weapon.
thereafter ran and rode a tricycle, leaving the victim, ● It involves an offensive act that clearly demonstrates the aggressor's intent to cause
harm or injury.
6. Walter Aquino, lying on the ground. Aquino was then brought to the Morong Rural
○ In other words, it is a tangible and real attack that poses a genuine threat
Health Unit, while Joselito reported the incident to the police station.
to the life or safety of the person being attacked.
7. At around 2:35PM, Baluyot voluntarily surrendered at the Morong Police Station.
Imminent Unlawful Aggression: An impending or imminent attack that is on the verge of
WITNESS’ TESTIMONY happening.
1. Joselito — he was driving his tricycle with a passenger when he encountered a ● It should not be mere threats or imaginary actions but must be offensive and
strongly indicative of the intent to harm.
commotion in the middle of the road, which appeared to be a fistfight. Joselito parked
○ For example, aiming a loaded gun at someone with the intention to shoot
his tricycle about 50 meters away and initially couldn't recognize the people involved.
or brandishing a knife while making a threatening motion would
● However, as he moved closer, he identified one of them as the Baluyot constitute imminent unlawful aggression.
because they lived in the same barngay.
PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
● Argued that the prosecution's main eyewitness, Joselito, did not witness him actually
stabbing Aquino.
○ However, the petitioner had already admitted to the act of killing Aquino
when he raised the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
cast doubt on the reasonableness of the means chosen to prevent
or repel the unlawful aggression.
HOLDING:
The accused should be held liable for HOMICIDE. The accused cannot invoke self-defense as a
justifying circumstance as when he stabbed the victim, he was already rendered defenseless.

Even if it were assumed that Aquino initiated the aggression, the Court would still reject the
claim of self-defense because the unlawful aggression had ceased when the petitioner
gained control of the knife. It is a well-established principle that when an unlawful
aggression has ended, the person invoking self-defense no longer has the right to kill or
wound the former aggressor. In this case, once the petitioner dispossessed Aquino of the
weapon, any subsequent act on his part would not be considered self-defense but retaliation.
TESTIMONY OF BALUYOT
● He was able to parry Aquino's attack and hold Aquino's arms, which resulted in both
of them falling to the ground.
○ According to his account, he was capable of defending himself even
without using the knife, particularly since he claimed that Aquino was
intoxicated. Furthermore, the petitioner stated that he was on top of
Aquino when he successfully disarmed him.
● Based on these circumstances, it is evident that Aquino was not only unarmed but
also physically restrained by the petitioner at the time he was disarmed.
○ As a result, the petitioner was no longer facing any imminent or immediate
danger to his life.
○ Therefore, the element of unlawful aggression had ceased to exist, and any
subsequent actions by the petitioner could not be justified as self-defense.
There was a clear intent to kill with the number and location of stab wounds, wherein the stab
wounds were located on different parts of the victim’s upper body.
RATIO:
Based on these circumstances, it is evident that Aquino was not only unarmed but also physically
restrained by the petitioner at the time he was disarmed. The unlawful aggression had ceased
when the petitioner gained control of the knife. It is a well-established principle that when an
unlawful aggression has ended, the person invoking self-defense no longer has the right to kill or
wound the former aggressor.
The presence of multiple stab wounds on a victim is typically seen as strong evidence of a
determined effort to kill that victim. In this case, the number and locations of the wounds
inflicted on Aquino contradict petitioner's self-defense claim. It appears that petitioner went
beyond the limits of self-preservation by intentionally causing fatal injuries to the victim, even
though the alleged aggression had already stopped. Consequently, petitioner's actions cannot be
regarded as self-defense but rather as retaliation against Aquino.

ANOTHER INSTANCE THAT NEGATES CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE

● Number of wounds inflicted upon victim
○ Each case should be evaluated based on relative necessity, considering
whether the means used were more or less imperative in accordance with
the principles of rational logic.
■ When determining the reasonable necessity of the means
employed, the courts may also take into account the number of
wounds inflicted on the victim.
■ If a large number of wounds are inflicted, it may suggest a
determined effort by the accused to kill the victim, which could
PEOPLE v. ADVINCULA initiated the aggression. Therefore, the circumstances do not support a
Topic: Test of unlawful aggression; actual or material and imminent, distinguished: claim of self-defense on the part of the accused-appellant.
Also: Defense of relative; Elements of murder

BLUE: Victim — Reggie Actual or material unlawful aggression: This occurs when the aggressor employs physical
RED: Accused-Appellant — Rodolfo Advincula force or wields a weapon, signifying a clear intention to harm the victim physically. It
GREEN: Witness(es) — Rollane involves a direct offensive act that establishes the aggressor's intent to cause injury.
PURPLE: Weapons(s) —knife
Imminent unlawful aggression: This pertains to an impending attack that is on the verge of
occurring. It should not be limited to mere threatening gestures or attitudes but should be
ISSUE: W/N Advincula was acting under SELF-DEFENSE when he stabbed Reggie to death?
offensive, strong, and positively indicative of an impending attack. Examples include aiming a
loaded revolver with the intent to shoot or brandishing a knife with a motion indicating an
attack.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

RTC: MURDER with Evident Premeditation and Treachery attending the killing
CA: AFFIRMED CONVICTION with treachery only
FACTS:
1. Around 6PM, Rollane, Reggie, and Joseph were gathered at a store and engaged in
conversation.
2. Suddenly, Advincula approached Reggie from behind, seized his neck with his left
arm, and thrust a knife into Reggie's side.
3. Reggie managed to push Advincula, causing both of them to fall.
4. After regaining his footing, Reggie attempted to escape but stumbled. At that
moment, the accused-appellant caught up to him and inflicted two stab wounds to
Reggie's chest while he lay on his back. Reggie was rushed to the hospital but was
pronounced dead upon arrival.
SUSTAINED WOUNDS
● Rollane's account of the number and manner of Reggie's wounds was corroborated by
the medico-legal report and Dr. Palmero's diagram.
○ Rollane's description of how the accused-appellant attacked Reggie and the
sequence of events leading to the injuries was consistent with the physical
evidence presented in the case.
● The medical evidence provided by Dr. Palmero, including the number and location of
Reggie's wounds, directly contradicts the accused-appellant's version of events.
○ The attack by the accused-appellant on Reggie was described as swift and
deliberate, and there is no evidence to suggest that Reggie provoked or
ARGUMENT INVALID
● The accused-appellant's argument that the safety of his siblings was compromised due
to the threat of harm from Reggie is not a valid justification for invoking self-defense.
○ In self-defense claims, unlawful aggression must involve a real and
imminent threat to the life or personal safety of the person defending
themselves. It cannot be based on imagined or imaginary threats.
● Even if we were to consider the defense's version of events as credible, there is no
valid basis to claim that unlawful aggression existed on Reggie's part when he was
stabbed by the accused-appellant.
○ Unlawful aggression requires either an actual assault or a threatened assault
of an immediate and imminent nature.
● The accused-appellant's own admissions undermine the argument of unlawful
aggression.
○ There was no confrontation, communication, or harm inflicted by Reggie on
the accused-appellant or his siblings inside the house.
○ Furthermore, assuming there was initial unlawful aggression, it ceased to
exist when Reggie left the accused-appellant's house and went to a
nearby store. At that point, there was no longer any ongoing aggression
from Reggie that posed a threat to the accused-appellant and his siblings.
● The nature, number, and location of the wounds inflicted on the victim strongly
suggest a determined effort to kill rather than a genuine act of self-defense.
○ The severity of the wounds indicates an intention to cause death, not merely
to defend oneself.
○ The accused-appellant's claim that Reggie entered his house armed with a
knife and threatened his siblings lacks supporting evidence, both
documentary and testimonial, to substantiate it.
 ■ Self-defense cannot be accepted without corroborating PEOPLE v. COLINARES
independent and competent evidence, especially when it is highly Topic: Unlawful aggression and proof thereof:
doubtful. Also: Attempted and Frustrated homicide/murder distinguished;
ELEMENTS OF MURDER Intent to take life as main element

To warrant a conviction for the crime of murder, the following essential elements must be BLUE: Victim — Rufino Buena
present: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing RED: Accused-Appellant — Arnel Colinares
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and GREEN: Witnesses — Paciano Alano, Diomedes Paulite, Jesus
(4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide. Paulite, Ananias Jollares
PURPLE: Weapon(s) — Stone

TO APPRECIATE TREACHERY
ISSUE(S):
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the
1. Should Colinares be guilty of the crime FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE, or only
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused
ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE for the extent of injuries inflicted upon the victim?
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him. 2. WN Arnel successfully demonstrated that he acted in self-defense by establishing that
there was unlawful aggression committed against him by Rufino?

HOLDING:
NO. Advincula should be convicted with MURDER qualified by treachery. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

RTC: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE

RATIO:
The accused-appellant's confession that he followed Reggie to the store with the intention of
CA: AFFIRMED RTC’S DECISION (appeal for attempted
harming him contradicts his claim of self-defense or defense of his siblings from alleged threats homicide rejected)
by Reggie. This suggests that when the accused-appellant stabbed Reggie, he was acting as
the unlawful aggressor seeking retaliation for Reggie's earlier alleged unlawful aggression.
SUMMARY:
Retaliation against Reggie occurred after any alleged unlawful aggression had ceased.
Rufino together with Jesus went out to buy cigarettes, and as they were walking, Colinares
struck Rufino twice with a stone from behind. The impact of the blow led the victim to lose
The principle in jurisprudence is clear: a person defending themselves has no right to attack an
consciousness, and was brought to the hospital by a bystander. The medical examination showed
aggressor when the unlawful aggression has already ended. Aggression must be continuous to
that the wounds were not fatal. .
justify self-defense. When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender loses the right to kill or
wound the former aggressor. This act of retaliation is distinct from self-defense, where the
FACTS:
aggression is ongoing when the defender responds.
1. Rufino and Jesus went out to buy cigarettes. As they were walking, Jesus stopped to
urinate by the roadside while Rufino waited nearby.
2. Unexpectedly, Colinares approached Rufino from behind and attacked him. Colinares
struck Rufino twice on the head with a large stone, which was approximately 15 1/2
inches in diameter. As a result of the blows, Rufino lost consciousness.
3. Ananias, who happened to be passing by, saw Rufino lying on the roadside and
attempted to help him. However, while trying to assist Rufino, he was struck on the
right temple by Colinares. This blow also rendered Ananias unconscious.
 4. Paciano, a bystander who was smoking outside his house, witnessed the entire
incident. He promptly sought the help of a barangay tanod, and together they COURT’S INCLINATION TO HOLD ACCUSED OF ATTEMPTED CRIME
transported Rufino to the hospital. ● In PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE, to clarify the distinction between frustrated and
attempted homicide:
MEDICO-LEGAL CERTIFICATE ○ In cases where the accused intended to kill the victim but the victim did not
● Rufino suffered 2 lacerated wounds die due to timely medical assistance, the crime is categorized as frustrated
○ These injuries were serious and potentially fatal murder or frustrated homicide.
DIOMEDES’ TESTIMONY ■ HOWEVER, if the victim's wounds are not fatal, the offense is
● He, Rufino, Jesus and Ananias all attended a pre-wedding party classified as attempted murder or attempted homicide.
● His companions were all drunk ● DR. BELLEZA — testified that "head injuries are always very serious," he could not
● On his way home, he saw the 3 engaged with a heated argument with Colinares categorically say that Rufino's wounds in this case were "fatal."
○ Rufino had two lacerations on his forehead but there was no indication that
COLINARES’ CONTENTION his skull incurred fracture or that he bled internally as a result of the
● Acting in self defense pounding of his head. The wounds were not so deep, they merely required
suturing, and were estimated to heal in seven or eight days.
In homicide, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted, self- defense requires:
(1) that the person whom the offender killed or injured committed unlawful aggression;
(2) that the offender employed means that is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
unlawful aggression; and ● Voluntary surrender
(3) that the person defending himself did not act with sufficient provocation.

● Jesus, Paciano, and Ananias, testified that Colinares was the aggressor in the HOLDING:

situation. Although their testimonies had inconsistencies 1. The court classified the crime as ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE, aligning with its

○ They were consistent in their assertion that Colinares initiated the attack recognition of Colinares’ intent to kill and the extent of Rufino's injuries.

and was the aggressor. 2. NO.

ASSESSING THE CRIMINAL ACT OF COLINARES RATIO:

1. Intent to Kill: Inferred from various factors, including the means used by the 1. The intent to kill is evident. Colinares struck Rufino on the head with a large stone,

offender and the nature, location, and number of wounds inflicted on the victim. delivering a forceful blow that left Rufino unconscious. The use of such a significant

2. Accused's Actions: Accused, struck Rufino on the head with a large stone. The blow and deadly weapon, along with the location of the inflicted wounds, clearly

was described as forceful, and it rendered Rufino unconscious. indicated his intent to take Rufino's life.

● Given the significant size of the weapon, the impact it produced, and the
location of the wounds inflicted on Rufino, the court concluded that However, the crime is already attempted homicide as the expert testimony provided

Arnel had the intent to kill him. by Dr. Belleza’s examination revealed that Rufino had sustained 2 lacerations on his

3. Frustrated Homicide: In light of the evidence and the court's determination of forehead. There was no evidence of a skull fracture or internal bleeding resulting from

Colinares' intent to kill, it is reasonable to classify the offense as frustrated the head injury. While Rufino's wounds were serious enough to require suturing, they

homicide. were not life-threatening, and he was expected to heal within seven or eight days.

● Frustrated homicide occurs when the offender has the intent to kill but fails
to do so due to external factors, such as medical intervention or the victim's 2. The courts in this case found that Arnel, the accused, failed to prove the element of

survival. unlawful aggression necessary for a valid claim of self-defense. Arnel's testimony was
the sole account of the events, where he claimed that Jesus, Ananias, and Rufino had
attacked him with fist blows and attempted to stab him. However, there was no
corroboration of Arnel's testimony, and his witness, Diomedes, only stated that he saw
a heated argument but did not provide any evidence of Arnel suffering injuries from
Rufino and his companions.

To establish self-defense, it is crucial to demonstrate that the victim committed

unlawful aggression against the accused. Unlawful aggression entails an actual,
sudden, and unexpected attack or an imminent danger of such an attack, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude. Without this element, the other requisites of
self-defense have no basis for application.

Three witnesses—Jesus, Paciano, and Ananias—testified that Arnel was the aggressor
in the situation. Although their testimonies contained inconsistencies, they all agreed
that Arnel was the one who initiated the altercation.

PEOPLE v. SUMICAD
Topic: When is the the means employed in self-defense to be considered of “reasonable
exception acknowledges that sometimes, the use of deadly force may be
necessity”?:
the only option for self-preservation when there is no opportunity to flee
BLUE: Victim — Segundo or when fleeing would be ineffective.
RED: Accused-Appellant — Sumicad
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — bolo
REPUTATION AND CHARACTER OF VICTIM
● The deceased was described as a larger, stronger, and quarrelsome individual with a
ISSUE: W/N Sumicad should be acquitted on the crime of HOMICIDE as he was acting in history of criminal convictions for assault, battery, inflicting minor physical injuries,
SELF-DEFENSE? and theft.
● It is evident from the evidence that the deceased had a reputation for being
hot-tempered and was considered a troublemaker by his neighbors.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
○ These aspects of the deceased's character and behavior may be relevant
CFI HOMICIDE factors in the court's assessment of the circumstances leading to the
confrontation between the accused and the deceased.

FACTS:
ASSESSING THE CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Sumicad, while engaged in labor, had a confrontation with another individual,
● It is evident that the quarrel that led to the death of Segundo Cubol was initiated by
Segundo Cubol.
Cubol himself, and the accused was not significantly responsible for the altercation.
2. The accused had previously worked for Cubol and asked him to pay for the labor. An
● In light of this, two critical elements of self-defense were clearly present:
argument ensued, leading to Segundo striking the accused with his fist.
○ Cubol was the aggressor, and there was a lack of sufficient provocation on
3. The accused attempted to retreat but was cornered by a pile of logs. As Segundo
the part of the accused.
continued to advance, the accused drew a bolo (a type of machete) to defend himself.
● The remaining question in determining the accused's criminal liability is whether
4. When Segundo lunged at the accused in an attempt to take the bolo, the accused
there was reasonable necessity for the means employed by the accused to prevent or
struck him with it, inflicting fatal wounds.
repel the aggression he faced.
5. The accused argued that he acted in self-defense, asserting that Segundo was
○ When the aggression was initiated by Cubol, the accused attempted to
attempting to draw a knife from his pocket when the confrontation turned violent.
retreat but found himself cornered in the angle of a pile of logs, leaving him
Segundo later died from the wounds inflicted by the accused.
with no option for further retreat.
○ In response to the blows delivered by Cubol with his fists, the accused
RULE IN SELF-DEFENSE
struck Cubol with a cut on the left shoulder. However, the evidence suggests
The rule regarding self-defense recognizes that individuals have a right to protect themselves that this wound alone would not have resulted in death.
from harm, but the specific circumstances can affect how this right is applied. In situations
● The crucial turning point in the case is when the accused delivered the cut to Cubol's
where two individuals are in an open area, and the person being attacked has the option to
left shoulder. At this moment, Cubol should have been warned that any further
retreat or escape from the aggressor without the use of deadly force, they are generally not
aggression on his part would be met with determined resistance and that
justified in taking the life of the assailant.
continuing to advance would put his life in grave danger. Instead of heeding this
However, there are exceptions to this rule. warning, Cubol continued to press forward in an attempt to take possession of the
● When the person being assaulted cannot easily retreat or escape and is confronted bolo, which was the only means of defense available to the accused.
with a dangerous aggressor. ● Accused used the bolo to defend himself against an aggressor who disregarded the
○ In such cases, the individual under attack may use a weapon or any
warning and persisted in trying to disarm him.
means reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm. This
 ○ Given the situation where the accused was cornered and the aggressor
continued to approach, it could be argued that there was reasonable
necessity for the accused to employ the means he used to repel the
aggression.
The accused could reasonably have been expected to defend himself in the manner he did. It
was not reasonable to expect him to surrender the weapon to his assailant, who was not only
larger and stronger but also infuriated by the blood drawn from his shoulder. Allowing the
weapon to fall into the hands of such an aggressor could have amounted to an act of suicide.

HOLDING:
YES. Sumicad is acquitted. In this case, the accused argued that he acted in self-defense because
Cubol was the aggressor and was trying to draw a knife from his pocket. The accused claimed
that he used the bolo as a means to protect himself from the perceived threat posed by Cubol.
RATIO:
In the situation described, where the deceased was a known violent bully and attempted to
disarm the accused, who was unarmed except for a bolo (a kind of machete), the court appears to
have recognized that the accused had a reasonable fear for their life or safety. In this context,
allowing the bolo to be taken by the aggressive assailant would have posed a grave and
immediate threat to the accused.
The established principle in jurisprudence, which generally states that a person is not
justified in taking the life of someone who assaults them with fists alone, assumes a situation
where the parties involved can retreat or avoid the confrontation. However, this principle
does not apply when the person assaulted has retreated to a point of no escape, as was the
case here, and uses the only weapon at their disposal for defensive purposes. In such
circumstances, the individual is not required to make fine distinctions about the potential
harm a reckless and infuriated assailant might inflict.
It was not incumbent upon the accused, when facing a known bully with a history of violence,
who was physically larger and stronger, to take the risk of losing possession of his bolo and
potentially having it turned against him with fatal consequences. Given these conditions, he
had the right to defend himself with the bolo, and if, unfortunately, a fatal blow was inflicted,
it should be considered an act of justifiable self-defense.

The court seems to have considered that the accused's act of using the bolo to protect
themselves from the aggressive actions of the deceased was a justifiable act of self-defense.

In such cases, the law recognizes that individuals have the right to defend themselves when
facing an imminent threat to their life or physical well-being. The accused's response was likely
seen as a means of preserving their own life and safety when confronted by an aggressor who
posed a clear danger.

NADYAHAN v. PEOPLE
Topic: When is the the means employed in self-defense to be considered of “reasonable 7. In a confrontation near the KMS Line parking area, petitioner was hit by Pagaddut
necessity”?: with a belt buckle, causing him to lose consciousness.
8. While still under attack, Nadyahan thrust his knife and stabbed Pagaddut before both
BLUE: Victim — Mark Anthony Pagaddut
fell to the ground.
RED: Accused-Appellant — Nadyhan
GREEN: Witness(es) — Pedro Binwag 9. After the altercation, Nadyahan wiped his face and left the scene, taking Apilis's
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — knife motorcycle.
10. Apilis refused to accompany the Nadyahan, so he drove away. He later sought medical
treatment in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, and eventually surrendered to authorities in
ISSUE: W/N the court erred in ruling that there was an incomplete self-defense, such that
Ifugao.
Nadyahan should be liable for HOMICIDE?

WITNESS’ TESTIMONY
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
RTC: HOMICIDE
SUMMARY:
Nadyahan, riding a motorcycle with Apilis, was stopped by Acangan and three others. Acangan
asked for a ride and drinks, but when Nadyahan refused, Acangan became aggressive. Nadyahan
prepared to fight but saw Acangan's friends picking up weapons. He fled to his motorcycle but
was hit by one of them. In self-defense, Nadyahan grabbed a knife and ran, pursued by
Acangan's group. A confrontation ensued, and Nadyahan stabbed Pagaddut, who later died.
Nadyahan sought medical treatment and surrendered to authorities.
1. Pedro Binwag — witnessed a violent altercation near the junction road while he was
waiting for a jeepney. He observed the following sequence of events:
● He saw one person armed with a knife running towards Bontoc.
● This person was being chased by two men.
● The person with the knife was eventually cornered by three men.
● He witnessed one of the men strike the person with a club on the head.
● As the person was about to fall down from the club strike, another man with
a swinging object bumped into him, causing both of them to fall.
● Sensing danger or possibly fearing for his own safety, Pedro Binwag decided
to leave the area.

CAUSE OF DEATH
FACTS: ● Three stab wounds
1. Nadyahan was riding his motorcycle with Mark Apilis, when they were flagged down 1. One perforating and penetrating wound on the anterior chest wall on the
by Marcial Acangan, who was accompanied by three others: Elias Nabejet, Moreno right side;
Binwag, and Mark Pagaddut. 2. Other is perforating and penetrating stab wound at the base of the right side
2. Acangan requested Nadyahan for a ride home, which the latter obliged. of the neck; and
3. Acangan requested for them to be treated with drink, and when petitioner declined to 3. One was a stab wound on the right upper arm.
buy them drinks, Acangan became angry, slapped petitioner on his forehead, and
kicked his food. TRIAL COURT’S BELIEF
4. Nadyahan got off his motorcycle and prepared to fight Acangan. He saw Acangan's 1. Petitioner was not the initial aggressor in the altercation.
companions picking up pieces of wood, and fearing for his safety, he ran back to his 2. Despite this, the trial court concluded that petitioner only acted in incomplete
motorcycle. self-defense.
5. Nadyahan instructed Apilis to start the motorcycle, but before they could leave, 3. The trial court based this conclusion on the severity of the wounds sustained by the
Nabejet struck the petitioner on the back with a piece of wood. victim, suggesting that the means used by petitioner to prevent or repel the attack
6. In self-defense, the Nadyahan grabbed a knife from his motorcycle and ran towards were not reasonable.
his house. Acangan's group pursued him.
 4. Considered incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating circumstance, which
typically results in a more favorable penalty for the accused.
5. Voluntary surrender was considered an ordinary mitigating circumstance, which can
further reduce the penalty imposed on the accused.
PRESENCE OF TWO ELEMENTS — UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION & LACK OF
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
1. Acangan had requested a ride home from the accused, especially after stating that
there was no problem with giving Marcial a ride home—THERE IS NO PROBLEM
WITH THAT BECAUSE MARCIAL IS A FRIEND.
2. There was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused to invite the attack
from Marcial Acangan and his companions. The court noted that the accused had
initially agreed to Marcial's request for a ride home, indicating a lack of provocation.
The accused's subsequent refusal or failure to buy drinks, as requested by Marcial, was
also deemed insufficient provocation to justify the attack by the victim's group.
Therefore, the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused was established
as one of the requirements for self-defense to qualify as a justifying circumstance.
ARE THE MEANS EMPLOYED PROPORTIONATE?
● Trial court said there there was a disproportion between KNIFE and a BELT
BUCKLE
○ Physical evidence also showed wounds on the forehead
○ Victim were already drunk—belt buckle and a piece of wood might not have
been a potent weapon
○ Knife wounds were all aimed at vital body parts
■ 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.
● The means employed by a person invoking self-defense must be rationally equivalent
to the means of attack and defense.
○ In this case, the petitioner used a knife against 4 men who were armed
with a belt buckle and a club.
○ To assess the reasonableness of the means employed, the court typically
considers factors such as the number and behavior of the attackers, the
nature of the weapons involved, and the circumstances surrounding the
confrontation.
● Petitioner argues that he was put in a situation where he could not control or
calculate the blows and did not have time to reflect on whether to incapacitate the
victim or hit a less vital part of his body.
HOLDING:
While the court gives credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, two of the
elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense are present, however, the court found that
there is no presence of a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel an
attack.
RATIO:
In doing so, the Court enumerated five (5) circumstances which proves the aforementioned lack
of presence:
1. There is an intrinsic disproportion between a knife and a belt buckle;
2. Accused-appellant only suffered only a lacerated wound on the forehead while his
victim sustained multiple stab wounds;
3. Victim & Co were drunk before the fight. That being said, a belt buckle and pieces of
wood might not have been potent weapons in the hands of a drunk wielder, i.e. they’re
drunk—how much damage could they have done with those weapons;
4. Knife wounds were all aimed at vital parts of the body, suggesting that
accused-appellant was warding off belt buckle thrusts and used his knife as a means
commensurate to the thrusts he avoided.
5. Depth and locations of stab wounds indicate that thrusts were meant to kill, not
merely disable the victim, in order to avoid his drunken thrusts.
The trial court also ruled that based on the wounds sustained by the victim, the means used
by petitioner to prevent/repel the attack was not reasonable.
Petitioner defends the use of a knife by claiming that since the aggressors were ganging up on
him, he was put in a situation where he could not control or calculate the blows, nor could he
have had time to reflect whether to incapacitate the victim or hit the less vital parts of his body.
Other reasons: prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were unreliable (victim’s wounds were frontal,
no wounds in the back), thus, petitioner’s testimony was given full credence.
PEOPLE v. LUAGUE
Topic:
BLUE: Victim —
RED: Accused-Appellant —
GREEN: Witness(es) —
PURPLE: Weapons(s) —

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

MARIANO v. PEOPLE
Topic: WHEN IS THERE A VALID GROUNDS TO INVOKE “DEFENSE OF STRANGER” AS
A JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE?:
 5. Mariano, in an attempt to defend himself, picked up a knife and stabbed Frederick in
BLUE: Victim — Frederick Natividad
the buttocks. As Frederick continued his assault, Mariano stabbed him again, this time
RED: Accused-Appellant —Ryan Mariano
GREEN: Witness(es) — Pamela (Common-law wife of Mariano), Pia (step-daughter of on the right side of his body.
Mariano), Yuki, Dr. Madrid 6. Mariano claimed that his actions were in self-defense and in defense of his relative,
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — Knife considering Frederick's aggressive behavior.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner may invoke SELF-DEFENSE as justifying circumstance? MEDICAL FINDINGS
Dr. Archie B. La Madrid — issued the Medical Certificate certifying his "penetrating wound at
the right lobe of the liver caused by a sharp object. There was profuse bleeding from the
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
liver."
● The wound in the abdomen punctured the liver, and Frederick would have died
RTC: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
without the timely medical intervention.

SUMMARY:
CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES
Mariano witnessed an argument between Frederick and Yuki at Pamela's house. The argument
1. Mariano — Frederick did pick up a piece of wood (measuring 2x2 nches) after falling
stemmed from Frederick's request for Yuki to buy marijuana, which Yuki refused. Frederick
to the ground when he pushed him. He further stated that Frederick attempted to
turned violent, attacking Yuki and kicking Pamela's daughter, Pia. Pamela confronted
strike him on the head with the piece of wood but failed because he was able to parry
Frederick, who then assaulted her. Mariano intervened and pushed Frederick to the ground, but
the blow.
Frederick continued to attack Mariano with a piece of wood.
➔ Frederick did use a piece of wood as a weapon during the altercation.
2. Pia — Frederick Natividad kicked her, and her stepfather Mariano, witnessed the
In self-defense, Mariano grabbed a knife and stabbed Frederick in the buttocks. Due to
incident. Mariano then attempted to defend her by picking up a piece of small wood
Frederick's relentless assault, Mariano stabbed him again, this time on his right side. Mariano
but did not succeed in hitting Frederick.
claimed his actions were in self-defense and defense of his relative, given Frederick's aggressive
➔ She went back to her room because her head was starting to bleed.
behavior.
● The conflicting testimonies regarding whether Frederick actually posed an imminent
threat with a piece of wood raise doubts about the existence of an imminent threat to
FACTS:
Mariano's life.
1. Mariano was in his mother's house at around 8:30 p.m. He then went to Pamela's
house (his common-law wife) where he witnessed an argument between Frederick and
RTC — QUESTIONS THE PRESENCE OF JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF
Yuki.
SELF-DEFENSE ON THE PART OF MARIANO
2. The argument revolves around Frederick's request for Yuki to buy marijuana for him,
● The nature of Frederick Natividad's second wound, which affected his liver and was
which Yuki refused. The situation escalated as Frederick became violent, slapping
potentially fatal, contradicts the notion of self-defense or defense of a relative or
Yuki and kicking Pamela's daughter, Pia.
stranger.
3. Mariano intervened and went inside to inform his mother-in-law and Pamela about
○ If Mariano had genuinely acted in self-defense, a single stab wound to the
Frederick's aggressive behavior towards Yuki and Pia.
buttock to immobilize the victim would have sufficed.
4. Pamela confronted Frederick, who responded by punching her on the face and
○ However, the fact that Mariano stabbed Frederick 2nd time in the
shoulder. Mariano then pushed Frederick to the ground, but he got up and began
abdomen, potentially targeting vital organs, suggests a different intent.
attacking Mariano with a piece of wood.
● Suggests that Mariano's actions may have been motivated by revenge, resentment, or
another motive, rather than a genuine need for self-defense.
RTC’S RULING
● Determined that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Frederick
○ Even if there had been unlawful aggression, the court found that Marianos
response was unreasonable as:
1. Frederick was drunk and staggering, making it relatively easy for
Mariano to avoid former's attempts to hit him.
2. Mariano had the option to simply push Frederick outside the
property and secure the gate, which would have defused the
situation without resorting to violence.
3. Instead of choosing a less lethal course of action, Mariano opted
to stab Frederick twice.
4. The nature and number of stab wounds inflicted by Mariano
indicated a clear intent to kill, rather than a reasonable response
to a perceived threat.
ABSENCE OF THE ELEMENTS
1. The element of unlawful aggression was clearly absent.
● The accused himself admitted that he was able to evade each hit by the
complainant because the latter was intoxicated and staggering during the
incident.
○ Moreover, the absence of unlawful aggression was further
supported by the physical evidence, which demonstrated that only
the complainant had been wounded in the altercation.
○ Additionally, Pamela Rivera, indicated that the complainant was
merely shouting and not physically posing a threat to the
accused at the time of the incident.
■ UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL OR
IMMINENT THREAT
● Mariano's own witnesses confirmed that they were all inside the house
when the stabbing occurred, undermining the claim of imminent danger
to their lives.
2. Mariano did not employ reasonable means to repel the attack.
● Frederick was drunk and staggering during the altercation.
● Mariano could have simply pushed Frederick outside the premises and
secured the gate or door of their house to protect himself.
○ Instead, Mariano chose to stab Fredericktwice, and the nature
and number of stab wounds indicated an intent to kill rather than
merely repel the attack.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER
1. Unlawful aggression on the part of Frederick was present. The records established
that Frederick attacked Pia, Yuki, and Pamela. Pia and Yuki were both minors.
2. Means he employed were reasonable and emphasizes that reasonable necessity does
not require absolute necessity. He contends that a person who is assaulted should
not be expected to have the composure to make calculated judgments about the
reasonableness of their reaction to the assault.
○ In this particular case, the petitioner asserts that he had no choice but to
stab Frederick who had continuously attacked him with a piece of wood and
had previously assaulted Pamela and Pia.
○ The petitioner claims that Fredericks's actions had filled him with intense
fear, leading to a state of panic in which he reacted by stabbing the latter.
3. There was a lack of sufficient provocation on his part.
HOLDING:
YES. The elements of SELF-DEFENSE as justifying circumstance are present in this case at bar.
RATIO:
FIRST. Unlawful aggression was present. Frederick did not dispute the fact that he attacked
Pamela and Pia, and he claimed not to remember these actions. An attack demonstrating the
aggressor's intent is sufficient to establish that unlawful aggression took place. Therefore, the
assault on Pamela should have been recognized as unlawful aggression when invoking the
justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger.
SECOND. Reasonable necessity does not mean absolute necessity. When someone is under
assault, they often lack the time and mental composure to carefully deliberate and choose the
ideal means of defense. In such emergencies, human nature tends to respond instinctively in the
interest of self-preservation.
In this case, the person who was attacked, despite being drunk and unable to land blows,
continued to be aggressively belligerent, targeting 3 individuals, including minors and the
petitioner's common-law wife.
Although Pamela, Pia, and Yuki had retreated inside the house at the time of the stabbing, from
the petitioner's perspective, it may have seemed that there was no other reasonable means to
protect his family except through the actions he took. It is important to recognize that
demanding a specific course of action from individuals who are under the immediate stress and
threat of such situations, without the benefit of hindsight, can be unreasonable. The petitioner
acted based on the perceived threat he was facing at that moment.

The reasonable necessity of the means employed in the defense, according to the
jurisprudence of courts, does not de[p]end upon the harm done, but rests upon the
imminent danger of such injury. — U.S. v. PARAS

PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ
Topic: Is unlawful aggression against the owner a necessary condition?
Also: Art. 429 Civil Code; Presence of Treachery and Evident
Premeditation; Voluntary Surrender; Passion and Obfuscation; Privileged Mitigating
Circumstance & Incomplete Justification (Art. 69); Par. 5, Art. 64

BLUE: Victim — Paulino Disuasido

RED: Accused-Appellant —Wenceslao Alcansare and Natividad Luague
GREEN: Witness(es) — PEOPLE v. GENOSA
PURPLE: Weapons(s) — Topic: R.A. 9262 (27 March 2004) Sections 3 & 26 in relation to the case

BLUE: Victim — Ben Genosa

ISSUE: RED: Accused-Appellant — Marivic Genosa
1. Were Natividad Luague and Wenceslao Alcansare guilty of homicide? PURPLE: Weapons(s) — Gun

2. May Luague invoke self-defense in defense of honor/chastity to justify her actions in

wounding Paulino Disuasido to death? ISSUE: W/N the appellant was suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome and was acting in
SELF-DEFENSE, thus should not be held liable for the crime PARRICIDE?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CFI: HOMICIDE
RTC: PARRICIDE

FACTS:
1. Natividad Luague, was at her home with her three young children. Her husband, SUMMARY:
Wenceslao Alcansare, had left to grind corn at Juan Garing's house, which was several A battering incident occurred with Ben and Marivic. During this incident, the former
kilometers away. threatened to kill the latter, who was 8 months pregnant, while physically assaulting her. He was
2. Paulino Disuasido, the victim in this case, visited Natividad's home and began to make dragging her by the neck towards a cabinet where he kept a gun. The abusive and violent actions
romantic or amorous advances toward her. of her husband posed a direct threat to both her and her fetus.
3. Natividad resisted Paulino's advances and attempted to dissuade him, telling him that
she could not accept his advances. Despite managing to retreat to a separate room, Marivic's emotional and mental state remained
4. Despite Natividad's objections and insistence, Paulino persisted in pursuing her. He heightened. She felt that she and her baby were in imminent danger of losing their lives, which
eventually drew and opened a knife and threatened Natividad's life with it. led her to open the cabinet drawer to retrieve a gun. Subsequently, she used it to shoot her
5. Paulino not only threatened Natividad but also physically embraced her and touched husband.
her breasts. He intended to engage in sexual misconduct against her.
6. During the course of these events, Paulino placed the knife on the floor temporarily. FACTS:
7. Seeing an opportunity to defend herself, Natividad picked up the knife and used it to 1. Marivic, the appellant, was married to Ben Genosa. Initially, their marriage was
stab Paulino in the abdomen. happy, but it soon turned sour as there were frequent violent quarrels. Ben, who was a
8. After being wounded, Paulino fled the scene by jumping through a window and ended habitual drinker, became physically abusive towards Marivic, provoking her,
up falling onto some stones, suffering injuries. physically assaulting her, and subjecting her to various forms of violence.
9. Natividad, immediately following the incident, went to the poblacion (town center) to 2. Marivic tried to leave her husband multiple (about 5) times, but Ben would
surrender herself to the authorities and report what had transpired. consistently pursue her, leading to their reconciliation.
3. On the night of the incident, when Marivic was 8 months pregnant, another argument
escalated into violence, with Ben physically assaulting her.
 4. Marivic managed to escape to another room.
abuse she endured from her spouse over an extended period. However, the court found
5. There was no provocation on Marivic’s part that evening; instead, her husband
insufficient evidence to support the presence of the battered woman syndrome,
initiated the confrontation. specifically lacking evidence confirming the essential characteristics of BWS.
6. Fearing for her safety and the well-being of her unborn child, Marivic killed her
sleeping husband with a gun.
SELF-DEFENSE NOT ACCEPTED
○ Experts provided opinions that Marivic exhibited characteristics consistent
with battered woman syndrome. Self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome was not fully established because not
○ Experts also stated that at the time of the killing, Marivic was experiencing all the required elements were present. These elements include:

a reoccurrence of trauma, along with the lingering effects of the abuse she
(a) At least two battering episodes characterized by each phase of the cycle of violence
had endured throughout their marriage.
between the appellant and her intimate partner.
THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
(b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have caused
DEFINITION: "who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
the battered person to genuinely fear imminent harm from the batterer and honestly believe
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern
that using force was necessary to save her life.
for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship
(c) At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed a probable, though not necessarily
with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go
immediate and actual, grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive
by the batterer against the accused.
relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she
is defined as a battered woman."

Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self- esteem, traditional
beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional dependence upon the
dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false
hopes that the relationship will improve.
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called "cycle of
violence," which has three phases:
(1) the tension- building phase;
(2) the acute battering incident; and
(3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
“Aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression,
there can be no self-defense – complete or incomplete—on the part of the victim.”
HOLDING:
NO. The accused should be convicted of PARRICIDE, there being 2 mitigating circumstances,
and no aggravating circumstance. The existence of the battered woman syndrome in a
relationship does not automatically confer a legal right for a woman to kill her abusive partner.
The legal defense must still be evaluated in the context of self-defense, and evidence must
support such a claim.

BWS NOT ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE AT BAR RATIO:

The battered woman must have genuinely feared imminent harm from her abusive partner and
The battered woman syndrome is a complex psychological condition characterized by a deep
honestly believed that killing him was necessary to save her own life. In established
and often irrational fear experienced by victims of domestic violence.
jurisprudence, the principle remains that for self-defense to be valid, the person resorting to it
● Battered women may believe they are somehow responsible for their partner's
violent behavior and may feel trapped in the relationship due to fear, lack of must face a real and imminent threat to their life. The danger must be actual, not merely
financial independence, and the belief that leaving could result in even greater imaginary or speculative. This means that self-defense cannot be invoked solely based on
harm. perceived or imagined threats; there must be a genuine and immediate peril to justify the use
of force in self-defense.
In the case at hand, the court carefully examined the evidence presented to determine
whether the appellant suffered from the battered woman syndrome as a result of the repeated
In this case at the bar, there was a significant time interval between the unlawful aggression by
Ben and the fatal attack by Marivic. Marivic had managed to withdraw from Ben's violent
(b) "Battery" refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting
behavior and had even escaped to the children's bedroom. The attack had ceased, and the to the physical and psychological or emotional distress.
imminent danger to her life had ended. Ben was no longer in a position to pose an actual threat
to her life or safety. Thus, it cannot be invoked that Marivic was acting under self-defense. (c) "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
Treachery, in this case, could not be applied when a killing is preceded by an argument or
quarrel because the deceased might have been forewarned and anticipated aggression from the
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-survivors who are found
assailant. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellant intentionally chose a specific by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and
method of attack to ensure the crime's execution without risk. It appeared that the idea of civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances
using the gun occurred to her at the same moment when she decided to kill her abusive of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
spouse.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered
woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
1. Psychological paralysis
2. Passion and obfuscation

SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act,

(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode,
which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or
arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:

A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;

xxxxxxx

C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or

emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental
infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or
psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted
deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.

xxxxxxxx
AGUILAR v. DOJ
Topic:

BLUE: Victim —
RED: Accused-Appellant —
GREEN: Witness(es) —
PURPLE: Weapons(s) —

PROCEDURAL HISTORY