Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Facts: On July 7, 2002 in the afternoon, Gualberto Selemen started to drink alcohol

kown as sioktong with Jose Ragasa and Nilo Abonge at Selemens home. Selemen
and Ragasa invited accused-appellant Ruperto to join their drinking session. Good
natured turned into altercation between Selemen and Ruperto. Ruperto striked
Selemens hand with a piece of wood, and then the wife of Ruperto intervened and
was able to convince the accused-appelant to head home.
However, Ruperto came back with his sons all of them armed with bolos. Roel
traced the face of Selemen with his flashlight and suddenly hacked Selemens with
a bolo resulting to a wound to his right shoulder. Ruperto and Ramil followed
through by sriking Selemen in his stomach. Selemen ran to the nearby rice field but
fell down and the three assailants were able to catch up and took turns in stabbing
and hacking Selemen until he was lifeless. Ramil beheaded Selemen and Ruperto
carried the victims head, approached the wife of Selemen and told her that he has
the head of her husband.
The accused-appelant after being arrested invoked self-defense because he tried to
defend the wife of the victim, and because of the altercation he grabbed the bolo of
a certain Nilo Abonge and hacked Selemen as a self-defense.
The Trial Court found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder
considering that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt in relation to his
invoking of self defense; and whether the appellant should only be convicted of
homicide and not murder.

Ruling: The SC ruled that the decision of the appellate and trial courts to reject the
theory of self-defense of the appellant was correct. In order to prove that there has
been a self-defense as prescribed by Art. 11 of the RPC, it must have met the
requisites: 1.) unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased 2.) reasonable
necessity of the meand employed to prevent or repel the attack of the deceased
3.) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The court ruled that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased
considering the witness testimony that the appellant was the first to strike the
deceased which resulted to the retaliation of the latter. After the push done by the
deceased the attack ceased to exist, this means that the accused had no more right
to kill the victim. In addition the court stated that without any supporting
testimony, the accused claim of unlawful aggression and self-defense are selfserving.
The court also ruled that the theory of self-defense to be incredulous in light of
physical evidence. The multiple wounds and the beheading of the deceased
belie self-defense.
The court also ruled that the appellate and trial courts correctly decided the case by
qualifying the offense as murder because of the abuse of superior strength on the
part of the assailants. The abuse of superior strength was present considering that
the assailants combined strength perpetrated the crime with impunity. In addition
the accused and the other two assailants positioned themselves strategically around
the house of the deceased with the intent to corner the deceased and hack him to
death. Treachery and conspiracy were, therefore, present. The final decision of
the court is to DENY the appeal and affirm the decision of the appellate court and
lower court.

Facts: On July 6. 2003 Reynaldo Juguilon with her live-in partner Anabel Bautista
were walking along Dagupan Extension, Tondo, Manla. On ther way home, the
passed by the accused-appellant Manulit. Upon seeing them Manulit stood up and
successively shot Reynaldo resulting in the latters death.
Lydia Juguilon, Manulits aunt and the victims siter-in-law saw what happened.
After some time, Lydia decided to issue statement before the prosecutor of Manila.
Manulit, in his defense invoked self-defense stating that the deceased barged in
while drinking with his cousin, with a gun on hand. The deceased is said to have
taunted the accused-appelant which resulted to grappling over the possession of the
gun. Manulit succeeded in taking the gun and fired shots against the deceased
because the latter opened a fan-knife.
The trial court found the accused-appelant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime
of murder and the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the accused-appellants self-defense;
whether the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of
treachery against the accused-appellant; and whether the trial court erred in finding
the acused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: The court ruled that the unlawful aggression is absent; subsequently there
was no basis for self-defense. According to the court, unlawful aggression should
be proved first in invoking self-defense. According to the SC, the statements made
by the prosecution witnesses are credible and there was ill motive for the witnesses
to testify against the appellant. On the part of the accused, he even fled after the
commission of the crime and was just arrested five years later. Moreover, the
accused cannot claim for self-defense considering the number and location of
wounds sustained by the deceased.
The court also ruled that treachery is evident in the case considering that the
accused fired shots when the deceased is not aware of the intent of the accused and
the deceased have no chance to defend himself.

And lastly, all elements of the crime of murder were successfully proved by the
prosecution, 1.) that a person was killed 2.) that the accused killed the person 3.)
killing was attended by treachery and 4.) that the killing is not infanticide or
parricide.
The final decision of the court is to DENY the appeal and the accused is guilty of
the crime affirming the decision of the CA and lower court.