Manaban vs.

CA and People of the Philippines

FACTS:

At around 1:25 o’clock in the morning of October 11, 1996, the victim, Joselito Bautista, who was
a member of the UP Police Force, took his daughter, Frinzi, who complained of difficulty in breathing, to
the UP Health Center. The doctors gave him prescriptions and so he went to BPI Kalayaan to withdraw
some money from its Automated Teller Machine (ATM). When Bautista could not withdraw money, he
started kicking and pounding the machine which caught the attention of herein petitioner. Bautista said
that the machine captured his card and that he did not get the money he badly needed. Manaban said
that the PIN entered was incorrect that is why the card was captured. Angered by what Manaban said,
Bautista then continued kicking and pounding the machine. The former advised the latter to call the
customer service which Bautista did but still kicked the machine. Failing to pacify the victim, petitioner
fired a warning shot, and according to him fired the second one hitting, and eventually, killing Bautista.
Manaban said that he feared that Bautista would pull his gun first and might kill him so he fired his gun
and shot Bautista.

The trial court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. This decision
was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modification respect only to the award of loss of earning
capacity.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable.

RULINGS:

Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three requisites to prove self-defense as a
justifying circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person defending
himself. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical
injury upon a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression,
unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. There
must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant’s life
in real peril. In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The allegation of
Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned his back at Manaban is mere
speculation. Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the
peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Absent such actual or imminent peril to
one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the life or inflicting injuries
on another.
People vs. Alconga

Facts: On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack against
Maria De Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one money. Alconga
was seated behind Barion and he gave signs to De Raposo. Barion, who was suffering losses in the
game, found this out and he expressed his anger at Alconga. The two almost fought outright this was
stopped.

The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as a home guard. While the said accused
was seated on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion came along and said “Coroy, this is your breakfast”
followed by a swing of his “pingahan”, a bamboo stick. Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground
under the bench with the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow was given by Barion but
failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by
crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his
revolver, causing him to stagger and hit the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and
directed a blow to the accused who was able to parry the attack using his bolo. A hand to handfight
ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and having sustained several wounds ran away. He was
followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters.

A second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slasehde the
cranium. The deceased fell face downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

Issue: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga

Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide

The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other
hand, having been wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict
injury upon him has ceased absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could
have only attacked if there was reason to believe that he is still not safe. In the case at bar, it is apparent
that it is Alconga who is the superior fighter and his safety was already secured after the first fight ended.
There was no more reason for him to further chase Barion. The second fight will be treated differently and
independently. Under the first fight, self-defense would have been valid, but that is not the case in the
second fight. In the second fight, there was illegal aggression on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is
found guilty of Homicide with no mitigating circumstance (MC) of Provocation

Note – Provocation in order to be an MC must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. “It should
be proportionate to the act committed and adequate to stir one to its commission”
EDWIN RAZON y LUCEA v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

FACTS:

On August 1, 1993 around midnight, PO1 Francisco Chopchopen was walking towards Upper
Pinget Baguio City when he was met by taxi cab driver, Edwin Razon. Razon told Chopchopen that he
was held up by three men at Dreamland Subdivision. When Chopchopen asked Razon if he stabbed
Benedict Gonzalo, 23 years old and a polio victim, he answered no and when questioned by SPO2
Bumangil, he was held up by two men and he stabbed Gonzalo in self-defense. Razon brought out a fan
knife and told Bumangil that it was the knife he used to stab Gonzalo. A search was conducted on the taxi
cab a colonial knife with bloodstains was found under a newspaper near the steering wheel. An autopsy
conducted on the body of the victim showed that he sustained 3 stab wounds, wound on the abdomen
killed Gonzalo, as it penetrated the small intestines, pancreas and the abdominal aorta, causing massive
hemorrhage and loss of blood. On trial, the RTC convicted him of homicide, it was found out that while
there was unlawful aggression by Gonzalo who poked a knife on Razon’s neck, such aggression ceased when
Razon was able to grab the knife from Gonzalo and freed his right hand from the hold of Gonzalo’s two companions
who stepped out of the taxicab followed by Gonzalo. Razon could have started the engine and just left the place. But
he did not. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Gonzalo, Jr. the amount of P12,770.00 by way of
actual damages; P50,000.00 by way of moral damages; and P10,000.00 by way of attorney's fees. On
appeal, the CA required him, through his counsel Atty. Rigoberto Gallardo to file an appellant's brief. Two
motions for extension of time were filed by Atty. Gallardo.

Instead of filing the brief, Atty. Gallardo filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Razon. CA then
directed Razon to cause the entry of appearance of a new counsel or manifest whether he wanted the
court to appoint a counsel de oficio to defend him, since no compliance has been filed by Razon his right
to be represented by counsel has been waived; but on July 25, 2001, Razon filed with the CA a Motion
for Reconsideration which was later on denied by the CA; hence, this appeal.

ISSUES/RULING:

Whether the CA was correct in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to file appellant's brief.

NO, the CA gave Razo sufficient opportunity to file his appellant's brief. Instead of complying, however,
he chose to ignore the many directives of the CA and puts the blame on his former counsel Atty.
Gallardo, who was allegedly guilty of gross negligence. Even if the Court were to admit that Atty. Gallardo
was negligent, the rule is that negligence of counsel binds the client except when the negligence of said
counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court.

No such excepting circumstance can be said to be present in this case because as properly
observed by the appellate court, Razon himself was guilty of negligence. While appeal is an essential part
of our judicial system, a party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down by the Rules of Court on
appeals, mindful of the fact that an appeal is purely a statutory right. Procedural rules are designed to
facilitate the adjudication of cases. Both courts and litigants are therefore enjoined to abide strictly by the
rules.

Whether or not the petitioner acted in self-defense in killing Gonzalo.

NO. It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression on the part of
the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any
right to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed.
People vs. Oriente

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 11 Par. 1 and ARTICLE 13 Par(s): 3 and 4 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE

"FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY (11")

"CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY (13)"

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about Manuel Oriente’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The
appellant w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on different
parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were the direct and
immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case there was one witness for
the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.

When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two mitigating
circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and sufficient provocation
or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the penalty imposed by the R.T.C.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

whether or not there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, and the means employed by
appellant to prevent the same was reasonable and falls under the justifying circumstances or self-defense

- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the
killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The appellant cannot rely on
the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine qua non.
- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead by the
weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense unusual
- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive
- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have
constituted the “unlawful aggression”
People vs Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero (Boholst here, for brevity)

Facts:

(According to Boholst)

 The couple had a rough marriage. Soon after, Caballero left, and Boholst and her daughter was left to the support
of her parents.
 One night, after carolling, Boholst met Caballero who upon seeing her, manhandled her. There were an exchange
of words and later on, Caballero was already holding her by the hair and slapping her face until her nose bled.
 Caballero pushed her to the grounds, and to stop herself from falling, she held on to his waist. As she did so, she
grasped the knife tucked by the left side of his body.
 She fell to the ground then Caballero knelt over her and chocked her saying that he will kill her. Because she had
no other recourse, she pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him, hitting the left side of his body near
the belt line.
 When she was finally free, she ran home and on the way, she threw the knife.
 In the morning, she surrendered to the police and presented the torn and blood-stained dress she wore that night.
The police officer accompanied her to look for the weapon but when it can no longer be found, she was advised to
just give any knife and she did (now marked Exhibit C).

(According to the Prosecution’s witness, Caballero’s friend)

 On the night of the incident, Boholst was already waiting for Caballero, and when he approached her, she suddenly
stabbed Francisco her with the knife marked by the prosecution as Exhibit C.
 His friends brought him to the hospital where he was later interviewed by the police officer confirming that his wife
stabbed him. But because he needs blood transfusion, he needs to be transferred to another hospital. He died on
the way.

Issue: Did Boholst act in legitimate defense of her person?

Held: Yes.

Ratio decidendi:

 The RTC held that Boholst’s evidence was not clear and convincing:
 Testimony improbable as brought out by her demonstration during the trial
 No wound or injury on her body treated by the physician
 That the knife used was a Moro knife and not exhibit C is incredible
 Contradictory statements
 Has motive: husband’s abandonment
 The court departs from the general rule that appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on facts
testified by the witnesses
 The trial court judge overlooked an important piece of evidence that could confirm the narration of the appellant:
location of the wound inflicted on the victim.
 As she was flat on her back and and her husband choking her, she had no other recourse but to pull out the knife
inserted at the left side of her husband’s belt and stabbed him hitting the left back portion just below the waist, as
also described by the attending physician as the left lumbar region.
 The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong indication of the truth of her
testimony, for as she lay on the ground with her husband bent over her it was quite natural for her right hand to get
 hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s belt and thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand
at the moment.
 This particular location of the wound negates the credibility of the prosecution witness that is if it was true, then the
wound should have been directed towards the front of the body of the victim rather than at his back.
 The Court finds the location of the wound as a valuable circumstance which confirms the plea of self-defense.
 Appellant also lacks motive. She declared that she still loved her husband and for several months prior to the
incident, she appeared resigned to her fate.
 She also surrendered herself immediately the morning after.
 The court also believed that the knife must be a blade of six inches as stated by Boholst for it to penetrate through
the left lumbar region to the victim’s large intestine and cause the discharge of fecal matter. >.<
 All the elements of self-defense are present:
 unlawful aggression as pointed out above
 reasonable necessity for means employed: woman strangled and chocked by a furious aggressor, rendered
almost unconcious by the strong pressure on her throat. What is vital is the imminent peril to Boholst’s life. The
knife afforded appellant the only reasonable means with which she could free and save herself. Necessity
knows no law.
 Lack of sufficient provocation: Boholst did not provoke Caballero. She gave a valid excuse that she went
carolling to earn money for their child.
Senoja vs People

DOCTRINES

ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;

First. Unlawful aggression;

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.

Unlawful aggression - presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Hence, when an unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the
one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor. After the danger has passed, one
is not justified in following up his adversary to take his life.

FACTS:

On April 16, 1997, petitioner Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja, Jose Calica, and Miguel Lumasac
were drinking gin in the hut of Crisanto Reguyal in Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora. An angry Leon
Lumasac suddenly arrived at the said place, holding a bolo in his right hand and looking for his brother
Miguel. Petitioner and Jose tried to pacify Leon. But when petitioner approached Leon, the latter tried to
hack him so he embraced Leon and Jose took Leon's bolo. Then, Leon and petitioner talked things out
and later reconciled.

Subsequently, Leon walked out of Crisanto's hut followed by petitioner. Suddenly, about ten
meters from the hut, petitioner stabbed Leon at the back. When Leon turned around, petitioner continued
stabbing him until he fell to the ground. Then, petitioner ran towards the barangay road and threw away
the "kolonial" knife he used in stabbing Leon. The latter died on the spot.

The petitioner admitted killing the victim but invoked the affirmative defense of self-defense.

On June 7, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment against the petitioner, finding him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

In due course, the petitioner appealed the decision to the CA which rendered judgment affirming,
with modification, the decision of the RTC. The petitioner now seeks relief from this Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Senoja was justified in killing Leon Lumasac in self-defense.

HELD:

No. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Hence, when an unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the
one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor.

The Court ruled that Senoja was the unlawful aggressor in the last confrontation and not Leon Lumasac.
The victim had already left the hut and was ten (10) meters away from it. There is no showing that the
victim, who was drunk, was aware that Senoja was following him, or that the Senoja called out to him so
that he (the victim) had to turn around and notice him. It is clear that at that point in time, the victim was
simply walking toward his home. He had stopped being an aggressor. It was Senoja who wanted a
confrontation. Senoja stabbed or poked the victim in the left buttock resulting in the non-fatal wound, and
when the latter turned around, successively stabbed and hacked the victim in the armpit and chest until
he fell. In all, the victim suffered nine (9) wounds.

While Leon Lumasac had ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to go home, accused Exequiel
Senoja was now the unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their confrontation. Being now the
unlawful aggressor, Senoja cannot validly claim that he acted in self-defense as Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code requires that there must be an unlawful aggression on the person killed.