SELF-DEFENSE and FULFILLMENT OF DUTY - BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE

BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE Ruling: (1) No, the requisites of self-defense were not met.
G.R. No. 149652, March 24, 2006 The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and 3)
employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel and aggression.
Doctrines: The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a

condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense, whether
Justifying circumstance of self-defense.—The requisites for self-defense are: 1)
complete or incomplete. On this requisite alone, Baxinela’s defense fails.
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the
Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on
part of the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel and
the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
aggression.
threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least
Justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty.—It must be shown that: 1) the imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not be
accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated
and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the shooting Lajo at that moment. Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office. safely behind the victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a
disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor when he grabbed
Facts: Lajo’s shoulder and started questioning him. And when Lajo was shot, it appears
that he was just turning around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly, reaching for
1. Version of the Defense: The defense alleges that Baxinela proceeded to the
his wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as unlawful
Superstar Disco Pub in response to the information given by Manuba that
aggression on the part of Lajo.
there was an armed drunken man accosting several people inside the pub.
Once they arrived, they saw Lajo with a handgun visibly tucked behind his (2) No, the requisites of fulfillment of a duty were not met.
waist. When Baxinela introduced himself as a policeman and asked why he
had a handgun, Lajo suddenly drew on him prompting Baxinela to pull out In order to avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the
his gun and fire upon Lajo, critically wounding him. Thereafter, the defense accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
claims that Regimen ordered the security guards to bring Lajo to the office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary
hospital while they proceed to the police station to report the incident. consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or
2. Version of the Prosecution: The prosecution, on the other hand, contends office. While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking. Baxinela’s
that Baxinela was already in the pub drinking with Regimen and Legarda duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist
for more than a couple of hours prior to the shooting incident. After in a public place. This was what Baxinela was doing when he confronted Lajo at
witnessing an altercation between Lajo and another customer, Baxinela the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety, edginess or the desire to take no
decided to confront Lajo on why he had a gun with him. Baxinela chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all
approached Lajo from behind and held the latter on the left shoulder with resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if
one hand while holding on to his .45 caliber service firearm with the other. at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in
As Lajo was turning around, to see who was confronting him, Baxinela shot the pub.
him. Baxinela then got Lajo’s wallet and fled the scene with Regimen.
3. Baxinela claims self-defense.
Issues: (1) Whether the requisites of self-defense were met

(2) Whether the requisites of fulfillment of a duty were met

SELF-DEFENSE and FULFILLMENT OF DUTY - BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELF-DEFENSE and FULFILLMENT OF DUTY - BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELF-DEFENSE and FULFILLMENT OF DUTY - BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAXINELA vs. PEOPLE Ruling: (1) No, the requisites of self-defense were not met.

Doctrines: The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense. It is a

Issues: (1) Whether the requisites of self-defense were met

You might also like