CRIMINAL LAW 1 JLC

ARTICLE 11
(JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES)

People vs Velasquez
G.R. No. 195021 March 15, 2017

FACTS:
On May, 24,2003, at about 10:00 pm, the spouses Jesus and Ana Del Mundo left their home
to sleep in their nipa hut. Arriving at the nipa hut, the Del Mundo Spouses saw Ampong and Nora
Castillo (Nora) in the midst of having sex. Aghast at what he perceived to be a defilement of his
property, Jesus Del Mundo (Jesus) shouted invectives at Ampong and Nora, who both scampered
away. Jesus decided to pursue Ampong and Nora, while Ana Del Mundo (Ana) left to fetch their son,
who was then elsewhere. Jesus went to the house of Ampong's aunt, but neither Ampong nor Nora
was there. He began making his way back home when he was blocked by Ampong and his fellow
accused.
Without provocation, petitioner Nicolas hit the left side of Jesus' forehead with a stone.
Petitioner Victor also hit Jesus' left eyebrow with a stone. Accused Felix did the same, hitting Jesus
above his left ear. Accused Sonny struck Jesus with a bamboo, hitting him at the back, below his right
shoulder. Ampong punched Jesus on his left cheek. The accused then left Jesus on the ground,
bloodied. Jesus crawled and hid behind blades of grass, fearing that the accused might return. He
then got up and staggered his way back to their house.
At the Del Mundo Spouses' residence, Maria Teresita recounted to them what she had
witnessed (Jesus had managed to return home by then). Ana and Maria Teresita then brought Jesus
to Barangay Captain Pilita Villanueva, who assisted them in bringing Jesus to the hospital.
After undergoing an x-ray examination, Jesus was found to have sustained a crack in his
skull. Dr. Jose De Guzman, medico-legal officer, noted that Jesus' injuries required medical attention
for four (4) to six (6) weeks. Jesus was also advised to undergo surgery.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant are guilty of Serious Physical Injuries.

RULING:
Yes. Petitioners' entire defense rests on proof that it was Jesus who initiated an assault by
barging into the premises of petitioners' residences, hacking Victor's door, and threatening physical
harm upon petitioners and their companions. That is, that unlawful aggression originated from
Jesus. Proof stated and given by the accused focusing on the reversion of Jesus and Teresita’s
statement and their credibility, The Regional Trial Court, however, took note of the injuries acquired
by Jesus caused by the Petitioners. Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial aggressor,
the beating dealt to him by petitioners and their co-accused was still glaringly in excess of what
would have sufficed to neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably necessary means to repel his
supposed aggression. Petitioners thereby fail in satisfying the second requisite of self-defense and of
defense of a relative.
 People vs Nacnac
G.R. No. 191913 March 21, 2012

FACTS:
On February 20, 2003, SPO2 Nacnac (accused-appellant), the SPO1 Doddie Espejo(victim)
and several other police officers were on duty. Nacnac, being the highest-ranking officer during the
shift, was designated the officer-of-the-day.
Shortly before 10:00 in the evening, Espejo, together with then SPO1 Basilio, took the patrol
tricycle from the station grounds. When Nacnac saw this, he stopped the victim and his colleague
from using the tricycle.
Espejo told Nacnac that he needed it to go to Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement
with a security of a local bar. Nacnac still refused. He told Espejo that he is needed at the station
and, at any rate, he should stay at the station because he was drunk.
This was not received well by Espejo. He told Nacnac in Ilocano: “Iyot ni inam kapi”
(Coitus of your mother, cousin!). Espejo alighted from the tricycle. SPO1 Basilio did the same, went
inside the office, and left Nacnac and Espejo alone. Espejo took a few steps and drew his .45 caliber
gun which was tucked in a holster on the right side of his chest. Nacnac then fired his M-16 armalite
upward as a warning shot. Undaunted, Espejo still drew his gun. Nacnac then shot the victim on the
head, which caused the Espejo’s instantaneous death.
Nacnac later surrendered to the stations Chief of Police.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the petitioner’s acts constitutes a valid self-
defense.

RULING:
YES. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code states that anyone who acts in defense of his
person or rights do not incur any criminal liability, provided that the following circumstances concur:
(i)unlawful aggression, (ii) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and(iii)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an
indispensable element of self-defense; and ordinarily, there is a difference between the act of
drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s gun at a target in determining the presence of
unlawful aggression. The former cannot be said to be an unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, while the latter is generally considered unlawful aggression. Here, a warning shot fired by a
fellow police officer (petitioner) was left unheeded as the victim reached for his own firearm and
pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was justified in defending himself from an inebriated and
disobedient colleague.
 People vs Rubiso
G.R. No. 128871 March 18 2003

FACTS:
On or about November 6, 1992, accused-appellant Jimmy Rubiso, was found guilty of
murder after having committed the crime in the Metal Craft Industries at Pavia, Iloilo.
"Prosecution eyewitness Alejandro Pulomeda testified that on November 6, 1992, he went
to Jaspe Metal Craft Industries (Jaspe) at Pavia, Iloilo to canvass the price of a rice thresher. He
intended to ask assistance from his friend, Serafin Hubines who was working at Jaspe. Then, he went
straight and saw Hubines busy putting a bolt on a rice thresher. Hubines was in a squatting position.
While he was walking toward Hubines' direction, he saw herein appellant also approaching Hubines'
from behind. He noticed that appellant's left hand was... wrapped with a towel. As appellant walked
closer to Hubines, he unwrapped his hand revealing a handgun of unknown caliber, and shot
Hubines. The latter still managed to stand but he was again successively shot by appellant. Pulomeda
was shocked and frozen by what he witnessed.
After a few minutes, he managed to run out of the Jaspe's compound and went back home.
On the following morning, nonetheless, he went to see the father of Hubines and narrated to him
everything he saw.

ISSUE:
The lower court erred in finding that accused failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the elements of self-defense despite the fact that the accused proved the three elements
of self-defense.

RULING:
The assailed decision of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 39400 finding appellant JIMMY
RUBISO @ "Alog" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that he is
further ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased (a) P119,288.85 as actual damages; (b) P50,000.00
as moral damages; and (c) P1,190,400.00 representing the loss of his earnings.
In invoking self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim and
the burden of evidence is shifted on him to establish convincing evidence that excludes any vestige
of criminal aggression on his part.
To successfully claim self-defense, the accused must prove the existence of the following: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed by
the person being attacked to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient... provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.[6] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. It contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent
danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself
must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[7] Of all the
elements, unlawful aggression, i.e., the sudden unprovoked attack on the... person defending
himself, is indispensable.
 People vs Baxinela
G.R. No. 149652 March 24, 2006

FACTS:
On or about the 19th day of October , 1996, early in the morning, at Poblacion, Municipality
of Kalibo, Province of Aklan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, SPO2 Eduardo L
Baxinela, accused-appellant, was armed with a handgun, without justifiable cause and with intent to
kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one RUPERTO F.
LAJO, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds.
That as a result of the criminal acts of the accused, the heirs of the deceased suffered actual
and compensatory damages in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00).
On April 30, 1997, Baxinela was arraigned and pleaded NOT GUILTY.3 During pre-trial,
Baxinela informed the RTC that he would be claiming the justifying circumstance of self-defense.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused applied self defense and guilty of homicide.

RULING:
Yes. After further investigation, Baxinela was found guilty of Homicide but the latter
received a modified conviction. The Court commiserates with our policemen who regularly thrust
their lives in zones of danger in order to maintain peace and order and acknowledges the
apprehensions faced by their families whenever they go on duty. But the use of unnecessary force or
wanton violence is not justified when the fulfillment of their duty as law enforcers can be affected
otherwise. A "shoot first, think later" attitude can never be countenanced in a civilized society.