Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Rodolfo Guevarra, Et Al Vs People

    Uploaded by

    El Sitas
    Rodolfo and Joey Guevarra were charged with attempted homicide of Erwin and homicide of David. They claimed self-defense. The trial court and appellate court rejected their self-defense claim, finding inconsistencies in witness testimony and that the nature and number of stab wounds indicated the assault was not self-defense but homicidal aggression. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the petitioners did not prove the element of unlawful aggression by the victims needed to successfully claim self-defense. It determined the prosecution established the petitioners were the real aggressors, not acting in self-defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rodolfo Guevarra, Et Al Vs People

    Uploaded by

    El Sitas
    1K views2 pages
    Rodolfo and Joey Guevarra were charged with attempted homicide of Erwin and homicide of David. They claimed self-defense. The trial court and appellate court rejected their self-defense claim, finding inconsistencies in witness testimony and that the nature and number of stab wounds indicated the assault was not self-defense but homicidal aggression. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the petitioners did not prove the element of unlawful aggression by the victims needed to successfully claim self-defense. It determined the prosecution established the petitioners were the real aggressors, not acting in self-defense.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest-Remedial

    Original Title

    7. Rodolfo Guevarra, Et Al vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rodolfo and Joey Guevarra were charged with attempted homicide of Erwin and homicide of David. They claimed self-defense. The trial court and appellate court rejected their self-defense claim, finding inconsistencies in witness testimony and that the nature and number of stab wounds indicated the assault was not self-defense but homicidal aggression. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the petitioners did not prove the element of unlawful aggression by the victims needed to successfully claim self-defense. It determined the prosecution established the petitioners were the real aggressors, not acting in self-defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Rodolfo Guevarra, Et Al Vs People

    Uploaded by

    El Sitas
    Rodolfo and Joey Guevarra were charged with attempted homicide of Erwin and homicide of David. They claimed self-defense. The trial court and appellate court rejected their self-defense claim, finding inconsistencies in witness testimony and that the nature and number of stab wounds indicated the assault was not self-defense but homicidal aggression. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the petitioners did not prove the element of unlawful aggression by the victims needed to successfully claim self-defense. It determined the prosecution established the petitioners were the real aggressors, not acting in self-defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    7 RODOLFO GUEVARRA AND JOEY GUEVARRA v.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    G.R. No. 170462, February 05, 2014
    -

    Rodolfo and Joey Guevarra were charged with the crimes of frustrated homicide on the
    person of Erwin and homicide on the person of David.
    Guevarras interposed selfdefense, which prompted the RTC to conduct reverse trial of
    the case.
    Defense presented as its witnesses Rodolfo and Joey and their neighbor.
    Prosecution presented the sole testimony of Erwin who survived the hacking.
    RTC gave credence to the prosecutions version of the incident and found the
    petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of frustrated homicide and
    homicide.
    o It disbelieved the defenses version of the events due to material inconsistencies
    in the testimonies of the defense witnesses. It denied the petitioners claim of
    selfdefense for lack of clear, convincing and satisfactory supporting evidence.
    On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs judgment and convicted the petitioners of the
    crimes charged.
    o CA found that Erwin and David committed no unlawful aggression sufficient to
    provoke the actions of the petitioners
    o The CA further held that the petitioners plea of selfdefense was belied by the
    nature and number of wounds inflicted on Erwin, who sustained thirteen (13)
    stab wounds on his arm and back, and David, who suffered around ten (10) stab
    wounds on his back and stomach causing his death. These wounds logically
    indicated that the assault was no longer an act of selfdefense but a determined
    homicidal aggression on the part of the petitioners.
    Guevarras filed Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC on the ground that it did
    not appreciate the evidence proving self-defense and it gave full credence to the
    testimony of the lone witness for prosecution.

    ISSUE:
    Did the CA err in failing to appreciate the presence of the Justifying Circumstance of selfdefense as established by the petitioners and instead give full credence to the testimony of the
    prosecutions lone witness?
    RULING:
    -

    No. There was no self-defense.


    o By invoking selfdefense, the petitioners, in effect, admitted to the commission
    of the acts for which they were charged, albeit under circumstances that, if
    proven, would have exculpated them. With this admission, the burden of proof
    shifted to the petitioners to show that the killing and frustrated killing of David
    and Erwin, respectively, were attended by the following circumstances: (1)

    unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the
    means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
    provocation on the part of the persons resorting to selfdefense.
    o Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most important of all is the
    element of unlawful aggression. The element of unlawful aggression must be
    proven first in order for selfdefense to be successfully pleaded. There can be no
    selfdefense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed
    unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to selfdefense.
    o The Court found the absence of the element of unlawful aggression on the part
    of the victims. As the prosecution fully established, that the petitioners did not
    act in selfdefense in killing David and wounding Erwin. The petitioners were, in
    fact, the real aggressors.

    You might also like