NICOLAS VELASQUEZ and VICTOR VELASQUEZ case was archived with respect to Ampong, as he

vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES remained at large.

G.R. No. 195021 | March 15, 2017 | J. LEONEN
On petitioners' and Caballeda's appeal, the CA found that
FACTS: they were only liable for serious physical injuries because
intent to kill was not attendant inasmuch as the accused-
According to the prosecution, on May 24, 2003, at about appellants, despite their superiority in numbers and
10:00 p.m., in Mangaldan, Pangasinan, spouses Jesus strength, left the victim alive and, second, none of injuries
and Ana Del Mundo left their home to sleep in their nipa or wounds inflicted upon the victim was fatal.
hut. Arriving at the nipa hut, the Del Mundo Spouses saw
Ampong Ocumen and Nora Castillo in the midst of having ISSUE:
sex. Aghast, Jesus shouted invectives at Ampong and
Nora, who both scampered away. Jesus decided to Whether or not the first and second justifying
pursue Ampong and Nora. On his way back,  he was circumstances under Article 11 of the RPC is applicable
blocked by Ampong and his fellow accused (Nicolas (Petitioners claim that they merely acted in defense of
Velasquez, Victor Velasquez, Felix Caballeda, Jojo Del themselves and also in defense of Mercedes, Nicolas'
Mundo, Sonny Boy Velasquez) wife and Victor's mother. (NO)

Without provocation, Nicolas hit the left side of Jesus' HELD:

forehead with a stone. Victor also hit Jesus' left eyebrow
with a stone. Felix did the same, hitting Jesus above his
A person invoking self-defense admits to having inflicted
left ear. Sonny, on the other hand, struck Jesus with a
harm upon another person - a potential criminal act under
bamboo, hitting him at the back, below his right
Title Eight of the RPC. However, he or she makes the
shoulder. Ampong, meanwhile, punched Jesus on his left
additional, defensive contention that even as he or she
cheek. Jesus was left then on the ground, bloodied.
may have inflicted harm, he or she nevertheless incurred
no criminal liability as the looming danger upon his or her
Jesus testified on his own ordeal. In support of his version own person (or that of his or her relative) justified the
of the events, the prosecution also presented the infliction of protective harm to an erstwhile aggressor.
testimony of Maria Teresita Viado wo together with Ana,
embarked on a search for Jesus but were separated. At
The accused's admission enables the prosecution to
the sound of a man being beaten, she hid behind some
dispense with discharging its burden of proving that the
bamboos. From that vantage point, she saw the accused
accused performed acts, which would otherwise be the
mauling Jesus. About 4 or 5 meters away was a lamp
basis of criminal liability. All that remains to be established
post, which illuminated the scene.
is whether the accused were justified in acting as he or
she did. To this end, the accused's case must rise on its
After undergoing an x-ray examination, Jesus was found own merits. It is settled that when an accused invokes
to have sustained a crack in his skull. The doctor noted self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused
that Jesus' injuries required medical attention for 4 to 6 assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible,
weeks and advised for Jesus to undergo surgery. clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction
would follow from his admission that he [harmed] the
Defense’s version: victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated
when uncorroborated by independent and competent
In the evening of May 24, 2003, Nicolas was roused in his evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed,
sleep by his wife, Mercedes as the nearby house of Victor in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted
was being stoned. In Victor’s place, he saw Jesus hacking and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the
Victor's door. Several neighbors - the other accused - strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of
allegedly tried to pacify Jesus who, supposedly inebriated, the prosecution.
vented his ire upon Nicolas and the other accused, as
well as on Mercedes. The accused thus responded and The first requisite is the condition sine qua non of self-
countered Jesus' attacks, leading to his injuries. defense and defense of a relative. At the heart of the
claim of self-defense is the presence of an unlawful
The accused were charged with attempted murder. aggression committed against appellant. Without unlawful
aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on
The RTC found petitioners and Felix guilty beyond and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be
reasonable doubt of attempted murder. The court also appreciated, even if the other elements are present.
found Sonny Boy guilty beyond reasorable doubt of less Unlawful aggression refers to an attack amounting to
serious physical injuries. He was found to have hit Jesus actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person
on the back with a bamboo rod. Jojo was acquitted. The claiming self-defense.
The second requisite requires a reasonable Moreover, it must be noted that there is a big difference in
proportionality between the unlawful aggression and the the physical built of the Jesus and the accused as the
defensive response. The means employed by the person former is shorter in height and of smaller built than all the
invoking self-defense contemplates a rational equivalence accused. They could have had easily held Jesus, who
between the means of attack and the defense. This is a was heavily drunk as they claim, and disarmed him
matter that depends on the circumstances. It, however, without the need of hitting him. The injuries which Jesus
does not imply material commensurability between the were reported to have sustained speak volumes. Even if it
means of attack and defense. What the law requires is were to be granted that Jesus was the initial aggressor,
rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will the beating dealt to him by petitioners and their co-
enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent accused was still glaringly in excess of what would have
danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the sufficed to neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably
instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the necessary means to repel his supposed aggression.
defense. The proportionateness thereof does not depend Petitioners thereby also fail in satisfying the second
upon the harm done but rests upon the imminent danger requisite of self-defense and of defense of a relative.
of such injury In emergencies of this kind, human nature
does not act upon processes of formal reason but in As to the petitioners' claim that Maria Teresita’s testimony
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it should not be considered, the Court ruled that such is
is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this without merit. Averment of justifying circumstances was
instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and dispensed with the need for even passing upon their
hold the act irresponsible in law for the consequences. assertions against Maria Teresita's and Jesus'
testimonies.  Upon their mere invocation of self-defense
1âwphi1

The third requisite requires the person mounting a and defense of a relative, they relieved the prosecution of
defense to be reasonably blameless. He or she must not its burden of proving the acts constitutive of the offense.
have antagonized or incited the attacker into launching an They took upon themselves the burden of establishing
assault. This also requires a consideration of their innocence, and cast their lot on their capacity to
proportionality. Provocation is sufficient when it is prove their own affirmative allegations.  Unfortunately for
1âwphi1

proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough them, they failed.
to impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense.
SC: Denied the petition
In the case at bar, the Court found petitioners' claims of
self-defense and defense of their relative, Mercedes, to
be sorely wanting.

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, the unlawful aggression originated
from Jesus. Petitioners, however, offered nothing more
than a self-serving, uncorroborated claim that Jesus
appeared out of nowhere to go berserk in the vicinity of
their homes. They failed to present independent and
credible proof to back up their assertions. It was noted
that it was highly dubious that Jesus would go all the way
to petitioners' residences to initiate an attack for no
apparent reason.

The remainder of petitioners' recollection of events strains

credulity. They claim that Jesus launched an assault
despite the presence of at least 7 antagonists including
Mercedes. They further assert that Jesus persisted on his
assault despite their bodily efforts to restrain Jesus. His
persistence was supposedly so likely to harm them that,
to neutralize him, they had no other recourse but to hit
him on the head with stones for at least 3 times and to hit
him on the back with a bamboo rod, aside from dealing
him with less severe blows.