PEOPLE VS OLARBE

FACTS: On 8 May 2006 at around 12:30 o'clock midnight, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to
police officers SPO2 Vivencio Aliazas, PO3 Ricardo Cruz and PO1 William Cortez at the Police
Station of Luisiana, Laguna. OLARBE informed them that he happened to have killed Romeo
Arca (Arca) in Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Forthwith, OLARBE was booked, arrested and
detained at the police station. Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to the crime scene and
found the lifeless body of Arca with several wounds and the bolo used by OLARBE in killing
him. The Death Certificate revealed that Arca's antecedent cause of death was gunshot wounds
and his immediate cause of death was hacked wounds.

Defendant’s side:

For his part, OLARBE invoked self-defense and avowed -

On the fateful incident, he and his wife Juliet were sleeping in their house in Barangay San
Antonio, Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Suddenly they were awakened by the sound of a
gunshot and shouting from Arca who appeared to be drunk. Arca was holding a rifle (an airgun
converted to a calibre .22) and shouted "mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo." Then,
Arca forcibly entered their house and aimed the gun at them. OLARBE immediately grabbed the
gun from him and they grappled for its possession. OLARBE managed to wrest the gun away
from Arca. In a jiff, OLARBE shot Arca causing the latter to lean sideward ("napahilig").

Nevertheless, Arca managed to get his bolo from his waist and continued to attack them.

OLARBE grabbed the bolo and in their struggle for its possession, they reached the outer
portion of the house. OLARBE was able to wrestle the bolo and instantly, he hacked Arca. After
the killing incident, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities.

RTC: Rejecting Olarbe's pleas of self-defense and defense of stranger, the RTC pronounced
him guilty of murder as charged. It observed that the initial unlawful aggression by Arca had
ceased when Olarbe shot him in the head and caused him to "lean sideward.

CA: the CA affirmed the conviction of Olarbe because the factual findings of the RTC

SC: WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on
March 22, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07112; ACQUITS accused RODOLFO OLARBE y
BALIHANGO on the grounds of SELF-DEFENSE and DEFENSE OF A STRANGER;

ISSUE: Whether or not Olarbe clearly and convincingly established self-defense on his part

RULING: We find that Arca committed continuous and persistent unlawful aggression against
Olarbe and his common-law spouse that lasted from the moment he forcibly barged into the
house and brandished his gun until he assaulted Olarbe's common-law spouse with the bolo.
Such armed assault was not a mere threatening act. Olarbe was justified in believing his and his
common- law spouse's lives to be in extreme danger from Arca who had just fired his gun in
anger outside their home and whose threats to kill could not be considered idle in the light of his
having forced himself upon their home. The imminent threat to life was positively strong enough
to induce Olarbe to act promptly to repel the unlawful and unprovoked aggression.

Lastly, the absence of any showing that Olarbe had provoked Arca, or that he had been induced
by revenge, resentment or other evil motive has been equally palpable. We deem to be
established, therefore, that the third elements of the justifying circumstances of self-defense and
defense of stranger were present.
With Olarbe being entitled to the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a
stranger, his acquittal follows.
PEOPLE VS DULIN

FACTS:

 Tamayao was on Tamayao Street in Atulayan Norte, Tuguegarao at about 10pm of August 22, 1990
when a young man came running from the house of Vicente Danao towards the house of Batulan,
shouting that his Uncle Totoy (Batulan) had been stabbed.
 Tamayao rushed towards Danao’s house and there he saw Dulin stabbing Batulan who was already
prostrate face down.
 Dulin was on top of Batulan, as if kneeling with his left foot touching the ground. Dulin was holding
Batulan by the hair with his left hand, and thrusting the knife at Batulan with his right hand.
 Seeing this, Tamayao ran towards Batulan’s house to inform Estelita Batulan, the victim’s wife who
was his aunt, about the incident.
 Tamayao mentioned of the long standing grudge between Batulan and Dulin, and of seeing them
fighting in April 1990. He recalled Dulin uttering on two occasions: He will soon have his day and I will
kill him.

DEFENDANT’S SIDE:
 In his defense, Dulin testified that in the evening of August 22, 1990, he was in his house in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan when Nicanor and Raymund arrived at his house to see the fighting cocks
being sold by Alberto.
 Alberto arrived only at about 8 in the evening and after their transaction, Alberto served Nicanor and
Raymund food, and Dulin and Jun Danao thereafter accompanied Raymund and Nicanor to the
highway to get a tricycle ride.
 On their way, they passed Angel Bancud who called out to him. Dulin asked the others to go ahead,
and he would just catch up with them
 As Dulin approached Bancud, Batulan, the cousin of Dulin’s mother, stabbed him on the right side of
his body and in the left hand. He complained to Batulan: Uncle, you hit me, but Batulan replied: I will
really kill you.
 Dulin ran to the upper level of Carolina Danao’s house, pursued by Batulan who stabbed him again
several times.
 They grappled for the weapon until Dulin was able to wrest it from Batulan
 Dulin stabbed Batulan with the weapon, and they struggled until Dulin felt weak, eventually falling to
the ground
 Dulin regained consciousness only the next day at the hospital.
 Dulin insisted that there was no grudge between him and Batulan, but interjected that
the barangay captain would summon him to bring Batulan home each time the latter got drunk at
night.

INJURY: sustained 12 stab wounds (two wounds in the back and several stab wounds in the front), and was
being attended to at the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) before he expired.

 RTC: found the accused Alfredo Dulin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder,
and appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and no
aggravating circumstance, RTC lowers the penalty of said crime by two degrees and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period of
imprisonment.
 o In his appeal, Dulin contended that his crime should be homicide instead of murder,
considering the RTC’s appreciation of incomplete self-defense as a privileged mitigating
circumstance; and that even if self-defense should be unavailing, he could be found guilty
only of homicide because it was the victim who had first attacked by stabbing him, and that
the multiple wounds inflicted on the victim did not mean that he had not been justified in killing
the victim. He argued that the penalty imposed on him was incorrect considering the absence
of any aggravating circumstance and the presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance
of incomplete self- defense.
 CA: affirmed the conviction and him sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

ISSUE: WON there was self defense

RULING: NO. The SC held that Batulan, who is the initial aggressor against Dulin, ceased to be the
aggressor as soon as Dulin had dispossessed him of the weapon. Unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself.
The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the
aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending
himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat the

The SC provided the elements of unlawful aggression: (a) there must be a physical or material
attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack
or assault must be unlawful.

In this case, Even if Batulan still went after Dulin who inside the house of Danao, where they again
grappled for control of the weapon, the grappling for the weapon did not amount to aggression from
Batulan for it was still Dulin who held control of the weapon at that point. Whatever Dulin did thereafter –
like stabbing Batulan with the weapon – constituted retaliation against Batulan.

The Court stated that retaliation was not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression
that the victim started already ceased when the accused attacked him, but in self-defense, the
aggression was still continuing when the accused injured the aggressor. Hence, there was no
unlawful aggression on the part of Batulan to justify his fatal stabbing by Dulin. Dulin admitted having
successfully disarmed Batulan and then running away from him. With the aggression by Batulan having
thereby ceased, he did not anymore pose any imminent threat against Dulin. Hence, Batulan was not
committing any aggression when Dulin fatally stabbed him.

Treachery should not be appreciated in the killing of Batulan because the stabbing by Dulin did not take
Batulan by surprise due to his having been sufficiently forewarned of Dulin’s impending assault,  and being
afforded the opportunity to defend himself, or to escape, or even to recover control of the weapon from
Dulin. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning, or is done in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape, without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victim.
SC: WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the judgment promulgated by finding ALFREDO DULIN
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE, and SENTENCES him to suffer the indeterminate sentence
of EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY OF PRISION MAYOR, AS THE MINIMUM, TO 14 YEARS, EIGHT MONTHS AND
ONE DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE

FACTS:
PROSECUTION
 On January 1, 2005, at around 2:30PM, petitioner went to the office of Sykes Asia Inc. located at the
25th Floor of Robinson’s Summit Center,Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
 When petitioner was already inside the building, he went to the work station of the deceased victim,
Jeffrey Gonzales, who was seated fronting his computer terminal, with his back towards the aisle.
 As petitioner approached Jeffrey from the back, petitioner was already holding a gun pointed at the
back of Jeffrey’s head. At the last second, Jeffrey managed to deflect the hand of petitioner holding
the gun, and a short struggle for the possession of the gun ensued thereafter. Petitioner won the
struggle and remained in possession of the said gun. Petitioner then pointed the gun at Jeffrey’s face,
pulled the 4times, the fourth shot finally discharging the bullet that hit Jeffrey in the forehead,
eventually killing him. After shooting Jeffrey, petitioner fled the office.

DEFENSE
 Petitioner, together with his children, went to Sykes Asia to pick up petitioner’s wife. He
alleged that he was frisked by the guards and there was no gun found.
 However, as Darlene was then not on her table, petitioner approached a certain man and
asked to the possible whereabouts of Darlene.
 The person whom petitioner had talked to was the deceased-victim, Jeffrey. After casually
introducing himself as the husband of Darlene, Jeffrey curtly told him, "Bakit mo hinahanap
si Darlene?"to which he answered, "Nagpapasundo kasi sa akin."
 The response given by Jeffrey shocked and appalled petitioner: "Ayaw na nga ng asawa mo
sayo sinusundo mo pa!"
 Shocked by the words and reaction of Jeffrey, petitioner tried to inquire from Jeffrey who he
was. But Jeffrey suddenly cursed petitioner.
 Then, Jeffrey suddenly picked up something in his chair which happened to be a gun and
pointed the same at petitioner’s face followed by a clicking sound. The gun, however, did not
fire.
 Seeing imminent danger to his life, petitioner grappled with Jeffrey for the possession of the
gun.While grappling, the gunclicked for 2-3 more times. Again, the gun did not fire.
 Petitioner was able to wrest away the gun from Jeffrey and tried to run away to avoid any
further confrontation. However, Jeffrey immediately blocked petitioner’s path and shouted
for the guard. Immediately then, Jeffrey took hold of a big fire extinguisher, aimed and was
about to smash the same on petitioner’s head.
 Acting instinctively, petitioner parried the attack while still holding the gun. While in the act of
parrying, the gun accidentally fired due to the reasonable force and contact that his parrying
hand had made with the fire extinguisher and the single bullet discharged hit the forehead of
Jeffrey, which caused the latter to fall on the floor and die.

Petitioner was charged with the crime of Homicide.

RTC: found petitioner guilty if homicide
CA: affirmed the RTC decision
SC: AFFIRMED THE CA DECISION
ISSUE: WON all the requisites of justifying corcumstance of self-defense are present in the
case at bar

RULING: NO.

First. The evidence on record does not support petitioner's contention that unlawful aggression
was employed by the deceased-victim, Jeffrey, against him. Even assuming arguendo that the gun
originated from Jeffrey and an altercation transpired, and therefore, danger may have in fact existed, the
imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment petitioner disarmed Jeffrey by wresting the
gun from the latter. After petitioner had successfully seized it, there was no longer any unlawful
aggression to speak of that would have necessitated the need to kill Jeffrey. Petitioner had every
opportunity to run away from the scene and seek help but refused to do so. Thus, when an
unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-defense has no
right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.

Second. Even assuming that the unlawful aggression emanated from the deceased victim, Jeffrey,
the means employed by petitioner was not reasonably commensurate to the nature and extent of
the alleged attack, which he sought to avert. The victim was holding the fire extinguisher while the
petitioner was holding the gun. The gun and the discharge thereof was unnecessary and disproportionate
to repel the alleged aggression with the use of fire extinguisher. The rule is that the means employed
by the person invoking self-defense contemplates a rational equivalence between the means of
attack and the defense.

In view of the foregoing, the SC find it illogical to discuss further the third element of self-
defense since it is recognized that unlawful aggression is a primordial element of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two
requisites of self-defense will have no basis.

Hence, the SC affirmed the decision of the CA in finding petitioner Sherwin Dela Cruz guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide.
PEOPLE VS. DELA PENA

PROSECUTION
 Ernie Amahit, son of the victim Olipio, went to their nipa hut after tending to their caraboas.
When he was a few meters away, he saw accused-appellant enter the nipa hut where his
father was sleeping.
 The victim(Olipio) was lying face down when the accused-appellant stabbed him at the back
with a bolo.
 He heard his father shout for help while he watched accused-appellant stab the former
several times. Accused-appellant then threatened to kill Ernie prompting him to run towards
home to tell his mother about the incident.

DEFENDANT
 Rico Dela Pena, herein accused-apellant, alleged that while he was walking on the road on
his way home, Olipio called and motioned for him to come near him. Olipio then told
accused-appellant about the banana plants were uprooted.
 Accused-appellant inquired as to the reason for Olipio’s actions, but the Olipio simply told
him to not get angry otherwise he would kill him.
 When accused appellant answered “No,” Olipion pulled out his bolo and thrust it towards
him.
 They wrestled for the bolo and when accused-appellant got hold of it, he stabbed Olipio.

Accused-Appellant was charged with the crime of murder.

 RTC: rendered the accused-appellant guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua
 CA: Affirmed the conviction of the RTC.
o The CA concluded that the physical evidence presented including the location of the
stab wounds contradict accused-appellant’s claim that Olipio was the unlawful
aggressor. The depth and seriousness of the wounds suffered by the victim prove
that the stabbing blows were not inflicted by accused-appellant as a matter of
defense but more to be taken as acts of aggression towards Olipio.
 SC: affirmed the CA decision

ISSUE: WON there was self defense

RULING: NO, by invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, accused-appellant thus

admits committing the acts constituting the crime, for which he was charged and the burden of
proof is on him to establish by clear and convincing proof, that (1) there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) the reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

The nature, character, location, and extent of these wounds belie the accused-appellant’s claim
that Olipion attacked him with a Bolo; and it was in self-defense that after wrestling the bolo
from the victim, accused-appellant used it against Olipio. The appearances of the wounds on
the victim’s heart, his internal organs and large intestine contradict accused-appellant defense
that he had only hit Olipio twice in the stomach and that after the second blow, both of them
fell and rolled on the ground which cause the wounds at the back.

Assuming that Olipio was the aggressor, it is nevertheless apparent that at the time he was
killed, the danger to accused-appellant had already ceased. Notably, even after taking full
control of the bolo, he attacked the victim several times and stabbed him to death. Settled is
the rule that when the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right
to kill or wound the former agressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is
committed.

Hence, the SC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the CA in convicting
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER.
MIRANDA VS PEOPLE

FACTS:
 While Pilo and his friend were on their way home, they passed by the house of Miranda and
threw stones at the latter's home.
 Miranda suddenly went outside and started hacking Pilo. He hit Pilo's right forehead. Again,
Miranda tried to hit Pilo, but the latter parried the attack with his left arm.
 In an attempt to stop Miranda, Damaso threw a stone at him. Thereafter, Damaso grabbed
possession of the bolo.

DEFENSE
 In his defense, Miranda admitted that he hacked Pilo with the bolo twice, but claimed that
his acts were done in self-defense.
 He narrated that on August 14, 2011,at around 7p.m.,while he was at home with his wife
and daughter, he suddenly heard several thuds at their door and stones hurled at their
house.
 Miranda peeped through the window and saw Pilo, throwing stones. He claimed that before
he peeped through the door, he heard Pilo challenge him to come out so that they could kill
each other.
 Pilo approached him and hit his upper left cheek with a stone. When Pilo stretched his two
arms downwards to pick up something from the ground, Miranda suddenly hacked Pilo’s
arm with his bolo, in order to defend himself from Pilo’s oncoming attack. 
 At this instance, Damaso, arrived and grappled with Miranda to get hold of the latter’s bolo.
Because of this, Damaso likewise sustained injuries.

Miranda was charged for the crime of frustrated homicide.

 RTC: Found miranda guilty of beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide.
o The RTC held that Miranda failed to prove that his act of hacking Pilo was legally justified.
 CA: affirmed the conviction by the RTC.

ISSUE: WON there was self-defense on the part of Miranda

RULING: NO, Applying the foregoing doctrines to the case at bar, it becomes all too apparent
that the evidence on record does not support Miranda's contention that Pilo employed unlawful
aggression against him. It must be remembered that Pilo was merely throwing stones at the
house of Miranda. Miranda himself admitted during the trial that Pilo did not throw stones at him,
much less, utter any invectives, or threatening words against him. In fact, the stones Pilo threw
merely hit Miranda's roof and door.

Equally telling is the fact that when Miranda asked Pilo why he was throwing stones, the latter
did not respond but simply remained mum, and threw a stone at Miranda's iron door. Miranda
even further narrated that after throwing stones, Pilo even approached him, which made him.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision by the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38523, convicting petitioner Isidro Miranda y Parelasio of the crime
of Frustrated Homicide, is hereby AFFIRMED with modification
TOLEDO VS PEOPLE

FACTS: On September 16, 1995, appellant went to a black-smith who made the design of his
bolo. When he went home to Tuburan, Odiongan, Romblon late in the afternoon appellant saw
the group of Lani Famero, Michael Fosana, Rex Cortez and Ricky Guarte drinking gin at the
house of the Spouses Manuel and Eliza Guarte, Ricky’s parents.

Appellant requested the group of Ricky to refrain from making any noise. Thereupon, appellant
proceeded inside his house and went to sleep. Around 9:00 p.m., Gerardo Faminia, Eliza
Guarte’s brother arrived at the Guarte house and asked for any left-over food.

Minutes later, Ricky came back and together with Lani, Rex and Michael, went to sleep at the
Guarte house. They had not laid down for long when they heard stones being hurled at the roof
of the house. The stoning was made three (3) times.

He saw appellant stoning their house. Ricky went out of the house and proceeded to appellant’s
house. Ricky asked appellant, his uncle, why he was stoning their house. Appellant did not
answer but met Ricky at the doorstep of his (appellant’s) house and without any warning,
stabbed Ricky on the abdomen with a bolo.

DEFENSE:

 The petitioner adduced evidence that at around 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 1995, he was
on his way home at Tuburan, Odiongan, Romblon. He saw his nephew, Ricky Guarte, and
the latter’s friends, about five meters away from his house, having a drinking spree.
 He ordered them not to make loud noises, and they obliged. He then went to his house,
locked the door with a nail, and went to sleep.
 However, he was awakened at around 9:30 p.m. by loud noises coming from Ricky and his
three companions. He peeped through the window grills of his house and admonished them
not to make any loud noises.
 Ricky, who was then already drunk pulled out a balisong, pushed the door, and threatened
to stab the petitioner. The petitioner pushed their sala set against the door to block the entry
of Ricky, but the latter continued to push the door open with his hands and body.
 The petitioner ran to the upper portion of their house and got his bolo. He returned to the
door and pushed it with all his might using his left hand. He then pointed his bolo, which was
in his right hand, towards Ricky. The bolo accidentally hit Ricky on the stomach, and the
latter lost his balance and fell to the floor. The petitioner, thereafter, surrendered to the
barangay captain at 11:00 a.m. on September 17, 1995.

INJURY: Ricky sustained one stab wound but died due to massive blood loss.

RTC: rendered judgement finding petitioner guilty as charged of homicide

CA: rendered judgement affirming the assailed decision
SC: Affirmed CA decision
ISSUE: WON the petitioner acted in self defense

RULING: NO, The Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as accidental self-
defense. You cannot invoke self-defense and accident at the same time. Because in self-
defense it is direct and positive overt act in the name of self-preservation. The offender killed the
victim so as to preserve his own life. It is direct and positive. It cannot be done out of accident
imminence. Therefore, it is inconsistent with accident.

The petitioner failed to prove that the victim was killed by accident, without fault or
intention on his part to cause it. There is no evidence that the petitioner surrendered either
the bolo that accidentally hit the victim or the balisong held by the deceased to the barangay
captain or the police authorities. Such failure of the petitioner negates his claim that his bolo
accidentally hit the stomach of the victim and that he acted in self-defense.

To prove self-defense, the petitioner was burdened to prove the essential elements thereof,
namely: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the petitioner; (3) employment by him of reasonable means to prevent or repel the
aggression.

The evidence on record revealed that there is no unlawful aggression on the part of
Ricky. While it was established that Ricky was stabbed at the doorstep of appellant’s house
which would give a semblance of verity to appellant’s version of the incident, such view,
however, is belied by the fact that Ricky arrived at appellant’s house unarmed and had only one
purpose in mind, that is, to ask appellant why he threw stones at his (Ricky’s) house. With no
weapon to attack appellant, or defend himself, no sign of hostility may be deduced from
Ricky’s arrival at appellant’s doorstep. Ricky was not threatening to attack nor in any
manner did he manifest any aggressive act that may have imperiled appellant’s well-
being.

Appellant was not justified in stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent threat to
appellant’s life necessitating his assault on Ricky. Unlawful aggression is a condition
sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. For unlawful aggression to
be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger
thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. In the absence of such element,
appellant’s claim of self-defense must fail.