GROUP 4

United States vs. Esmedia, 17 Phil 260 [G.R. No. 5749] (Oct. 21, 1910)

When alleged attacker is 80-years old, defense of relative doubtful

Facts:
Esmedia and Abando family lived very near to each other and owned adjoining rice lands. Ciriaco Abando
instructed his son Santiago to go to the rice field to let out the water so that they could plant rice in the
said field. Gregorio Esmedia appeared on the scene and started a quarrel with Santiago. Gregorio drew a
dagger and stabbed Santiago in the back. Santiago fell to the ground but arouse immediately and
attacked Gregorio with his bolo. The two accused namely Potenciano and Mena arrived on the scene
about the time the fight between the Santiago and Gregorio was terminating, and seeing their father lying
in the mud and water, fatally wounded and dying and believing Santiago inflict the wounds to their father,
in defense immediately killed Santiago. Ciriaco was near the scene at this time, the two accused attack
him and as a direct result of the blows inflicted by them he fell to the ground dying immediately.

Issue:
Whether or not the two accused can be criminally responsible for the death of Ciriaco and Santiago
Abando

Ruling:
Potenciano and Mena Esmedia are exempted from criminal responsibility for causing the death of
Santiago Abando because of the mitigating circumstance of loss of reason and self-control. Any person
who, in depending his father against an unlawful attack, while he still honestly believes him to be in a
great danger, causes the death of the attacking party, is exempt from criminal responsibility. But the two
accused is guilty of homicide with aggravating circumstance for the death of Ciriaco Abando. Considering
the age of Ciriaco, 80 years of age and arrives upon the scene of an altercation after it has terminated,
and is thereupon attacked and killed, the aggravating circumstance must be considered in fixing the
penalty because of the disregard and lack of respect for age.
GROUP 4

People vs. Tan, 73 SCRA 288 [L-22697] (Oct. 5, 1976)

Performance of duty as justifying circumstance

Facts:
Jose Sosing, the maintainer of “Paitikan” game was asked for a peso by Donion Tan, a member of the
municipal police force. But Sosing replied that he did not have a peso and he offered only forty centavos.
A scuffle for the possession of the coconut shell thus ensued between them. Sosing was hit in the mouth
while Tan suffered bruises. Tan pulled out his service pistol, they wrested for the possession of the gun
but the two officers separated them. At about noontime, while Sosing walking home, he encountered Tan
and pull out his pistol. Sosing ran up to the house and went to the kitchen and lodged to the ground
where Tan was waiting for him to come out. Sosing came out with his hands upraised and knelt before
the accuse pleading to spare his life but the accused shot him. After the incident, he was arrested and
brought to the municipal building.

Issue:
Whether or not Tan can use the defense of fulfillment of his duty for killing Sosing

Ruling:
The defense of fulfillment of duty must be demonstrated with convincing credibility. The statement of facts
made by the accused and his witness is lacking in truth; it is rather an afterthought and contrary to human
nature. There is no doubt of the determination of the accused to kill the deceased, as shown by his
utterances soon after he was disarmed at the “paitikan”, but no sufficient time had elapsed from its
inception to its fulfillment for the meditation and reflection to justify a finding of evident premeditation. Only
about two hours had intervened between his rage and his consummation of the criminal act so that he
had no ample opportunity to cooly and serenely think and deliberate on the meaning and consequences
of what he said he would do. Tan was guilty of murder.
GROUP 4

People vs. Bausing, 199 SCRA 355 [G.R. No. 64965] (July 18, 1991)

Requisites for justifying circumstance of defense of relative; When defense of relative not
available

Facts:
Alexander Mantilla was at the billiard hall of accused Manuel Loroso with the other people. The billiard
game was first interrupted when Teraytay and Loroso were grappling for the knife which was protruding at
the back of the pocket of the former; the knife was ultimately taken with the assistance of Sunico and
Pacanor. Loroso, as owner of the billiard hall confiscated the knife in order to prevent any trouble therein.
Thereafter, Valetin Bausing “Rodolfo” clattered the billiard balls which caused Mantilla to admonish him to
stop his act as he was not concerned with the game. Without any word, accused Loroso who came from
the back of Mantilla, held the hands of the latter while being raised when all of a sudden, Joven Bausing
appeared in the scene, with unsheathed sharp pointed bolo which was hidden inside the umbrella thrust
many times said bolo upon Mantilla. Mantilla was released only by Loroso, after the victim was staggering
unconsciously who later fell dead outside the billiard hall.

Issue:
Whether or not Loroso and Bausing can invoke for self-defense

Ruling:
There can be no self-defense unless it is proven that there had been unlawful aggression on the part of
the person injured or killed by the assailant. In addition, for unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there
must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening
or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression.
Bausing claim of defense of his son cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the eyewitnesses who
pointing beyond reasonable doubt that he was the aggressor who treacherously assaulted Mantilla. The
plea of self-defense cannot prosper especially so where the accused himself has admitted the killing. The
accused found guilty of murder.
GROUP 4

People vs. Magallanes, 275 SCRA 222 [G.R. No. 114265] (July 8, 1997)

Nature and extent of wounds on victim considered whether self-defense available

Facts:
Gregorio Magallanes who was a “mananari” or gaffer of fighting cocks trekked the road to the cockpit with
Cempron and Salpucial. While on their way, they passed Tapales who was drinking in the store. Tapales
hailed Cempron and invited him for a drink but he refused. For some unknown reason, Tapales then
directed his attention to Magallanes who was walking a few steps behind Cempron. Tapales held
Magallanes by his shirt, slapped him and strangled his neck. But seeing a knife tucked in Tapales’ waist,
Magallanes pulled out the knife and slashed at Tapales to loosen his grip. Magallanes succeeded in
wounding the face and neck of Tapales. He stabbed him several more times before uttering the following
words: “you are already dead in that case.” Magallanes stood up and rode on the motorcycle with
Salpucial and later surrendered to the police authorities of the town.

Issue:
Whether or not Magallanes can invoke self-defense

Ruling:

The appellant’s claim of self-defense cannot be invoke due to the presence of large number of wounds on
the part of the victim and instead, indicates a determined effort to kill the victim. The accused’s
willingness to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of homicide constitutes voluntary commission of
guilt and may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. Because of surrendering voluntarily and plea
of guilty by Magallanes, he is convicted of homicide only with mitigating circumstance instead of the crime
of murder.
GROUP 4

People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 [L-33466-67] (April 20, 1983)

Defense of property when there is unlawful aggression on property

Facts:
Juan, Verano, Ibanez, Fleischer and Rubia were fencing the land of George Fleischer. The place was in
the boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by George Fleischer. At the place of fencing is the
house and rice drier of Mamerto Narvaez. At that time, Narvaez was taking his rest but when he heard
that the walls of his house were being chiseled, he arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the
fencing would go on, Narvaez would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his
ricemill. He asked them to stop but they proceed in fencing the place. Narvaez apparently lost his
equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep,
and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, Narvaez fired at Rubia. Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of
shooting.

Issue:
Whether or not Narvaez can invoke self-defense and be exempt from criminal liability

Ruling:
There was no direct evidence of the planning or preparation to kill the victims nor that the accused
premeditated the killing and clung to his premeditated act, the trial court’s conclusion as to the presence
of such circumstance may not be endorsed. Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant
pleading with the victims to stop the fencing and destroying his house and to talk things over just before
the shooting. There is incomplete self-defense in the case of Narvaez which is entitled to a penalty lower
by one or two degrees. Narvaez is still criminally liable for the killing of the victims. Narvaez is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of two homicides, mitigated by two generic mitigating circumstances of
voluntary surrender and obfuscation, without any aggravating circumstance.
GROUP 4

People vs. Encomienda, 46 SCRA 522 [G.R. No. L-26750] (Aug. 18, 1972)

Elements of self-defense; When is there unlawful aggression; When is there reasonable means to
prevent or repel aggression; When is there lack of sufficient provocation

Facts:
Jose Encomienda was a tenant of hacienda in Nueva Ecija and the victim Severino Cabaral was the
hacienda overseer. The land that he was working was recorded in the name of his father. The victim went
to his house telling Encomienda that he was sent by the hacienda owner to tell him that he cannot work in
the hacienda and that he will be removed as tenant. He asked why he was being removed as tenant
when it was his means of livelihood, the victim replied that he had no right to work on the land because it
was not in his name, to which he countered that the victim had no right to remove him because he was
only a messenger and also a tenant like him. The victim became angry and drew his revolver; they
struggle he boloed the victim’s left arm until the revolver fell on the ground, that when the victim tried to
pick up the gun, he stepped backward and hacked the victim’s forehead causing the victim to fall
backward on the stairway. He went to the municipal building with the bolo and the gun which he
surrendered to the police.

Issue:
Whether or not Encomienda can invoke the plea of self-defense

Ruling:
There are three requisites for self-defense to exist, namely: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal the attack, and (3 lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself. Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened
assault of immediate and imminent kind. In the case, if the deceased had no intention to use his gun on
the appellant, he would not have drawn it or attempt to use it. Therefore, the appellant is in real danger to
the life or personal safety. Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material
measurability between the means of attack and defense. The appellant did not immediately hack the
deceased to completely disable him or to kill him; the immediate danger to his life precluded such serene
rationalization on his part. There certainly was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the appellant.
He was in his own yard cutting wood when the deceased arrived and ordered him to vacate the land
where the appellant told the deceased that he had no right to eject him from the land because he is just
also a tenant like him. Certainly, this retort was no justification for the victim to draw his gun. Encomienda
is hereby acquitted.
GROUP 4

People vs. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 [G.R. No. 135981] (Jan. 15, 2004)

Parricide; Self-defense; Battered Woman Syndrome applied; Definition of battered woman; what is
cycle of violence

Facts:
During their first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily but apparently thereafter, Ben changed
and the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their quarrels became violent. Appellant testified that
every time her husband came home drunk, he would provoke her and sometimes beat her. Whenever
beaten by her husband, she consulted medical doctors who testified during the trial. On the night of the
killing, appellant and the victim were quarreled and the victim beat the appellant. However, appellant was
able to run to another room. Appellant admitted having killed the victim with the use of a gun. The
information for parricide against appellant, however, alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by
beating through the use of a lead pipe. Appellant invoked self-defense and defense of her unborn child.

Issue:
Whether or not Genosa can invoke the “battered woman syndrome” as constituting self defense

Ruling:
The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is afflicted with the “battered woman
syndrome”. A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful
physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a
man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered
woman.” The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,” which has
three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving
(or, at least, nonviolent) phase. Genosa was found guilty of parricide.