G.R. No.

180219
November 23, 2011
Virgilio Talampas vs People of the Philippines

FACTS:

 Virgilio Talampas (appellant) was charged of Homicide for killing Ernesto Matic
(victim) using a revolver on or about July 5, 1995.

 A witness (Jose) testified that at 7:00 in the evening he allegedly saw Talampas,
riding a bicycle passed by and stopped, brought out a revolver, poked and fired
it, hitting Eduardo Matic (brother of the victim), who took refuge behind Ernesto.
The appellant again fired his gun three times, one shot hitting Ernesto at the
right portion of his back, and another shot hit Eduardo on his nape. Thereafter,
the appellant ran away while the victims were brought to the hospital.

 Dr. Valentin Bernales likewise testified that upon autopsy of Ernesto’s body, he
found one gunshot wound located at the back of the coastal area 16cm from
the spinal column involving major organs causing the victims death.

 On the part of the appellant, he insisted that his enemy is Eduardo not Ernesto
and that the deceased hit him with a monkey wrench but parried the blow. Then
he notices Eduardo held a revolver, he struggled for the control of the revolver
which had accidentally fired hitting Ernesto.

 The RTC ruled finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide
and the CA affirmed its conviction.

 Talampas filed a petition for review on certiorari who seeks to review the
affirmance of his conviction of homicide

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the appellant can claim self-defense and accidental death
HELD:

No, Talampas cannot claim self-defense and accidental death.

The elements of self-defense were as follows: unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
In the case at bar, it was Talampas who initiated the attacks against the victim, and
there was no unlawful aggression committed towards him that needs to be prevented.
Furthermore, he cannot invoke accidental death as a defense
Article 12(4) of the RPC provides, “Any person who while performing lawful act with
due care, causes injury by mere accident, without fault or intention of causing it is
exempted from criminal liability”.
The act of Talampas in poking and firing his gun three times to the victims, certainly
does not constitute a lawful act and will not relieve him of criminal liability.
The fact that the target of Talampas is not Ernesto does not also excuse him from
liability of the latter’s death. Because the fatal hit that killed the victim was a natural
and direct consequence of his felonious act. Under article 4 of the RPC, criminal
liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.
 G.R. No. 184601
November 12, 2012
People of the Philippines vs. Marcial Malicdem

FACTS:

 On or about August 11, 2002 at around 9:00 in the evening at Brgy.Anolid,

Mangaldan Pangasinan, Wilson Molina together with Joel and Bernardo were
seating near the septic tank when Marcial Malicdem, the appellant arrived
asking if they knew the whereabouts of his grandson, Rogelio. They answered
in the negative. Appellant ask again for the whereabouts of Rogelio. As they
stood to leave, appellant suddenly embraced Wilson and lunged a six-inch knife
to the left part of his chest. While trying to help, Bernardo and Francisco were
also stabbed in the stomach by the appellant. Joel brought Wilson to the
hospital but he was declared dead on arrival.

 The post mortem report of Dr. Rivera states that the cause of death of the victim
is Cardiorespiratory Arrest secondary to Hypovolemic shock due to stab wound.

 Malicdem invoked self-defense to justify his participation and his wife, Anabel
testified for him. Anabel alleged that she saw Wilson drawing a knife then she
shouted warning to his husband. While the appellant and Wilson grappled with
the knife, the latter was thrown in the ground and fell on the knife that he was
holding.

 The RTC found the appellant guilty of the crime of murder due to
inconsistencies testimonies and the CA affirmed its decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Malicdem’s action of killing Wilson is justified as self-defense.

HELD:
No, his action of killing the victim is not justified as self-defense.
The most important element of self-defense is unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, thus must be proved first to invoked it. As stated in people v. Fontanilla, unlawful
aggression is of two kinds: (a.) Actual or material and (b.) imminent. Actual or material
unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon. Imminent
unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening.
In the case at bar, Malicdem failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of Wilson
by sufficient and satisfactory proof. The records were bereft of any indication that the
attack by the victim was not a mere threat or just imaginary. Bernardo, Joel and Wilson
were just in the act of leaving when the appellant suddenly plunged the knife to
Wilson’s chest.
 G.R No. 234528
January 23, 2019
Isidro Miranda vs People of the Philippines

FACTS:

 In the evening of August 14, 2011, Winardo Pilo (victim) together with his friend
Damaso walks home after a party. While passing the house of Isidro
Miranda(accused-petitioner), he threw stones at the latter’s home.

 Miranda went outside armed with a bolo and started hacking Pilo hitting his right
forehead. When he tried to hit Pilo again, the latter parried his attack with his
left arm.

 In an attempt to stop Miranda, Damaso threw a stone at him and grappled for
the possession of the weapon. Because of this he also sustained injuries.

 Miranda admitted hacking the victim twice but claimed self-defense. According
to him, it was Pilo who challenged him to come outside and kill each other.
Once he is outside, Pilo threw a stone at him hitting his upper left cheek. He
hacked Pilo’s arm while the latter pick up something from the ground in order
to defend himself of oncoming attack.

 The RTC rendered a decision finding Miranda guilty of the crime of frustrated
homicide and the CA affirmed the conviction upon appeal.

 Seeking the reversal of the decision, the petitioner filed a Petition for Review
on Certiorari to this court.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
is guilty of frustrated homicide.

2. Whether or not the petitioner can claim self-defense.

HELD:

I. Yes, the prosecution did prove the guilt of Miranda.

To prove the guilt of frustrated homicide beyond reasonable doubt the

prosecution must established that: “(1.) the accused intended to kill his
victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2.) the
victim sustained a fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of timely
medical assistance; and (3.) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder
are present.

In the case at bar, the intent to kill of Miranda was clearly established by the
nature and number of wounds sustained by Pilo. The records show that
Miranda used a bolo measuring 1 ½ feet. The hacking wound was about 5
inches long, and 1-inch-deep fracturing the victim’s skull in the parietal area.
Additional two wounds measuring 4 inches long by 1-inch-deep and 1.5-
inch-long by 1-inch-deep in Pilo’s forearm sustained after Miranda’s
relentless attack. In fact, these continuous attacks were stopped only when
Damaso arrived and grappled with the weapon. The injury to the head of
Pilo may have caused his untimely demise if not for the timely medical
assistance.

II. No. his claim of self-defense is unbelievable.

In invoking self-defense, the accused, in effect admits to the commission of

the crime and the burden of proof shifts upon him. The most important
element of self-defense is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The
accused must establish the three elements of unlawful aggression, namely:
(1) there must have been a physical or material attack or assault; (2) the
attack or assault must be actual, or, at least imminent; and (3) the attack or
assault must be unlawful.

In the present case, the evidence on record does not support Miranda’s
contention that Pilo employed unlawful aggression against him. It must be
remembered that Pilo was just merely throwing stones at the house of
Miranda. He(Miranda) also admitted during trial that the victim did not throw
stones at him, much less, utter any invectives, or threatening words against
him. It is apparent that Miranda’s life was not in grave peril and he was
certainly not faced with any actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger
for him to have the need to defend himself.
 G.R. No.195021
March 15, 2017
Nicolas Velasquez and Victor Velasquez vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS:

 On May 24, 2003, about 10;00 in the evening at Brgy. Palua, Mangaldan
Pangasinan, the spouses Jesus and Ana Del Mundo went to their nipa house
where they saw Ampong and Nora Castillo in the midst of having sex.

 Aghast, Jesus shouted invectives at them (Ampong and Ana), who both
scampered away.

 Jesus decided to pursue them, he went to Ampong’s aunt house but neither
Ampong nor Ana was there. While making his way back home, he was blocked
by Ampong and his fellow accused. Without provocation, Nicolas hit the left side
of his forehead with a stone. Victor also hit his left eyebrow with a stone. Felix
did the same, hitting Jesus above his left ear, Sonny struck him with a bamboo,
hitting his back, below the right shoulder. Ampong punch him on his left cheek.
The accused then left Jesus on the ground bloodied, crawled, hide and
staggered his way back home.

 Jesus sustained among others a crack in his skull after undergoing xray. Dr.
Deguzman noted that the injuries of Jose required medical attention for 4 to 6
weeks and he was also advised to undergo surgery.

 The version of the accused was; Nicolas saw Jesus hacking Victor’s door. The
other accused allegedly tried to pacify him. They responded and countered
Jesus attacks, leading to his injuries.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove that justifying circumstances

existed.
HELD:

No, there is no sufficient evidence that proves the existence of a justifying

circumstances.
Article 11 of the RPC- Justifying circumstance: the following do not incur criminal
liability; (1.) Anyone who acts in defense of his person, or rights, provided that the
following circumstances occur: Unlawful aggression, Reasonable necessity of means
employed to prevent or repel it, lack of provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. (2). Anyone who acts in the defense of the person or rights of relatives within
the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites are present, and
the further requisite, in the case the provocation was the given by the person attack,
that the one making the defense had no part therein.
In the case at bar, the petitioners defense rest on proof that it was Jesus who initiated
an assault by barging into the premises of the petitioner’s residences, hacking Victor’s
door and threatening physical harm upon them and their companions. That is, that
unlawful aggression originated from Jesus. Contrary to the requirements of self-
defense and defense of strangers, the petitioners failed to present credible proof to
back up their assertions.
Moreover, noting the big difference in the physical built of Jesus and the accused, it
could have had easily held him and disarmed him without the need of hitting him. Thus,
this was far from a reasonable necessary means to repel the supposed aggression,
thereby failing to satisfy the second requisite of self-defense and defense of a relative.
 G.R No. 199579
Dec 10, 2012
Ramon Josue vs People of the Philippines

FACTS:

 On May 1, 2004, at around 11:15 in the evening Armando Macario, was buying
medicine from the store when he saw the petitioner, Ramon Josue going
towards him shouting to ask him why he had painted the petitioner’s vehicle.
Macario denied the Josue’s accusation, but the latter still pointed and shot his
gun (cal .45) towards him. The gunshots fired hit Macario’s elbow and fingers.
As the victim tried to flee, the petitioner still fired his gun at him causing a
gunshot wound at his back.

 The victim sustained 3 gunshot wound; one on his right hand, another on his
left elbow and one indicating a bullets entry point at the posterior of the chest,
exiting at the anterior line. Dr. Calalang, confirmed that the wounds were
caused by gunshots and the injuries were fatal, if not medically attended to.

 For the petitioner’s defense, he declared to have merely acted in self-defense.

He claimed that he saw Macario with Eduardo Matias and Richard Akong, in
the acts of removing the locks of his vehicles battery and when he sought their
attention, Macario shot him with.38 caliber gun, but the gun jammed and failed
to fire.

 The RTC found the petitioner guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide and the
CA affirmed its ruling.

 The petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the decision of
the lower courts.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Frustrated Homicide
2. Whether or not the petitioner can invoke self defense
HELD:

I. Yes, the petitioner is guilty of Frustrated Homicide.

The crime of frustrated homicide has the following elements:

1. The accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a
deadly weapon in his assault.
2. The victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die because of
timely medical assistance
3. None of the qualifying circumstance for murder under article 248 of the
RPC is present.
In the present case, Josue’s intent to kill and his infliction of fatal wound upon
the victim proves the existence of the first and second element of the crime. He
even shouted “papatayin kita!” while he fired the first gunshot. Also, the
sustained wound of the victim was fatal if not given medical attention as testified
by the doctor.

II. No, he cannot invoke self-defense.

By invoking self-defense, the burden of proof lies to the appellant who must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that his actions of wounding the victim were
justified. And, for an action to be justified these three elements must be
present: 1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; 2. Reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it; 3. Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

In the case at bar, the Josue failed to established the three elements. There
is no unlawful aggression on the part of Macario who was unarmed at the
time of shooting and it was the petitioner who confronted the victim carrying
a pistol. There is also no danger to the petitioner’s life because the alleged
act of stealing the car battery does not equate danger to his life or personal
property.
 G.R. No. 109660
July 1, 1997
People of the Philippines vs. Danny Angeles and John Doe(accused), Romeo
Nell(appellant)
FACTS:

 Rosini Cenon, a witness testified that on March 24, 1990 at about 10:00 pm,
while he was washing clothes, she saw the accused Romeo Nell stabbed
Reynaldo Laureano while the latter was sitting in front of a close store.
Reynaldo was able to run away but Romeo followed him. Danilo Angeles, who
was with Romeo, pulled Reynaldo and immersed him in a canal. Upon orders
or Danilo, Romeo stabbed Reynaldo on the chest who even repeatedly move
the bladed weapon inside the body to and tro. And when the victim was no
longer moving, Romeo ran together with another man, who was half naked from
waist up.

 Benjamin Laureano, brother of the victim testified differently, that on March 24,
1990 at 10:30pm, he went to the corner of Abalos St. and Conception St., where
he saw Reynaldo and Romeo quarreling. They struggled with each other, then
Romeo ran out, his brother chased him but was not able to catch the accused
and they went home. Benjamin also testified that Romeo chased his brother
with a bladed weapon. They struggled with each other first then Romeo stabbed
and kicked him(Reynaldo). Romeo then ran way.

 Dr. Prospero Cabanayan testified that the victim died of severe hemorrhage
due to an 11-inch stab wound below the right collarbone and two puncture
wounds located at the chest.

 Romeo justified his act by invoking self-defense. He testified that Reynaldo

repeatedly ask beer money from him and that he get his screwdriver from his
tricycle to defend himself when he saw one of them pulled out a knife. Junior
hit his head with a bottle of beer, his vision become dark and he started stabbing
Reynaldo.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant’s action of killing the victim is justified as self-
defense.
HELD:

No, his actions were not proved to be justified as self-defense.

By interposing self-defense, the appellant must establish a clear and convincing

evidence of the requisites of self-defense namely; (1) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; (3) lack of provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

In this case, unlawful aggression was not established by the defense. Romeo
merely proved that the victim, Benjamin and Junior were extorting beer money
from him and the manner of extortion described by the appellant does not show
that his life or limb was placed in any peril as to justify his killing of Reynaldo.

Moreover, in self-defense, there should also be reasonable necessity for the

action taken as well as the means used. It requires the consideration of; (1)
whether the aggressor was armed, (2) the nature and quality of the weapon
used, and (3) the physical conditions and sizes of both aggressor and the
person defending himself.

Romeo was armed while his three alleged assailants were not competently
shown to have been armed. He claimed that Benjamin had a knife and that
Junior and the victim held a bottle of beer each. But allegation is not evidence
and, in the absence of the latter we cannot agree with the appellant that his
alleged aggressors were similarly armed. Therefore, the reasonable means
employed to prevent or repel the “aggression” from the victim and his
companions was not proven in this case.
 G.R. No. 103613
February 23, 2001
People of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals and Eladio Tangan

FACTS:

 At around 11:30pm of December 1,1984, Eladio Tangan(respondent) and

Generoso Miranda(victim) were driving on the Roxas Boulevard road going to
the same direction when suddenly firecrackers were thrown in Generoso’s way,
causing him to swerve to the right and cut Tangan’s path. Tangan blew his horn
several times so Generoso let him pass. However, when Tangan’s car was
ahead of the victim’s car, he reduces speed and he kept blocking the victim
who tries to overtake 3 to 5 times. Before making a U-turn, the respondent’s car
slowed down, at the same time Generoso and his uncle Manuel Miranda pulled
over and approached Tangan’s car, who also stopped and got out. The victim
and the respondent exchanged expletives. As Tangan countered “ikaw, ano
ang gusto mo?” he got his .38 caliber handgun from his car.

 According to the witnesses of the prosecution, Mary Ann Borromeo, Rosalia

Cruz and Manuel Miranda, Tangan pointed the gun and shot the victim. The
victim was hit in the stomach, fall to the ground and while still unconscious, he
told his uncle to get a gun. Manuel grappled for the possession of the gun.
Rosalia intervened and took hold of the gun but it was taken by a man wearing
a red T-shirt.

 On the part of the defense, the accused and his witness, Nelson Pante claimed
that after the accused took his gun, the Miranda’s started to grapple the gun’s
possession. During the grappling, the Miranda’s fell down at the back of the
accused car, as the gun fell it exploded hitting Generoso.

 After the gun went off, Tangan ran away while Generoso was rushed to the
Philippine General Hospital but he expired on the way.

 The RTC convicted Tangan of Homicde with the privileged mitigating

circumstance of incomplete self-defense and ordinary mitigating
circumstances. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the lower court’s decision.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense was

properly granted.

HELD:

No, it was not properly granted because there was no unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim requisite.
Incomplete self-defense is a mitigating circumstance which requires that the majority
of the elements of self-defense were present, particularly the unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression by itself or in combination with either of the
other two suffices to established incomplete self-defense. Absent the unlawful
aggression, there can never be self-defense, complete or incomplete, because there
is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of defense will be no basis.
In the case at bar, a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. Likewise,
the exchange of insulting words and invectives between Tangan and Generoso, no
matter how objectionable, could not be considered as unlawful aggression, except
when coupled with physical assault.
Furthermore, the third requisite of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself is not supported by evidence. By repeatedly blocking the
path of the Miranda’s for almost 5 times, Tangan was in effect the one who provoked
the former. The repeated blowing of horns, assuming it was done by Generoso, may
be irritating to an impatient driver but it certainly could not be considered as creating
so powerful an inducement as to incite provocation for the other party to act violently.