SELF DEFENSE
PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ
Facts:
dela Cruz and San Antonio were currently living
together when Macapagal (victim, San Antonios exlive-in partner) went to their apartment, holding a gun
(9mm caliber pistol) and banged the door of the
bedroom ahere dela Cruz was demanding him to go
out
Dela Cruz opened the door, and upon seeing that
Macapagal was pointing the gun at him, he
immediately went back to the room and closed the
door.
The next time he went out, he, too, was already
holding a gun (.35 caliber revolver).
The two immediately grappled each other and not long
after, shots were heard and Macapagal fell dead on the
floor.
Appellant told San Antonio to call the police and when
they arrive, he surrendered the gun he used and told
the police that he shot Macapagal in self defense.
According to the autopsy, Macapagal sustained 4
wounds. 3 of which were non-penetrating (upper jaw,
below the left shoulder, right side of the waist). The
shot that took his life was on the left side of the chest
penetrating the heart.
Dela Cruz had no license to carry the firearm.
Issue: W/N the accused is able to prove to the court the
elements of self-defense in order to extenuate him from the
crime.
Held: No.
Three conditions must concur to extenuate him:
Unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed
presuppose an actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack or imminent danger on the life and limb
of a person not a mere threatening or
intimidating attitude but most importantly at
the time the defensive action was taken against
the aggressor.
o In this case, the victim banged at the bedroom
door with his gun but the appellant, upon seeing
the victim pointing a gun at him was able to
prevent at this stage harm to himself by
promptly closing the door. He could have
stopped there. Instead, he confronted the
victim.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel that unlawful aggression
o The number of wounds sustained by the victim
would negate this component of self defense. The
four gunshot wounds indicate a determined effort
to kill.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself
o When the appellant confronted the victim, instead
of taking precautionary measures, appellant could
no longer argue that there was no provocation on
his part
o Claim of self defense rejected
o
SELF DEFENSE
Defendant appealed from this judgment to Us to raise as a
pure question of law the sole issue of whether, under the
facts is determined below, a fist blow delivered in retaliation
to a "foot-kick greeting" is an act of self-defense and/or
justifying circumstance entitling the accused to acquittal and
relief from all liabilities, civil and criminal.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
TEODORO SABIO, defendant-appellant.
At about six p.m. of April 12, 1963, Teodoro Sabio was
squatting with a friend, Irving Jurilla, in the plaza of Central
Manapla, Manapla, Negros Occidental. Romeo Bacobo and
two others Ruben Miosa and Leonardo Garcia
approached them. All of them were close and old friends.
Romeo Bacobo then asked Sabio where he spent the holy
week. At the same time, he gave Sabio a "footkick greeting",
touching Sabio's foot with his own left foot. Sabio thereupon
stood up and dealt Romeo Bacobo a fist blow, inflicting upon
him a lacerated wound, inch long, at the upper lid of the
left eye. It took from 11 to 12 days to heal and prevented
Romeo Bacobo from working during said period as employee
of Victorias Milling Co., Inc.
Sabio was thereafter prosecuted for less serious physical
injuries. In the municipal court he was found guilty and
sentenced to imprisonment of 5 months and 10 days plus
costs. In the Court of First Instance, however, to which he
appealed, he was found guilty but with the mitigating
circumstance of provocation, so that the penalty imposed
was one (1) month and five (5) days of arresto mayor plus
indemnity of P100 and costs.1wph1.t
A primordial requisite for self-defense is unlawful aggression
(Art. 11, Rev. Penal Code). And for unlawful, aggression to be
present, there must be real danger to life or personal safety
(People vs. Beatriz Yuman, 61 Phil. 786). For this reason, a
mere push or a shove, not followed by other acts, has been
held insufficient to constitute unlawful aggression (People vs.
Yuman, supra). A playful kick the lower court rejected
defendant's claim that it was a "vicious kick" at the foot
my way of greeting between friends may be a practical joke,
and may even hurt; but it is not a serious or real attack on a
person's safety. Appellant's submission that it amounts to
unlawful aggression cannot therefore be sustained. As rightly
found by the Court of First Instance, such kick was only a
mere slight provocation.
Reference is made to a decision of the Supreme Court of
Spain (prom. Jan. 20, 1904, 72 Jur. Crim. 123-125),
considering a slap on the face an unlawful aggression. No
parity lies between said case and the present. Since the face
represents a person and his dignity, slapping, it is a serious
personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful
disregard, nay, a defiance, of in individual's personality. It
may therefore be frequently regarded as placing in real
danger a person's dignity, rights and safety. A friendly kick
delivered on a person's foot obviously falls short of such
personal aggression.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in
toto. Costs against appellant. So ordered.
