Lawyerly

GR No. 170462

2014-02-05

BRION, J.

Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least. threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon. person.[32] The element of unlawful aggression must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[33]

GR No. 191913

2012-03-21

SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Supporting petitioner's claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia.[19] In People v. Catbagan,[20] We aptly held: The means employed by the person invoking self-defense is reasonable if equivalent to the means of attack used by the original aggressor. Whether or not the means of self-defense is reasonable depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault.

GR No. 191721

2011-01-12

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA

VELASCO JR., J.

A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements.[12] However, the most important among all the elements is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. As this Court said in People v. Catbagan,[13] "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."

GR No. 192581

2010-11-17

PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT

VELASCO JR., J.

Although all of the three elements must concur, unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words, "[t]here can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[36]

GR No. 167766

2010-04-07

ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

As to the aggravating circumstance of treachery, this Court finds that the CA erroneously concluded that treachery attended the commission of the crime. To establish treachery, the following must be proven: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[30] The circumstances attending the commission of the crime negate the existence of treachery in its execution. Although petitioner deliberately assaulted Rudy and there was suddenness in his attack, he did not logically plan to assault the latter when he chanced upon him while he was driving. In treachery, the perpetrator intentionally and purposely employs ways and means to commit the crime. There was no evidence, however, to show that petitioner employed such means of execution that would ensure the commission of the crime without harm to his person. Thus, treachery did not attend the commission of the crime.

GR No. 175978

2009-02-12

PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA

BRION, J.

The Information likewise alleged the aggravating circumstance of evidence premeditation. For this aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, the following must be proven: 1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; 2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to such determination; and 3) between the decision and the execution, a sufficient lapse of time that allowed for reflection on the consequences of the act contemplated.[55] None of these elements have been established in the case before us.

GR No. 173248

2008-11-03

PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO

BRION, J.

Likewise, in People v. Catbagan,[42] we ruled that treachery cannot be considered when there is no evidence that the accused had resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing, or that the death of the victim was the result of premeditation, calculation or reflection.

GR No. 175589

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. CERILLO TAMBIS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

net earning capacity = [2/3 x (80-age at time of death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses],[23]

GR NO. 158053

2007-06-21

EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense is the element of unlawful aggression.[43] There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[44] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof and not just a threatening or intimidating attitude.[45] In case of threat, it must be offensive, strong and positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[46] For a person to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm to the other.[47]

GR No. 172608

2007-02-06

PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We cannot convict appellant of Attempted or Frustrated Murder or Homicide. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder is the assailant's intent to take the life of the person attacked. [93] Such intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as to exclude reasonable doubt thereof. [94] Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. [95]

GR NO. 155094

2007-01-30

MANUEL O. ORIENTE v. PEOPLE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Self-defense requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All these conditions must concur.[9] There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[10]

GR NO. 153875

2006-08-16

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO DAGANI Y REYES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any criminal liability. Two requisites must concur before this defense can prosper: 1) the accused must have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the necessary consequence of such lawful exercise.[31] These requisites are absent in the instant case.

GR NO. 150723

2006-07-11

RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a person.[33] A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression,[34] unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[35] There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant's life in real peril.[36]

	GR No. 170462 2014-02-05	RODOLFO GUEVARRA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least. threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon. person.[32] The element of unlawful aggression must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[33]
	GR No. 191913 2012-03-21	SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Supporting petitioner's claim of self-defense is the lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim. The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia.[19] In People v. Catbagan,[20] We aptly held: The means employed by the person invoking self-defense is reasonable if equivalent to the means of attack used by the original aggressor. Whether or not the means of self-defense is reasonable depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault.
	GR No. 191721 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements.[12] However, the most important among all the elements is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. As this Court said in People v. Catbagan,[13] "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
Although all of the three elements must concur, unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. In other words, "[t]here can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[36]
	GR No. 167766 2010-04-07	ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
As to the aggravating circumstance of treachery, this Court finds that the CA erroneously concluded that treachery attended the commission of the crime. To establish treachery, the following must be proven: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[30] The circumstances attending the commission of the crime negate the existence of treachery in its execution. Although petitioner deliberately assaulted Rudy and there was suddenness in his attack, he did not logically plan to assault the latter when he chanced upon him while he was driving. In treachery, the perpetrator intentionally and purposely employs ways and means to commit the crime. There was no evidence, however, to show that petitioner employed such means of execution that would ensure the commission of the crime without harm to his person. Thus, treachery did not attend the commission of the crime.
	GR No. 175978 2009-02-12	PEOPLE v. SAMUEL ALGARME Y BONDA BRION, J.
The Information likewise alleged the aggravating circumstance of evidence premeditation. For this aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, the following must be proven: 1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime; 2) an overt act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to such determination; and 3) between the decision and the execution, a sufficient lapse of time that allowed for reflection on the consequences of the act contemplated.[55] None of these elements have been established in the case before us.
	GR No. 173248 2008-11-03	PEOPLE v. DANTE NUEVA Y SAMARO BRION, J.
Likewise, in People v. Catbagan,[42] we ruled that treachery cannot be considered when there is no evidence that the accused had resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing, or that the death of the victim was the result of premeditation, calculation or reflection.
	GR No. 175589 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. CERILLO TAMBIS CARPIO MORALES, J.
net earning capacity = [2/3 x (80-age at time of death) x (gross annual income - reasonable and necessary living expenses],[23]
	GR NO. 158053 2007-06-21	EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense is the element of unlawful aggression.[43] There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[44] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof and not just a threatening or intimidating attitude.[45] In case of threat, it must be offensive, strong and positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[46] For a person to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm to the other.[47]
	GR No. 172608 2007-02-06	PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We cannot convict appellant of Attempted or Frustrated Murder or Homicide. The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder is the assailant's intent to take the life of the person attacked. [93] Such intent must be proved clearly and convincingly, so as to exclude reasonable doubt thereof. [94] Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the offender at the time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim. [95]
	GR NO. 155094 2007-01-30	MANUEL O. ORIENTE v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Self-defense requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by the offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All these conditions must concur.[9] There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[10]
	GR NO. 153875 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO DAGANI Y REYES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any criminal liability. Two requisites must concur before this defense can prosper: 1) the accused must have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the necessary consequence of such lawful exercise.[31] These requisites are absent in the instant case.
	GR NO. 150723 2006-07-11	RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a person.[33] A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression,[34] unless the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[35] There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the defendant's life in real peril.[36]

PEOPLE v. CARMELO CATBAGAN