Lawyerly

GR No. 191913

2012-03-21

VELASCO JR., J.

Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that one's life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression.[12]

GR No. 176061

2011-07-04

PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Q Now after they attacked Bingky Campos what did they do? A They were not able to hit again Bingky because Bingky ran away. Q How about you? What did they do to you? A I was held by the other person when he approached me because Bingky was no longer there. Q And who was that person who held you? A I do not know him. Q How about now, do you know his name? A What I know only was Jaime and Iko. Q Who [between] the two, Jaime and Iko [took] hold of you? A Jaime and Iko were not able to hold me. Q Was there an attempt by Jaime and Iko to maul you also? A Yes. Q What did they do? A They kicked my left butt and the other person held me. Q Then what did you do? A I pulled a knife from my waist. Q Who [between] the two kicked you at your butt and who was the person who took hold of you? A It was Iko who kicked my buttocks but the other person who held me, I do not know his name. Q Now what happened when you drew you[r] knife? A The two persons who attempted to attack me, when I pulled a knife, I thrust the knife to the person who rushed at me. Q Did you hit that person? A Yes, he was hit. Q Where was he hit? A At the side. Court Interpreter: The witness is touching his lower right side. Atty. Vailoces: Q And what were the other companions doing at that time? Witness: A After thrusting the knife to the person, I ran away and the three (3) ran after me. [17] As can be gleaned from the foregoing narration, there is no mention at all that Romeo was among the four persons who allegedly attacked Danny and Bingky. Likewise, there is nothing in the narration which evinces unlawful aggression from Romeo. Danny's testimony shows that there was only an attempt, not by Romeo but by Jaime and Iko, to attack him. Following his version, Danny then became the aggressor and not the victim. Even if the version of Danny is given a semblance of truth, that there was an attempt to hurt him, though intimidating, the same cannot be said to pose danger to his life and limb. This conclusion was drawn from the fact that no bladed weapon was found at the alleged scene of the crime and nobody testified about it. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an "actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude" [18] and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. For this reason, Danny's observation that one of the men was pulling an object from his waist is not a convincing proof of unlawful aggression. "[A] threat, even if made with a weapon or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient." [19] An intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough. In this case, other than the self-serving allegation of Danny, there is no evidence sufficiently clear and convincing that the victim indeed attacked him. The prosecution's rebuttal witnesses Jaime Maquiling and Francisco Austero [20] who admittedly were among those whom Danny and Bingky had an encounter with on the night of August 19, 2001, never said in their testimonies that Romeo attacked Danny and a bladed weapon was used. These witnesses were categorical that Romeo was not with them during the incident. This testimonial evidence was not refuted by the defense. Even Bingky who claimed to be a friend of Romeo [21] was not able to identify the latter as one of those present at the time. Candid enough, Bingky declared that it was only a certain Ago and Jaime who confronted Danny. [22] Resultantly, Danny failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression, the most indispensable element of self-defense. Where "no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded." [23]

GR NO. 168827

2007-04-13

BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Second. The victim sustained three stab wounds on different parts of his body. Two were fatal stab wounds at his left chest. The presence of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim, their nature and location disprove self-defense and instead indicate a determined effort to kill the victim.[58]

GR No. 156786

2004-06-03

PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Moreover, when the accused invokes self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. Self-defense as a justifying circumstance is present when the following concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[8] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. It contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon. Of all the elements, unlawful aggression, i.e., the sudden unprovoked attack on the person defending himself, is indispensable.[9] A threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material aggression.[10]

GR No. 148627

2004-04-28

PEOPLE v. JENELITO IBAÑEZ

PUNO, J.

Cristeta Garceniego had testified that she and her brothers had suffered emotionally because of the brutal death of their father. Thus, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper. The purpose of the award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded feelings. A violent death brings about emotional pain and anguish to the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[67]

GR No. 152966

2004-03-17

PEOPLE v. JERRY SE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[20] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.[21] Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[22] In the case at bar, appellant miserably failed to prove the indispensable element of unlawful aggression. The testimony of Daniel Satuito that appellant was the unlawful aggressor and that the victim, although he was intensely arguing with the latter, did not or was not able

GR No. 152604

2003-09-18

PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In invoking self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted that he killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that he did not commit unlawful aggression.[6] The question of whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[7]

GR No. 122109

2003-06-25

PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO

AZCUNA, J.

Age of Victim = 46 years old Life Expectancy = 2/3 (80 - age of victim at the time of his death) = 22.67 Gross Annual Income = P48,000 Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual Income = P24,000 Loss of Earning = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Capacity Income - Living Expenses) = 22.67 x P24,000 = P544,080 In line with current jurisprudence, we also award moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000 and P25,000 respectively.[53] The award by the trial court of P50,000 as civil indemnity for death is affirmed.

GR No. 146271

2003-05-29

PEOPLE v. MARCIANO TINAMPAY

PUNO, J.

A: Aside from the 22nd March 1996, I still saw him on the 24th or March 26 in the station. Q: Where was he placed in the station? A: Still living outside. Q: In effect, you are saying that there was no physical restraint of this person? A: None, ma'am."[26] Finally, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of moral damages is increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 and of exemplary damages from P20,000.00 to P25,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence.[27] We likewise award the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the insufficiency of evidence of the expenses incurred by the victim's heirs for the victim's wake and burial.[28]

GR No. 148519

2003-05-29

PEOPLE v. ROLITO CABICAL

PUNO, J.

Net annual income = (Annual income) - (necessary and incidental expenses computed at 50% of the annual income) Net annual income = P100,000.00 - 50,000.00 Net annual income = P 50,000.00 Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age during the time of death) Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - 45) Life expectancy = 23.33 Loss of earning capacity = (net annual income) x (life expectancy) Loss of earning capacity = P50,000.00 x 23 Loss of earning capacity = P1,150,000.00[31] IN VIEW WHEREOF, we modify the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court and find the accused-appellant Cabical GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is credited in his favor, thus he is sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Fernando civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, actual damages of P27,040.00 and P1,150,000.00 for loss of earning capacity.

	GR No. 191913 2012-03-21	SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that one's life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression.[12]
	GR No. 176061 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Q Now after they attacked Bingky Campos what did they do? A They were not able to hit again Bingky because Bingky ran away. Q How about you? What did they do to you? A I was held by the other person when he approached me because Bingky was no longer there. Q And who was that person who held you? A I do not know him. Q How about now, do you know his name? A What I know only was Jaime and Iko. Q Who [between] the two, Jaime and Iko [took] hold of you? A Jaime and Iko were not able to hold me. Q Was there an attempt by Jaime and Iko to maul you also? A Yes. Q What did they do? A They kicked my left butt and the other person held me. Q Then what did you do? A I pulled a knife from my waist. Q Who [between] the two kicked you at your butt and who was the person who took hold of you? A It was Iko who kicked my buttocks but the other person who held me, I do not know his name. Q Now what happened when you drew you[r] knife? A The two persons who attempted to attack me, when I pulled a knife, I thrust the knife to the person who rushed at me. Q Did you hit that person? A Yes, he was hit. Q Where was he hit? A At the side. Court Interpreter: The witness is touching his lower right side. Atty. Vailoces: Q And what were the other companions doing at that time? Witness: A After thrusting the knife to the person, I ran away and the three (3) ran after me. [17] As can be gleaned from the foregoing narration, there is no mention at all that Romeo was among the four persons who allegedly attacked Danny and Bingky. Likewise, there is nothing in the narration which evinces unlawful aggression from Romeo. Danny's testimony shows that there was only an attempt, not by Romeo but by Jaime and Iko, to attack him. Following his version, Danny then became the aggressor and not the victim. Even if the version of Danny is given a semblance of truth, that there was an attempt to hurt him, though intimidating, the same cannot be said to pose danger to his life and limb. This conclusion was drawn from the fact that no bladed weapon was found at the alleged scene of the crime and nobody testified about it. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an "actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude" [18] and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. For this reason, Danny's observation that one of the men was pulling an object from his waist is not a convincing proof of unlawful aggression. "[A] threat, even if made with a weapon or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient." [19] An intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough. In this case, other than the self-serving allegation of Danny, there is no evidence sufficiently clear and convincing that the victim indeed attacked him. The prosecution's rebuttal witnesses Jaime Maquiling and Francisco Austero [20] who admittedly were among those whom Danny and Bingky had an encounter with on the night of August 19, 2001, never said in their testimonies that Romeo attacked Danny and a bladed weapon was used. These witnesses were categorical that Romeo was not with them during the incident. This testimonial evidence was not refuted by the defense. Even Bingky who claimed to be a friend of Romeo [21] was not able to identify the latter as one of those present at the time. Candid enough, Bingky declared that it was only a certain Ago and Jaime who confronted Danny. [22] Resultantly, Danny failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression, the most indispensable element of self-defense. Where "no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded." [23]
	GR NO. 168827 2007-04-13	BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Second. The victim sustained three stab wounds on different parts of his body. Two were fatal stab wounds at his left chest. The presence of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim, their nature and location disprove self-defense and instead indicate a determined effort to kill the victim.[58]
	GR No. 156786 2004-06-03	PEOPLE v. SUSANO PATEO Y GARCIA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Moreover, when the accused invokes self-defense, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. Self-defense as a justifying circumstance is present when the following concur: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[8] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. It contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon. Of all the elements, unlawful aggression, i.e., the sudden unprovoked attack on the person defending himself, is indispensable.[9] A threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material aggression.[10]
	GR No. 148627 2004-04-28	PEOPLE v. JENELITO IBAÑEZ PUNO, J.
Cristeta Garceniego had testified that she and her brothers had suffered emotionally because of the brutal death of their father. Thus, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages is proper. The purpose of the award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for their wounded feelings. A violent death brings about emotional pain and anguish to the victim's family. It is inherently human to suffer sorrow, torment, pain and anger when a loved one becomes the victim of a violent or brutal killing. For this reason, moral damages must be awarded even in the absence of any proof of the heirs' emotional suffering.[67]
	GR No. 152966 2004-03-17	PEOPLE v. JERRY SE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[20] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.[21] Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[22] In the case at bar, appellant miserably failed to prove the indispensable element of unlawful aggression. The testimony of Daniel Satuito that appellant was the unlawful aggressor and that the victim, although he was intensely arguing with the latter, did not or was not able
	GR No. 152604 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. LEONCIO PEDRIGAL Y SIMBALLANA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In invoking self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted that he killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that he did not commit unlawful aggression.[6] The question of whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element.[7]
	GR No. 122109 2003-06-25	PEOPLE v. JESUS TORIO AZCUNA, J.
Age of Victim = 46 years old Life Expectancy = 2/3 (80 - age of victim at the time of his death) = 22.67 Gross Annual Income = P48,000 Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual Income = P24,000 Loss of Earning = Life Expectancy x (Gross Annual Capacity Income - Living Expenses) = 22.67 x P24,000 = P544,080 In line with current jurisprudence, we also award moral and exemplary damages to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000 and P25,000 respectively.[53] The award by the trial court of P50,000 as civil indemnity for death is affirmed.
	GR No. 146271 2003-05-29	PEOPLE v. MARCIANO TINAMPAY PUNO, J.
A: Aside from the 22nd March 1996, I still saw him on the 24th or March 26 in the station. Q: Where was he placed in the station? A: Still living outside. Q: In effect, you are saying that there was no physical restraint of this person? A: None, ma'am."[26] Finally, we affirm the trial court's award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The award of moral damages is increased from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00 and of exemplary damages from P20,000.00 to P25,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence.[27] We likewise award the heirs of the victim P25,000.00 as temperate damages in view of the insufficiency of evidence of the expenses incurred by the victim's heirs for the victim's wake and burial.[28]
	GR No. 148519 2003-05-29	PEOPLE v. ROLITO CABICAL PUNO, J.
Net annual income = (Annual income) - (necessary and incidental expenses computed at 50% of the annual income) Net annual income = P100,000.00 - 50,000.00 Net annual income = P 50,000.00 Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - age during the time of death) Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 - 45) Life expectancy = 23.33 Loss of earning capacity = (net annual income) x (life expectancy) Loss of earning capacity = P50,000.00 x 23 Loss of earning capacity = P1,150,000.00[31] IN VIEW WHEREOF, we modify the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court and find the accused-appellant Cabical GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is credited in his favor, thus he is sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further ordered to pay the heirs of Fernando civil indemnity of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00, actual damages of P27,040.00 and P1,150,000.00 for loss of earning capacity.

PEOPLE v. JIMMY RUBISO