People of the Philippines, apellee v. Ford Gutierrez y Dimaano, appellant G.R. No. 188602.

February 4, 2010

Facts The Regional Trial Court previously convicted appellant, Ford Gutierrez, of murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder on three accounts. When he furthered the case to the Court of Appeals, he contends the previous decision saying that he did kill Regis and wound Dalit, but insisted that he did so in lieu of self-defense. He now prays that the decision properly appreciate self-defense as a justifying circumstance attending the crime. Issue Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating self-defense as a justifying cirmcumstance attending this case. Held No. Self-defense only offers exculpation from liability for crimes only if satisfactorily proved. It requires (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on his part. In the case at bar, Gutierrez failed to discharge the burden of proof proving unlawful aggression. The surviving victims of the attack unanimously stated that the appellant suddenly fired at them in the absence of provocation on their part. The RTC and the Appellate Court were correct in rejecting the appellants plea of selfdefense. Hence, the previous judgements are hereby affirmed.