Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

This case resolves the complaint filed by Jonas Elardo y Garcia represented by his mother Juvy

Garcia-Elardo against Marlowe Aseras y Tuburan for Homicide.

Complainant was the mother of the deceased Jonas Elardo, who was allegedly killed by the
Respondent last April 12, 2018. The deceased sustained gun shot wound in the head as well as in
his right arm.

Complainant gathered information from the neighborhood that her son Jonas Elardo was seen
climbing at the residence of the Respondent where he was shot. She did know the reason why her
son was at the residence of the respondent because at around 7:00 P.M. she even asked her son to
buy their food however her son did not return.

According to the wife of the Respondent, Jenilyn Aseras, they were sleeping inside their house
when they were awaken by a noise at the second floor of their house. When she and her husband
went upstairs, she saw the deceased Jonas Garcia pushing the door of the room where their
daughter was sleeping. When her husband was coming over Jonas Garcia, the said deceased picked
up a knife “patalim,” causing them to run back towards their room and her husband took his
licensed gun. When her husband was able to get out of the room again he went out to ran after the
deceased using the ladder made out of coco lumber which was used by the deceased himself.
However, after traversing the ladder, the deceased once again attempted to inflict and injury against
the respondent, Jenilyn Aseras heard a gun shot. Afterwards, several people came whom are
supposed to be the relatives of the deceased and proceeded to bring the deceased to the hospital.

To avoid confrontation, her husband went somewhere however Respondent did not tell the exact
place where he is.

Upon evaluation of the said incident the Undersigned finds SUFFICIENT GROUND to charge the
Respondent of the crime of Homicide under Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code.

Art. 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another, without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding
article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal. The elements
of Homicide are the following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (d) the
killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide
or Infanticide.

In the instant case, the deceased was already able to escape from the property of the Respondent
when the Respondent still ran after the him. When the Respondent was able to reach the deceased
upon using the same ladder, the wife of the Respondent alleged that the deceased pulled out again
his knife and was about to inflict an injury to her husband however she heard a gun shot already.
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees,
and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second
requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in
case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part

A person invoking self-defense (or defense of a relative) admits to having inflicted harm upon
another person - a potential criminal act under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) of the Revised
Penal Code. However, he or she makes the additional, defensive contention that even as he or she
may have inflicted harm, he or she nevertheless incurred no criminal liability as the looming danger
upon his or her own person (or that of his or her relative) justified the infliction of protective harm
to an erstwhile aggressor.

The accused's admission enables the prosecution to dispense with discharging its burden of proving
that the accused performed acts, which would otherwise be the basis of criminal liability. All that
remains to be established is whether the accused were justified in acting as he or she did.

To this end, the accused's case must rise on its own merits:

It is settled that when an accused admits [harming] the victim but invokes self-defense to escape
criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he [harmed] the
victim. Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense,
the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.

To this end, there is no showing that a pointed object, knife or sharp object “patalim” was ever
seen nor presented as evidence. There was also no narration as to the detail on how the said
deceased attacked the Respondent. Lastly, the means used to prevent or repel the said attack cannot
be said to be justified since the deceased was shot in the head as well as his right arm.

WHEREFORE, based on the above disquisitions, the Undersigned recommends the FILING of
the attache Information against the Respondent Marlowe Aseras y Tuburan for Homicide under
Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Quezon City, Philippines,

Julan C. Ilao
Investigating Prosecutor