2.

SELF DEFENSE

The justifying circumstance of self-defense “is an affirmative allegation that must

be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.”
(People v. Nacuspag, 115 SCRA 172 [1982]) Where the accused has admitted that
he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant,
in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-
defense) claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely
on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution
for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted
the killing.

Under Section 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the following
do not incur any criminal liability:

“Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights provided that the following circumstances
concur;

First. Unlawful aggression

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or limb of a

person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim, does not constitute
unlawful aggression. Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but
a material attack. Examples are the pointing of a gun or the brandishing of a knife or other
deadly weapon.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

Whether the means employed is reasonable or not, will depend upon the kind of
weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances as
well as those of the person attacked and the time and place of the attack. Although a knife is
more dangerous than a club, its use is reasonable if there is no other available means of
defense at the disposal of the accused.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”

“Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir
one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar language is sufficient
provocation. This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially inseparable
and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.
Recent Jurisprudence on unlawful aggression

PEOPLE V ARBALATE

Facts of the case:

On July 7, 2002, around 3:00 pm, Gualberto Selemen, Jose Ragasa and Ruperto Arbalate drank
alcohol at Selemen’s home at Samar. Two hours into the drinking, good-natured teasing turned
into an altercation. Alarmed, Selemen’s common law wife, Jovita Quijano, hurried to seek help
and subsequently came back with Ruperto’s wife. Ruperto then struck Selemen’s hand with a
piece of wood, however, Ruperto headed home when his wife convinced him to do so.

Shortly, Ruperto came back with both his sons, Roel and Ramil, all armed with bolos. When
Roel was able to trace Selemen’s face with a flashlight, Ruperto and Ramil started to hack
Selemen in various parts of his body with their bolos. Selemen ran to the rice field to escape but
was chased down by the Arbalates. When Selemen was lifeless, Ramil beheaded Selemen.
Ruperto carried the head to the street, and told Quijano that her husband’s head was already
his. Ruperto left the head at the ground before he reached home.

Ruperto invoked self-defense, stating that Selemen hit him in the face with his fist.
Ruperto grabbed a bolo and ran to the rice field where he was chased by Selemen. Both men
fought. Ruperto went home and later surrendered to the police. He only saw Selemen’s head
when he was brought to the Municipal Hall.

The Trial Court found Ruperto guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. His two sons
Roel and Ramil remain at large. Ruperto brought the case to the Court of Appeals on appeal.
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s findings. The case is now before the Supreme Court
on appeal.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not the court gravely erred in convicting the appellant despite his plea of
self-defense.

Ruling:

(1) No, the court did not err in convicting the appellant.
 For Ruperto to avail of the defense of self-defense, he must meet the requirements,
prescribed in Article11 of the Revised Penal Code. (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or
at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. There must be an actual,
sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger, which puts the defendant’s life in real peril. In
the case at bar, there was no unlawful aggression shown by the victim. It was Ruperto who
struck first, not the victim. The wounds as well as the act of beheading the victim clearly belie
self-defense. There was also a lapse of time between the altercation with victim and his
murder. The Arbalate’s purpose was to exact vengeance and nothing more. The act of bringing
the head to the street was also an act of scoffing at the corpse of the dead.

Note:

2010 Bar question

Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day.

A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting
Jill.

Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her
floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and
decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again came home drunk.
The following day, he was found dead.

Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome."

xxx

Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)

xxx
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who
are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.