PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, apellee, vs.

ABRAHAM AGSALOG @ PANTO and

JOVITO SIBLAS y OBAA @ BITONG, appellants.
G.R. No. 141087. March 31, 2004
Facts:
For automatic review is the judgement of the RTC which found Abraham Agsalog and
Jovito Siblas guilty of murder for killing Eduardo Marzan and Sentencing them to death.
At about 2;00 p.m, of October 4,1997, while the victim Eduardo Marzan and his
uncle Tony Opia were drinking, a misunderstanding arose between Eduardo and
Jovito. Eduardo slapped Jovito, however, they were pacified by Tony, Thereafter,
Eduardo and Tony left. At about 4;30p.m., while Eduardo and Edwin Opia were
conversing at the terrace of the latters house, Abraham and Jovito arrived and
summoned Eduardo. An exchange of words later ensued which ended in the stabbing of
Eduardo by Abraham Eduardo died as a result. Abraham and Jovito were indicted for
murder. During trial, Abraham invoked self-defense while Siblas denied the existence of
a conspiracy. The trial court found the two guilty of murder offended by evident
premeditation. Hence, appellants are now before the Court, arguing that the trial court
erred in not appreciating their claim for self-defense and in imposing the penalty of
death.
Issue:
(1) Whether self-defense should be appreciated in favor of the appellants; (2) Whether
the appellants are guilty of murder; and (3) Whether the death penalty is properly
imposed.
Held:
Abraham is GUILTY Of homicide WHILE Siblas is a ACQUITTED. Absent any
corroboration by independent and competent evidence of appellants Claim of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, self-defense cannot avail. Absent the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation or treachery, the crime committed should be
homicide.
Appreciation of the justifying circumstance of self-defense,---for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated. The following circumstances must
concur; (1) Unlawful aggression. (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. Unlawful aggression is present when peril to ones life, limb or right is either
actual or imminent.
Unlawful aggression is present when peril to ones life, limb or right is either
actual or imminent.--- Unlawful aggression is present when peril to ones life, limit or
right is either actual or imminent. Appellant Agsalog claims that as reflected in their
above quoted version in their brief, theie was unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim- that as appellant were about of the yard towards the tricycle to leave, the victim
followed and pushed them, challenged them to a fight, after saying vulva of your
mother, and thereafter drew a balisong which he was about to thrust at him (appellant
Agsalog). Appellant Siblas` following testimony, quoted verbatim, does not corroborate

such claim of aggression on the victims part; however, he (appellant Siblas) having
merely witnessed the victim holding the shoulder of appellant Agsalog which the latter
warded off followed by the pushing each other.
Absent any corroboration by independent and competent evidence of appellants
claim of unlawful aggression on the victim, it is extremely doubtful, hence, if
cannot prosper,--Even assuming, however, that the victim indeed held the shoulder of
appellant Agsalog, albert the prosecution claimed it was appellant Siblas right shoulder
which the victim held. That could not have constituted actual or imminent peril to
appellant Agsalogs life, limb or right, especially in light of appellant Siblas testimony
that after that stage of the incident, the victim and appellant Agsalog pushed each other.
It is unthinkable for appellant Agsalog if indeed there was such an attempt. Absent thus
any corroboration by independent and competent evidence of appellant Agsalogs claim
of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, it is extremely doubtful, hence, it cannot
prosper.
Conspiracy requires the same quantum of proof to prove the guilty of an
accused.--- On the assailed finding that there was conspiracy between appellants,
anchored on appellant Siblas holding, at the time appellant Agsalog attacked the victim,
of the right elbow and wrist of the victim who admittedly was very much bigger than
thenm; xxx. The holding of the victims who right wrist and elbow by appellant Siblas
could have been done in the course of the removal thereof from Siblas shoulder. At any
rate , there is no showing that had not Appellant siblas held the victims wrist and elbow,
appellant Agsalog would not have succeeded in stabbing the victim. Conspiracy which
requires the same quantum of proof to prove the guilt of an accused, was thus not
clearly established.
Requisite of evident premeditation.---As for the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation, for it to be appreciated, the following requisites should be proven; (1) the
time when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an overt act manifestly
indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination and (3) a sufficient lapse of
time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
Evident premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from
mere lapse of time.While the victim slapped appellant Siblas hours before the
stabling and it is thus not improbable for appellant to have hatched a plan to avenge the
same, still, the circumstances as presented by the prosecution fail to show evident
premeditation, which must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere
lapse of time.
Crime committed and the proper penalty,---There is thus reasonable doubt on
whether treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the crime. The
crime committed was then only homicide.

ALEXANDER P. RUGAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Respondent.
G.R. No. 147789, January 14, 2004.
Facts:
For review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
with modification the decision of the RTC finding the appellant guilty of frustration
homicide.
According to the prosecution, Heberto Rafol was conversing with Perla Perez when
appellant Alexander Rugas, suddenly stabbed him at his left thigh. He face him to know
who stabbed him but the accused stabbed his stomach. He ran and was rushed to the
hospital where he underwent operation. Rugas was charged with Frustrated Homicide,
and invoked self defense. Rugas claimed that Rafols shouted, Get out those who are
brave! He thus pocketed his knife and went out of the house where he saw Rafols
armed with a bolo. According to Rugas, Rafols handed with bolo to Rones and engaged
him in a fistfight. When he saw Rones raise the bolo, he pulled his knife to defend
himself. Rafols also pulled his knife. Petitioner then stabbed Rafols. The trial court found
that Rugas was not able to prove the existence of unlawful aggression, and thus
pronounced Rugas guilt. The CA, modifying the findings, applied the rule that when one
agrees to engaged in a fight, he cannot plead self-defense because there was no
unlawful aggression to speak of. Petitioner maintains he acted in self-defense since
Rafols act of kicking him without justifiable cause can be considered as an unlawful
aggression, citing the ruling People vs. Sabio.
Issue:
Whether Petitioner may invoke self-defense.
Held:
The decision of the CA is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners reliance on the
Sabio case was misplaced. His claim was that he was hit on the eyebrow was found to
be baseless.
The findings of the trial court and its assessment and probative weight of testimonies of
witnesses are accorded by the Court high respect, if not conclusive effect. - Case law
has is that the findings of the trial court and its assessment and probative weight of
testimonies of witnesses are accorded by the Court high respect, if not conclusive
effect, especially when affirmed by the CA, and in the absence of any justifiable reason
to deviate from the said findings. This is in view of the trial courts unique advantage of
being able to monitor and observe at close range the deportment and conduct of
witnesses as they testify. We have reviewed the records and found no such justification
to modify the trial courts findings.
Like alibi, self defense is inherently a weak defense which can be easily
fabricated. Like alibi, self-defense is inherently a weak defense which can be easily
fabricated. When the accused interposes self-defense, he hereby admits having caused

the injuries of the victim. The burden of proof then shifts on him to prove, with clear and
convincing evidence, the confluence of the essential requisites for such a defense.
Essential requisites for self-defense.- [E]ssential requisites for [self-defense]xxx: (a)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.(b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed and to prevent or repel it; (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not on the prosecutions, for even if the latter is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after
the accused has admitted the killing.
The failure of the accused to account for the presentation of the bladed weapon
allegedly used by the victim is fatal to his plea of self-defense. In People VS.
Alfaro, and People vs. Camacho, we held that the failure of the accused to account for
the presentation of the bladed weapon allegedly used by the victim is fatal to his plea of
self-defense. In this case, the appellant failed to account for the knife supposedly held
by the victim and the bolo which the victim allegedly handed over to Rones. He also
failed to account for the knife he used in stabbing the victim to surrender himself and the
said knife to the police authorities and to admit having stabbed the victim in selfdefense. Such failure rejects appellants claim of self-defense.
A slap on the face is an unlawful aggression since the face represents a person
and his dignity The petitioners reliance on our ruling in people vs. Sablo. Citing the
ruling of the Supreme Court of Spain on January 20,1904. Is misplaced to that case, the
Court ruled that a slap on the face is an unlawful aggression since the face represent a
person and his dignity. Slapping the face of a person is a serious personal attack; it is a
physical assault, coupled with a willful disgrace, nay, a defiance, of an individuals
personality; and if may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a
persons dignity, rights and safety. In this case, there is no evidence that the victim
slapped the petitioner. The petitioner merely claimed that he was hit on his eyebrow
which the trial court and the Court of Appeal found to be baseless.
Treachery attended the commission of the crime.The trial court and the Court of
Appeals correctly ruled that treachery attended the commission of the crime and that it
was merely a generic aggravating and not a qualifying circumstance. As found by the
trial court, the attack on the victim was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had
no time to prepare and defend himself.
The modifying circumstances of treachery was not alleged in the information,
thus, cannot be considered by the Court even as a generic aggravating
circumstances.however, such modifying circumstances was not alleged in the
information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Thus, treachery cannot be considered by the Court even as a generic
aggravating circumstance. Although the crime took place before the said Rule took
effect, it should nevertheless be applied retroactively as it is favorable to the appellant.
Crime Committed and the proper penalty thereof.Petitioner Alexander P. Rugas is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide defined and penalized
under Article 247 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, and there being
sentenced to suffer an immediate penalty of from six (6) years in prison correctional, as
minimum, to ten (10) years in prison mayor I its medium period, as maximum. The

petitioner is hereby directed to pay to the victim Herberto D. Rafol P25,000.00, as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. Costs against petioner.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, appellant, vs. CARMELO CATBAGAN, appellant.

G.R Nos. 149430, February 23,2004

Facts:
Carmelo Catbagan appeals the decision of the RTC convincing him of homicide, murder
and frustrated murder.
The victim, Sgt.Celso Suico of the air force and the Presidential Security Group, Fired
his Armalite rifle into the air during a birthday celebration. As the gunshots continue to
ring out and the election gun ban was in effect, appellant Carmelo Catbagan, a member
of the PNP checked the place where he thought he heard the shots and inquired
.Sgt.Suico replied that it was nothing. However, a stone was hurled from where the
birthday celebration is being held, and landed on a tree and then to the body of
Catbagan. Irritated, he asked his companion to check who threw the stone. At that
instant, Sgt.Suico went out and extended his hand towards Catbagan as he introduces
himself as a member of the PSG. Catbagan instead drew out his .9mm automatic pistol
and fired successively at Suico, who when hit, stretched out his hand, shouting Huwag,
Pare, Catbagan fired more shots at the victim who fell on the pavement. Jun Lacaden
who was awakened by the gunshots checked what was happening, was likewise shot.
Danilo Lapidante, the birthday celebrant was also not spared by Catbagan. Suico and
Lacaden died as a result, while Lapidante was treated at the hospital.
The trial court dismissed Catbagans defense of fulfilment pf lawful duty and selfdefense. As for Celso Suico, the court ruled that there was unlawful aggression on his
part but the means employed was unreasonable, hence, incomplete self-defense was
appreciated in favour of Catbagan, as for Lacaden and Lapidante, the court found that
the killing was unjustified as there was no unlawful aggression on on the part of the
victims. Futher. the RTC found that the crime against Lacaden was attended by
treachery. Hence, the appeal where Catbagan maintains that his acts were justified as
he acted in the performance of a duty and self-defense.
Issue:
Whether self-defense should be appreciated in favor of Catbagan.
Held:
Appellant is GUILTY of homicide in the case of Suico and Lacaden, and of less serious
physics injuries in the case of Lapidante. 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.

People of the Philippines vs Dario Cual

FACTS:

On December 25, 1996, the trial court convicted Cual and Villoceno for murder. On
February 26, 1994, Villoceno and Sabturani had a fight and they were grappling for the
possession of a steel pipe. Cual came to help Villoceno, Cual then hacked Sabturani
with a bolo. Sabturani was able to run but Cual was able to catch up with him and
thereafter killed Sabturani inside a trisikad. During trial, Cual raised self-defense which
the court did not appreciate, nor was the defesne of incomplete self-defense
appreciated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cual is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete selfdefense.
HELD:
No. The evidence does not show that there was unlawful aggression on the part of
Sabturani. It was not shown that Sabturani, in any way offended Cual. Since unlawful
aggression, a vital element of self-defense, is not present, no self-defense, or
incomplete self-defense for that matter can be appreciated in favor of Cual.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LARRY CAGAS, appellant.

G.R No. 145504. June 30,2004.

Facts:
On appeal is the Decision of the regional trial court convicting Appellant of murder and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Larry Cagas was accused of killing Venecio Elicano after the former, who was drunk at
that time, introduced himself to the victim as his cousin. When they shook hands,
appellant allegedly stabbed the victim, causing the victims death. During the trial
appellant interposed self-defense, He claimed that after he introduced himself, the
victim boxed him twice, and fearing that the victim would attack him he grabbed a
Batangas knife and thrice stabbed the victim. The trial court ruled that the plea of selfdefense and in convicting him of murder when treachery was not proven.
Issue:
Whether the plea of self-defense should be appreciated.
Held:
Petition is DISMISSED, in a plea of self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to
the accused to clearly and convincingly prove such petitioner failed to discharge this
burden.
The accused has the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense.When an
accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove it
clearly and convincingly, He must rely on its strength and not on the weakness of the
evidence of the prosecution, failing which the evidence for the prosecution can no
longer be disbelieved and the accused can no longer be exonerated. In the case at bar,
appellant failed to discharge such burden. Though not point to the victim as the
assailant.
The nature and number of the wounds sustained by the victim negates the claim
of self-defense,--- At all events, the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the
victim disprove self-defense. As appellant himself testified, the first wound he inflicted
on the victim was on his neck which was followed by two more stab wounds on the
chest, infliction of the successive stab. Wound, especially on vital spots of the body,
negates appellants pretensions of self-defense and, in fact, indicates a determined
effort on his part to kill and not just defend himself.
Element of treachery.---There is treachery when the offender commits a crime against
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any
defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might make. Two essential elements must
thus concur (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked
no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the said means of execution was
deliberately or consciously adopted;
Treachery is attendant in the present case.--- A close review of the records of the
case reveals that the two elements of treachery are present in the case at bar. Thus,

when appellant met the victim and admittedly apprised the victim that he was a relative,
the victim would not have imagined that appellant would harm him.
Requisites of voluntary surrender,---The following are the requisites of voluntary
surrender; (1) the offender had not been actually arrested; ( 2) the offender surrendered
himself to a person in authority or to the letters agent; (3) the surrender was a
voluntary; and (4) there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed. For
surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and must also show the intent of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to
his search and capture.
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated.---The
facts show that after the stabbing incident, appellant ran to the upper portion pof the
cemetery where PO2 Tadifa caught up with him, if appellant did then and there
surrender, it was because he was left with no choice, The surrender was not thus
spontaneous.
Award of exemplary damages id proper.--- In additional to the civil indemnity and
damages awarded by the trial court, exemplary damages in the amount of 25,000.00
must be awarded, given the presence of treachery which qualified the killing to murder.
Under article 2230 of the Civil Code which allows the award of exemplary damages as
part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
circumstances, the term aggravating circumstance as used therein should be construed
in its generic sense since it did not specify otherwise.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO SOMERA and

FAUSTINO BARNACHEA, defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-1674. May 9, 1949

Facts:
In March 1945, Felix Somera, his two children, and their houseboy were on their way
home when they were overtaken by Pablo Somera and Faustino Barnachea. Pablo
shouted some invective against Felix and thereafter they dragged him down from his
horse and pounced on him using stones. The two aggressors then left Felix who had to
be revived by his children. Thereafter, they continued their journey but moments later,
Pablo and Faustino were again behind them (on horseback). The two attacked Felix
again. They dragged him down from his horse and repeatedly attacked him using their
bolo. Finally, while Faustino was holding Felix, Pablo stabbed Felix with his bolo.
Eventually, Felix died.
During trial, the companions of Felix on that night testified against Pablo and Faustino.
Pablo, on the other hand, admitted killing Felix but he claimed self-defense. He alleged
that Felix threw some stone at their horses which startled the horses causing them
(Pablo and Faustino) to fall down their horses; that they then confronted Felix but Felix
threatened to kill Pablo; that Felix swung his bolo against Pablo and thereafter Pablo
retaliated.
Issue:
Whether or not Pablos theory of self-defense is believable.
Held:
No. The burden of proof in proving self-defense is upon Pablo which he fails to do. In
this case, the records show that Felix sustained 19 wounds, three of them fatal while
Pablo and Faustino were unscathed. Further, Felix was not proven to be armed during
the time of the incident. He was overmatched; he was a 60 year old man while Pablo
and Faustino were two young, strong men. The testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses were given due credence as they were minors who have no reason to testify
falsely against Pablo or Faustino.
Pablo and Faustino are convicted for murder. Their act of coming from behind and all
their prior, simultaneous, and subsequent acts showed that they shared a common
criminal design and treachery.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PO3 ERNESTO D.

LANGRES, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 128754. October 13, 1999

Facts:
Sindo bothers attended a dance which ended about midnight. They proceeded to the
house of their elder brother. They sat on a bench opposite said house while sharing light
moments. Restituto greeted PO3 Langres when he came, who instead gave a fistblow
on the former without provocation. Victim Teodorico intervened to ask what his brothers
fault is. Accused drew his gun and shot the victim at the forehead.
Issue:
Whether or not there was self-defense?
Held:
No. The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. At best, the
victims brother was discourteous to accused. Even then, such behavior could not be
taken as an unlawful aggression to justify the shooting of the victim. The unlawful
aggression contemplated under the law must come from the victim himself. Mere belief
of an impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. Neither is an
intimidating or threatening attitude. Even a mere push or shove not followed by other
acts placing in peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not unlawful aggression.
It is noteworthy that the Sindo brothers were unarmed. They were young men having a
jovial, innocuous conversation when appellant passed by. Without such imminent threat
on his life, the person invoking self-defense has nothing to repel.

Sergio Beninsig vs People of the Philippines

524 SCRA 320

Facts:
In January 1996, in Bauang, La Union, Federico Calica and Romeo Calica approached
a group of men fencing their properties. The Calicas went there to check if the
boundary is correct (as it involved their properties too). Thereafter, Sergio Beninsig
emerged from his house and shouted at the Calicas. An argument ensued and
thereafter, Beninsig stabbed Romeo with a bolo. Romeo died as a result.
During trial, Beninsig averred that he acted in self-defense. He claimed that Romeo
threatened to kill him and that Romeo brought out a razor which the latter thrusted
towards Beninsig. Beninsig said he had to defend himself.
Issue:
Whether or not self-defense is to be appreciated in favor of Beninsig.
Held:
No. In this case, Beninsig only had his self-serving testimony as the sole proof for the
alleged- self-defense.
By claiming self-defense, Beninsig necessarily admitted killing Romeo. The burden of
proof is upon him to prove that the killing is justified by self-defense. He failed to do
this. On the contrary, the prosecution was able to present a witness (Federico Calica)
who testified that Romeo was unarmed. Federico did testify that there was an argument
but the same cannot be said to be an unlawful aggression on the part of Romeo which
justified Beninsig to kill him. Note that Federico is a relative of both the accused and the
victim and he has no ill-motive to testify against Beninsig which is why his testimony
was given due credit.

SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan and Office of the Special Prosecutor.

G.R. No/ 148431. July 28, 2005

Facts:
Police officers CABANLIG, PADILLA, ABESAMIS, MERCADO and ESTEBAN were all
charged for the MURDER of Jimmy Valino before the Sandiganbayan. Jimmy Valino
was a detained prisoner who was escorted to retrieve the effects of the crime to the
place where he hid the same. Aboard the police vehicle, Jimmy Valino suddenly
grabbed the M16 rifle and about to jump out of the jeep. CABANLIG shouted hoy!and
without issuing any warning of any sort, CABANLIG fired at Valino, hitting his head, left
side of the chest and left lower back.
CABANLIG admitted shooting Valino during the trial. However, Cabanlig justified the
shooting as an act of self-defense and performance of duty. Nevertheless,
Sandiganbayan CONVICTED CABANLIG but acquitted his 4 companions. Upon
appeal, the SUPREME COURT eventually ACQUITTED CABANLIG.

Issue:
Whether or not the killing is done in the fulfillment of duty?

Held:
Yes. the killing was justified and that the same was done in the fulfillment of duty.
A policeman in the performance of duty is JUSTIFIED in using such force as is
reasonably (and absolutely)necessary to (1) secure and detain the offender, (2)
overcome his resistance, (3) prevent his escape, (4) recapture him if he escapes, and
(4) protect himself from bodily harm. (People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 [1943]; People v.
Lagata (83 Phil 150 [1949]).
Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty,
unlawful aggression from the victim is NOT a requisite.
In People v. Delima,(46 Phil 738 [1992]) where the killing of a fugitive who lunged at a
policeman with a bamboo-makeshift lance, the SC ruled that the same was done in the
fulfillment of duty. The fugitives unlawful aggression, in that case, had already ceased

when the policeman killed him, however, the policeman's act of shooting at him is
justified because he was running away from him when he was shot. Ordinarily, it may
appear that the policeman, acting in the fulfillment of duty, is the aggressor, but his
aggression is NOT UNLAWFUL, it being necessary to fulfill his duty. But IF the
policeman was a PRIVATE PERSON, not in the performance of duty, and the same
situation was given, there would be NO self-defense because there would be NO
unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased.
Cabanlig did not exceed the fulfillment of duty when he IMMEDIATELY SHOT Valino
without issuing a warning.
The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all times and at all cost to the
detriment of the life of law enforcers. The directive to issue a warning contemplates a
situation where several options are still available to the law enforcers. In exceptional
circumstances where the threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent AND
there is NO OTHER option but to use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcers
failure to issue a warning is EXCUSABLE.