ONE WHO INITIATES UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION AGAINST ANOTHER CANNOT CLAIM

THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF DEFENSE

Virgilio Talampas v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 180219. November 23, 2011
Bersamin, J:

FACTS:
Virgilio Talampas was accused with the crime of homicide for the death of Ernesto Matic. It was
alleged by the witness Jose Sevillo, that while he, together with the brothers Ernesto and
Eduardo Matic, was repairing a tricycle in front of his house, Talampas passed by and stopped
near them. Talampas then alighted from his bicycle, walked towards them and brought out a
revolver, and fired the same to Eduardo who took refuge behind Ernesto. Talampas again fired
his gun hitting Ernesto which caused the latter’s death.

On trial, Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that Eduardo was his
enemy and not the victim Ernesto. He claimed that Eduardo had hit him with a monkey wrench,
but he was able to parry the blow. On his version, he claimed that while he and Eduardo was
grappling with the wrench, he noticed that Eduardo had a revolver so he tried to take control of
the same, which accidentally fired and hit Ernesto during the struggle. The RTC found him guilty
of the crime of homicide. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Can one who initiates the attack against another interpose self-defense as a justifying
circumstance?

HELD:
NO, one who initiates the attack against another cannot interpose self-defense as a justifying
circumstance.

The elements of the plea of self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal the unlawful aggression;
and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused in defending himself.

In the nature of self-defense, the protagonists should be the accused and the victim. The
established circumstances indicated that such did not happen here, for it was Talampas who
had initiated the attack only against Eduardo; and that Ernesto had not been a target of
Talampas' attack, he having only happened to be present at the scene of the attack. Neither
Eduardo nor Ernesto had committed any unlawful aggression against Talampas.

Therefore, as Talampas was not repelling any unlawful aggression from the victim, he cannot
interpose self-defense as a justifying circumstance.