Scribd
Upload
281 views1 page

Ocampo V People

Petitioner shot and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the physical evidence from the victim's body contradicted petitioner's story. The trajectory of the bullets showed the shooting was not done in self-defense. Additionally, the means used, multiple gunshot wounds, were disproportionate to the alleged unlawful aggression of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of homicide and did not act in self-defense.

Uploaded by

Rabelais Medina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
281 views1 page

Ocampo V People

Petitioner shot and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the physical evidence from the victim's body contradicted petitioner's story. The trajectory of the bullets showed the shooting was not done in self-defense. Additionally, the means used, multiple gunshot wounds, were disproportionate to the alleged unlawful aggression of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of homicide and did not act in self-defense.

Uploaded by

Rabelais Medina
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ocampo v People (2015) In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing

evidence the first element of self-defense. There was no showing of


PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES attack or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or actual
G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015 danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is negated by the physical
evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the
Facts: victim’s body. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to
the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence
On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use personal violence upon must be upheld.
Mario De Luna. Petitioner fired his service firearm against the victim With regard to the second element of self-defense, the Court finds that
hitting the latter on the chest and other parts of the body. The wounds the means employed by petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the
were the direct and immediate cause of his death. Petitioner pleaded victim's alleged unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple
not guilty upon arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim to gunshot wounds in his chest and different parts of his body. Indeed,
death, but claimed to have done so in self-defense. In support of this the Advance Information prepared by the investigator of the case
claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was reveals that there was no mention of either a stabbing incident that
precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack upon accused- happened or a knife that was recovered from the crime scene. Here,
appellant. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of homicide the wounds sustained by the victim clearly show the intent of
and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner to kill and not merely to prevent or repel an attack.
petitioner, but modified some of the monetary damages awarded.
Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond
Issue: reasonable doubt.
Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt (SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the
students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
Ruling:
Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, the following


requisites must be met:
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the attack; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in
self-defense.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy