1.

Unlawful Aggression CA affirmed decision

G.R. No. 150723 July 11, 2006 ISSUE

W/N CA erred in concluding that petitioner failed to

RAMONITO MANABAN, petitioner, establish unlawful aggression just because the holster of
vs. the victim was still in a lock position. (W/N self-defense
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE is valid in this case)
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
HOLDING
FACTS:
Art 11, par 1 RPC
On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25 o'clock in the
morning, Joselito Bautista, a father and a member of the RATIO
UP Police Force, took his daughter, Frinzi, who
complained of difficulty in breathing, to the UP Health Unlawful Aggression is an Indispensable Requisite
Center. There, the doctors prescribed certain medicines of Self-Defense
to be purchased. Needing money therefore, Joselito
When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect
Bautista, who had taken alcoholic drinks earlier,
admits killing the victim and the burden is shifted to him
proceeded to the BPI Kalayaan Branch to withdraw
to prove that he killed the victim to save his life The
some money from the ATM.
accused must establish by clear and convincing
Bautista proceeded to the ATM booth but because he evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are
could not effectively withdraw money, he started kicking present.
and pounding on the machine. For said reason, the bank
security guard, Ramonito Manaban, approached and Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at
least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon a
asked him what the problem was.
person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not
After Manaban had checked the receipt, he informed considered unlawful aggression, unless the threat is
Bautista that the PIN entered was wrong and advised offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the
him to just return the next morning. This angered wrongful intent to cause injury. There must be an actual,
Bautista all the more and resumed pounding on the sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
machine. Manaban then urged him to calm down and which puts the defendant’s life in real peril.
referred him to their customer service over the phone.
Still not mollified, Bautista continued raging and striking The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to
draw his gun when he turned his back at Manaban is
the machine. When Manaban could no longer pacify
mere speculation. Besides, Manaban was already
him, he fired a warning shot. That diverted the attention
aiming his loaded firearm at Bautista when the latter
of Bautista. Instead of venting his ire against the
turned his back. In that situation, it was Bautista whose
machine, he confronted Manaban. After some exchange
life was in danger considering that Manaban, who had
of words, a shot rang out fatally hitting Bautista.
already fired a warning shot, was pointing his firearm at
SPO1 Salvador testified that he noticed that Bautista, Bautista. Bautista, who was a policeman, would have
who was still breathing, had been shot in the back. They realized this danger to his life and would not have
brought Bautista to the East Avenue Medical Center attempted to draw his gun which was still inside a locked
where Bautista later died. Dr. Vargas(medico-legal) holster tucked in his waist. Furthermore, if Manaban
deduced that the assailant must have been behind the really feared that Bautista was about to draw his gun to
victim, on the right side, when he shot the victim. shoot him, Manaban could have easily disabled Bautista
by shooting his arm or leg considering that Manaban’s
Accused alleges that when Bautista turned his back, firearm was already aimed at Bautista.
Manaban thought Bautista was about to draw his gun
when he placed his right hand on his waist. Fearing for Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must
his life, he pulled the trigger and shot Manaban. face a real threat to his life and the peril sought to be
avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Absent
RTC found accused guilty of Homicide, that that, such actual or imminent peril to one’s life or limb, there is
contrary to Manaban’s claim, Bautista was not about to nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the
draw his gun to shoot Manaban. Evidence show that life or inflicting injuries on another.
Bautista’s gun was still tucked in his waist inside a
locked holster. Furthermore, the trial court held that DISPOSITIVE
Bautista could not have surprised Manaban with a
preemptive attack because Manaban himself testified CA decision AFFIRMED.
that he already had his gun pointed at Bautista when
they were facing each other.
G.R. No. L-162 April 30, 1947 RATIO

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of
vs. Homicide
DIOSCORO ALCONGA and ADOLFO BRACAMONTE,
The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so
defendants. DIOSCORO ALCONGA, appellant.
much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other
hand, having been wounded with one revolver shot and
SYLLABUS: several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury
upon him has ceased absolutely/ Alconga had no right to
HOMICIDE; SELF-DEFENSE; FLIGHT OF pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could have only
ADVERSARY. — An accused was no longer acting in
attacked if there was reason to believe that he is still not
self-defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing
safe. In the case at bar, it is apparent that it is Alconga
adversary, though originally the unlawful aggressor,
who is the superior fighter and his safety was already
there being then no more aggression to defend against,
secured after the first fight ended. There was no more
the same having deceased from the moment deceased reason for him to further chase Barion. The second fight
took to his heels. "Illegal aggression" is equivalent to will be treated differently and independently. Under the
assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate
first fight, self-defense would have been valid, but that is
and imminent kind. not the case in the second fight. In the second fight,
FACTS: there was illegal aggression on the part of Alconga and
as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no
On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of mitigating circumstance (MC) of Provocation
the card game, was playing black jack against Maria De
Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga were partners in the Note – Provocation in order to be an MC must be
game, they had one money. Alconga was seated behind sufficient and immediately preceding the act. “It should
Barion and he gave signs to De Raposo. Barion, who be proportionate to the act committed and adequate to
was suffering losses in the game, found this out and he stir one to its commission”
expressed his anger at Alconga. The two almost fought
rt. 11: Defense of property
outright this was stopped.
People vs. Apolinar
The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing
his job as ahome guard. While the said accused was Facts:
seated on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion came Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and
along and said “Coroy, this is your breakfast” followed by appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias Atong was at that time
a swing of his “pingahan”, a bamboo stick. Alconga the occupant of a parcel of land owned by Joaquin
avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan.
bench with the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking over said land
A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the when he observed that there was a man carrying a
accused, hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to bundle on his shoulder.
go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant
While Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga called his attention but he ignored him.
fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and The defendant fired in the air and then at the person.
hit the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get
dagger and directed a blow to the accused who was able back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel
to parry the attack using his bolo. A hand to handfight Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been wounded in
ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and the back by a shotgun.
having sustained several wounds ran away. He was He then showed the two wounds - one in each side of
followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 the spinal column - which wounds were circular in form
meters. and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to
the medical report of Dr. Mananquil.
A second fight took place and the deceased received a Petras died of the wounds he sustained.
mortal bolo blow, the one which slasehde the cranium. The defendant surrendered to the authorities
The deceased fell face downward besides many other immediately after the incident and gave a sworn
blows delivered. Alconga surrendered. statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of
Umingan on December 23, 1936.

ISSUE Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense

of property
Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense
by Alconga Held: No; the right to property is not of such importance
as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked
as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with
an attack on the person of one entrusted with said who resorted to self-defense. Unlawful aggression
property. presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack
or imminent danger thereof and not just a threatening or
intimidating attitude. In case of threat, it must be
3. Reasonable Necessity offensive, strong and positively showing the wrongful
intent to cause injury.46 For a person to be considered
G.R. NO. 158053 June 21, 2007 the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have
exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to
EDWIN RAZON y LUCEA, Petitioner, cause and commit harm to the other.
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Without scrutinizing Razon's assertion that he was held
up, and assuming the same to be true, there was,
indeed unlawful aggression when Gonzalo poked a knife
FACTS: on Razon's neck. But, when Razon, in a Herculean feat,
was able to grab the knife from Gonzalo and freed his
PO1 Chopchopen was walking towards Baguio City, at
right hand from the hold of Gonzalo's two companions,
around midnight of August 1, 1993, when a taxicab
the aggression no longer existed.
driven by Edwin Razon stopped beside him. Razon told
Chopchopen that he was held up by three men at It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs
Dreamland Subdivision. Chopchopen noticed a person away, unlawful aggression on the part of the first
lying on the ground and partially hidden by a big stone, aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful
soaked in blood and that he was hardly breathing. Lying aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right
beside the man was a wooden cane. Chopchopen asked to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise,
Razon to help him bring the person to the hospital. On retaliation and not self-defense is
the way, Chopchopen asked Razon if he was the one committed.52 Retaliation is not the same as self-defense.
who stabbed the victim. Razon answered no. The victim, In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
who was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo injured party already ceased when the accused attacked
(Gonzalo), was pronounced dead on arrival.3 He was 23 him, while in self-defense the aggression was still
years old and a polio victim. existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
Upon questioning, Razon told Bumangil that he was held Even assuming that some danger did in fact exist, the
up by three men, which included Gonzalo whom he imminence of that danger had already ceased the
stabbed in self-defense. Razon brought out a fan knife moment petitioner was able to disarm the victim by
and told Bumangil that it was the knife he used to stab wresting the knife from the latter. After the former had
Gonzalo. A later search of the cab however yielded successfully seized the weapon, and he as well as his
another weapon, a colonial knife with bloodstainsl. At the companions went out of the cab, there was no longer
police station, Razon admitted having stabbed Gonzalo any unlawful aggression to speak of that would have
but insisted that he did so in self-defense. An autopsy necessitated the need to kill the victim.
conducted on the body of the victim showed that he
sustained three stab wounds. The defense employed by petitioner also cannot be said
to be reasonable. The means employed by a person
RTC found accused guilty of Homicide claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the
nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted,
On appeal, CA denied and deemed abandoned due to
and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an
disinterest in the case. MR also denied.
unlawful aggression.
ISSUE
DISPOSITIVE
W/N Accused acted in self-defense
Petition DENIED.
HELD
G.R. No. L-43588 November 7, 1935
NO. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of
evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self- THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-
defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence appellee,
and not on the weakness of the prosecution. To escape vs.
liability, the person claiming self-defense must show by NATIVIDAD LUAGUE and WENCESLAO
sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that: 3 ALCANSARE, defendants-appellants.
requisites
SYLLABUS:
The condition sine qua non for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense is the element of unlawful CRIMINAL LAW; ATTEMPTED RAPE; SELF-
aggression. There can be no self-defense unless the DEFENSE; DEFENSE OF HONOR. — Aside from the
victim committed unlawful aggression against the person
right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our In resume, we are of the opinion that we should, as we
person, we have the right to property acquired by us, do hereby hold that the accused Natividad Luague in
and the right to honor which is not the least prized of our wounding Paulino Disuasido to death, acted in legitimate
patrimony.|| self-defense, and that the other accused Wenceslao
Alcansare had no participation in said act; wherefore,
The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an aggression reversing the appealed judgment, we hereby acquit both
sufficient to put her in a state but be esteemed as a right accused, and order their immediate release, if in
as precious, if not more, than her very existence; and it confinement.
is evident that a woman who, thus imperiled, wounds,
nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption from 4. Sufficient provocation
criminal liability since such killing cannot be considered a
crime from the moment it became the only means left for G.R. No. 155094 January 30, 2007
her to protect her honor from so great an outrage.
MANUEL O. ORIENTE, Petitioner,
FACTS:
vs.
In the morning of February 18, 1935, while the accused PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Natividad Luague was in her house with her children
in Occidental Negros, and co-accused husband was FACTS:
grinding corn in the field, Paulino Disuasido came and
began to make love to her; that as Natividad could not On 16 March 1996, at around 10:00 o'clock in the
dissuade him from his purpose, she started for the evening, Arnel Tanael was on his way to the house of
kitchen where Paulino followed her, notwithstanding her Romulo Cariño. He passed in front of the house of
instance that she could by no means accede to his [petitioner] Manuel Oriente and saw the latter and his
wishes, for Paulino, bent on satisfying them at all costs, companions having a drinking spree at the terrace of the
drew and opened a knife and, threatening her with petitioner's house. He arrived at Romulo's house where
death, began to embrace her and to touch her breasts; the latter was drinking beer alone. Thereafter, Romulo
that in preparing to lie with her, Paulino had to leave the went out of the house to buy cigarettes. While watching
knife on the floor and the accused, taking advantage of television in the house of Romulo, Arnel Tanael heard
the situation, picked up the weapon and stabbed him in two gunshots. Hence, he rushed outside the house to
the abdomen; and that Paulino, feeling himself wounded, check on what the gunshots were all about.
ran away jumping through the window and falling on
some stones, while the accused set forth immediately for Peeping through potted plants perched on top of a
the poblacion to surrender herself to the authorities and neighbor's fence Tanael saw Romulo Cariño, Manuel
report the incident. Oriente, the latter's daughter, Marilou Lopez and her
husband, Paul Lopez and one Rogelio Gascon arguing.
The prosecution presented 3 witnesses that allege that He heard Paul Lopez telling Romulo Cariño, "Ikaw
both the accused conspired to kill the Paulino, having Cariño, ang liit-liit mo, ang yabang mo!" Then Tanael
invited him in the house and borrowing his knife. saw Marilou coming out from their house with a lead
pipe and handed it over to Paul. Paul then hit Romulo
CFI found the accused guilty of Homicide with a lead pipe at his right arm. Accused-appellant got
the lead pipe from Paul and hit Romulo on his left
ISSUE eyebrow. Romulo reeled and fell down. Upon seeing
Romulo fall down, Arnel got confused, hence, he went
W/N accused Natividad is exempted from criminal back inside the house and switched off the light and
liability turned the television off. He went outside again and saw
Romulo moaning. At this point, Paul Lopez was already
HELD poking a gun at Romulo, then pulled the trigger twice but
the gun did not fire. Arnel then shouted, "Putang ina
YES. Will the attempt to rape a woman constitute an
ninyo, bakit niyo ginagawa iyan sa bayaw ko, bakit ninyo
aggression sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate ginaganito siya, ano ba ang kasalanan niya sa inyo."
defense?" asks the same commentator. "We think so," Oriente and his company did not say anything. Romulo
he answer, "inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but
Cariño was brought by Arnel to the East Avenue Medical
be esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, cannot
Center where Romulo, two hours after, passed away.
her very existence; this offense, unlike ordinary slander
by word or deed susceptible of judicial redress. Medico-legal opined that even with immediate and
adequate medical attendance, the victim would not have
It is evident that a woman who, imperiled, wounds, nay
survived due to the extensive nature of hemorrhage
kills the offender, should be afforded exemption from
suffered by Romulo.
criminal liability provided by this article and subsection
since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the The accused pleaded self-defense, arguing that the
moment it became the only means left for her to protect victim was the one who shot the gun and that he was
her honor from so great an outrage. only defending himself and his family when he hit the
victim. The RTC rendered a Decision convicting the accordingly be proportionate in gravity. That the
petitioner of the crime of Homicide. CA affirmed the provocation must immediately precede the act means
decision of the RTC. Hence, this appeal. that there should not be any interval of time between the
provocation by the offended party and the commission of
ISSUE the crime by the person provoked.
Whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the
the victim, means employed falls under self-defense incident is not by itself the sufficient provocation on the
part of the offended party as contemplated by law.
HELD Moreover, petitioner failed to establish by competent
evidence that the victim had a gun and used it to
No. The petitioner emphasizes that the victim, allegedly threaten petitioner.
a troublemaker in the vicinity, was drunk, fired his gun
twice, and then proceeded towards the petitioner and his The testimonies of the defense witnesses, including the
companions. The Court is not convinced. accused, that Cariño threatened the persons gathered in
front of Oriente's house with a gun is quite difficult to
When self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence believe in view of the admissions of the same defense
shifts to the accused to show that the killing was legally witnesses, including the accused, that Cariño was able
justified. Having owned the killing of the victim, the to get up from the ground after being hit and ran away
accused should be able to prove to the satisfaction of with gun in hand. A person who was already threatening
the Court the elements of self-defense in order to avail of to kill with a gun and who was then hit with a piece of
this extenuating circumstance. He must discharge this wood in a serious manner, can be reasonably expected
burden by clear and convincing evidence. When to make use thereof. Here, the defense makes a rather
successful, an otherwise felonious deed would be unusual claim that Cariño simply ran away and did not
excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent use the gun he was holding while running.
of the accused.
Petition DENIED.
Self-defense requires that there be (1) an unlawful
aggression by the person injured or killed by the 5. Defense of Property
offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, G.R. No. L-5318 December 23, 1909
and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. All these conditions must
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
concur. There can be no self-defense, whether complete
vs.
or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful
RAFAEL BUMANGLAG, ET AL., defendants. -
aggression against the person who resorted to self-
GREGORIO BUNDOC, appellant.
defense.

Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of self- SYLLABUS:

defense, would presuppose an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and HOMICIDE; PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE. — Unless the
limb of a person — not a mere threatening or accused was first unlawfully attacked, it is not proper to
intimidating attitude — but most importantly, at the time admit the plea of self-defense and exempt him from
the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. criminal responsibility; it is necessary, in order that such
To invoke self-defense successfully, there must have defense shall be effective, that the same shall be proven
been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that as well as the crime charged.
endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced
to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing FACTS:
reasonable means to resist the attack.
On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag from
Ilocos Norte, found 40 bundles of palay missing in his
On the second circumstance, the RTC pointed to the fact
granary and upon searching, found them in a field 100
that the incident was preceded by an intense argument
meters from his granary. There he waited along with
between the victim and the accused so as to qualify the
Bundoc and others to see who left the palay there. A
situation as a mitigating circumstance of sufficient
man, who turned out to be Guillermo Ribis, made his
provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
appearance and approaching the palay, attempted to
which immediately preceded the act.
carry it away with him, but at that instant Bumanglag,
Provocation is defined to be any unjust or improper Bundoc, and Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with
conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons; as a result of
inciting, or irritating anyone. In order to be mitigating, the struggle which ensued the person attacked fell down
provocation must be sufficient and should immediately and died instantly, Bumanglag and his companions
precede the act. Provocation is sufficient if it is adequate believing that Guillermo Ribis was the author of several
to excite a person to commit the wrong, which must robberies and thefts that had occurred in the place.
 The following day, accused delivered a privileged
speech during the regular session of the City Council in
Accused were found guilty of Homicide. Bondoc Davao, and made further slanderous remarks to the
appealed. Governor, although not mentioning the name directly but
it became obvious during the speech.
ISSUE
CFI of Davao found accused guilty of light oral
W/N the death of the victim through defense of property defamation
is justified
Accused alleges that his words and phrases were
RATIO covered by the privileged speech and that those words
and phrases were made in self-defense, as reply to the
No. It is therefore indisputable that, without any prior Governor’s speech a few days before
illegal aggression and the other requisites which would
fully or partially exempt the accused from criminal ISSUE
responsibility, the appellant and his two companions
assaulted Guillermo Ribis with sticks and cutting and W/N self-defense in libel will prosper in this game
stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and mortal
wounds, and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the HELD
crime of homicide as co-principal by direct participation,
fully convicted, together with his codefendants who are No. We agree that in appropriate cases, self-defense
already serving their sentence. may be invoked in slander and libel. But in this case that
defense cannot be validly invoked. Even assuming that
The special circumstance established by article 11 of the the complainant-governor had made derogatory remarks
same code should be also considered in favor of the against the appellant, his retaliation with scurrilous
accused, in view of the erroneous and quite general words does not bring him within the protection of self-
belief that it is legal to punish, even to excess the thief defense. His act of telling Clapano, within the hearing of
who, in defiance of law and justice, while refusing to others, that Almendras was receiving money is entirely
work, devotes himself to depriving his neighbors of the independent and apart from the imputation made against
fruits of their arduous labors him. For self-defense to exist, the defendant should not
go beyond explaining what was previously said of him
Accused still guilty. for the purpose of repairing or minimizing if not entirely
removing the effect of damage caused to him. The
VI. Self-Defense in Libel principle does not license him to utter blow-for-blow
scurrilous language in return for what he received.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
The defense will lie only where the defendant makes a
PANTALEON PELAYO, appellant defense of the imputation previously made against him
by another without making slanderous remarks against
SYLLABUS:
the latter unless the remarks are necessary for his
SELF-DEFENSE; ACCUSED MUST NOT GO BEYOND defense.
EXPLAINING COMPLAINANT’S IMPUTATION. – In
In this case, if it is true that on a previous occasion the
appropriate cases, self-defense in libel, as well as in
complainant had imputed to the defendant that he, the
slander, may be invoked as a legitimate defense. For
latter was receiving money from gambling operators, the
self-defense to exist, the accused should not retaliate
defendant was not licensed to make the same
with scurrilous words that are entirely independent of,
imputation or accusation because to do that is not an act
and apart from, the alleged imputation made to him by
of defense , but an aggression itself.
the complainant, or should not go beyond explaining
what was previously said of him for the purpose of Petition DENIED.
repairing or minimizing if not entirely removing the effect
of damage caused to him, unless by explaining, he must
of necessity have to use slanderous remarks.
B. State of Necessity
FACTS:

On November 15, 1956 in the office of Atty. Clapano, G.R. No. L-4160 July 29, 1952
appellant(city councillor) told the latter, with people
hearing that a chinese operator named Lim Peng told ANITA TAN, plaintiff-appellant,
him that then Gov. Almendras used to receive 500 pesos vs.
as protection money from the Chinese, and that the STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO., JULITO STO
Governor was not satisfied and demanded to raise the DOMINGO, IGMIDIO RICO, and RURAL TRANSIT
sum to 1000 pesos monthly and that the Governor also CO., defendants-appellees.
raided the Chinese’s place.
SYLLABUS: Under the foregoing facts, there can be no doubt that
had the accused Julito Sto. Domingo not taken the
CIVIL ACTION BASED ON PREVENTION OF A gasoline tank-truck trailer out in the street, a bigger
GREATER HARM. — Where the damage caused to the conflagration would have occurred in Rizal Avenue
plaintiff's house was brought about mainly because of Extension, and, perhaps, there might have been several
the driver's desire to avoid a greater evil or harm, and deaths and bearing in mind the provisions of Article 11,
where the defendant company is one of those for whose paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code the accused
benefit a greater harm has been prevented, the case Julito Sto. Domingo incurred no criminal liability.
comes within the purview of article 101, Rule 2, of the
revised Penal Code. The acquittal of the driver cannot, Considering the above quoted law and facts, the cause
therefore, be deemed a bar to a civil action against this of action against the Rural Transit Company can hardly
company because its civil liability is completely divorced be disputed, it appearing that the damage caused to the
from the criminal liability of the accused. And the rule plaintiff was brought about mainly because of the desire
regarding reservation of the right to file a separate civil of driver Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or
action does not apply to it. harm, which would have been the case had he not
brought the tank-truck trailer to the middle of the street,
FACTS: for then the fire would have caused the explosion of the
gasoline deposit of the company which would have
Anita Tan is the owner of the house of strong materials resulted in a conflagration of much greater proportion
based in the City of Manila, Philippines. On May 3, 1949, and consequences to the houses nearby or surrounding
the Standard Vacuum Oil Company ordered the delivery it. It cannot be denied that this company is one of those
to the Rural Transit Company at its garage at Rizal for whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented,
Avenue Extension, City of Manila, of 1,925 gallons of and as such it comes within the purview of said penal
gasoline using a gasoline tank-truck trailer. The truck provision.
was driven by Julito Sto. Domingo, who was helped
Igmidio Rico. While the gasoline was being discharged C. Fulfillment of Duty and Exercise of Right
to the underground tank, it caught fire, whereupon Julito
Sto. Domingo drove the truck across the Rizal Avenue G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
Extension and upon reaching the middle of the street he
abondoned the truck with continued moving to the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
opposite side of the first street causing the buildings on
vs.
that side to be burned and detroyed. The house of Anita
ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO
Tan was among those destroyed and for its repair she
GALANTA, defendants-appellants.
spent P12,000.

As an aftermath of the fire, Julito Sto. Domingo and SYLLABUS:

Imigidio Rico were charged with arson through reckless
imprudence in the Court of First Instance of Manila FORCE WHICH A PEACE OFFICER MAY USE IN
where, after trial, both were acquitted, the court holding MAKING ARREST. — Although an officer in making a
that their negligence was not proven and the fire was lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is
due to an unfortunate accident. reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender,
overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture
Anita Tan then brought the action against the Standard him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm
Vacuum Oil Company and the Rural Transit Company;, (People vs. Delima, 46 Phil., 738), yet he is never
including the two employees, seeking to recover the justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him
damages she has suffered for the destruction of her wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means
house. when the arrest could be effected otherwise (6 C. J. S.,
par. 13, p. 612). The doctrine is restated in the new
ISSUE Rules of Court thus: "No unnecessary or unreasonable
force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person
W/N accused are liable for arson through reckless
arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than
imprudence
is necessary for his detention." (Rule 109, sec. 2, par. 2).
HELD And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from
criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence
No. That after the corresponding trial the said in making an arrest. (5 C. J., p. 753; U. S. vs. Mendoza,
defendants were acquitted and defendant Julio Sto. 2 Phil., 109). It may be true that Balagtas was a
Domingo was acquitted, on the ground that he so acted notorious criminal, a life-termer, a fugitive from justice
causing damage to another in order to avoid a greater and a menace to the peace of the community, but these
evil or injury, under article 11, paragraph 4 of the facts alone constitute no justification for killing him when,
Revised Penal Code in effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance, or in fact
no resistance can be offered, as when he is asleep.
This, in effect, is the principle laid down, although upon
different facts, in United States vs. Donoso (3 Phil., 234, POLICARPIO PACULDO, and JACINTO
242). ADRIATICO, defendants-appellants.

ARREST OF A NOTORIOUS CRIMINAL. — It is SYLLABUS:

suggested that a notorious criminal "must be taken by
storm" without regard to his right to life which he has by CRIMINAL LAW; CRIMES COMMITTED UPON
such notoriety already forfeited. This Court may approve ORDERS OF SUPERIOR OFFICERS; LACK OF
of this standard of official conduct where the criminal CRIMINAL INTENT. — Where the accused acted upon
offers resistance or does something which places his orders of superior officers that they, as military
captors in danger of imminent attack. Otherwise, this subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in good
court cannot see how, as in the present case, the mere faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any
fact of notoriety can make the life of a criminal a mere fault or negligence on their part, the act is not
trifle in the hands of the officers of the law. Notoriety accompanied by criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non
rightly supplies a basis for redoubled official alertness facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not committed
and vigilance; it never can justify precipitate action at the if the mind of the person performing the act complained
cost of human life. Where, as here, the precipitate action of be innocent.
of the appellants has cost an innocent life and there exist
no circumstances whatsoever to warrant action of such FACTS:
character in the mind of a reasonably prudent man,
condemnation — not condonation — should be the rule; Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Velasco
otherwise this Court would offer a premium to crime in and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal from the judgement
the shelter of official actuation.||| of the Abra CFI, which convicted them of murder for the
execution of Arsenio Borjal, the elected mayor of La,
FACTS: Paz, Abra (at the outbreak of war), which was found to
be aiding the enemy.
As a group taking the route to Rizal street, Chief of
Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats was
Alberto Galanta were under instructions to arrest succeeded by Military Mayor Manuel Beronilla, who was
Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped appointed by Lt. Col. Arbold, regimental commander of
convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. the 15th Infantry of the Phil. Army, operating as guerilla
Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a unit in Abra. Simultaneously upon his appointment,
room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back Beronilla received a memorandum which authorized him
towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their to appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try persons accused
.32 and .45 caliber revolvers, without firstmaking any of treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy.
reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra, to
out to be a peaceful and innocent citizen, Serapio escape bombing in Bangued, he was placed under
Tecson who upon autopsy, multiple gunshot wounds custody and tried and sentenced to death by the jury
were found on his body which caused his death. based on various complaints made by the residents.
Beronilla reported this to Col. Arnold who replied, saying
The defendants alleged and appealed that in the honest “…I can only compliment you for your impartial but
performance of their official duties, they acted in independent way of handling the whole case.”
innocent mistake of fact.
Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the
ISSUE executioner, digger and jury, were indicted for the
murder of Borjal. Soon after, President Manuel Roxas
W/N Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the issued Executive Proclamation 8, which granted
performance of their duty amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance
of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in
RATIO the war efforts of the enemy.
No. The crime committed by appellants is not merely
The rest of defendants applied and were granted
criminal negligence, the killing being intentional and not
amnesty, but Beronilla and others were convicted on the
accidental.
grounds that the crime was made on purely personal
Petition DENIED. motives and that the crime was committed after the
expiration of time limit for amnesty proclamation.
D. Lawful Order
ISSUE:
G.R. No. L-4445 February 28, 1955 W/N the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by
justifying circumstances for obedience to lawful order of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, superior
vs.
MANUEL BERONILLA, FILIPINO VELASCO,
HELD FACTS:

Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their superior Accused Barroga prepared falsified documents with full
officers, which as military subordinates, they could not knowledge of their falsity, and was convicted of the
question and obeyed in good faith without the being crime of falsification of a private document, sentenced to
aware of its illegality. prison correctional and to pay the Compañía General de
Tabacos de Filipinas damages.
The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the
defense that arrest, prosecution and trial of Borjal was
done in pursuant to express orders of superiors. Accused appealed to SC. He alleges that did so from
Additionally, it could not be established that Beronilla data furnished by his immediate chief, the now deceased
received the radiogram from Colonel Volckmann, overall Baldomero Fernandez, and only in obedience to
area commander, which called attention to the illegality instructions from him.
of Borjal’s conviction and sentence. Had Beronilla known
the violation, he would not have dared to report it to ISSUE
Arnold. The conduct of the accused also does not show
malice on their part because of the conduct of the trial, W/N accused is exempted from the crime due to
defense through counsel given to Borjal, suspension of obedience to an order issued by a superior officer
trial based on doubts of illegality and death sentence
review sent to the superior officers. HELD
Criminal intent then could not be established. The maxim
here is actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea (Crime is not No. With respect to the alleged instructions given by said
committed if the mind of the person performing the act Baldomero Fernandez, even supposing that he did in
complained of to be innocent). fact give them, and that the defendant committed the
crime charged by virtue thereof, inasmuch as such
Additionally, the lower court should not have denied their instructions were not lawful, they do not legally shield the
claim to the benefits of the Guerilla Amnesty appellant, nor relieve him from criminal liability. In order
Proclamation No. 8 inspite of contradictory dates of to exempt from guilt, obedience must be due, or as
liberation of La Paz, Abra. Even if the dates were Viada lucidly states, it must be a compliance with "a
contradictory, the court should have found for the lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of a
Beronila, et al because if there are “any reasonable subaltern, and that the person commanding, act within
doubt as to whether a given case falls within the the scope of his authority. As a general rule, an
(amnesty) proclamation should be resolved in favor of inferior should obey his superior but, as an illustrious
the accused.” commentator has said, 'between a general law which
enjoins obedience to a superior giving just orders, etc.,
Appellants ACQUITTED and a prohibitive law which plainly forbids what that
superior commands, the choice is not doubtful.||
G.R. No. L-31563 January 16, 1930
We reiterate the statement that it has not been proved
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff- that the defendant committed the acts charged in the
Appellee, vs. information in obedience to the instructions of a third
party. But even granting, for the sake of argument, that
such was the case, we repeat that such obedience was
LUCIANO BARROGA Y SALGADO, Defendant-
not legally due, and therefore does not exempt from
Appellant.
criminal liability.||
SYLLABUS:

CRIMINAL LAW; OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR. — In

order that obedience may be considered as an
exempting circumstance, obedience must be due, or as
Viada lucidly states, it must be in compliance with "a
lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of a
subaltern, and that the person commanding, act within
the scope of his authority. As a general rule,
inferior should obey his superior, but, as an illustrious
commentator has said, 'between a general law which
enjoins obedience to a superior giving just orders, etc.,
and a prohibitive law which plainly forbids what that
superior commands, the choice is not doubtful.'" (1
Penal Code, Viada, 5th edition, p. 528).