Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAWAN AND PUERTO PRINSESA CITY

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 51

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

12739

Criminal

Case

No.

Plaintiff,

-versus-

For: HOMICIDE

ROBERTO ESTIMO
Accused.
x----------------------------------x

DECISION

Before this Court is an Amended Information filed against herein

respondent for the alleged commission of the crime of Homicide. The
Information reads:
That on or about the 3rd day of December, 1995, in the
morning, at Sitio Piatuga, Brgy. Kamuning, Puerto Prinsesa City, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without
any just motive, with intent to kill and while armed with a bladed weapon,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and
stab therewith one Wilfredo Basis, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal
wound on his body which was the direct and mimmediate cause of his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
The accused was arraigned and pleaded NOT GUILTY and thereafter
Pre-Trial Conference was conducted and the prosecution started presenting
their evidence. Soon, Trial on the merits ensued where the prosecution
presented as its witnesses the following: 1) Epifanio Lalican, as an
eyewitness; 2) Carlito Abordo, as an eyewitness; 3) Reuthelma Gejon, to
testify with respect to the autopsy report; and 4) Teresita Babilonia, sister of
the victim to estify on the expenses incurred.
The prosecution also submitted that following Evidence:
1) Sworn Statement of SPO1 Saul Eleazar, to show the report of the incident,
marked as Exhibit A;
2) The autopsy report for he deceased conducted by Dr. Ruthelma A.
Gejon,M.D., marked as Exhibit B and submarkings B-1 to B-4;
3) Official receipt of Funeraria Sampaton for the funeral expenses, marked
as Exhibit C; and
4) Bolo used by the accused in stabbing the victim, marked as Exhibit D.
The evidence of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:
1 SPO Saul Eleazar testified that he is 29 years old, single and is
currently residing at Brgy. San Manuel, Puerto Prinsesa City. He is a
Police Officer of Puerto Prinsesa and is assigned in Brgy. Inagawan
COPS TARABIANGAN CENTER INAGAWAN. After being sworn, he
deposed that on December 3, 1995, at or about 2:00 in the morning
while he was on duty in their station at COPS TARABIANGAN CENTER
INAGAWAN, Brgy. Chairman Rodrigo Ambasa of Brgy. Kamuning, Puerto
Prinsesa City informed him that there was a stabbing incident in their
area.1 That after the report, they immediately went to the scene of the
crime but the victim and the accused were no longer there. 2 They
immediately went to the residence of the alleged offender and the

1 Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO3 Saul Salazar, dated December 5, 1995.

2 Ibid.

accused voluntarily surrendered and gave them the weapon used to

stab the victim.
2 Epifanio Lalican testified that he was 47 years old, married,
businessman and residing at Abanico Road, Barangay San Pedro,
Puerto Prinsesa City. 3 He stated that on the date of the incident, he
and his helpers were in the area where the incident occured because
he was waiting for the truck which will be used to load his rattan.
According to him, at around 1:00 oclock in the early morning, Eddie
Basis was suddenly stabbed by Roberto Estimo.4 When asked what kind
of weapon was used by the accused, the witness replied 5 that it looks
like a small bolo but it was not an ordinary knife because it was long.
He stated that the victim was on his way home when he was stabbed
by Roberto Estimo6 and that Roberto Estimo was at the back of the
victim7 when he stabbed the latter. After stabbing, the accused, while
holding his knife went to the direction of his house. 8 He stated that
after Wilfredo Basis was stabbed and Roberto Estimo was not there
anymore, he and his companion, the brother of Basis, brought the
latter to the street and waited for the transportation to bring him to
the hospital.9 Further, he testified that he knew that it was Roberto
Estimo who stabbed the victim because at the time of the incident, it
was quite bright and he knows them very well 10 because Basis was one

3 TSN dated May 22, 1997, p.2.

4 TSN dated May 22, 1997, p.3.
5 TSN dated May 22, 1997, p.4
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 TSN dated may 22, 1995, p. 5.
9 Ibid.
10 TSN dated May 22, 1995, p.6.

of his capataz11 and he has known the accused since he started his
business in 1994.12
3 Carlito Abordo, on direct examination, testified that on the evening of the
incident, he was with the victim watching the dance held in Sitio Tagumpay. 13
At around 1:30 oclock in the morning, they were already on their way home
coming from the dance14 and after they parted ways, from the distance of 6
meters he heard Basis shouting aray!15 When he turned back towards
Basis, he saw the latter being stabbed by Berting Estimo. 16 He stated that
Berting Estimo used a semi-gulok more or less 1 foot in length 17. After the
accused ran away, he came closer to Wilfredo Basis and upon seeing him
bloodied, he went to the victims brother Eddie and told
him
that
the
18
victim was stabbed by the accused. He recalled that when they were about
to lift the victim, the latter told them to bring him to the hospital so that he
would still live. Further, he testified that the stabbing of the victim was
not preceded
by any word or words from Roberto Estimo.19
On Cross-examination, he testified that on the night of the incident, they
never
drank20 and that he and the victim were in the house the Eddie
(victims brother) watching television. 21 After one hour of watching
11 TSN dated May 22, 1995, p.8.
12 TSN dated May 22, 1995, p.4.
13 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p. 3.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p.4.
17 Ibid.
18 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p. 5.
19 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p. 6.
20 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p. 7.

television, they went to the dance at the Daycare Center. 22 They however
did not go inside23 and just stayed there at the fence close to the place
where the dance was being held. 24 He stated that on their way home, he
did not notice the accused following them from the dance 25 and that he
likewise failed to see that the victim boxed the accused in the face. 26 The
only time that he turned his back to look was when he heard the victim
shout aray! and he thereafter saw the victim being stabbed by the
accused.27 He also testified that he did not help the victim for the reason
that he was afraid because the accused
had a bladed weapon28 and
that it was after the accused left that he came closer to the place where
the victim was.29 When asked why he was sure that the bolo used to stab
the victim was owned by the accused, he replied I used to see it in the
possession of Roberto Estimo whenever he passed by our house going
to his lot30 and that the handle of the bolo is different31 (distinctive).
4 Dr. Reuthelma Gejon, was presented as an expert witness. She
conducted the autopsy of Wilfredo Basis and prepared an autopsy
21 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p.8.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p.10.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p.11.
30 TSN dated November 6, 1997, p.3.
31 Ibid.

report in connection therewith.32 She testified that the accused

suffered a deep stab wound ten (10) centimeters measurement on the
left clavicular or near the armpit penetrating 33 and that the wound can
be fatal.34 The cause of death of the victim is Cardio Pulmonary Arrest
secondary to Nympovolemis secondary to stab wound 10cms, left
clavicular area anterior ancillary line, penetrating 1)pneumothorax, 2)
atelectasis L lung.35 According to the doctor, this means that the wound
transecting the minor and major muscle from the left part of the armpit
penetrating cutting through a major artery hitting the left lung, air flow
was intervened in the left lung, and the left lung has collapsed because
of the wound.36 She stated that when the victim was brought to the
hospital, he was still alive and he stayed three hours in the emergency
room.37 They tried to control the bleeding however, they cannot locate
the source of the bleeding immediately and they cannot sedate the
patient because his blood pressure was going down. 38 On crossexamination, she testified that before their consultant arrived at the
hospital, they inserted two lines of dextrose to the victim and
instructed his relatives to find blood to replace blood loss. 39 They tried
to operate on the victim however, he might die on the operating table
because he was not stable40 and when the blood arrived, it cannot be
32 TSN dated January 19, 1998, p.2.
33 TSN dated January 19, 1998, p. 3.
34 Ibid.
35 TSN dated January 19, 1998, p.5.
36 Ibid.
37 TSN dated January 19, 1998, p.6.
38 Ibid.
39 TSN dated January 19, 1998, p. 7.
40 TSN dated January 19, 1998, p.8.

given immediately to the victim because it should still be wrapped and

warmed.41
5 Lastly, Teresita Babilonia was presented as witness to testify with
respect to the expenses incurred by the family of the victim for the
actual medication and funeral expenses. She stated that at the time
they reached the hospital, they were given receipts for the medicines
bought but they were not able to get the receipts for the other
medicines.42 After the death of the victim, the family incurred further
expenses such as for the tomb, during the wake and also for the burial
and food expenses which they spent during the burial and the
funeral.43 A receipt from Sampton Funeral Homes for the coffin and the
embalming is marked as Exhibit C. when asked why she was the one
who paid for the expenses the witness stated that it was because the
victims wife has no capacity to pay the amount.44
On cross-examination, the witness testified that she could no longer
remember the medicines administered to her brother because at that
time, they were worried about this status. 45 She attested that the
doctor was lying when she testified in court that they did not make any
medication or give any medicine to the victim. She said that her
brother and sister bought medicines for the victim.
The defense presented the following as witnesses: 1) Demetrio Gabo,
Chief Barangay Tanod; 2) Rolando Gajardo, eyewitness; and 3) Roberto
Estimo, the accused.
The defense offered the following as evidence:
1.) The appointment of the accused as Barangay Tanod, marked as
Exhibit 1;
2.) Letter of Parent Association dated November 29, 1995 to show
request to the Office of the Punong Barangay to hold a benefit
dance and for the assistance of tanods, marked as Exhibit B;
41 Ibid.
42 TSN dated July 10, 1998, p.5.
43 Ibid.
44 TSN dated July 10, 1998, p.6.
45 TSN dated July10, 1998, p.10.

3.) Signature of Roberto Estimo in logbook to show that he is one of the

five Barangay Tanod assigned at the benefit dance, marked as
Exhibit 3;
4.) Page of Logbook of the Barangay for December 2-3, 1995 to show
the incident at the benefit dance, marked as Exhibit 4;
5.) Medico-Legal certificate in the name of Roberto Estimo to show the
injuries he suffered due to the victims attack, marked as Exhibit 5;
6.) Signatures of Barangay Officials and Citizens of Brgy. Kamuning to
show good moral character of the accused, marked as Exhibit 6;
7.) Panunumpa sa Katungkulan of the accused to show Oath of Office,
marked as Exhbit 7;
8.) Panunumpa sa Tungkulin, marked as Ehibit 8;
9.) The uniform of the Barangay Tanod, marked as Exhibit 9; and
10.) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Roberto Estimo.
To exculpate the accused of the crime, the following witnesses
testified:
1. Demetrio Gabo testified that he is the Chief Barangay Tanod of Brgy.
Kamuning and that he approved the request of the Parents
Association Day Care Welfare to maintain the peace and order
situation in the benefit dance on December 2, 1995. 46 He stated
that he personally saw the victim box the accused, and victim
Wilfredo Basis drew his bolo from the scabbard and stabbed the
accused, Roberto Estimo, who was forced to defend himself. 47 He
said that on the date of the incident, at about 1:00 oclock in the
morning, he noticed Wilfredo Basis walking unsteadily and he seems
to be drunk.48 Wilfredo Basis came from the dance and approached
Roberto Estimo from behind and then boxed him on his mouth and
Roberto Estimo fell down on his back, and Wilfredo Basis drew his
knife including the scabbard.49 The two wrestled with each other,
rolling on the ground.50 He said that he was intending to pacify them
but then, they were already on the dance portion, so he no longer
46 TSN dated February 26, 2003, p.2.
47 Ibid.
48 TSN dated February 26, 2003, p.8.
49 Ibid.

saw what happened51 and he could not have pacified them because
they were on the other side of the Day Cares fence. 52 He also
testified that at the time of the incident, they didnt have weapons
with them but only whistles and clubs.53 Further, he stated that he
was certain that his tanods do not have weapons because frisked
them54.
2. Rolando Gajardo testified that he personally knew the accused
being a barangay tanod and the victim who resides in the barangay.
He stated that he heard from the people in their barangay that the
victim is dangerous man because he is n ex-convict, and that they
said he is a trouble maker. 55 He testified that he saw that the victim
went to the direction of Roberto Estimo, tapped his shoulder, and
when Roberto Estimo turned his back, the victim boxed him on his
lips which caused him to fall on the ground. 56 He saw that Roberto
Estimo fell and the victim drew something from his side and they
rolled on the ground together but he no longer knows what
happened next.57
On cross-examination, he testified that after the incident, he did not
know what happened to the victim58 and that he came to know that

50 Ibid.
51 TSN dated February 26, 2003, p.9.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
54 TSN dated January 26, 2003, p. 11.
55 TSN dated July 27, 2004, p.4.
56 TSN dated July 27, 2003, p.5.
57 Ibid.
58 TSN dated July 27, 2003, p.8.

the victim died only the day after, when his death was already news
in the barangay.59
3. Lastly, Roberto Estimo, the accused testified that on the day of the
incident, he was on duty as barangay tanod at the benefit dance. 60
Wilfredo Basis suddenly appeared in the dance and he was so
drunk.61 He was swaying from left to right, side to another side and
he was creating trouble62 with two other companions.63 He told them
not to create trouble because he saw that the victim had a knife
tacked on his waist.64 The victim tapped him on his shoulder and
when he faced the victim, the latter boxed him straight on the
mouth and he fell.65 A medical certificate showing his injuries with
respect to the boxing by the victim is offered as evidence and
marked as Exhibit 5. When asked what happened after the victim
boxed him, the accused testified as follows66:
Q: x x x Now, you said Mr. Witness, that Wilfredo Basis, the victim in
this case, boxed you and you fell on the ground, what happened
next?
A: When I fell he immediately jumped on me, took hold of his
knife trying to stab me, but I was able to hold his hand.
Q:Now, what happened after that?
A: I tightly held his hand and I was trying to grapple possession
of the knife but he held it so tight, and so we rolled on the ground
until he lost his strength.
Q: What happened after that?
59 TSN dated July 27, 2003, p.9.
60 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.4.
61 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.9.
62 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.10.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Ibid.
66 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.11.

A: When I noticed that he lost his strength, I noticed that the

knife he was holding already slowly penetrated his body, which I
was not aware of, and so when he was feeling weak I was able to
take possession of the knife. When I noticed that his two
companions are coming that was the time I ran away.
Q: And you immediately went to the police, is that right?
A: Yes, maam.
The accused also testified that Carlito Abordo was lying when he
said that he was present during the incident. He said that he should
have seen Carlito Abordo if he was there.67
On cross-examination, the accused testified that upon the arrival of
the victim, he talked to him and told him sana walang gulo. 68 After
he said those words, he turned his back on the victim. the victim
thereafter tapped his back. As they grappled for the possession of
the knife, he came to know that the victim was already losing his
strength because he was no longer struggling.69
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
HOMICIDE.
RULING:
This Court finds that Homicide was not committed by the accused.
The fact that the victim was stabbed by the accused is not controverted by
the defense. They however posit that such stabbing was made
unintentionally because such incident happened while they were grappling
for the possession of the bolo, in which case, the accused could not have
purposely stabbed the victim.

67 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p. 13.

68 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.15.
69 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.16.

The defense seeks to persuade the Court to believe that the victim was
stabbed merely by accident and that there was no intent on the part of the
accused.
This Court is not convinced by the evidence presented to prove that the
incident happened accidentally. Only the testimony of the accused was
presented to prove that it was made accidentally and no corroborating
testimony was offered to substantiate such. The witnesses presented by the
accused did not see the actual stabbing incident and testified merely on how
the incident started. The fact of accident must be clearly and convincingly
shown. On the other hand, the witnesses of the prosecution positively
identified the accused as well as the act constituting the crime perpetrated.
As may be culled from the testimony of Epifanio Lalican,70
Q: Will you please describe the relative position of the Wilfredo Basis
when Estimo stabbed him?
A: Wilfredo Basis was on his way home when Roberto Estimo stabbed
him by small bolo. Roberto Estimo stabbed him from his back hitting him on
the breast.
Likewise, in the testimony of Carlito Abordo, he revealed that he heard
Wilfredo Basis shouting aray!71 and that after he turned his back towards
him, he saw that Basis was being stabbed by Berting Estimo. 72 The
Prosecutions evidence is more believable than the mere uncorroborated
testimony of the accused.
Accident presupposes lack of intention to stab the victim, while selfdefense presumes voluntariness, induced only by necessity.73 The evidence
in the case at bar presents self-defense and not accident.

Elements of Homicide

70 TSN dated May 22, 1997, p. 4.

71 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p.3.
72 TSN dated May 23, 1997, p.4.
73 People vs. Carlos, 115 Phil. 704,706 (1962).

Jurisprudence laid out the elements of Homicide as: 1) a person was killed; 2)
the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; 3) the accused
had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and 4) the killing was not
attended by any qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide
or infanticide.74
1. Person was killed
The fact of death of the victim is proven by the autopsy report 75 conducted
by Dr. Ruthelma A. Gejon, M.D. showing that the accused dies of stab
wounds.

2. Killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstance

The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
Information in order not to violate the accuseds constitutional right to be
properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 76
Failure to allege any qualifying circumstance in the Information is tantamount
to a waiver in the appreciation of such qualifying circumstance.
There was no allegation of any circumstance which would qualify the
offense as murder hence, the crime cannot be elevated to Murder.
3. Intent to Kill
In order that the accused may be convicted of Homicide, intent to kill the
victim must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Intent to kill is a state of
mind which is manifest through external acts and conduct of the accused at
the time of the assault and immediately thereafter.
In Rivera vs People,77 the Court considered factors in determining the
presence of an intent to kill namely: 1) the means used by the malefactors;
2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; 3)
74 Villamor vs People, G.R. No. 182156, November 25, 2009.
75 Exhibit A and sub-markings B-1 to B-4, autopsy report fort he deceased.
76 People v. Lab-Eo, 424 Phil. 482, 497 (2002).
77 Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006.

the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after

killing the victim; and 4) the circumstances under which the crime was
committed and the motives of the accused.
It is necessary to consider the means used by the accused in perpetrating
the alleged crime. The facts of the case reveal that an 11-foot blade was
used to stab the victim. It is however noted by this Court that the alleged
weapon is not owned by the accused but is owned by that of the victim.
According to the Chief Tanod, he was sure that he frisked the tanods in order
to make sure that none of them had any weapons with them. The weapon
owned by the victim came to the possession of the accused when they
grappled and rolled to the ground. Intention was not present for the reason
that such weapon was used only to repel the assault which the victim initially
made against the accused. Further, the victim received only one stab wound.
The number of the stab wounds does not necessarily determine intent
however, it may be an indicia that the accused merely intended to prevent or
stop the victim from committing any injury against him. It is shown from the
facts that the accused no longer stabbed the victim after the latter fell to the
ground. The act of the accused in desisting to cause further harm to the
victim bolsters his contention that he had no intent to kill the victim. Also, as
culled from the facts of the case, the accused immediately surrendered to
the police when the latter came to their house to question him regarding the
incident. He instantly narrated the events which led to the stabbing incident
and thereafter submitted himself to the custody of the police. Further, the
accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong since his act in
allegedly stabbing the accused was merely an act of self-defense in order to
protect his person from the imminent danger to be committed by the victim.
4 The accused killed him with a justifying circumstance
The defense contends that the accused acted in self-defense. To escape
liability on the ground of self-defense, the accused must show by sufficient,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that: a) the victim committed unlawful
aggression amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of
the accused claiming self-defense; b) there was reasonable necessity in the
means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and c) there
was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused claiming selfdefense or at least any provocation executed by the accused claiming self-

defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victims
aggression.78
The first element of unlawful aggression is an essential for conviction. There
can be no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person
injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or
repel.79 The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the
circumstances is whether the aggression of the victim put in real peril the life
or the personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be
imagined or imaginary threat.80
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: a) actual or material unlawful
aggression; and b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful
aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an
offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause
injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at
the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude,
not must it be merely imaginary but must be offensive and positively
strong.81
In Rolando Gajardos testimony82, he revealed that after the victim tapped
the accused on the back, he immediately boxed Roberto Estimo. That after
Roberto Estimo fell, he saw the victim draw something from his side and they
rolled on the ground together. Further, the accused himself testified 83 that
when he fell because the victim boxed him, the victim immediately jumped
on him and took hold of a knife trying to stab him.
This shows that an actual or material unlawful aggression was in fact
committed by the accused. Physical force is manifest when the victim boxed
78 People vs. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027, March 4, 2004.
79 People vs. Bingky Campos and Danny Boy Acabo, G.R. No. 176061, July 4, 2011.
80 People vs.Pletado, G.R. No. 98432, July 1, 1992, 210 SCRA 634.
81 Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review, 1997 Ninth Edition, pp. 55-56.
82 TSN dated July 27, 2004, p.5.
83 TSN dated May 10, 2006, p.11.

the accused. Also, the use of the knife by the victim could give no other
impression but that he intends to stab or at least wound the accused by its
use. It is highly improbable that the victim took hold of the knife to just
intimidate the accused because again, he had already boxed the accused
and the act of taking hold of the knife presents the intent to also stab him.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not depend upon
the harm done but rests upon the imminent danger to the victim. As stated
in the case of Ladislao Espinosa vs. People,
It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed
does not imply material commensurability between the means of the
attack ad defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in the
consideration of which will enter the principal factors of emergency,
the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the
instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels defense, and the
proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but
rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.
xxx
The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the
consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used
by the defender and the assailant but of the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the defense visvis, the unlawful
aggression.
As already proven, it was the victim himself who first committed the
unlawful aggression. Such unlawful aggression was committed through the
act of boxing the accused and by taking hold of a knife which he intended to
use to stab the accused. The use of a knife in trying to stab the accused is a
danger which the accused perceived as imminent and necessary to repel.
Intent of the victim to kill the accused is evident when he jumped on and
tried to stab the latter. The accused is therefor justified in the alleged
stabbing of the victim because the means used by the accused was
necessary in order to repel the imminent danger posed by the victim.
Further, a person who is facing grave danger would not necessarily be
expected to think of the most reasonable way to subdue the offender. Such
person would purposely use any means to prevent any danger that would
come to him hence, it may result to a voluntary act which may cause injury
to the offender. If such injury committed to the offender is justifiably
commensurate to the injury which he might have received had he not

repelled the act of the offender, then he should be exculpated for the alleged
crime. However, if the injury is unjustifiable and is in excess of what should
normally be done by a reasonable person under the same circumstances,
then he should be held to answer for the offense. Since the victim herein
intended to stab the victim and there was no other available reasonable way
to repel the unlawful aggression committed by the offender, the act of the
accused may be deemed justified.
The third requisite is that there must be lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the accused claiming self-defense. It is evident that no
provocation whatsoever was made by the accused. The act of the accused
in saying sana walang gulo cannot be considered as a provocation
contemplated by the law. It must be noted that the accused is a Barangay
Tanod on duty at the time of the incident. As a peace officer, it is his duty to
make sure that the event is held successfully and that the peace be
maintained throughout the show. The accused certainly cannot be wronged
for saying such words since it merely constitutes as a reminder to the victim
to desist from committing trouble in the event. As such, no provocation was
committed by the accused.
Under the Constitution, an accused is given the right to be presumed
innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution
failed to adduce evidence which would imply a moral certainty that the
accused has in fact committed the crime of Homicide. The defense presented
sufficient evidence to prove that the accused acted in self-defense and that
he should be exculpated from the crime allegedly committed.
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, this Court renders the decision
holding that the guilt of the accused is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
---------SO ORDERED.
Puerto Prinsesa City, this ______day of ____________________, 2015.
AMBROSIO B. DE LUNA
Presiding Judge

Copy Furnished: