Group 2

Elements of self-defense; When is there unlawful aggression; When is there

reasonable means to prevent or repel aggression; When there is lack of sufficient
provocation
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. JOSEEN COMIENDA Y
NAVARRO, defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-26750; August 18, 1972
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:

Group 2

When aggression has ceased and the aggressor has taken flight, any means employed
against the aggressor is unreasonable; unlawful aggression must be actual and
imminent not imaginary
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. DIOSCORO ALCONGA and
ADOLFO BRACAMONTE, defendants. DIOSCORO ALCONGA, appellant; G.R. No. L-162;
April 30, 1947
FACTS: The deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack
against Maria De Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one
money. Alconga was seated behind Barion and he gave signs to De Raposo. Barion, who was
suffering losses in the game, found this out and he expressed his anger at Alconga. The two
almost fought outright this was stopped. May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as a home
guard. While the said accused was seated on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion came along and
said Coroy, this is your breakfast followed by a swing of his pingahan, a bamboo stick.
Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the bench with the intention to crawl out
of the guardhouse. A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused, hitting the
bench instead. Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by crawlingon his abdomen. While
Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to
stagger and hit the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and directed a blow to
the accused who was able to parry the attack using his bolo. A hand to hand fight ensued. The
deceased, looking already beaten and having sustained several wounds ran away. He was
followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters. A second fight took place and the
deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slashed the cranium. The deceased fell
face downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.
ISSUE: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga
RULING: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide. The deceased ran
and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand,
having been wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to
inflict injury upon him has ceased absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or
injure. He could have only attacked if there was reason to believe that he is still not safe. In the
case at bar, it is apparent that it is Alconga who is the superior fighter and his safety was already
secured after the first fight ended. There was no more reason for him to further chase Barion.
The second fight will be treated differently and independently. Under the first fight, self-defense
would have been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight. In the second fight, there was
illegal aggression on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no
mitigating circumstance of Provocation

Group 2
When defense of relative as justifying circumstance
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee vs. NARCISO CABUNGCAL,
defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-28451; August 1, 1928
FACTS: Narciso Cabungcal invited several persons to a picnic in a fishery on his property in
Tayabas Quezon. They spent the day at the said fishery and in the afternoon returned in two
boats. Nine persons were in the boat steered by the appellant majority of them were woman and
the appellants wife and son and a nursing child. The deceased Juan Loquenario was another
passenger in the boat. Upon reaching a place of great depth the deceased rocked the boat which
started it to take water and the appellant fearing the boat might capsize, asked the deceased not
to do it. As the deceased paid no attention to this warning and continued rocking the boat, the
appellant struck him on the forehead with an oar. The deceased fell into the water and was
submerged, after that he appeared on the side of the boat saying that he was going to capsize it.
Whereupon the appellant struck him on the neck with the same oar. After giving him the second
blow, the boat upset and then the appellant proceeded to save his passengers. After saving them
he [appellant] proceeded to search for the deceased but was unable to find him and his body
was recovered later.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defense of relative is justified to exempt him from criminal liability
RULING: Due to the manner shown by the deceased to capsize the boat. For this purpose the
blow given him by the appellant on the forehead and the second blow in his neck.
The Court ruled that the appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other
passengers in the boat and the means employed having been reasonably necessary in this
defense, while it was at the cost of life of the deceased, he is completely exempt from criminal
liability. Appellant is acquitted

Group 2
Defense of honor as self-defense; Mistake of fact
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee vs. REMEDIOS DE LA CRUZ
defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-41674; March 30, 1935
FACTS: Francisco Ramos and his wife, Brigida Vistada; his sister, Baltazara Ramos; and a woman
named Consuelo or Natividad Santoyo called at the house of the defendant and asked her to go
with them to a wake in honor of one Sion, who had died in the house of Maria Inguit. About nine
o'clock the defendant and her friends started home. They were followed about five minutes later,
according to Enrique Bautista, by the deceased Francisco Rivera, who had been playing cards in
the house where the wake was held. He was accompanied by Enrique Bautista. Rivera and
Bautista overtook defendant's party. When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera went
ahead of Bautista. At that time the members of the defendant's party were walking in single file.
Baltazara Ramos was in the lead and the defendant was the hindmost. She was about two brazas
from the person immediately ahead of her. Francisco Ramos, the only one of defendant's
companions that was called to testify, heard someone cry out "Aruy, Dios mio". He went back
and found that Francisco Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. The wounded man was
taken to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
ISSUE: Whether or not Remedios is liable of Homicide
RULING: The appellant is an illiterate barrio girl, unable to write her name, and scarcely
eighteen years old. We do not believe her story is a fabrication. In this connection it is to be
noted that almost immediately after the incident in question took place, the appellant said she
stabbed Francisco Rivera because he embraced her. It is not improbable that she was reluctant
to relate in the presence of all the people in the house of Maria Inguit the details of what had
occurred.
We are convinced from a study of the record that the deceased did in fact grab hold of the
defendant on the night in question, and whether he intended to rape her or not, taking into
consideration that it was a dark night and that the deceased grabbed her from behind without
warning and without making himself known and refused to say who he was, and in the struggle
that followed touched her private parts, and the fact that she was unable to free herself by
means of her strength alone, we are of the opinion that she was justified in making use of the
pocket-knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor, since she had no
other means of defending herself.

Group 2
Parricide; Self-defense; Battered Woman Syndrome applied; ; Definition of Battered
woman; What is cycle of violence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee vs. MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant; G.R. No.
135981; Jan. 15, 2004
FACTS: Marivic (accused) and Ben (victim) were married and had 3 children. One day, victim
went out with a friend on a cockfight and drinking spree since it was pay day. Marivic along with
her cousin went out to the market to look for the victim thinking that he might be on a drinking
spree and frightened that he will abuse her again. When the victim got home, the two quarreled.
Ben left the home probably for another drinking spree. The accused packed his clothes because
she wanted him to leave, seeing this by the victim, the latter flew into raged, dragged the
accused outside the room towards the drawer, which contained a gun, holding her by the neck.
He got a blade cutter but the accused smashed the arm of the victim with a pipe, she then ran
into the bedroom. Accused who by the time also pregnant for 8 months, threatened that the
victim will kill her, and ended the life of her husband using a gun. It was alleged that the accused
has been suffering in the hands of her husband, who physically abuses her. She claimed that she
was only defending herself and her fetus thus invoking the Batter Woman Syndrome.
ISSUE: Whether or not accused acted on self-defense by invoking Battered Woman Syndrome
RULING: Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes
actual, sudden and unexpected attackor an imminent danger thereofon the life or safety of a
person. In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a
sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him.
A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. More graphically, the battered
woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three phases:
(1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at
least, nonviolent) phase.
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence. No doubt there
were acute battering incidents but appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering
episode in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern. First, each of the phases of the cycle
of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the
appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final acute
battering episode preceding the
killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear of an
imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to

save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not
necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence
perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy
the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however, not all of
these elements were duly established.

Group 2
Defense of property when there is unlawful aggression on property
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendantappellant;
G.R. Nos. L-33466-67; April 20, 1983
FACTS: At about 2:30 in the afternoon of august 22, 1968, Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and
Cesar Ibanez together with the two deceased David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing
the land of George Fleischer, father of the deceased David Fleischer. The place was in the
boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by George Fleischer located in the
municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato. At that time, appellant Mamerto Narvaez was taking his
rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiseled, he arose and there he
saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on, appellant would be prevented from getting
into his house and the bodega of his rice mill. So he addressed to the group saying if possible
you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good. However Fleischer,
answered, " No, gademit, proceed, go ahead!. Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and he
got his gun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep after seeing Fleischer fell down and
knowing there is a gun on the jeep appellant fired at Rubia. Fleischer and Rubia died as a result
of shooting.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant Mamerto Narvaez shall be acquitted with a crime of murder
by reason of Justifying circumstances?
RULING: In the case at bar, there was an actual invasion of appellant's property which he had
the right to resist. The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying
circumstances of self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph 1 of Art.11,of the
Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must occur: First: Unlawful Aggression, Second:
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third: Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. When the appellant fired his shotgun at
the window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. Wherefore
the court found only the appellant guilty of two homicide.

Group 2
Performance of duty as justifying circumstance
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. DONION TAN Y CUI alias DIONING
defendant-appellant; G.R. No. L-22697; October 5, 1976
FACTS: This is an appeal by accused Donion Tan y Cui from the judgement of the Court of First
Instance of Samar finding him of murder for killing Jose Sosing.
On June 25, 1961 around 9:00 o'clock in the morning, Donion Tan alias Dioning, then a
member of a municipal police force of Panbujan, Samar, approached Jose Sosing, maintanier of a
Paitik game and asked for a peso. In response Sosing said that he did not have any and instead
give Tan forty centavos. Tan was not satisfied and asked for the operation permit of the game,
Sosing did so yet soon after, Tan grabbed the coins and coconut used in the game and a scuffle
for the possession of the said objects ensued. Finally, Tan pulled out his service pistol and Sosing
Fearing for his life took hold of the gun and they wrestled for its possession attracting the
attention of PC Sergeants Juanito Irigan and Luis Amor who tried to separate the two. The
commotion was settled, Tan went home while Sosing went to his sister's place.
At about noontime, while Sosing together with his sister Agueda Tiu and Gaudencio Acero are
heading for Sosing's place they saw Tan. As Tan came closer, they saw Tan pull out his pistol and
aim it at Jose Sosing. Frightened, Jose Sosing turned and ran up the house of Juan Tan. The
accused pursued him there, but his way was blocked by Conrada Tan who told the accused to go
down because her children might be scared. Tan cornered Sosing while escaping, and shot him
while the latter is pleading before him to spare his life.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed by Tan is performed in fulfillment of his duty and
would constitute as a justifying circumstance?
RULING: The defense of fulfillment of a duty is an affirmative allegation which must be
demonstrated with convincing credibility. The statement of facts made by the accused and his
witness is lacking in truth; it is rather an afterthought and contrary to human nature. But, even
taking the same to be true, the attitude adopted by the deceased in putting his hands in his

pocket is not sufficient to justify the appellant to shoot him. Appellant admitted that the
deceased does not own firearm so that he could have first warned the deceased, as the latter
was coming towards him, to stop where he was, raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is
trained to do, instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that the deceased was
armed. Appellant, therefore, had not justidication at all in shooting the deceased.
Wherefore, Tan is guilty with the crime of murder.