XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

FACTS: On the night of February 22, 1997, a public dance and singing contest was held in Ligao, Albay.
There was a commotion in the area assigned to accused Ramon Regalario. When he approached the group where the disturbance was
taking place, Rolando Sevilla suddenly emerged from the group and fired a shot at him. Instinctively, and in order to disable Sevilla
from firing more shots, he struck his assailant with his nightstick and hit him at the back of his head.
Sotero arrived and Ramon told him that Rolando still had the gun. So, Sotero plunged at Rolando and they wrestled on the ground for
the possession of the gun. Ramon knocked the gun off his hand and it fell near the place where Jose Poblete was standing. Poblete just
arrived at the scene along with Marciano Regalario. Poblete picked up the gun. He was instructed by Marciano to keep it until it is
turned over to the authorities.
Bienvenido Regalario, the barangay tanod, was instructed by Marciano, the barangay captain to effect the arrest of Rolando Sevilla
for the crime of shooting Ramon. So, he tied the hands and feet of Rolando Sevilla for fear that he might be able to escape.
On the early morning of February 23, a team of policemen went to Natasan and found the dead body of Rolando Sevilla.
For automatic review is the decision of the CA which affirmed with modification, an earlier decision of the RTC, finding
accused-appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido and Noel, all surnamed Regalario guilty of murder.

ISSUE: WON THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE DECEASED WAS KILLED IN SELF-DEFENSE
AND/OR DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

HELD:
When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with murder or homicide he necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape
criminal liability by proving that it was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. Hence, the three (3) elements of
self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence. However, without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, either complete or incomplete.

By Ramons own account, after he was shot, he hit the victim at the back of the latters head and he continued hitting the victim who
retreated backward. From that moment, the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased to exist and the
continuation of the offensive stance of Ramon put him in the place of an aggressor. There was clearly no longer any danger, but still
Ramon went beyond the call of self-preservation. In People v. Cajurao, SC held:

The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound
the former aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression and the danger or
risk to life and limb, the necessity for the person invoking self-defense to attack his adversary ceases. If he persists in attacking his
adversary, he can no longer invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of
an aggressor who is retreating from the fray.

Ramons claim of self-defense is further belied by the presence of two (2) stab wounds on the neck, four (4) lacerated wounds on the
head, as well as multiple abrasions and contusions on different parts of the victims body. Indeed, even if it were true that the victim
fired a gun at Ramon, the number, nature and severity of the injuries suffered by the victim indicated that the force used against him
by Ramon and his co-accused was not only to disarm the victim or prevent him from doing harm to others.

Considering the foregoing, as well as the manner in which the attack against Rolando was carried out, and the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses positively identifying the accused-appellants as the assailants, SC concur in the rulings of the CA, affirming
those of the trial court, in (a) disregarding Ramon Regalarios declaration that he attacked the victim in self-defense and (b) holding
that all the accused-appellants acted in concert and killed Rolando.

FACTS: Spouses Serafin and Felicitas commenced a civil case against spouses Sibonghanoy to recover from them a sum of P1,
908.00 with legal interest. A writ of attachment was issued by the court against the defendants properties but the same was soon
dissolved. After trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and after the same had become final and executor, the
court issued a writ of execution against the defendants. The writ being unsatisfied, the plaintiffs moved for the issuance of the writ of
execution against the Suretys bond. Subsequently, the Surety moved to quash the writ on the ground that the same was issued
without summary hearing. This was denied by the RTC. The Surety appealed in the CA, which was denied. This time, the surety just
asked for an extension in order for them to file the motion for reconsideration. But instead of filing for a motion for reconsideration, it
filed a motion to dismiss saying that by virtue of R.A. 296 which is the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1948, section 88 of which
placed within the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil action where the value of the subject matter does not exceed
P2,000.00. The Court of First Instance therefore has no jurisdiction over the case. The question of jurisdiction was filed by the Surety
only 15 years from the time the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance.

ISSUE: WON THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED DUE TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION

HELD: No. After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of the court. The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred upon the courts
exclusive by law as by law and as the lack of it affect the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the objection may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present cases, a party may be
barred by laches from involving this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case. A party
cannot invoke a courts jurisdiction and later on deny it
Paderanga v CA
KEY TAKE-AWAY: Right to bail is accorded to persons constructively arrested even though they have not been physically
arrested
DATE/GR NO/SCRA: G.R. No. 115407 August 28, 1995
PONENTE: REGALADO, J.
PETITIONER: MIGUEL P. PADERANGA
RESPONDENT: COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:
Petition:
Petition for certiorari on the CAs decision denying the motion for reconsideration on his petition for bail.
Factual Antecedents:
Miguel P. Paderanga was included in an amended information for the crime of multiple murder as the mastermind.
Paderanga, through his counsel, filed a Motion for Admission of Bail before a Warrant of Arrest could be issued by
the lower court.
Paderanga was unable to appear for the hearing due to an ailment that needed medical attention. His counsel
manifested that they were submitting custody over the person of their client to the local chapter president of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and that, for purposes of said hearing, he considered being in the custody of the
law.
The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration on his right to bail
Statute Involved:
Art. 3, Sec. 12
Sec. 1 of Rule 114
o Section 1. Bail defined. Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the
conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit, or recognizance. (1a)
Position of Respondent/s:
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Paderanga was granted bail when was not in the custody of the law, thus not
eligible for the grant of the petition.

ISSUE:
W/N it is proper to admit bail even though petitioner is not yet in custody of law

HELD/RATIO:
NO
Right to bail is only extended only to those persons who have been arrested, detained, or otherwise deprived of
their freedom
A person is considered to be in the custody of the law:
o when he is arrested either by virtue of warrant of arrest or by warrantless arrest
o when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to the proper
authorities
In the foregoing facts, petitioner can be considered as being constructively and legally under custody
o Through his lawyers, he expressly submitted to physical and legal control over his person:
firstly, by filing the application for bail with the trial court
secondly, by furnishing true information of his actual whereabouts;
thirdly, by unequivocally recognizing the jurisdiction of the said court.
o for purposes of the hearing thereof he should be deemed to have voluntarily submitted his person to the
custody of the law and, necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court
an arrest is made either by:
o actual restraint of the arrestee or
o merely by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest (house arrest)
Final Ruling
Decision of CA is reversed. Petitioner is granted bail.