People v.

Montalbo
G.R. No. L-34750
December 31, 1931

Facts:
Appellant Potenciano Montalbo and Jose Paras, the victim was both watching a basketball game
when a heated altercation commenced causing the appellant to struck the victim in the chest with a pen
knife. The latter struck the appellant with his fists causing an exchange thereof to ensue.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant may avail of the justifying circumstance of self-defense

Held:
No. the elements of which were not all present in this case. Though the deceased struck him
with his fists, the appellant was not justified in mortally wounding his assailant with the penknife. This
was not a reasonably necessary means of repelling the attack. Moreover, the appellant provoked the
attack by jerking down the deceased's coat-sleeve, taking two steps backward, and challenging him with
the words, "What do you want?"
People v. Sabio
G.R. No. L-23734
April 27, 1967

Facts:
Romeo Bacobo and the appellant, Teodoro Sabio, both old and close friends met when the
former greeted the appellant with a foot-kick greeting causing the latter to punch him inflicting a ¾ inch
long laceration that prevented him from working. He was then prosecuted for less serious physical
injuries and in his appeal, raised a question of law whether retaliation from a foot-kick greeting is
considered self-defense.

Issue:
Whether or not, retaliation from a foot-kick greeting is an act of self-defense; a justifying
circumstance under the Revised Penal Code.

Held:
No, a primordial requisite for self-defense is unlawful aggression (Art. 11, Rev. Penal Code). And
for unlawful, aggression to be present, there must be real danger to life or personal safety. A kick at the
foot by way of greeting between friends may be a practical joke, and may even hurt; but it is not a
serious or real attack on a person's safety.
People v. Macaso
G.R. No. L-30489
June 30, 1975

Facts:
Appellant Alberto Macaso, a patrolman of the Basilan City Police Department, got into a heated
argument with the deceased, Nicolas Suaso who was apprehended by the appellant as part of his traffic
duties for the reason that the jeepney the deceased was driving was overloaded with passengers. After a
brief exchange of words, the appellant tried to confiscate the license of the deceased causing him to
retort in anger. When the deceased tried to confront the appellant, he was shot dead.

Issue:
Whether or not, the insult of the deceased constitutes an unlawful aggression thereby causing
the shooting of the appellant to be justified under Art. 11, Par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code

Held:
No. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. A review of the evidence fails
to lend credence to the accused-appellant's claim that the deceased was the unlawful aggressor. True,
the deceased acted rather belligerently, arrogantly, and menacingly at the accused-appellant, but such
behavior did not give rise to a situation that actually posed a real threat to the life or safety of accused-
appellant. The peril to the latter's life was not imminent and actual. To constitute unlawful aggression, it
is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of
the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made.