This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, where self-defense is pleaded, reasonableness of the necessity for taking action and reasonableness of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression must be taken into account.[27] Here, it is significant that, according to unrebutted testimony for the prosecution, after appellant fired thrice at his victim, he still aimed his gun at the fallen victim's head, although for some reason it jammed. | |||||
|
2003-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 3595, for frustrated homicide, we sustain the finding of the court below that it was petitioner and not Nelson Importado, as claimed by the defense, who stabbed Isaias Ibardalosa, Jr. This is supported by the testimony of Froilan Sucro, whose declaration is entitled to full faith and credit inasmuch as he was not shown to have been impelled by ill motive to perjure himself.[36] It cannot be denied, however, that the unlawful aggression came from Isaias who, after intervening between Nestor and petitioner, wrestled with the latter. As previously stated, Isaias pinned petitioner to the ground face up while holding petitioner's shoulders. While in this position, petitioner was able to free himself by delivering a single stabbing blow at the back of Isaias. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that petitioner did not use unnecessary means to repel an ongoing attack. It would not be proper and reasonable to require petitioner to flee or use a less deadly weapon or defense, because in the situation in which he was placed, it was natural for him to use the weapon he was holding to defend himself. In the natural order of things, following the instinct of self preservation, he was compelled to resort to the available defense.[37] In emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self- preservation; and when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction that act or to mitigate his liability.[38] | |||||