Lawyerly

GR No. 190798

2016-01-27

PEREZ, J.

Anent Bobot's claim of self-defense, it is undeserving of any serious consideration or credence. Basic is the rule that the person asserting self-defense must admit that he inflicted an injury on another person in order to defend himself.[51] Here, there is nothing on record that will show that Bobot categorically admitted that he wounded Rodolfo.

GR No. 178512

2014-11-26

ALFREDO DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE

BERSAMIN, J.

The essential element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent that the State must allege in the information, and then prove by either direct or circumstantial evidence, as differentiated from a general criminal intent, which is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[8] Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only through external manifestations, i.e., the acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People,[9] we considered the following factors to determine the presence of intent to kill, namely: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We have also considered as determinative factors the motive of the offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim.[10]

GR No. 181753

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. RAMON PLACER

BERSAMIN, J.

There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, if no unlawful aggression from the victim is established.[16] In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributable to the victim is established, self-defense is not a defense, because there would then be nothing to repel on the part of the accused.[17]

GR No. 188551

2013-02-27

EDMUNDO ESCAMILLA Y JUGO v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

after he was hit. Petitioner claims that the prosecution was unable to prove his intent to kill.[65] He is mistaken. The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries.[66] The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim.[67]

GR No. 151258

2012-02-01

ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE

SERENO, J.

The presence of an initial malicious intent to commit a felony is thus a vital ingredient in establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide.[129] Being mala in se, the felony of homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo[130] immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries.[131] Intent to kill - or animus interficendi - cannot and should not be inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent.[132] Furthermore, the victim's death must not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide.[133] If death resulted from an act executed without malice or criminal intent - but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence - the act must be qualified as reckless or simple negligence or imprudence resulting in homicide.[134]

GR No. 169084

2012-01-18

PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS

BERSAMIN, J.

The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are also proper, but their corresponding amounts should be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[44] The actual damages of P15,000.00 and P8,000.00 granted to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano, respectively, were also warranted due to their being proven by receipts.[45] However, the Court has held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than P25,000.00, as in the case of Sabino and Graciano, the award of temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.[46] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous and unfair that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 only would be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.[47] Hence, instead of only P15,000.00 and P8,000.00, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages should be awarded each to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano.

GR No. 188562

2011-08-17

PEOPLE v. RODEL LANUZA Y BAGAOISAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.[17] Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, of the means used by the malefactors; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused.[18] These elements are extant in the case at bar.

GR No. 176061

2011-07-04

PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The essential elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, which the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence are: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself. [16] The first element of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. 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.

GR No. 186528

2011-01-26

PEOPLE v. HEMIANO DE JESUS

VELASCO JR., J.

It is axiomatic that where an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. Accordingly, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused who must then prove with clear and convincing proof the following elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to apply.[34]

GR No. 175023

2010-07-05

GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

The view from the "frustrated" stage of the crime gives the same results. The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.[32] Since the prosecution failed to prove the second element, we cannot hold the petitioner liable for frustrated homicide.

GR No. 186538

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Regarding appellant Lutgardo's plea of self-defense, it is axiomatic that when an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. Accordingly, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused who must then prove with clear and convincing proof the following elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must firstly rest on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to apply.[36]

GR No. 187682

2009-11-25

PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We, however, reduce the P75,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto awarded by the RTC to P50,000.00.[26] As to actual damages, the widow of the deceased presented a list of expenses. The only official receipts that may be considered are the ones issued by Carbonel Funeral Homes (P15,000.00) and Isidro Meat Dealer (P7,360.00) totaling P22,360.00. However, we have held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.[27] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous and unfair to the victim who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00. He would be in a worse situation than another who might have presented no receipts at all, but is entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages. Thus, considering that funeral expenses in the amount of P22,360.00 were proven by Danny's heirs, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of this lesser amount of actual damages, is proper. The widow is also entitled to P50,000.00 moral damages, in view of the violent death of the victim, which does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs.[28] With the finding of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is properly awarded.[29]

	GR No. 190798 2016-01-27	RONALD IBAÑEZ v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
Anent Bobot's claim of self-defense, it is undeserving of any serious consideration or credence. Basic is the rule that the person asserting self-defense must admit that he inflicted an injury on another person in order to defend himself.[51] Here, there is nothing on record that will show that Bobot categorically admitted that he wounded Rodolfo.
	GR No. 178512 2014-11-26	ALFREDO DE GUZMAN v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
The essential element in frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent of the offender to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent that the State must allege in the information, and then prove by either direct or circumstantial evidence, as differentiated from a general criminal intent, which is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.[8] Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by the courts only through external manifestations, i.e., the acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. In Rivera v. People,[9] we considered the following factors to determine the presence of intent to kill, namely: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We have also considered as determinative factors the motive of the offender and the words he uttered at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim.[10]
	GR No. 181753 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. RAMON PLACER BERSAMIN, J.
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, if no unlawful aggression from the victim is established.[16] In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributable to the victim is established, self-defense is not a defense, because there would then be nothing to repel on the part of the accused.[17]
	GR No. 188551 2013-02-27	EDMUNDO ESCAMILLA Y JUGO v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
after he was hit. Petitioner claims that the prosecution was unable to prove his intent to kill.[65] He is mistaken. The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries.[66] The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim.[67]
	GR No. 151258 2012-02-01	ARTEMIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The presence of an initial malicious intent to commit a felony is thus a vital ingredient in establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide.[129] Being mala in se, the felony of homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo[130] immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries.[131] Intent to kill - or animus interficendi - cannot and should not be inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent.[132] Furthermore, the victim's death must not have been the product of accident, natural cause, or suicide.[133] If death resulted from an act executed without malice or criminal intent - but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence - the act must be qualified as reckless or simple negligence or imprudence resulting in homicide.[134]
	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages are also proper, but their corresponding amounts should be increased to P75,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[44] The actual damages of P15,000.00 and P8,000.00 granted to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano, respectively, were also warranted due to their being proven by receipts.[45] However, the Court has held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than P25,000.00, as in the case of Sabino and Graciano, the award of temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.[46] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous and unfair that the heirs of the victim who tried and succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00 only would be put in a worse situation than others who might have presented no receipts at all but would be entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages.[47] Hence, instead of only P15,000.00 and P8,000.00, the amount of P25,000.00 as temperate damages should be awarded each to the heirs of Sabino and Graciano.
	GR No. 188562 2011-08-17	PEOPLE v. RODEL LANUZA Y BAGAOISAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.[17] Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, of the means used by the malefactors; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused.[18] These elements are extant in the case at bar.
	GR No. 176061 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The essential elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, which the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence are: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused defending himself. [16] The first element of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. 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.
	GR No. 186528 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. HEMIANO DE JESUS VELASCO JR., J.
It is axiomatic that where an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. Accordingly, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused who must then prove with clear and convincing proof the following elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to apply.[34]
	GR No. 175023 2010-07-05	GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The view from the "frustrated" stage of the crime gives the same results. The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present.[32] Since the prosecution failed to prove the second element, we cannot hold the petitioner liable for frustrated homicide.
	GR No. 186538 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. AUSENCIO COMILLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Regarding appellant Lutgardo's plea of self-defense, it is axiomatic that when an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. Accordingly, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused who must then prove with clear and convincing proof the following elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must firstly rest on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to apply.[36]
	GR No. 187682 2009-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROMAN LACADEN Y PARINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We, however, reduce the P75,000.00 civil indemnity ex delicto awarded by the RTC to P50,000.00.[26] As to actual damages, the widow of the deceased presented a list of expenses. The only official receipts that may be considered are the ones issued by Carbonel Funeral Homes (P15,000.00) and Isidro Meat Dealer (P7,360.00) totaling P22,360.00. However, we have held that when actual damages proven by receipts amount to less than P25,000.00, the award of temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 is justified in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount.[27] This is based on the sound reasoning that it would be anomalous and unfair to the victim who tried but succeeded in proving actual damages of less than P25,000.00. He would be in a worse situation than another who might have presented no receipts at all, but is entitled to P25,000.00 temperate damages. Thus, considering that funeral expenses in the amount of P22,360.00 were proven by Danny's heirs, an award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in lieu of this lesser amount of actual damages, is proper. The widow is also entitled to P50,000.00 moral damages, in view of the violent death of the victim, which does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs.[28] With the finding of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00 is properly awarded.[29]

FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE