People v Dela Cruz

Petitioner: People of the Philippines

Respondent: Roberto E. Dela Cruz
Doctrine:

Self defense requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the person
injured or killed by the offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself. All these conditions must concur.
Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of selfdefense, would presuppose an
actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a
personnot a mere threatening or intimidating attitudebut, most importantly, at
the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor.

Facts:

Daniel Macapagal and Luz Perla Aan Antonio had been alive-in partner for three
years before she took Robert dela Cruz, appellant, as lover and live-in partner.
May 27, 1996 (6PM): the appellant and Ma Luz were resting in their bedroom when
they heard a car stop and heard knocks on their door. When San Antonio opened
the door it was Macapagal who made his way inside the house holding a gun.
He was seemed to be looking for someone as he inspected two opened bedrooms of
the house and checked the close bedroom where appellant was and banged at the
door yelling for him to come out.
He opened the door but he saw Macapagals gun pointed at him so he immediately
closed the door but when he came out, he was armed with a .38 caliber revolver.
They grappled for each others firearms, and a few moments later, gunshots were
heard.
Macapagal fell dead on the floor.
Police arrived at the scene; appellant surrendered his gun and told the police that
he shot Macapagal in self-defense.
It was later found out by the police that the firearm used by Macapagal, upon
investigation, was not loaded.

Trial Judge: Judged him guilty of crime of illegal possession of firearm with homicide.
ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in rejecting appellants plea of self-defense.
Held. The Court scarcely finds reversible error on the part of the trial court in rejecting the
claim of self-defense.
When self defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that
the killing has been legally justified.

Having owned the killing of the victim, the accused should be able to prove to
the satisfaction of the court the elements of self defense in order that he
might be able to rightly avail himself of the extenuating circumstance.

1. Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of self defense:

Presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent

danger on the life and limb of a personnot a mere threatening or
intimidating attitudemost importantly, at the time the defensive action
was taken against the aggressor.

True, the victim barged into the house of accused appellant and his live in partner
and, banging at the master bedroom door with his firearm, he yelled, come out.
But when he went out the door and seeing the victim pointing a gun at
him, he was able to prevent at this stage harm to himself by promptly
closing the door.
He could have stopped there. Instead, accused appellant, taking his .38 caliber
revolver, again opened the bedroom door and, brandishing his own firearm,
forthwith confronted the victim. At this encounter, accused appellant would be
quite hard put to still claim self defense.
2. The second element of self defense would demand that the means employed to
quell the unlawful aggression were reasonable and necessary.

The number of the wounds sustained by the deceased in this case would negate the
existence of this indispensable component of self defense. The autopsy report
would show that the victim sustained four gunshot woundswhich would, in fact,
indicate a determined effort to kill.

3. For self defense to be aptly invoked, it is essential that there be lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
When accused appellant, opening the bedroom door the second time, confronted,
instead of merely taking precautionary measures against, the victim with his own
gun he had taken from the cabinet, accused appellant could no longer
correctly argue that there utterly was no provocation on his part
RULING: The decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Accused appellant ROBERTO DELA
CRUZ y ESGUERRA is hereby held guilty of HOMICIDE with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, an aggravating circumstance that is offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, and he is accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of nine
(9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to sixteen (16) years and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The award of P2,865,600.00 for loss of earning is
reduced to P1,432,800.00. In other respects, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.