Same; Same; Same; Same; Elements; One who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one’s life,

not merely imaginary.—Settled

in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one’s life; and the peril sought to be
avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and effect of self-defense:
“Art. 11. Justifying circumstances.—The following do not incur any criminal liability: “1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Unlawful aggression; Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense.—Unlawful
aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack—or an imminent danger thereof—on
the life or safety of a person.

Same; Aggression, if not continuous, does not justify accused in running after victim and stabbing him.—Besides, even granting that
there was unlawful aggression on the victim’s part, it was not continuous. As prosecution witness Romeo Sato testified, the victim fled to a “kubol”
after he was initially wounded and was pursued by the accused.

Same; Same; Same; Same; When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor.—
When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting
in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was
begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was
injured by the accused.

Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum prohibitum which is committed by
mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the
purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the
prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the request of Frankto defer the deposit of the check as it ahs
insufficient funds will not militate against his prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged.
Moreover, if what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held criminally
liable under Article 332, RPC.

A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B who drew the postdated
check against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and with knowledge at the time
he issued the check that the account thereof is already closed. A cannot be held liable
under BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B‟s check to C who exchanged the check
in cash. BP 22 does not apply to endorser of checks. Hence only a civil action may be
filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.00.
Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a worthless check, under the
given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a credit transaction
for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a check has been issued in
payment for a pre-existing debt.

To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the victim be simultaneous with the
attack on the accused, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.

Where the inceptual unlawful aggression of the victim had already ceased, the accused had no more
right to kill the victim. In addition, the court found Rupertos theory of self-defense to be incredulous in
light of the physical evidence, i.e., the nature, character, location, and extent of the wounds inflicted on
the victim. The death certificate, the due execution of which was admitted by the defense; and the
photographs of the victim show that he sustained multiple hacking and stab wounds. The cause of his
death was severe hemorrhage secondary to irreversible shock. The wounds as well as the act of
beheading the victim clearly belie self-defense.

Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent
injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful
intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger––not merely
threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate
threat to one’s life.

According to Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, "any person who acts in defense of his person or
rights" do not incur any criminal liability provided that the following requisites concur: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Conversely, the accused must be
able to establish that all three circumstances concur in order for the accused’s act to be justified under
the law.

No. There was no self-defense on the part of accused-appellant in the instant case. The element of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent, or at least not convincingly proved,accused-
appellants claim of self-defense cannot be appreciated. For unlawful aggression to be present, there
must be a real danger to life or personal safety. There must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack
or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. But assuming arguendo that
there was unlawful aggression on Ramon’s part, the Court distinctly noted that the means accused-
appellant employed to prevent or repel the supposed unlawful aggression were far from reasonably
necessary. The number and nature of the wounds sustained by Ramon certainly belie a claim of self-
defense. It is worth stressing that accused-appellant inflicted nine stab wounds on Ramon after he
pumped a bullet on the latter’s lower left chest. Said gunshot wound, as medical report later showed,
was by itself already fatal. Significantly, after Ramon fell as a result of his bullet wound, accused-
appellant still proceeded to stab him. As aptly observed by the trial court, Ramon could not have walked
far after he was hit by the bullet. Accused-appellants pretense, therefore, that he had no intention to
harm Ramon after the shooting and that he only approached the fallen Ramon to bring him to the
doctor, stretches credulity to the absurd and must be rejected. Certainly, the nature and number of the
injuries inflicted by accused-appellant on the victim should be significant indicia in determining the
plausibility of the self-defense plea.

Nature of a buy-bust operation

In People v. Sembrano citing People v. Agulay, this Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug
pushers. Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the same are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently
search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime (People v. Cruz y
Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011).
---
Q: Is there a valid warrantless arrest in buy bust operations?
A: YES. There is a valid warrantless arrest when a crime is actually being committed in the presence of the
police officer, more known as crimes in flagrante delicto. A buy-bust operation is considered an entrapment
in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the officers conducting such search has not only the
authority but the duty to detain the accused (People v. Dela Cruz, GR No. 205414, April 4, 2016).
The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the
buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. The presentation in court of the corpus
delicti — the body or substance of the crime – establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed
(People v Edgardo Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011).

Objective test in proving buy-bust operation

In People v. Doria, the Court laid down the “objective test” in determining the credibility of prosecution
witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is the duty of the prosecution to present a
complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation—“from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and
the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the
sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale” (People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 185717, June 8, 2011).

Failure to establish corpus delicti under RA 9165

It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the
prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise
grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap
renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt (People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012).
A mere fight as a result of an agreement is not necessarily a duel because a duel implies an agreement to
fight under determined conditions and with the participation and intervention of seconds who fixed the
conditions.
Illustration: If the accused and the deceased, after a verbal heated argument in the bar, left the place at the
same time and pursuant to their agreement, went to the plaza to fight each other to death with knives which
they bought on the way, the facts do not constitute the crime of duel since there was no seconds who fixed the
conditions of the fight in a more or less formal manner. If one is killed, the crime committed is homicide.