People v Manlulu

G.R. No. 102140 April 22, 1994

Facts:
GERARDO ALFARO, a NARCOM agent, was stabbed and shot with his service pistol in
a drinking spree. He died in the hospital the following day. His drinking partners,
Rolando Manlulu and Dante Samson, were haled to court for his violent death.
The prosecution charges that Manlulu and Samson conspired in the murder of Agent
Alfaro. The accused on the other hand invoke self-defense. They also insist that the
non-issuance of a search warrant and warrant of arrest should nullify their arrest and
consequently exclude from judicial consideration the evidence thus obtained.
Medico-Legal Officer confirmed that Alfaro sustained (9) wounds, (4) of them fatal.

The Trial Court ruled that the accused Dante Samson was sentenced to a prison term
prision mayor, as minimum, to reclusion temporal, as maximum. While accused
Rolando Manlulu was sentenced to reclusion temporal, as minimum, to reclusion
perpetua as maximum. Both accused were also required to pay compensatory
damages, hospitalization and funeral expenses.

The case was raised to the Appelate Court and sentence was raised to reclusion
perpetua and certified the case to this Court pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 124, of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Issue:
Whether or not Manlulu acted in Self Defence against Alfaro.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified as follows:

MANLULU is found guilty of HOMICIDE and is sentenced to prision mayor, as

minimum, to reclusion temporal, as maximum; SAMSON is found guilty of HOMICIDE
and is sentenced to reclusion temporal medium and, for being a habitual delinquent, is
ordered to serve an additional penalty of (10) years and (1) day of prision mayor
maximum;

Both Accused are directed jointly and severally to pay the heirs of Alfaro for civil
indemnity, as well as death and funeral expenses.

**

People v So

G.R. No. 104664 August 28, 1995

Facts:
Elyboy So stabbed the common law husband of Emy So, his cousin, and pleaded for
Self Defence and Insanity. As a result of the stabbing incident, Mario the deceased
victim suffered several stab wounds numbering (18) on the different parts of his body
with at least (4) fatal wounds causing his death

The Trial Court ruled that So is guilty of the crime of murder and imposing the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and pay sought monetary damages.

Issue:
Whether or not self defence and insanity mitigates his penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Resolution:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed decision is AFFIRMED in
toto, with costs against appellantp. A perusal of appellant's testimony further negates
his plea of insanity. His recall of the events that transpired before, during and after the
stabbing incident, as well as the nature and contents of his testimony, does not betray
an aberrant mind.

**

People v Gutual

G.R. No. 115233 February 22, 1996

Facts:

Celestino Maglinte with a duly established history for violence, died from the single
gunshot wound that was aimed to him by Wilson Gutual a CAFGU officer. Initially the
victim was approaching the Barangay Captain with his right arm raised with a bolo,
when the Plaintiff started firing warning shots, the victim change his course then is now
aiming to Gutual.

The entry in the Death Certificate corroborates the theory of the defense that the victim
was in the act of hacking the accused-appellant when the latter "shot deceased's right
hand for the purpose only of throwing the bolo out of his hand", but the bullet pierced
through and hit the deceased's breast.

Issue:
Whether or not the Plaintiff was acting against self defense.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED, and the Trial Court's decision is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another is hereby entered ACQUITTING him of the
charge.

The accused-appellant has convincingly and sufficiently shown that he killed the victim
in the legitimate exercise of self-defense, a justifying circumstance. Pursuant to
paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellant incurred no
criminal liability.
**

Masipequina v CA

G.R. No. L-51206 August 25, 1989

Facts:

Leopoldo Potane, brother of the Barangay Captain and with a history of attacking using
a bolo was killed by The petitioners Patrolmen

Norberto Mesipequina and

Jovencio Alampayan, who were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) and
were charged with the crime of homicide.

The Trial Court convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion temporal
as maximum, and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased to
monetary damages.

The issue was then raised to the Appellate Court, and modified the penalty of
imprisonment to prison mayor as minimum to reclusion temporal as maximum.

Issue:
whether or not, given the undisputed facts, petitioner Masipequina had acted in lawful
self-defense.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby REVERSED. Petitioners Patrolmen Norberto Masipequina and Jovencio
Alampayan are ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision after concluding that one of the elements of self-defense, i.e.,
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack, was
lacking. However, after a careful consideration of the undisputed facts and the rule on
self-defense by police officers enunciated in Mojica, this Court is convinced that said
element had been established and that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible
error when it rejected petitioners' defense and affirmed the trial court's judgment of
conviction.

**

Paera v People

G.R. No. 181626 May 30, 2011

FACTS:

Petitioner Santiago Paera, the punong barangay of Mampas, Bacong, Negros

Oriental, allocated his constituents’ use of communal water coming from a communal
tank by limiting distribution to the residents of Mampas, Bacong. The tank sits on a land
located in the neighboring barangay of Mampas, Valencia and owned by complainant
Vicente, father of complainant Indalecio. Despite petitioner’s scheme, Indalecio
continued drawing water from the tank. On 7 April 1999, petitioner reminded Indalecio of
the water distribution scheme and cut Indalecio’s access.

The next day, petitioner inspected the tank after constituents complained of water
supply interruption. Petitioner discovered a tap from the main line which he promptly
disconnected. To stem the flow of water from the ensuing leak, petitioner, using a
borrowed bolo, fashioned a wooden plug. It was at this point when Indalecio arrived.

According to the prosecution, petitioner, without any warning, picked-up his bolo and
charged towards Indalecio, shouting "Patyon tikaw!" (I will kill you!). Indalecio ran for
safety, passing along the way his wife, Diosetea Darong (Diosetea) who had followed
him to the water tank. Upon seeing petitioner, Diosetea inquired what was the matter.
Instead of replying, petitioner shouted "Wala koy gipili, bisag babaye ka, patyon tikaw!"
("I don’t spare anyone, even if you are a woman, I will kill you!"). Diosetea similarly
scampered and sought refuge in the nearby house of a relative. Unable to pursue
Diosetea, petitioner turned his attention back to Indalecio. As petitioner chased
Indalecio, he passed Vicente, and, recognizing the latter, repeatedly thrust his bolo
towards him, shouting "Bisag gulang ka, buk-on nako imo ulo!" ("Even if you are old, I
will crack open your skull!").

Petitioner now concedes his liability but only for a single count of the "continued
complex crime" of Grave Threats. Further, petitioner prays for the dismissal of the case
filed by Vicente as the latter’s failure to testify allegedly deprived him of his
constitutional right to confront witnesses. Alternatively, petitioner claims he is innocent
of the charges for having acted in defense of the property of strangers and in lawful
performance of duty, justifying circumstances under paragraphs 3 and 5, Article 11 of
the RPC.

ISSUE:
whether or not the petitioner is guilty of three counts of Grave Threats.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition was denied and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is
hereby affirmed.