Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

14. A stabbed B because they had a heated argument about their inheritance.

A however left B, who did

not die, and went home already. After 3 hours, B, whose wound is still fresh, went to the house of A and
shot him to death. Can B invoke Paragraph 1, Article 11? Explain. RAMIENTO

No. Well settled is the rule that when an unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has
the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. From the facts given, it is evident that when A, after
stabbing B, left the latter, the unlawful aggression has ceased to exist. B’s act in shooting A constitutes
retaliation from the fact that the peril to B’s life or limb has long ended 3 hours after A left B. Retaliation
is not a justifying circumstance. Therefore, the defense under Paragraph 1, Article 11 is untenable and
cannot be invoked by B.

37 PHIL 382, G.R. NO. 12936
10 JANUARY 1918

Facts: The defendant, Mariano Batungbacal, is a councilor in the municipality of Balanga,

Bataan. The defendant had in his service the spouses Pedro Dilig and Hilaria Tianko for eight
years, of which Hilaria’s service is to take care of the defendant’s two children. On February 25,
1917, when Dilig arrived at the house, he missed some hen’s eggs which his wife Hilaria had
eaten. Enraged, he told that he was going to cut his wife, with a bolo in his hand. Hilaria
attempted to escape, of which she failed to do and struggled with Pedro for the bolo at the
kitchen. After she failed to get the bolo from Pedro, Hilaria managed to escape and take the
defendant’s children with her. With Pedro in pursuit of Hilaria and the children, Hilaria
awakened the defendant when she thought that Pedro was about to strike her with the bolo. The
defendant upon waking up seized a loaded shotgun that was near him and ordered Pedro to drop
the bolo and fired at him, to which the victim died immediately. The trial court held that the
usage of a shotgun as a means to prevent harm was not necessary, therefore the justifying
circumstances do not apply and are not in favor of the defendant.


1. Whether the aggression was real on the part of deceased when he pursued Hilaria Tianko
and the two children.
2. Whether the defendant acted in lawful defense of his two children and Hilaria Tianko.

1. Yes, the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non in justifying
circumstances and it must be determined that an aggression must be real, not merely
imaginary. Thus, the fact that the deceased was infuriated at the time as he was pursuing
Hilaria and the two children with a bolo, signifies his intention to assault them with the
weapon. It is not necessary that the victim must within be the pursuer’s reach.
2. Yes, there must be a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel for
the act of defense of a person or rights of a person within the fourth civil degree or a
stranger. When the defendant saw that Hilaria and the two children were indeed being
pursued, there was a manifestation of imminent danger. At the time, all the defendant had
was a shotgun on hand. Seeing that the aggressor was closing in on Hilaria and his
children, the usage of the shotgun would be the option available to him even when there
was a risk of killing the aggressor. Another reason to believe that there was imminent
danger on the lives of Hilaria and his two children is that the deceased already assaulted
Hilaria beforehand at the kitchen of the house. Thus, the defendant is exempted from
criminal liability.