G.R. No.

72244 May 8, 1992

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, 

vs.
JOSE AGRIPA, accused-appellant.

CRUZ, J.:

FACTS
about one o'clock in the morning of April 30, 1980. Jose was
locked in a final embrace with his wife, who was already dead.
Adelfa had sustained fifteen wounds and had expired due to shock
and massive hemorrhage. Jose himself had four wounds in his
body and was hardly alive. Because he refused to release his hold
on his dead wife, the couple was rolled in a mat and rushed to the
hospital.
That same morning, Corporal Wilfredo Bermas, took the
appellants statements whom he believed to be on the verge of
death. Based on the statement from a dying man. He admitted
that he was the one who stabbed his wife and himself. The
statement was not signed by Jose. On Bermas's request, it was
witnessed by the barangay captain, Salustiano Botin, who was
present during the recorded conversation.
Jose survived to face prosecution for parricide two months later.
He was convicted on July 18, 1985 The principal evidence
presented against him at the trial was the above-quoted
statement, which was offered as a dying declaration or as part of
the res gestae.
In his defense, Jose gave a different version of the killing of his
wife. Based on his testimony, he was stabbed by his wife Adelfa
while sleeping. He grabbed the attacker and wrestled it to prevent
it from striking more blows to his body and ended up killing her.
His statements were corroborated by his 18-year old son, Edwin,
who testified that there was no quarrel between his parents, and
that he had personally witnessed the stabbings.
The boy also mentioned other violent instances that her mother
showed against the family specially to his father. Another Manual
Cardel also testified against Adelfa, stating that he was in the store
of one Macedonio in the afternoon of April 29, 1980, when he
heard Adelfa say she would stab Jose if he came home without any
money. 
ISSUES
WON the evidence presented against the accused be
admissible and be res gestae.

RULING
No, he mere fact that evidence is admissible does not necessarily
mean that it is also credible. According to Rule 128, Sec. 3,
"evidence is admissible if it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules.
As the Court sees it, Jose's statement, while admissible as part of
the res gestae, is not credible evidence of his criminal liability. It
is quite obvious that he was not in full possession of his faculties
when he made that statement, which, significantly, he did not
sign.
It is true that when the accused invokes the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, he loses the constitutional
presumption of innocence and assumes the burden of proving,
with clear and convincing evidence, the justification for his act.
elements of self-defense, according to Article 11(1) of the Revised
Penal Code, are: 
a) unlawful aggression:
b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it; and
c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
all these requisites are present and have been sufficiently
established in the case at bar.

The Court sees in this case a man dominated if not terrified by a

wife given to cruelty and violence. It is not unlikely that she was
paranoid. The appealed decision is REVERSED and accused-
appellant Jose Agripa is ACQUITTED on the ground of self-
defense. It is the order of this Court that he be released
immediately. No costs.
GR No. 51206, Aug 25, 1989 ]

NORBERTO MASIPEQUIÑA v. CA

Petitioners Patrolmen
Norberto Masipequiña and Jovencio Alampayan, who were
members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of San
Isidro, Bohol, were charged with the crime of homicide for the
death of Leopoldo Potane
In the afternoon of December 21, 1976, Barangay Capt.
Nicolas Potane of Barrio Abehilan, San Isidro, Bohol and his
father, Pedro Potane requested assistance from the Police Sub-
station Commander of San Isidro in
apprehending LeopoldoPotane, son of Pedro Potane and elder
brother of Nicolas, who has begun to show signs of recurring
insanity.

ISSUEs
WON, there was unlawful aggression on the part of Potane?
WON ther was reasonable necessity of the means employed
by Masipequiña to prevent or repel Potane's attack
WON Alampayan could be separately convicted of the lesser
offense of less serious or slight physical injuries

RULING:
YES, Leopoldo Potane, who had showed signs of mental illness
and had threatened his immediate relatives with a bolo, suddenly
and without provocation attacked with a bolo Masipequiña

YES,
ART. 11.  Justifying circumstances.  ? The following do not incur
any criminal liability:
1.  Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
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.

(a) [T]here was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim

which was a real and imminent threat to the life of
Pat. Masipequiña.  The victim was brandishing a bolo which he
did use in fact to hit the latter;
(b) The use of his revolver to repel the aggression was a
reasonable necessity.  His life already exposed to danger in the
face of a continuous assault, it is likely that had he not shot the
victim, he would have been killed, considering the deranged mind
of the aggressor. Moreover, after he shot the victim, he ran away
to avoid being hit farther (sic), an act obviously inconsistent
with a deliberate intent to kill;
(c) Pat. Masipequiña did not provoke the victim into attacking
him.  In fact, before he went inside the house, he
asked Leopoldo to come out to talk things over.  He even asked for
a drink.  It was only when the victim himself asked
Pat. Masipequiña to go up the house that the latter entered
the sala.

NO,
that Alampayan was not motivated by any evil motive is shown by
the fact that he, together with Masipequiña, only proceeded to the
place where the incident happened to look
for Leopoldo Potane because they had been ordered by their
substation commander to apprehend Leopoldo Potane who had
shown signs of mental derangement and had threatened his
relatives with a bolo.  In short, the two policemen were in the
performance of their official and lawful duties.

The petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of

Appeals is hereby REVERSED.  Petitioners Patrolmen
Norberto Masipequiña and JovencioAlampayan are ACQUITTED
of the crime charged.