People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Retubado Facts: Someone played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the appellant’s younger brother who was mentally ill. Someone inserted a lighted firecracker in a cigarette pack and gave it to Edwin. While Edwin and his father were having dinner, it eploded. !he suspect was their neighbor Emmanuel "aon, #r. !he matter was brought to the attention of the barangay captain who conducted an investigation. $t turned out that Emmanuel "aon, #r. was %&! the culprit. !he appellant, however, was bent on confronting Emmanuel "aon, #r. !hereafter, the father of Emmanuel #r., '( y.o. Emmanuel "aon, Sr., )pedicab driver* was confronted by #esus when the former was on his way home. Emmanuel Sr. ignored #esus so the latter pushed the pedicab which nearly fell into a canal. #esus followed Emmanuel Sr. to his house. +is wife, %orberta "aon was in the balcony of their house, above the porch waiting for him to arrive. Emmanuel, #r., #r., meanwhile, was already asleep. Emmanuel Sr. demanded to know why he was being followed. #esus told Emmanuel that he just wanted to talk to Emmanuel #r., but Emmanuel Sr. told the appellant that his son was already asleep. %orberta went down from the balcony and placed her hand on her husbands shoulder to pacify him. #esus forthwith pulled out a handgun from under his !shirt and shot Emmanuel on the forehead. !he latter fell to the floor as the appellant walked away from the scene. Emmanuel was brought to the !uburan -istrict +ospital, but he died shortly thereafter. #esus surrendered to the police but failed to surrender the firearm he used to kill the victim. #esus admitted shooting the victim but claimed that he was merely performing a lawful act with due care hence, cannot be held criminally liable for the victims death. +e testified that when he insisted that Emmanuel wake up his son, Emmanuel went to his room and emerged therefrom holding a handgun. #esus grabbed Emmanuel’s hand, they struggled for the gun but eventually, Emmanuel fell on his knees. #esus pulled the gun to the level of Emmanuel’s forehead, and the gun suddenly went off. #esus then rushed to his house to change clothes. +e placed the gun on the dining table. When he went back to the dining room his sister told him that their brother Edwin had taken the gun and thrown it into the sea. !rial court convicted #esus of murder, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. perpetua. Issue: . W&% #esus #esus was merely merely performi performing ng a lawful act act with due due care hence, hence, cannot cannot be held criminal criminally ly liable for the victims death %o/ 0. W&% #esus is liable liable for murder murder %o/ +omicide +omicide only Ruling: !he phrase state of necessity is of 1erman origin. "ountries which have embraced the classical theory of criminal law, like $taly, do not use the phrase. !he justification refers to a situation of grave peril (un mal), mal), actual actual or immin imminent ent (actual o imminente). imminente). !he word word propiedad covers diverse juridical rights (bienes juridicos) such juridicos) such as right to life, honor, the integrity of ones body, and property (la vida, la integridad corporal, el pudor, el honor, bienes patrimoniales) belonging to another. $t is indispensable that the state of necessity must not be brought about by the intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. !he defense of a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance under 2rticle , paragraph 3 of the R4". $t is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. 5y admitting causing the injuries and killing the victim, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution. Whether the accused acted under a state of necessity is a 6uestion of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. !here is no basis to deviate from the findings of the trial court that the appellant was the provocateur, the unlawful aggressor and the author of a deliberate and malicious act of shooting the victim at close range on the forehead. !he court came to this conclusion based on7 . %orber %orberta ta "aon’s "aon’s testim testimony ony.. 0. !here !here is no evidence evidence that the appellant appellant inform informed ed the police police authorities authorities that that he killed killed the victim victim in a state of necessity and that his brother, Edwin, threw the gun into the sea. 8. !he appella appellant nt had the motiv motive e to shoot shoot and and kill kill the victim. victim. !here is no treachery in the present case to 6ualify the crime to murder. !o !o appreciate treachery, two )0* conditions must be present, namely, )a* the employment of the means of eecution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and )b* the means of eecution were deliberately or consciously adopted. !he prosecution failed to adduce an iota of evidence to support the confluence of the abovementioned conditions. !he appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
