plaint ntif ifff-ap appe pellllee ee,, vs. ROBERTO E. DELA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plai CRUZ, accused-appellant. G.R. No. 128359, 6 December 2000
Facts: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
dela Cruz and San Antonio were currently living together when Macapagal (victim, San Antonio’s e!live!in partner" went to their apartment, holding a gun (#mm cali$er pistol" and $anged the door o% the $edroom ahere dela Cruz was demanding him to go out &ela Cruz opened the door, and upon seeing that Macapagal was pointing the gun at him, he immediately went $ac' to the room and closed the door. he net time he went out, he, too, was already holding a gun (.)* cali$er revolver". he two immediately grappled each other and not long a%ter, shots were heard and Macapagal %ell dead on the %loor. Appe Appellllan antt told told San San Anton ntonio io to call call the the poli police ce and and when when they they arri arrive ve,, he surr surren ende dere red d the gun he used and told the police that he shot Macapagal in sel% de%ense. Acco Accord rdin ing g to the the auto autops psy y, Maca Macapa paga gall sust sustai aine ned d + woun wounds ds.. ) o% whic which h were were non! non! penetrating (upper aw, $elow the le%t shoulder, right side o% the waist". he shot that too' his li%e was on the le%t side o% the chest penetrating the heart. &ela Cruz had no license to carry the %irearm.
-ssue: /0 the accused is a$le to prove to the court the elements o% sel%!de%ense in order to etenuate him %rom the crime. 1eld: 0o. 2atio: hree conditions must concur to etenuate him: 3. 4nlaw%ul 4nlaw%ul aggression aggression $y the the person person inured inured or 'illed 'illed presuppose an actual, sudden, and unepected attac' or imminent danger on the li%e and lim$ o% a person 5 not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude 5 $ut most importantly at the time the de%ensive action was ta'en against the aggressor. -n this case, the victim $anged at the $edroom door with his gun $ut the appellant, upon seeing the victim pointing a gun at him was a$le to prevent at this stage harm to himsel% $y promptly closing the door. 1e could have stopped there. -nstead, he con%ronted the victim. 3. 2easona$le 2easona$le necessity necessity o% the the means employ employed ed to prevent prevent or repel repel that unlaw%ul unlaw%ul aggression he num$er o% wounds sustained $y the victim would negate this component o% sel% de%ense. he %our gunshot wounds indicate a determined e%%ort to 'ill. 3. 6ac' o% su%% su%%icient icient provocat provocation ion on the the part o% the person person de%ending de%ending himsel% himsel% hen the appellant con%ronted the victim, instead o% ta'ing precautionary measures, appellant could no longer argue that there was no provocation on his part Claim o% sel% de%ense reected •
•
•
•
•
•
