People vs Decena

People vs Decena

ISSUE: WON Decena acted in self-defense in killing Ballesteros FACTS: 

 



On Christmas day, Decena was charged with the murder of Ballesteros with the penalty of reclusion perpetua with damages. He filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied due to lack of merit. Prosecution: The victim’s daughter saw her father walking drunk from the basketball court because o he was watching a game o She saw Decena rushed to her father with a long blade and started stabbing the deceased. o She then asked for help from her mother but when they brought him to the hospital, he was dead on arrival Defense: o Victim held Decena by the neck with one arm for no reason and poking a fork with another arm o A barangay tanod intervened and asked the victim to go home o Decena later followed. o Uncle of the Decena stated that he saw the victim attacked Decena with a Balisong but Decena was able to avoid injury o He claimed he did it in self-defense

RULING: No.  Sentenced modified from murder to homicide Lowered sentence to 8-14yrs and 8 months   Victim was already having a hard time walking that killing another would be difficult  Accused was insulted with what happened therefore sought revenge and not self-defense In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which may rely on the strength of its evidence and not on  the weakness of the defense. However, upon invoking self self  -defense, the accused admits that he killed the victim and the burden of proof is upon him in proving that he really acted in self self  -defense. Basic requirement for self self -defense as a justifying circumstance is unlawful aggression against the person defending  himself. It must be shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked unprovoked attack that placed the life of of the o accused in danger forcing him to inflict wounds upon his assailant According to the defense, the unlawful aggression started when the victim started poking the appellant o with a fork Elementary rule: when the aggressor leaves, the aggression ceases. It follows that when appellant and Jaime heeded the advice of o f the barangay tanod, the unlawful aggression had ended. Since the aggression no longer existed, appellant had no right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. The defense failed to establish that the victim persisted in his design to attack the appellant • Defense: continuing aggression • Whenever the victim was drunk, he would look for trouble (refuted by the testimony of the wife) • Witnesses: Jaime was staggering or wobbling as he walked – the victim could not have persisted in attacking the appellant with his current state. • Testimony of the uncle: imaginative or coached witness 



