People vs.

Mediado
G.R. No. 169871. February 2, 2011.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE N. MEDIADO, accused-appellant.
Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.
FACTS:
Jimmy Llorin (Jimmy), the victim, was having a conversation with Rodolfo Mediado (Rodolfo) at around
9:00 am on March 20, 1997 at the dancing hall in Camarines Sur. At that moment, Jose Mediado (Jose)
emerge from behind Jimmy and hack him twice in the head with a bolo. The victims wife believed that
Jose had attacked the victim for fear that he would report to the authorities that Jose had attacked one
Vicente Paraal during the town fiesta two days earlier.
Jose confessed to killing Jimmy but claimed self-defense and defense of a relative. The accused related
when he passed by the barangay hall, Jimmy punch and hit the formers father (Rodolfo) with a stone.
The victim allegedly threw a stone at the accused and to fend off the attack, Jose then unsheathed his
bolo and hacked Jimmy until he fell to the ground and that he remained in the place for 10 minutes and
later yielded to Clorado who accompanied him to the police station.
Both the RTC and the CA rejected Joses claim of self-defense and defense of a relative, and found that
treachery was employed by Jose when he attacked Jimmy from behind.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in finding him guilty of murder and failing to appreciate the
justifying circumstance of self-defense.

HELD:
No. The court affirmed the decision of the CA to reject Joses claim of self-defense and defense of a
relative because he did not substantiate it with clear and convincing proof. Having admitted the killing
required him to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the Prosecutions
evidence.
It is also notable that unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances
of self-defense and defense of a relative. There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed
unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. He did not establish with clear and
convincing proof that Jimmy had assaulted him or his father as to pose to either of them an imminent
threat of great harm before he mounted his own attack on Jimmy. The nature, number, and gravity of
Jimmys wounds spoke not of defense on the part of Jose but of a criminal intent to kill Jimmy. They
indicated beyond doubt the treacherous manner of the assault, that is, that Jose thereby ensured that
the killing would be without risk and would deny to Jimmy any opportunity to defend himself.