NOE TOLEDO Y TAMBOONG V.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 158057 SEPTEMBER 24, 2004
Noel Toledo was charge in information for the homicide of Ricky F. Guarte. Upon
arraignment, Toledo claimed that he stabbed the victim by accident thus he is not
criminal liable for the accidental death of Ricky and he invoked self-defense. The
Regional Trial Court found Toledo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide with
the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. The Trial Court did not give
credence and probative weight to the testimony of Toledo brought about his bolo
accidentally hit the victim the same as failed to prove that he acted in self-defense.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court stating that with the failure of the
petitioner to prove self-defense and established that the unlawful aggression
emanated from Toledo and not from the victim hence, the present petition.

Whether or not Toledo exempt from criminal liability on the basis of self-defense and
killed the victim by accident?

No. In the present case, Toledo would like the Court to believe that he acted in
complete self-defense when the victim was accidentally hit by his bolo. By invoking
self-defense, Toledo surrender and admits killing. The burden of evidence shifts to
Toledo that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability. Thus,
under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code which reads: 4. any person
who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without faulty or intention of causing it. As a result of unwanted accident which
shows that there is no intention or fault that he acted self defense on accidental
death. Hence, it is present upon Toledo to prove the elements of self defense: (1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person claiming self-defense.
Furthermore, there is no such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of
criminal law. Under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the revised penal code necessarily
implies a deliberate and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an
unlawful aggression of another with the use reasonable means. This shows that
Toledo has freedom of action, Intelligence, voluntariness and free will to the event.
In addition, Self-defense to be successfully invoked must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of
the person invoking it. Toledo failed to present adequate evidence to prove
otherwise. Thus, his claim of self-defense cannot stand.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAMON REGALARIO, et. Al.

G.R No. 174483

March 31, 2009

Appellants Ramon, Marciano, Sotero, Bienvenido and Noel, all surnamed Regalario
which are barangay officials of Natasan, Libon, Albay was charge murder of Rolando
Sevilla. On the Night of Singing contest at around ten oclock Rolando Sevilla and
eyewitnesses Armando Poblete were enjoying the festivies when appellant Sotero
approached them and to avoid trouble Sevilla and Poblete distanced themselves
from Sotero. But Sevilla was continuously Striking of Sotero and Bienvenidos bahi
the strikes and blows caused Sevilla to fall down and eventually regain his position
and ran away in the direction of the house of kapitan Marciano Regalario. The
prosecutions witnesses Ronnie Siglos and Armando Poblete provides clear,
consistency, positive identification, categorical and spontaneous testimony given of
each participation of appellants.

To be continue