Case No.

172
Valcorza vs People
GR No. L-28129 October 21, 1969

Facts: Deceased Pimentel was charged with a minor offense, namely, stealing a chicken. He
escaped from detention and threw himself into a creek to elude his pursuer. After sometime he
suddenly emerged from bushes near which Valcorza and his companion were, the latter then
pursued the prisoner. Valcorza fired five cautionary shots into the air and decided to aim directly
at Pimentel only when he had already reasons to fear that the latter would be able elude him
and his companions. Consequently thereafter, the victim died.

Issue: Whether or not Valcorza can invoke the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty?

Ruling: Yes. The facts and circumstances constrain us to hold that the act thus performed by
petitioner- and which unfortunately resulted in the death of the victim- was committed in the
performance of his official duty and was more or less necessary to prevent the latter from
successfully eluding the officers of the law. To hold him guilty of homicide may have the effect of
demoralizing police officers discharging their official functions. Thus, the petitioner can invoke
the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty.

____________________________________________________________________________
__

Case No. 173

People vs Crisostomo
GR No. L- 38180 October 23, 1981

Facts: On May 27, 1972, Crisostomo and Ragsac took turns in stabbing Waje. Waje was
brought to the prison hospital but he died on arrival. Crisostomo alleged that he acted in self-
defense. He alleged that four days prior to incident, he gave P62.00 to Waje in exchange of
sugar and cigarettes. On May 27, the former asked about the request and the latter responded
that he lost the money. When the former inquired on how he lost the money, the latter became
irritated and threatened Crisostomo to add him to the persons he had killed. At the same time,
Waje struck him with a chaco. The accused allegedly saw Waje pulling something from his
body, so the former immediately brought out his own weapon and stabbed Waje with it.

Issue: Whether the accused can invoke self-defense?

Ruling: No. Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an

immediate and imminent kind. In this case, although it is claimed by the accused that after he
was hit by a chaco, he grabbed the same, the chaco was never presented to the prison
investigator. Nor was the said chaco ever mentioned in the exhibits presented. Thus, there was
no sufficient showing that Waje was armed at the time he was killed. The victim not being
armed, the act of the accused is not justified on the ground of self-defense.
Case No. 174
People vs Pasco Jr.
GR No. 45715 June 24, 1985

Facts: On September 13, 1974. Aproniano, Careso and his companions reached the Layawan
River when Pasco Jr. (accused) and Pablo suddenly emerged from the bushes growing in an
island in the middle of the river, and attacked them. The accused stabbed Maylon, but the latter
was not hit. He then turned on Aproniano, but the blow was parried. Then, Pasco stabbed
Careso which resulted to his death. The accused admitted to the killings but that he acted in
self-defense. He alleged that two of the men attacked him so that he stabbed them in return.

Issue: Whether or not the accused can invoke self-defense?

Ruling: No. The accused had failed to establish the elements of self-defense which will
exculpate him. In order that the plea of self-defense can prosper, it must be positively shown
that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the defendant’s life in
danger and forced him to inflict more or less severe wounds upon his assailant, employing
therefor reasonable means to resist the said attack.