CASE #1:People vs. RetubadoG.R.124058Sept10,2003CASE #2:People vs. UlepG.R.

132547Sep20,2000
People vs. Ernesto UlepG.R. no. 132547September 20, 2000
FACTS:
SPO1 Ernesto Ulep is found guilty for the murder of Buenaventura Wapili. The case is
inevitablysubjected for review to the Supreme Court due to the imposed penalty of death.The
deceased was not feeling well and talking insensibly to himself inside the room. After a little
whilehe was smashing the furniture and acting like crazy. His brother in-law named Dario tried
to pacify himbut he failed that is why he asked for some help from their neighbor
–
a policewoman. Thispolicewoman radioed SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, SPO1 Edilberto Espadera and
SPO2 Crispin Pillo. The threeresponding policemen were armed with M-16 rifles. SPO1 Ulep
fired a warning shot and told the victimto put down his weapon otherwise he will be shot.
However, the victim refused and instead advancedtowards the police officers. SPO1 Ulep shot
the victim. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulepcame closer and fired another bullet
into his head. The case was filed against SPO1 Ulep through theoffice of the Ombudsman for the
Military. The accused argued that he was not guilty since he acted inself-defense.
Issues:
Whether or not the circumstance of fulfillment of duty should be appreciated in the case.
Ruling:
No. since the second requisite is absent which states that the injury caused or the offense
committed isthe necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.In this case, when SPO1 shot the victim in the head even the latter slumped
to the ground isunreasonable act. However, when the accused fired a warning shot, it shows that
he has no motive andintentio
n to kill the victim. The court reiterated that the appellant’s decision to kill was made in aninstant
and the victim’s helpless position was merely incidental to his having been previously shot. In
this respect, there is an incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty which is
deemed as

special or privileged mitigating circumstance. Such circumstance reduces the penalty by one or
twodegrees than that prescribed by law in accordance to Article 69 of the RPC. In addition, the
courtacknowledged the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.The
Supreme Court held that SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP is found guilty of HOMICIDE, instead of
Murder, andis sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) years, two (2) months and
ten (10) days of prision correccional medium as minimum, to six (6) years, four (4) months and
twenty (20) days of prision mayor minimum as maximum. He is further ordered to indemnify the
heirs of BuenaventuraWapili in the amount of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.
 Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the Revised
Penal Code

Facts:

Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded his husband which
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did not provoke her husband when
she got home that night and it was her husband who began the provocation. The appellant said
she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would
deliver her baby safely.

The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five
times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The appellant said that
the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy
about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist,
has been shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of
self-defense admitted the killing of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide,
with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.
(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

Held:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense
arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence
must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and
her intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer
must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her
batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the
time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual
– grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former against
the latter.

For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance because the
quarrel or argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant’s
aggression.
People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004
Case Digest / Digested Case Version
A Landmark Case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Story: The Battered Woman Syndrome

The wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years. She was 8 months
pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home drunk and started to batter her. Shouting
that his wife "might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag" him, he dragged her
towards a drawer where he kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because it was
locked. So he got out a cutter from his wallet, but dropped it. She was able to hit his arm with a
pipe and escape into another room. The wife, thinking of all the suffering that her husband had
been inflicting on her, and thinking that he might really kill her and her unborn child, distorted
the drawer and got the gun. She shot her husband, who was by then asleep on the bed. She was
tried and convicted for parricide, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day
to 40 years) to death. On appeal, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of self-
defense. (For Full Case, just click here.

FACTS:

That Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15November1995, attacked and wounded his
husband, which ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant she did not provoke her
husband when she got home that night it was her husband who began the provocation. The
Appellant said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure
she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, The Appelant had to be admitted later at the Rizal
Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born
prematurely on December 1, 1995.

The Appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five
(5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The Apellant said that
the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because 'he was crazy
about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos.

The Appellant after being interviewed by specialists, has been shown to be suffering from
Battered Woman Syndrome.
The appellant with a plea of self defense admitted the killing of her husband, she was then found
guilty of Parricide, with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked
while asleep.

ISSUES:

Can Marivic Genosa be granted the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense, and can she be
held liable for the aggravating circumstance of treachery?

No, Since self- defense since the existence of Battered woman syndrome, which the appellant
has been shown to be suffering in the relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of the
woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-
defense.
In the present case, however, according to the testimony of the appellant there was a sufficient
time interval between the unlawful aggression of the husband and her fatal attack upon him. She
had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their children's
bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even
the imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that
presented an actual threat on her life or safety.

Without continuous aggression there can be no self-defense. And absence of aggression

does not warrant complete or incomplete self-defense.

No, There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense
that the offended party might make.

The circumstances must be shown as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced
from mere inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of evidence.
Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a
quarrel, treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased
may be said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the assailant.

In the present case, however it was not conclusively shown, that the appellant intentionally chose
a specific means of successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from any
retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the thought of using the gun
occurred to her only at about the same moment when she decided to kill her spouse. In the
absence of any convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the method by
which she committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the doubt should be resolved in
her favor.

HELD:

The conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However,
there being two (2) mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending her
commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

ADDENDUM:

When can BWS (Battered Woman Syndrome) as self defense be appreciated?

Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical
assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she
can defend her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still, impending
danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the
defendant's use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can
satisfy the required imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the existence of
BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.
HIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 11 Par. 1 and ARTICLE 13 Par(s): 3 and 4
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

"FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY (11")

"CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY (13)"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Oriente

G.R.No. 155094 30January2007

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case is about Manuel Oriente’s appeal of his conviction for the crime of homicide. The
appellant w/ other persons, attacked and assaulted Romulo Vallo, hitting him with a lead pipe on
different parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were
the direct and immediate cause of his death (as confirmed by the medico- legal). In the case there
was one witness for the prosecution; Arnel Tanael.
When the case was tried at the C.A. the court (C.A.) found that the R.T.C erred in finding two
mitigating circumstances were present, namely, lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party, so the court modified the
penalty imposed by the R.T.C.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

[in this particular case there are a number of issues, but the most compelling is the 2nd and 4th
issues]

DID THE C.A. AND THE R.T.C ERR IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS AN
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM, AND THE MEANS
EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT TO PREVENT THE SAME WAS REASONABLE AND
FALLS UNDER THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OR SELF-DEFENSE

- No. Since when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show
that the killing is legally justified. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The
appellant cannot rely on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution.
- All three requirements for self- defense must concur; but unlawful aggression is condition sine
qua non.
- The fact that the deceased was not able to make use of his gun after being hit in the forehead by
the weapon of the appellant as alleged by the defense makes their claim of self-defense unusual
- Injuries sustained by the deceased were extensive
- Importantly, the appellant failed to establish the existence of the gun, that was alleged to have
constituted the “unlawful aggression”

CAN THE ACCUSED BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY OF MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCE, DUE TO THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS LACK OF INTENT IN
THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AND THAT
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE DECEASED?

- Modification of the penalties was based on the presence of mitigating or aggravating

circumstances.
- The claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated because the acts
employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the
death of the victim
- Provocation in this case cannot be appreciated as well since provocation is deemed sufficient if
it is adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, w/c must be proportionate in gravity
- The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself the sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party as contemplated by law. Also, appellant failed to
establish by competent evidence that the deceased had a gun and used it to threaten petitioner.

HELD:
PETITION DENIED. DECISION AND RESOLUTION OF C.A. ARE AFFIRMED W/
MODIFICATIONS, the C.A. erred in imposing 12 years and one day of reclusion temporal as
the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. In the computation of the maximum term, the
law prescribes that the attending circumstances should be considered. There being no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance in this case, the penalty that should be imposed is the
medium period of the penalty prescribed by law, that is, reclusion temporal in its medium period,
or, anywhere between fourteen years, eight months and one day to seventeen years and four
months
PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ
• People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee
• Mamerto Narvaez - defendent-appellant

Date: April 20, 1983

G.R. NOS. L-33466-67 (121 SCRA 389)

Ponente: Makasiar, J.

Court Deciding: En Banc

Relief: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal
Cases Nos. 1815 and 1816 for murder

Doctrine: Justifying Circumstances - Unlawful Aggression against property rights: Defense of property
can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person
of one entrusted with said property.
*It must be noted that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim
had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.
*Also, the party should have been the subject of a real and imminent threat, which represents the
unlawful aggression made upon him. There must also be reasonableness in his use of a knife or
any other weapon as his means to defend himself. And finally, there should be no provocation on
his part that caused his aggressor to harm him.

Fast Facts: Narvaez was formerly convicted of murder for the death of Fleischer and Rubia. Defendant
claimed that he shot the two as an act of self-defense as a means to protect himself and his
property therefore he should be exempt from criminal liability. The two were building a fence
around his property and asked them to stop but did not and was thereby provoked by Fleischer’s
unlawful aggression. While the two requirements for invoking self-defense was present (unlawful
aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself),
Narvaez’s act was considered as an incomplete self-defense because it lacked reasonable
necessity of the means employed. The crime committed is now homicide and his sentence was
lowered but because he has been under detention longer than the prescribed period of his
imprisonment for said new crime, the court ordered for his immediate release.

Normal Facts:
• Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder for the death of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia.
• On Aug. 22, 1968, Narvaez was taking a nap in the afternoon when he heard sounds of construction
and found a fence being made. Fleischer and Rubia were constructing a fence that would
prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. Defendant addressed the group
and asked them to stop and talk things over. Fleischer responded with, “No, gadamit,
 proceed, go ahead.” Narvaez lost his equilibrium and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
jeep where a gun was available but Narvaez shot him before reaching such.
• It is said that the incident is intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between Fleischer and
Co., Inc. and the land settlers of Cotobato among whom was Narvaez. At the time of the
shooting, the civil case between the parties was still pending for annulment where the settlers
wanted granting of property to Fleischer to be annulled. At the time of the shooting, Narvaez
had leased his property from Fleischer to avoid conflict. On June 25, Narvaez received a
letter terminating the contract because he has not paid rent for six months to the company.
He was given 6 months to remove his house, ricemill, bodega, and water pitcher pumps. The
shooting happened barely 2 months after the letter.
• Narvaez claimed that he acted in defense of his person and property but the CFI of Cotabato ruled
that he was guilty of murder. He was originally sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify
the heirs, and to pay for moral damages.

Issues: WON the lower court erred in convicting Narvaez of murder despite the fact the he acted in
defense of his person and rights.

Held: YES

Ratio: Narvaez admitted having shot the two deceased but did so in defense of his person and of his
property however, he cannot be exempted from criminal liability because the argument of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requisites are present (unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself). Although there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victims towards Narvaez’s property rights and lack (or absence
even) of provocation since appellant was resting, it was not a reasonable necessity for him to kill
the two. Since not all requisites were present, defendant is credited with the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Also, there was no direct evidence of planning or
preparing to kill. The crime committed was homicide and the penalty for such is reclusion
temporal but due to mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation and
incomplete self-defense, penalty was lowered to arresto mayor. Appellant has been under
detention for almost 14 years thus his immediate release was ordered by the Court.

Dissenting opinions:
• Abad Santos, J. - The self-defense of the RPC refers to unlawful aggression on persons, not property.
• Gutierrez, JR., J. - Agrees with the order to release appellant but believes that the mere utterance of
“No, gademit, proceed, go ahead” is not the unlawful aggression which entitles appellant to
the plea of self-defense. Crime is only homicide but should be without any privileged
mitigating circumstance.