Toledo v. People

NOE TOLEDO y TAMBOONG, petitioner vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent| 24 September 2004| J. Callejo, Sr.
Short Version: Toledo stabbed his nephew, Guarte, causing his

death. SC held that the the mitigating circumstance of self-
defense cannot hold for lack of evidence (i.e. failure to produce
the bolo and Guarte's balisong, failure to prove that there was
aggression on the part of Guarte, failure to prove that the
stabbing was accidental).
Facts
Toledo, Ricky Guarte's uncle, was on his way home when he saw
Ricky with his friends at Guarte's parents' house having a
drinking spree (Toledo was neighbors with Guarte's parents).
Toledo told them to keep quiet to which Guarte and his friends
complied.
Prosecution:
Around 9pm, Guarte and his friends heard rocks being thrown at
the house. Upon Guarte's inspection, Toledo was apparently the
one throwing stones. When Guarte approached Toledo in his house,
Toledo suddenly stabbed him with his bolo, causing his death.
Toledo:
Around 9pm, Guarte and his friends were being noisy. Toledo told
them to keep quiet. Guarte, evidently inebriated, approached
Toledo and pulled out a balisong. He pushed the door of Toledo
and threatened to stab him. Toledo tried to block the door with
their sala set. He then went upstairs to get his bolo. While
stopping the door with his left hand, he held the bolo with his
right. The bolo accidentally hit Ricky on the stomach, and the
latter lost his balance and fell to the floor. Toledo surrendered
himself to the barangay captain the following morning.
TC held Toledo guilty of homicide with the mitigating

circumstance of voluntary surrender and is meted the
indeterminate penalty of from six (6) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor minimum, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as maximum.
CA affirmed.
Issue: WON Toledo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide

based on the evidence on record. YES.
Ratio
Toledo testified that his bolo hit the victim accidentally. He

asserted in the RTC and in the CA that he is exempt from criminal
liability for the death of the victim 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 fault or intention of
causing it.
However, before the SC, Toledo changed his defense and now
alleges self-defense. As such, he contends, he is not criminally
liable under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
which reads:
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur

any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided

that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel it:
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.
It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular

theory and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the
court below, he will not be permitted to change his theory on
appeal. The case will be reviewed and decided on that theory and
not approached and resolved from a different point of view. To
permit a party to change his theory on appeal will be unfair to
the adverse party.
It is an aberration for Toledo to invoke the two defenses at the

same time because the said defenses are intrinsically
antithetical. There is no such defense as accidental self-defense
in the realm of criminal law.
Self-defense 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 of reasonable means. The accused has freedom of
action. He is aware of the consequences of his deliberate acts.
The defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and
irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the law.
From necessity, and limited by it, proceeds the right of self-
defense. The right begins when necessity does, and ends where it
ends.
On the other hand, the basis of exempting circumstances under

Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused. The basis of the exemption
is lack of negligence and intent. The accused does not commit
either an intentional or culpable felony. The accused commits a
crime but there is no criminal liability because of the complete
absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act.
An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an

event happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event
which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the
person to whom it happens.
By admitting killing the victim in self-defense or by accident

without fault or without intention of causing it, the burden is
shifted to the accused to prove such affirmative defenses.
Toledo failed to prove that the victim was killed by accident,
without fault or intention on his part to cause it. The
petitioner was burdened to prove with clear and convincing
evidence, the essential requisites for the exempting circumstance
under Article 12, paragraph 4, viz:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
Reasons for SC's conclusion that Toledo's defense had no

probative weight:
(1) If Toledo is to be believed, the struggle between him and

Guarte would cause the door to fall on Toledo. No evidence that
this happened.
(2) If the door fell to the sala, Guarte must have fallen on top
of the door, thus Toledo could not have hit him on the stomach.
(3) When Toledo surrendered, he failed to relate to them that the

bolo accidentally hit Guarte's stomach.
(4) No evidence that Toledo surrendered the bolo or produced

Guarte's balisong, thus, no aggression on Guarte's part.
(5) To prove self-defense, the petitioner was burdened to prove

the essential elements thereof, namely: (1) unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim; (2) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the petitioner; (3) employment by him of reasonable
means to prevent or repel the aggression. Unlawful aggression is
a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of
self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.23 Unlawful
aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack,
or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude.
Toledo was not justified in stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent

threat to his life necessitating his assault on Ricky. Unlawful
aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. For unlawful aggression to be
appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack
or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude. In the absence of such element,
appellant’s claim of self-defense must fail.
Further, his plea of self-defense is not corroborated by

competent evidence. The plea of self-defense cannot be
justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by
any separate competent evidence but is in itself extremely
doubtful.
Paula P.

Toledo v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toledo v. People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toledo v. People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOE TOLEDO y TAMBOONG, petitioner vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Short Version: Toledo stabbed his nephew, Guarte, causing his

TC held Toledo guilty of homicide with the mitigating

Issue: WON Toledo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide

Toledo testified that his bolo hit the victim accidentally. He

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

It is a matter of law that when a party adopts a particular

It is an aberration for Toledo to invoke the two defenses at the

Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal

On the other hand, the basis of exempting circumstances under

An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an

By admitting killing the victim in self-defense or by accident

1. A person is performing a lawful act;

2. With due care;

Reasons for SC's conclusion that Toledo's defense had no

(1) If Toledo is to be believed, the struggle between him and

(3) When Toledo surrendered, he failed to relate to them that the

(4) No evidence that Toledo surrendered the bolo or produced

(5) To prove self-defense, the petitioner was burdened to prove

Toledo was not justified in stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent

Further, his plea of self-defense is not corroborated by

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.