Scribd
Upload
482 views2 pages

People V Decena

The defendant stabbed and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the court found the defendant did not prove self-defense for three reasons: 1) any initial aggression from the victim had ended when both men left per the barangay tanod's advice, so the defendant no longer faced unlawful aggression when he killed the victim; 2) witnesses refuted claims the victim persisted in attacking the defendant; and 3) the uncle's testimony supporting the defendant appeared coached. The court therefore did not absolve the defendant of criminal liability for killing the victim.

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
482 views2 pages

People V Decena

The defendant stabbed and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the court found the defendant did not prove self-defense for three reasons: 1) any initial aggression from the victim had ended when both men left per the barangay tanod's advice, so the defendant no longer faced unlawful aggression when he killed the victim; 2) witnesses refuted claims the victim persisted in attacking the defendant; and 3) the uncle's testimony supporting the defendant appeared coached. The court therefore did not absolve the defendant of criminal liability for killing the victim.

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Facts:

 On Christmas day, around 4pm, Luzviminda (14 y.o., daughter of the Jaime
Ballesteros, victim), saw Decena rushing towards her father with a long bladed
weapon prompting her to warn her father.
 Decena, however, stabbed him on the right chest causing his death.
 Narration of the defense:
 At about 4pm, the victim was drunk and for no apparent reason, he held
the appellant by the neck and poked a fork against it. A barangay tanod
intervened and advised the appellant to go home. Appellant left but was later
followed by Jaime (victim).
 Biala, uncle of the appellant, testified that he saw Jaime attacking the
appellant with a balisong. Appellant was able to parry the blow, and
overpowering Jaime, thruste the knife into his body.

Issue: W/N the appellant acted in complete self-defense that in killing Jaime
Ballesteros absolving him from criminal liability.

Held: No.

Ratio:

 In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which may rely on
the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. However,
upon invoking self-defense, the accused admits that he killed the victim and the
burden of proof is upon him in proving that he really acted in self-defense.
 Basic requirement for self-defense as a justifying circumstance is unlawful
aggression against the person defending himself.
 It must be shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked
attack that placed the life of the accused in danger forcing him to inflict
wounds upon his assailant
 According to the defense, the unlawful aggression started when the
victim started poking the appellant with a fork
 Elementary rule: when the aggressor leaves, the aggression
ceases. It follows that when appellant and Jaime heeded the advice of the
barangay tanod, the unlawful aggression had ended. Since the aggression
no longer existed, appellant had no right to kill or even wound the former
aggressor.
 The defense failed to establish that the victim persisted in his
design to attack the appellant

 Defense: continuing aggression


 Whenever the victim was drunk, he would look for trouble (refuted by
the testimony of the wife)
 Witnesses: Jaime was staggering or wobbling as he walked – the victim
could not have persisted in attacking the appellant with his current state.
 Testimony of the uncle: imaginative or coached witness

You might also like