Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Case Digest - Manaban VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    dawnybalezlaw23
    1) There was no unlawful aggression by Bautista, as required for a valid claim of self-defense under Article 11 of the RPC. Bautista kicking the machine did not constitute a threat to Manaban. 2) While Manaban was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, he was not entitled to obfuscation, as any threat was merely speculative and Manaban was not in grave danger from Bautista.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Manaban VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    dawnybalezlaw23
    39 views2 pages
    1) There was no unlawful aggression by Bautista, as required for a valid claim of self-defense under Article 11 of the RPC. Bautista kicking the machine did not constitute a threat to Manaban. 2) While Manaban was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, he was not entitled to obfuscation, as any threat was merely speculative and Manaban was not in grave danger from Bautista.

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST - MANABAN VS CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) There was no unlawful aggression by Bautista, as required for a valid claim of self-defense under Article 11 of the RPC. Bautista kicking the machine did not constitute a threat to Manaban. 2) While Manaban was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, he was not entitled to obfuscation, as any threat was merely speculative and Manaban was not in grave danger from Bautista.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Case Digest - Manaban VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    dawnybalezlaw23
    1) There was no unlawful aggression by Bautista, as required for a valid claim of self-defense under Article 11 of the RPC. Bautista kicking the machine did not constitute a threat to Manaban. 2) While Manaban was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, he was not entitled to obfuscation, as any threat was merely speculative and Manaban was not in grave danger from Bautista.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    RAMONITO MANABAN, Petitioner vs.

    CA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

    G.R. NO. 150723 | July 11, 2006

    Justice Carpio

    Topic: Justifying Circumstances: Unlawful Aggression (Article 11)

    FACTS:

    On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25am, Joselito Bautista took his daughter, Frinzi, who
    complained to difficulty in breathing, to the UP Health Center. The doctors gave him
    prescriptions and so he went to BPI Kalayaan to withdraw some money from its
    Automated Teller Machine (ATM). When Bautista could not withdraw money, he
    started kicking and pounding the machine which caught the attention of herein
    petitioner. Bautista complained that his ATM was retrieved by the machine and that no
    money came out of it. Manaban informed Baustista that the PIN entered was wrong and
    advised him to return the next morning. This angered Bautista all the more and
    resumed pounding on the machine. When Manaban could no longer pacify him, he
    fired a warning shot. After some exchange of words, a shot rang out fatally hitting
    Bautista. Manaban was charged with the crime of murder.

    Manaban pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. The trial court found the petitioner
    guilty of Homicide which was later on affirmed by the CA with modification to the
    award of loss of earning capacity. This case is then submitted before this Court for
    review.

    ISSUE/S:

    1. Whether or not justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable


    2. Whether or not the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
    obfuscation are present.

    RULING:

    1. NO. Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three
    requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying circumstance which may exempt
    an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
    victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
    aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the
    person defending himself.

    Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to attack or


    inflict physical injury upon a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude
    is not considered unlawful aggression, unless the threat is offensive and
    menacing, manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. There must be
    an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the
    defendant’s life in real peril.

    In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The
    allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned
    his back at Manaban is mere speculation. Aggression presupposes that the
    person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the peril sought to be
    avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. Absent such actual or imminent
    peril to one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for
    taking the life or inflicting injuries on another.

    2. It is undisputed that Manaban called the police to report the shooting incident.
    When the police arrived, Manaban surrendered his service firearm and
    voluntarily went with the police to the police station for investigation. Thus,
    Manaban is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
    surrender.

    On obfuscation, we find that the facts of the case do not entitle Manaban to such
    mitigating circumstance. The threat was only in the mind of Manaban and is
    mere speculation which is not sufficient to produce obfuscation which is
    mitigating. Besides, the threat or danger was not grave or serious considering
    that Manaban had the advantage over Bautista because Manaban was already
    pointing his firearm at Bautista when the latter turned his back. The defense
    failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the cause that allegedly
    produced obfuscation.

    PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE:

    Justifying Circumstances; Self-Defense; When the accused invokes self-defense, he in


    effect admits killing the victim and the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed
    the victim to save his life; Requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying circumstance;
    Without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete
    or incomplete self-defense.— The accused must establish by clear and convincing
    evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are present. Under paragraph 1, Article 11
    of the Revised Penal Code, the three requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying
    circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful
    aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
    prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
    accused or the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable
    requisite of self-defense. Self-defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the
    person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Thus, without prior
    unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete
    self-defense. s

    You might also like