top of page
SPECIAL ARTICLE - “MUNTIK NA AKONG MAMATAY KAYA DESERVE KO ‘TO!” - HEART-IG _iamhearte.jpg

Kung sapat na dahilan ang self-defense para maabsuwelto sa kaso

  • Writer: BULGAR
    BULGAR
  • Jan 8, 2021
  • 2 min read

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | January 8, 2021



Dear Chief Acosta,


Nabalitaan kong nakapatay ang aming kapitbahay ngunit self-defense lamang diumano ang nangyari, at ipinagtanggol lamang niya ang kanyang sarili. Ano ba ang ibig sabihin nito, at sapat ba ito upang maabsuwelto siya sa kanyang kaso? – Faith


Dear Faith,


Para sa inyong kaalaman, kapag iginiit ng akusado ang self-defense, ang ibig sabihin nito ay inaamin niya na ginawa niya ang krimen at dahil dito, nakaatang sa kanya ang responsibilidad na patunayan ito sa pamamagitan ng ebidensiyang kinakailangan sa ilalim ng batas.


“An accused who pleads any justifying circumstance in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts that show the commission of a crime. It thus becomes his burden to prove the justifying circumstance with clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, his conviction for the crime charged follows. [Velasquez vs. People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017] (People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Olarbe y Balihango, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice, then Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin)”

Upang mapawalang-sala ang inyong kapitbahay, kinakailangang maipakita niya ang mga sumusunod:


“xxx he must establish the following facts, namely: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.” (Ibid.)
“xxx The indispensable requisite for either of these justifying circumstances is that the victim must have mounted an unlawful aggression against the accused or the stranger. Without such unlawful aggression, the accused is not entitled to the justifying circumstance. [People vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012]” (Id.)

Nangangahulugan ang mga ito na dapat nalagay sa aktuwal at hindi lamang pinangangambahang kapahamakan ang buhay o seguridad ng inyong kapitbahay. Hindi maaaring produkto lamang ito ng kanyang imahinasyon.


Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.


Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Comments


Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed on this website or any comments found on any articles herein, are those of the authors or columnists alike, and do not necessarily reflect nor represent the views and opinions of the owner, the company, the management and the website.

RECOMMENDED
bottom of page