People

v. Salva
(Defense
of Relatives)
People
v. Salva
(Defense
of
FACTS:
Version of the prosecution:
At around 10:00 a.m. of Jan 10, 1995,
Palmero Milanes (deceased) was
driving a passenger jeep with his
conductor Pablito Tibay going to
Tanay, Rizal when Ferdinand Salva
waved at them and tried to stop the
jeep and then uttered invectives.
Failing to stop the jeep, Ferdinand took
the tricycle and followed the jeep but
Milanes maneuvered the jeep and
went to the police outpost in Pililia,
Rizal
where
he
sought
police
assistance.
SPO1 Mariano Cura boarded the jeep
to find Ferdinand to settle small
damage caused by Milanes jeep to
Ferdinands tricycle. However, they
got stuck in a traffic jam. While waiting
for the traffic to ease up, Tibaysighted
Ferdinand inside a tricycle and
Ferdinand also saw the jeep the latter
alighted from the tricycle, approached
the jeep, and grabbed Milanes and
they grappled together.
Appellant Alexander stabbed Milanes
at the back twice with a fan knife.
SPO1 Cura alighted from the jeep, took
his gun and while he was about to
make a warning shot, appellant
Alexander
stabbed
him.
After,
Ferdinand freed Milanes and helped
Alexander grappled Cura to get the
latters gun. At that point, the gun
suddenly fired hitting Rolito Salvas
foot. Ferdinand shot Milanes who was
approaching to the jeep. Cura also
went inside the jeep holding his
wounded stomach. The two were
brought to the Tanay Community
Hospital. Milanes died and Cura

survived after receiving treatment at

the Morong General Hospital.
Version of the defense: Hit MIlanes;
bullet hit Rolito as Ferdinand parried
the gun of Cura.

DECISION:
RTC:
Criminal case #1 (death of Milanes):
Murder for Alexander Salva; Homicide
for Ferdinand; acquitting Rolito

Defended two brothers against

iMlianes

Criminal case #2 (injury caused to

Cura):
Alexander
convicted
for
frustrated
homicide;
acquitted
Ferdinand and Rolito
After the Decision, the accused
appellants filed a notice of appeal but
9 months after, Ferdinand filed a
motion to withdraw appeal
SC is now concerned with Alexander
Salva.
SC:

Credibility
of
witnesses
accorded with great respect.
SPO1 Cura positively identified
the offenders and corroborated
by eyewitnesses Figueroa and
Ta.n.
Appellant Alexander stabbed
Miilanes at the back using a 29
or a fan knife while Ferdinand
had his arms around his neck
knife lacerated the victims gun
Self defense of relatives cannot
be sustained. The weapon used
and the grave wounds inflicted

against the victim negate the

Tobes v. CA (Defense of
reasonableness of appellants
action.
Crime committed is Homicide
only and not murder with
treachery. WHY? Victim not
completely helpless since there
were a lot of people, with a
police, in a traffic jam. It was
not a treachery f preceded with
heated argument.
Stabbiing of Appellant to Cura
must be sustained. (Would have
died from lacerations of the gall
bladder

FACTS:
Victim was Joel Escareal alias Wiily
who was allegedly hurled bottles
inside the AM Disco infuriated Wilfredo
Pollentes
alias
Dido
thus their
confrontation. Wilfredo boxed Joel on
his chin, fell down and as he was
about to rise again, Pollentes was
poised to box him again.
Joel drew his 38 Cal revolver and shot
Pollentes Pollentes walked towards the
street while Joel stood near the door of
the AM Disco House.
Accused Doroteo Tobes alias Doting
went out the Disco house and
suddenly placed his arm around Joel
and hurled him then shot the latter in
the left temporal area and shot
another in the air.
After which, he surrendered the
revolver
to
policeman
Elenterio
Celespara in the presence of Ben
Esquillo, a retired police officer.
Witnesses Cenon Cobrana (5 m.
away) and JovertoSula (3 m. away)

testified that the petitioner was the

Cabuslay v. People (defense of
aggressor.

HELD: According to the SC, when

petitioner attacked the victim, the
aggression by the victim against the
accused no longer existed. A person
defending a relative or stranger must
find out who the aggressor was before
the undertaking of the defense. In this
case, petitioner was the aggressor.
Absent unlawful aggression on the
part of Escareal, there can be no selfdefense, complete or incomplete.
However, the court appreciated the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender of firearms but affirmed CAs
decision of Homicide.

FACTS:
SPO2 Jovito Cabuslay, accused, was
found guilty of homicide while the
three other policemen were acquitted
as
per
Information
from
Sandiganbayan dated June 25, 1997.
Prosecution:
At around 8:30 a.m. of August 4, 1992,
Zaragosa, a refrigeration technician
helper was conversing with Felix
Lauriana near a school building in
Lapayan, Lanao del Norte when a
Hammer truck parked in front of them.
4 policemen alighted followed by the
driver and thereafter the police halted
the collector who was riding a
motorcycle named Paquito Umas-as,
the victim. The police asked the
collector to show his I.D then when the
collector took out his I.D and reached

the front man, one of the policemen,

who Zaragosa later identified as
Cabuslay opened fire at Paquito whose
right hand was raised while the four
other policemen had their firearm
pointed at the collector.
Petitioner
consumed
the
entire
magazine of his M-16 armalite.
Collector fell on the ground and was
placed by police on board a vehicle
and brought him to Kolambugan while
the other policeman rode on the
motorcycle of the deceased and
headed to Kolambugan.
August 10, 1992, Brgy Capt. Pedro P.
Legaspi ordered an NBI forensic
chemist to examine body of the victim
to determine presence of gunpowder
nitrate. But it yielded negative result
as the substance would be lost within
72-hour period on the average.
However, accdg to the post-mortem
exam of Dr. Uy, the victims body had
already been cleaned and embalmed.
There were 8 gunshot wounds each
was fatal.

Defense:
Police
Supt.
Julunier
A.
Jubail,
Provincial Director of the PNP Lanao
del Norte Command stated that he
had received a reliable intelligence
report of a plot of assassinate the
Mayor and V. Mayor of Lanao del Norte
and Gov. Abalos and his family. In
response to this, he dispatched a team
of PNP Personnel to conduct mobile
checkpoints along national highways
headed by Sr. Insp. Celso Regencia w/
SPO4 Canoy, SPO22 Cabuslay, C2CC
Montebon, and C2C Cane.
At about 8:30 in the morning, a man
riding a motorcycle approached the

checkpoint. Regencia signalled the

motorcycle to stop at the right side of
the road and was asked for his I.D.but
the rider pulled out a gun and
Regencia heard a shot, his thighs went
numb, and later found out that the
motorcycle rider was shot by Cabuslay.
The victim was identified as Paquito
Umas-as who was still alive when
loaded in the Hummer but was
pronounced dead on arrival by Dr.
Caga.
Cabuslay testified that he saw the
victim shoot Celso which prompted
him to shoot the rider in his belief that
he was the next target.
Sandiganbayan: gave credence to the
version of the prosecution as the
testimony
of
Zaragosa
was
categorical,
straightforward,
spontaneous, and consistent. It was
observed that no proof was adduced
to show that Zaragosa was moved by
some evil motive to falsely testify
against petitioner.
ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan erred
in not crediting the petition of selfdefense or defense of a stranger ir the
lawful exercise of a right or office.
HELD:
Accdg to SC, the one who invoked selfdefense admits responsibility for the
killing. The burden of proof shifts to
the accused who must then prove the
justifying circumstance.
(1) Unlawful aggression - there was
no peril, ergo, there was no
unlawful aggression as accdg to
petitioners testimony, Paquito
could not have seen the
Hummer
jeep,
sure
from
Paquitos perspective, if he
cannot see the hummer which

is fairly large vehicle, then he

could not have seen petitioner
as well. He could not have
possibly shoot petitioner from
that position.
Also, the claim of defense that
Regencia was shot by the victim
was untenable. It is contrary to
ordinary human experience that
a man with only his handgun
dared challenge 5 policemen,
four of them in full battlegear.
Medical certificate of Regencia
has no probative value as the
physician who signed the same
never presented as witness for
the defense,
The gun was also unclearly
identified which is a vital
evidence
to
establish
this
requisite.

(2) Reasonable necessity employed

People v. Retubado (state of
failed. The law requires
rational equivalence. The nature
and number of wounds suffered
by Paquito negate any claim of
self-defense or defense of a
stranger. 8 gunshot wounds
were inflicted on the bidy of the
victim. One hsot to immobilize
him would have been enough.
He was the one who switched
the armalite to automatic.
(3) Lawful performance petitioner
has not sufficiently proven that
the victim had indeed fired at
Regencia. In People v. de la
Cruz, Performance of duties
does not include murder
Murder
is
never
justified,
regardless of the victim.
AFFIRMED HOMICIDE.