“The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person and rights from impending danger and peril; it is based on that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature as a human being.” (People v. Boholst-Caballero, G.R. No. L-23249 November 25,1974)
Self defense is a justifying circumstance stated in our Penal Code where a person may not acquire criminal liability. This is a very risky defense on the part of the defendant since the burden of proof rests upon him. In other words, he has to present evidence that the killing is indeed justified. This is the complete reverse in ordinary criminal prosecution where it is the State that must overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused by presenting evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime.
Masipequina vs. C.A and People
The circumstances surrounding this case are quite simple. Mesepequina and Alampayan were members of the Integrated National Police (INP) who were called to respond or take into custody an insane and violent person, Potante. The latter has chased with a bolo several persons including members of his family and threatening to kill them. Because of his tendency to be violent, his family left him alone in their house and lived in a building of a public school. The Barangay Captain and the father of Potante requested the Masipequina and Alampayan to apprehend Potante in order to bring him to the proper institution. Before proceeding to the house where Potante was residing, the Masipequina and Alampayan the family of Potante executed an affidavit stating that they are authorizing the two to undertake the necessary steps to take hold of Potante. The affidavit stated that if during the arrest Potante is killed, the family will not pursue any criminal case against the officers. Potante turned violent and attacked the the officers who were trying to arrest him and in the process he was shot and killed. The Regional Trail Court convicted the officers for the killing Potante. On appeal, the Solicitor General even asked the Court of Appeals to acquit the officers but the conviction was nevertheless upheld. (G.R. No. L-51206 August 25, 1989)
Self Defense
The Supreme Court said that the officers are entitled to an acquittal because they acted in self defense. Potante attacked the officers with a bolo nearly hacking them and in order to prevent him from inflicting fatal wounds to the apprehending officers, the latter discharged their fire-arms inflicting fatal wounds and eventually killing Potante. It was shown that (1) there was unlawful agression on the part of Potante; (2) there was reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; (3) there was lack of provocation on the part of the officers. The evidences presented in during the trial corroborated the testimony of the officers that Potante attacked them and there was no other way to stop him but to shoot him with their firearms. Another reason for the acquittal of the officers is the fact that they were in the performance of their lawful duties as police officers. The lower courts based their conviction on suspicious circumstances that were not supported by clear proof. Here, the SC reviewed the facts and evidences and found that they point to the innocence of the officers.
