TOLEDO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 158057 September 24, 2004 FATS: FATS: This is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming on appeal, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Odiongan, Romblon, ranch !" !o"v#!t#"$ t%e pet#t#o"er o& %om#!#'e # On $eptember %&, %'', %'' , oe Toledo * Tamboong (oe) went to a blac+smith who made the design of his bolo# -hen he went home to Tuburan, Odiongan, Romblon late in the afternoon, he saw the group of .ani /amero, 0ichael /osana, Re1 Corte2 and Ric+* 3uarte drin+ing gin at the house of the $pouses 0anuel and 4li2a 3uarte, Ric+*5s parents# 6is house is about five () meters awa* from the house of $pouses 3uarte# 6e re7uested the group of Ric+* to refrain from ma+ing an* noise and proceeded inside his house and went to sleep# Around ':88 p#m#, 3erardo /aminia, 4li2a 3uarte5s brother arrived at the 3uarte house and as+ed for an* leftover food# 4li2a prepared dinner for him and after 3erardo finished eating, he went home accompanied b* Ric+*# 3erardo5s home is about %" meters awa* from the 3uarte home# 0inutes later, Ric+* came bac+ and together with .ani, Re1 and 0ichael, went to sleep at the 3uarte house# The* had not laid down for long when the* heard stones being hurled at the roof of the house# The stoning was made three (9) times# Ric+* rose from bed and peeped through a window# 6e saw oe stoning their house# Ric+* went out of the house and proceeded to oe5s house# Ric+* as+ed oe, his uncle, wh* he was stoning stoning their house# oe did not answer but met Ric+* at the doorstep of his house and, without an* warning, stabbed Ric+* on the abdomen with a bolo# 4li2a had followed his son Ric+* and upon seeing that Ric+* was stabbed, shouted for help# .ani heard 4li2a5s cr* for help and immediatel* rushed outside the house# .ani saw Ric+* leaning on the ground and supporting his bod* with his hands# .ani helped Ric+* stand up and brought him to the main road# .ani as+ed Ric+* who stabbed him and Ric+* replied that it was oe who stabbed him# Then Doclo* Corte2 arrived at the scene on board his tric*cle# Accordingl*, Ric+* was put on the tric*cle and ta+en to the Romblon rovincial 6ospital# At the Romblon rovincial 6ospital, Dr# /etalvero operated on Ric+* that ver* night# Ric+* had sustained one (%) stab wound but due to massive blood loss, he died while being operated on# Dr# /etalvero issued a 0edico.egal Certificate showing the in;uries sustained b* Ric+* wherein there is a stab wound on the left chest with gastric < transverse colon evisceration measuring & cms# long, irregularedged at !th =C$, left penetrating# RT rendered RT rendered ;udgment finding the petitioner guilt* as charged# T%e A rendered rendered ;udgment affirming the assailed decision with modifications# The CA also denied the petitioner5s motion for reconsideration thereof# The appellate court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove that he acted in selfdefense# The O&!e o& t%e So(#!#tor Ge"er)( asserts that the petitioner failed to prove self defense with clear and convincing evidence# 6ence, the decision of the CA affirming, on appeal, the decision of the RTC is correct#
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition for review, contending that the CA erred in not finding that he acted in selfdefense when he stabbed the victim b* accident and pra*s that he be ac7uitted of the crime charged# *SS+E -hether or not the petitioner is guilt* be*ond reasonable doubt of homicide based on the evidence on record# -ELD ES, %e #s $/#(t o& %om#!#'e. T%e !o"te"t#o" o& t%e pet#t#o"er Noe %)s "o mer#t.
Petitioner Noe testified that his bolo hit the victim accidentally. 6e asserted in the RTC and in the CA that he is e1empt from criminal liabilit* for the death of the victim under Art#!(e 12, p)r)$r)p% 4 o& t%e Rev#se' Pe")( o'e which reads: 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. As such, he contends, he is not criminall* liable under Art#!(e 11, p)r)$r)p% 1 o& t%e Rev#se' Pe")( o'e which reads: Art# %%# Justifying circumstances. > The following do not incur an* criminal liabilit*: %# An*one who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: /irst# ?nlawful aggression@ $econd# Reasonable necessit* of the means emplo*ed to prevent or repel it: Third# .ac+ of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself#
The petitioner also avers that he was able to prove the essential elements of complete self-defense. T%e esse"t#)( re/#s#tes o& se(&'e&e"se )re %) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim@ ") reasonable scrutin* of the means emplo*ed to prevent or repel it@ and 9) lac+ of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself# 6owever, the petitioner also claims that his bolo accidentall* hit the stomach of the victim# =t is a matter of law that when a part* adopts a particular theor* and the case is tried and decided upon that theor* in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his theor* on appeal# The petitioner is proscribed from changing in this Court, his theor* of defense which he adopted in the trial court and foisted in the CA > b* claiming that he stabbed and +illed the victim in complete selfdefense# 6e relied on Article %", paragraph of the Revised enal Code in the trial and appellate courts, but adopted in this Court two divergent theories > (%) t%)t %e 3#((e' t%e v#!t#m to 'e&e"' %#mse(& )$)#"st %#s /"()&/( )$$ress#o"@ hence, is
/st#e' under Article %%, paragraph % of the Revised enal Code@ (") t%)t %#s bo(o )!!#'e"t)(( %#t t%e v#!t#m and is, thus, e6empt from criminal liabilit* under Article %", paragraph of the Revised enal Code# =t is an aberration for the petitioner to invo+e the two defenses at the same time because the said defenses are intrinsicall* antithetical# There is no such defense as accidental selfdefense in the realm of criminal law# Se(&'e&e"se /"'er Art#!(e 11, p)r)$r)p% 1 o& t%e Rev#se' Pe")( o'e necessaril* implies a deliberate and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression of another with the use of reasonable means# The accused has freedom of action# 6e is aware of the conse7uences of his deliberate acts# The defense is based on necessit* which is the supreme and irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the law# /rom necessit*, and limited b* it, proceeds the right of selfdefense# The right begins when necessit* does, and ends where it ends# Although the accused, in fact, in;ures or +ills the victim, however, his act is in accordance with law so much so that the accused is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liabilities# On the other hand, the b)s#s o& e6empt#"$ !#r!/mst)"!es /"'er Art#!(e 12 o& t%e Rev#se' Pe")( o'e is the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or the absence of negligence on the part of the accused# The basis of the e1emption in Article %", paragraph of the Revised enal Code is lac+ of negligence and intent# The accused does not commit either an intentional or culpable felon*# The accused commits a crime but there is no criminal liabilit* because of the complete absence of an* of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act# An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening@ an event happening wholl* or partl* through human agenc*, an event which under the circumstances is unusual or une1pected b* the person to whom it happens# $elfdefense, under Article %%, paragraph %, and accident, under Article %", paragraph of the Revised enal Code, are affirmative defenses which the accused is burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence#The petitioner failed to prove that the victim was +illed b* accident, without fault or intention on his part to cause it# The petitioner was burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence, t%e esse"t#)( re/#s#tes &or t%e e6empt#"$ !#r!/mst)"!e /"'er Art#!(e 12, p)r)$r)p% 4, v# %) A person is performing a lawful act@ ") -ith due care@ 9) 6e causes an in;ur* to another b* mere accident@ ) -ithout fault or intention of causing it# +"()&/( )$$ress#o" is a condition sine 7ua non for the ;ustif*ing circumstances of selfdefense, whether complete or incomplete# =t presupposes an actual, sudden, and une1pected attac+, or imminent danger thereof, and not merel* a threatening or intimidating attitude# $upreme Court agrees with the ruling of the CA that the petitioner failed to prove self defense, whether complete or incomplete#