Criminal Law

• Self-defense is a defense that allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm or danger.
• A person who uses unlawful means to defend himself/herself may still be liable if their actions are disproportionate to the threat faced.
• In cases where self-defense applies, it can negate an element of the offense charged against the accused.
• The defendant must have believed that they were in immediate danger, the belief must be objectively reasonable, and the response used by the defendant must not exceed what was necessary to prevent the harm.
• Robbery involves theft by force or threat of violence, while burglary involves breaking into a building with intent to steal.
• Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.
• Provocation means the defendant was provoked to act violently by the victim's actions or words, and the provocation must be immediate and unexpected.
• The accused must have believed that they were acting in self-defense, even if this belief was mistaken.
• An accused cannot claim self-defense against someone who has already been killed by another person.
• If an accused's mistake about the facts justifying self-defense is not reasonable, it will negatively impact their case.
• The People of the Philippines is the plaintiff-appellee in a case against Domingo Ural, who is the accused-appellant.
• Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Antonlo A. Torres and Solicitor Vicente P. Evangelista represent the plaintiff-appellee.
• Vicente Cerilles and Emeliano Deleverio represent the accused-appellant.
• The decision of Judge Vicente G. Ericta of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur convicts Domingo Ural of murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola in the sum of twelve thousand pesos and to pay the costs (Criminal Case No. 3280).
• The judgment of conviction is based on the testimony of Brigido Alberto, a twenty-six year old former detention prisoner in Buug, Zamboanga del Sur.
• Roque, Special Counsel, that on July 31, 1966, at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, her husband, Felix Napola, was inside the municipal jail of Buug, Zamboanga del Sur, when a policeman, Domingo Ural, entered the jail and boxed him at his lower chin, causing him to fall to the cement floor of the jail.
• Felix Napola was forced to stand up and asked mercy from Domingo Ural, but instead, Domingo Ural locked the jail and went out, threatening the affiants not to talk about the burning of Felix Napola to anybody or else he will burn them also.
• Domingo Ural kicked Felix Napola at the same spot after he fell to the floor.
• When Felix Napola was already suffering much from the burns he sustained, Domingo Ural became frightened and he and Anisio Siton helped put out the fire.
• Brigido Alberto had been accused of murder and then set at liberty on June 9, 1966 after posting bail.
• Appellant Ural, who was thirty-four years old in March, 1969, in assailing the credibility of Alberio, pointed out that he was not listed as a prosecution witness and that he was convicted of murder.
• Napola died on August 25, 1966.
• The prosecution failed to present as witnesses Juanito de la Serna and Ernesto Ogoc, the detention prisoners who saw the burning of Napola.
• The trial court deplored the half-hearted manner in which the prosecution handled the case.
• In this appeal, appellant's three assignment of error may be condensed into the issue of credibility or the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Rufina Paler, the victim's widow, was a vital witness who should have been presented as a witness to prove the victim's dying declaration or his statements which were part of the res gestae.
• Water in the burnt area would lead to secondary infection or complications.
• Without any medical intervention, the burns would cause death, according to the victim's wife.
• The sanitary inspector issued a certificate of death indicating "burn" as the cause of death.
• Upon arrival in the municipal building at around eight o'clock, Brigido Alberto witnessed an extraordinary occurrence: Policeman Ural was boxing the detention prisoner, Felix Napola.
• As a consequence of the fistic blows, Napola collapsed on the floor.
• Ural, the tormentor, stepped on Napola's prostrate body.
• Ural went out of the cell.
• Ural returned with a bottle and poured its contents on Napola's recumbent body.
• Ural then ignited the bottle with a match and left the cell.
• Napola screamed in agony and shouted for help, but nobody came to succor him.
• Brigido Alberto was perturbed by the barbarity which he had just seen and left the municipal building.
• From the municipal building, Brigido Alberto hitchhiked in a truck hauling iron ore and went home.
• The accused must prove that they acted in good faith and believed that there was immediate and present danger of death or serious bodily injury.
• The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position, as per Par 1, Art 14, Revised Penal Code.