Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People vs. Don Vega
People vs. Don Vega
Padilla Isip, was at Arellano Street, Malate, Manila because his friend, a certain Ogad Venus,
was celebrating his birthday. Among his drinking buddies was Aldrin Roldan Fernandez, witness
for the prosecution. They were around fifteen at that time including the celebrator. While
drinking, chatting, and listening to music, they spotted accused Don Vega who was about four
[arms'] length away sniffing rugby from a bottle. After a few hours, Don Vega approached them
and caused a disturbance. He smashed several items. Victim Manuel Isip tried to pacify the
accused saying, "pre, huwag naman dito, kasi may nagkakasiyahan dito" but accused harshly
replied, "huwag kang makialam dito, baka ikaw ang samain." Victim Manuel Isip did not
comment and merely turned his back to avert a bigger trouble. While the victim's back was
turned on him, accused suddenly grabbed [the] victim from behind, wrapped his left arm around
[the] victim's neck and using his right hand, plunged a knife to his (Manuel's) chest. Victim
Manuel Isip was rushed to the Ospital ng Maynila but was declared "dead on arrival."
The victim (Manuel Isip) suffered six stab wounds and one abrasion on the body. The cause of
his death is [sic] the four stab wounds that penetrated the frontal cavities of the chest.
Don argues that he should not be criminally liable for the death of the victim because he only
acted in self-defense. He avers that he was merely requesting Manuel to play his theme song,
but when he approached to follow-up on his request, the victim suddenly punched him, which
thus triggered him to stab the victim.
Issue: Whether or not Don acted in self-defense, thus, not criminally liable for murder.
Held: No. An accused who pleads self-defense admits to the commission of the crime
charged. He has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the killing was
attended by the following circumstances: (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.
Don failed to discharge his burden. All the requisites of self-defense are wanting in this case:
First, there is no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. For unlawful aggression to be
present, there must be real danger to life or personal safety. 29 Accordingly, the accused must
establish the concurrence of the three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must
be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least,
imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.30 None of the elements of unlawful
aggression was proven by the defense. Aside from Don's self-serving statement that it was
Manuel who punched and attacked him, not one of the persons present at the incident
corroborated his account.31 Neither did he present any medical record showing that he
sustained any injuries as the result of the attack by Manuel.
Second, in the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the second requisite of
self-defense could not have been present. Even assuming that there was unlawful aggression,
the means employed by Don in repelling the alleged attack by Manuel was not reasonably
necessary. Manuel was unarmed and had his back turned while Don used a bladed weapon to
"repel the attack" and stab Manuel repeatedly.
Lastly, there was no sufficient provocation on the part of Manuel. Based on the account of the
witnesses of the prosecution, Manuel merely implored Don to refrain from breaking things and
making unnecessary disturbance.37 In fact, when Don uttered harsh words against Manuel, the
latter did not make a comment and instead turned his back from the former.