People vs. Bausing G.R. NO. L-64965, July 18, 1991 Fa !
s" On August 3, 1978, the victim, Alexander Mantilla ,as incumbent Brgy Councilman and a onda Member , !hile "er#orming his o##icial duties, !as at the billiard hall o# the accused $oroso, together !ith others% &here are ' billiard tables and on them (omingo &eraytay et% al% !ere "laying% &he billiard game !as #irst interru"ted !hen &eraytay and Manuel $oroso !ere gra""ling #or the )ni#e !hich !as "rotruding at the bas) "oc)et o# the #ormer, the )ni#e !as ultimately ta)en !ith the assistance o# *stanislao +unico and Aureliano ,acano% Manuel $oroso, as o!ner o# the billiard hall, con#iscated the )ni#e in order to "revent any trouble therein% &herea#ter, -alentin Bausing sometimes called . odol#o/ clattered the billiard balls !hich caused Alexander Mantilla 0Brgy Councilman1, to admonish him to sto" his act as he !as not concerned !ith game% 2ithout any !ord, accused $oroso !ho came #rom the bac) Mantilla, held hands o# the latter !hile being raised !hen all o# the sudden, 3oven Bausing a""eared in the scene, !ith unsheathed shar" "ointed bolo !hich !as hidden inside the umbrella thrust many times said bolo u"on Mantilla% Mantilla !as released only by $oroso, a#ter the victim !as staggering unconsciously !ho later #ell dead outside the billiard hall% A""ellants Bausing and $oroso !ere then charged !ith murder !ith assault u"on an agent o# "erson in authority% Both "leaded not guilty to the charge and a#ter trial, the trial court rendered the 4udgment !hich a""ellants no! see) to reversed% 5ence, this a""eal% #ssue" 1% !hether or not Bausing is only acting in de#ense o# his son, the crime committed !as a 6uali#ied !ith treachery odul#o Bausing and
Ruling" the a""ealed 4udgment is a##irmed !ith the modi#ication as to the indemni#ication !hich is hereby increased to ,78,888%88 Ra!ion $e i%en%i" 3oven Bausing admitted the )illing o# the deceased but invo)es the 4usti#ying circumstance o# de#ense o# a relative in a bid to esca"e criminal liability% 5o!ever, the +C #ind no com"elling reason to reverse the 4udgment o# conviction% 9n order that the 4usti#ying circumstance o# de#ense o# a relative may be "ro"erly invo)ed, the ##% re6uisites must concur: 1% unla!#ul aggression '% reasonable necessity o# the means em"loyed to "revent or re"el it 3% in case the "rovocation !as given by the "erson attac)ed, that the one ma)ing the de#ense had no "art therein% &he #irst re6uisite is indis"ensable% &here can be no sel#;de#ense unless it is "roven that there had been unla!#ul aggression on the "art o# the "erson in4ured or )illed by the assailant% 9# there is no unla!#ul aggression, there is nothing to "revent or re"el% 9n addition, #or unla!#ul aggression to be a""reciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unex"ected attach< or imminent danger thereo# and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must "resent "roo# o# "ositively strong act o# real aggression% =nla!#ul aggression must be such as to "ut in real "eril the li#e or "ersonal sa#ety o# the "erson de#ending himsel# or o# a relative sought to be de#ended and not an imagined threat% 9n the case at bar, a""ellant Bausing>s claim o# unla!#ul aggression committed by the deceased has not been su##iciently established to !arrant the a""reciation o# de#ense o# a relative as a 4usti#ying circumstance% All ? "rosecution !itnesses testi#ied categorically that no unla!#ul aggression !as committed by the deceased% &he victim merely admonished -alentin Bausing, son o# a""ellant 3oven Bausing, to sto" meddling !ith the game going on% A""ellant>s claim o# de#ense o# his son cannot "revail over the "ositive testimonies o# the eye!itnesses "ointing beyond reasonable doubt that the a""ellant !as the aggressor !ho treacherously assaulted the deceased% More im"ortantly, a""ellant admitted the )illing o# Mantilla% 5aving made admission, it is thus incumbent u"on the accused to "rove the 4usti#ying circumstance to the satis#action o# the court in order to be relieved o# any criminal liability% 9n such instances, the accused must "ro##er strong, clear and convincing evidence o# sel# de#ense and de"end not on the in#irmity o# the "rosecution #or even i# the latter !as !ea), the "lea o# sel#;de#ense cannot "ros"er es"ecially so !here the accused himsel# admitted the )illing, as in the case at bar%
