Dear Atty. Gab

Musta Atty! I am writing to you because I am in a very difficult situation and I don’t know what to do. My name is Roberto Valdez. A few months ago, I was involved in an incident where I had to use my firearm. It happened late at night when I was at home. I heard noises outside that made me think someone was trying to break into my property.

I went out to investigate, bringing my legally registered pistol for safety. I saw someone near my garage, and I felt threatened. There was a confrontation, and in the heat of the moment, I fired my gun. The person was hit but, thankfully, did not die because they received medical attention quickly. Now, I am being charged with frustrated homicide.

I truly believed I was defending myself and my property from a potential threat. I was scared for my safety. The police are involved, and I am very worried about what will happen next. I have been told that because the person survived, it is called ‘frustrated homicide,’ but I thought my actions were justified because I was protecting myself.

Atty. Gab, can using a gun and injuring someone, even if they survive, be considered legal self-defense under Philippine law? What are the key things the court will look at in my situation? Any guidance you can provide on how self-defense works in cases like this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and help.

Sincerely,
Roberto Valdez

Dear Roberto Valdez

Musta Atty! Thank you for reaching out and sharing the difficult situation you are facing. It is understandable to feel worried and confused when dealing with legal charges, especially involving an incident where you felt you were protecting yourself. Your situation brings up important legal concepts regarding crimes against persons and the defense of self, which are evaluated carefully by our courts.

Frustrated homicide is indeed the correct charge when someone performs all the acts that would normally cause death, but death does not occur due to factors beyond their control, like timely medical aid. However, Philippine law recognizes circumstances that can justify actions that would otherwise be considered criminal, such as legitimate self-defense. Whether your actions fall under this defense is the crucial question, and it depends on specific conditions that must be proven in court.

When Does Self-Defense Justify Using Force?

Under Philippine law, particularly the Revised Penal Code, a person can be exempted from criminal liability if they act in defense of their person or rights, provided certain conditions are met. When you invoke self-defense, you are essentially admitting that you committed the act of injuring the other person, but you are arguing that you did so under circumstances that legally justify your actions. This has a significant effect on the legal process because, as the Supreme Court has held, the burden of proof shifts to you.

By invoking self-defense, appellant admitted committing the felonies for which he was charged albeit under circumstances which, if proven, would justify his commission of the crimes. Thus, the burden of proof is shifted to appellant who must show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the killing of Damaso and wounding of Anthony were attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (citing People v. Mondigo)

This means you must prove, with strong evidence, that all the elements of self-defense were present. The most critical element is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable requirement for self-defense. If there is no unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete. It refers to an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or an imminent danger of such attack, from the victim.

“Unlawful aggression” here presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger of the attack, from the victim. (citing Gotis v. People)

Simply feeling threatened or seeing someone near your property might not automatically constitute unlawful aggression in the eyes of the law. The threat must be real and immediate, putting your life or personal safety in actual peril. The law differentiates between potential threats and actual, imminent danger.

In evaluating whether you had the intent to kill, which is an element of frustrated homicide, courts look at various factors. These include the type of weapon used, the nature and location of the victim’s wounds, the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the incident, and any words spoken at the time. Using a firearm, especially firing multiple shots or hitting vital areas, can be strong evidence of intent to kill, although it is not the only factor considered.

Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, among other things, of the means used by the malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim. (citing People v. Lanuza)

Furthermore, for self-defense to be successful, the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression must be reasonable and necessary. This means the level of force you used should be proportionate to the danger you faced. Using deadly force like a firearm against someone who may not have been armed or whose aggression was not life-threatening might be considered unreasonable means by the court. The law requires a rational equivalence between the attack and the defense.

For a claim of self-defense to prosper, the means employed by the person claiming the defense must be commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. (citing Razon v. People)

Courts rely heavily on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, physical evidence, and expert opinions (like medical reports on the wounds). The factual findings of the trial court, which hears the witnesses testify and observes their demeanor, are given great weight by higher courts. They are in the best position to assess credibility and determine the truth of the events.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Immediately secure legal representation. A lawyer can guide you through the process and build your defense.
• Fully cooperate with your legal counsel, providing all details of the incident.
• Gather any evidence that supports your claim of self-defense, such as potential witnesses, CCTV footage if available, or proof of attempts to break into your property.
• Understand that claiming self-defense means you admit the shooting, so the focus will be on justifying your action, not denying it happened.
• Be prepared to present clear evidence of unlawful aggression from the other person. The nature and timing of their actions are key.
• Your lawyer will help argue that the force you used was reasonable and necessary given the specific circumstances you faced at that moment.
• Courts will scrutinize the level of danger you were in versus the level of force you employed.

Navigating a charge like frustrated homicide, especially when self-defense is involved, is complex and highly dependent on the specific facts and evidence. It is crucial to have skilled legal counsel to help you present your case effectively and ensure your rights are protected throughout the judicial process.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.