Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of

homicide.1 Analytic jurisprudence will be used in the discussion

of the topic. This study aims to clearly define what self-dense is,
its criteria, and how this principle was applied in the Beninsig vs.
People case of 1996.
On January 15, 1996 at 4:30 oclock in the afternoon,
petitioner Sergio Beninsig approached Dominador Abuan and
Ariel Tabucol, who were putting up fences and fixing the post
near his house and said, Lotdit yo, parting idi, parting ita (Your
penis, the boundary before is still the same as today.) Romeo
Calica answered back: Lak-lakayanak Amboy, denggen nak kadi
(I am older Amboy, Please listen to me.) Federico Calica (Romeos
cousin) told them to stop but the petitioner suddenly stabbed
Romeo in the chest with a bolo which caused the latters death.
Beninsig pleaded not guilty with self-defense as his argument.
Thus, the petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the killing
was justified and he has no criminal liability.
Before we apply the school of jurisprudence used in this case, let
us first have a clear definition of the term self-defense. Self-defense is
the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family
from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has
reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger.2 According to Cornell
University Law School, self-defense is the use of force to protect oneself
from an attempted injury by another.3
Now that we have an overview of its meaning, we should also
know the three elements of self-defense. These are helpful in
determining if an act is considered as self-defense:
(1) unlawful aggression (requires

an actual, sudden, and

unexpected or approaching danger) on the part of the victim;

(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
claiming self-defense.4

If we are going to base Beninsigs statements from these

criteria, the following conclusions can be derived:
(1) The act of Romeo Calica answering back to Beninsig is
insufficient to constitute unlawful aggression.
(2) There was no act that put Beninsigs life to danger.
(3) Beninsig was the one who approached Romeo Calica.
Analytic jurisprudence is concerned with the meanings and
uses of legal concepts and in this case, the validity of self-defense
was analyzed and evaluated. Beninsig failed to overcome his
burden of proof. Hence, his defense failed and was proven guilty.
Based on self-defenses definition and criteria, the court was
able to come up with its decision. These concepts were used as a
guidelines in serving justice.
The court also laid down principles that were considered
during the case:
(1) Mere exhibition of scars does not meet the required
quantum of proof of unlawful aggression in self-defense. 5
(2) A righteous individual would not fear but admit readily the
killing at the earliest opportunity if he were legally and
morally justified in doing so.6
Legal Naturalism was also used as a secondary basis as per
the second principle. If you killed a person knowingly or
unknowingly, you would immediately admit it since reason would
dictate that admitting the crime is moral no matter how grave it
is.
Laws can be harsh at times, however we should not be
threatened or intimidated by these. We should always remember
the purpose why the framers created them which is to serve the
interest of the public. They are guidelines that we must follow to
ensure that our rights are not violated.
PATACSIL, Jeffrey C.
NADIAHAN, Megan B.
BALS 2

LS4

2:30-4:00 Daily

GD601

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008

The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

2

The People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1909
3

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self-defense

G.R. No. 167683 June 8, 2007

People vs. Jagolingay, 280 SCRA 768 [1997])