Facts:

• Ronelo Polo was charged with the murder of Danilo Balisoro.
• Prosecution witnesses testified that Polo hacked Balisoro on the head, resulting in his death.
• Polo claimed self-defense, stating that he witnessed an altercation between Balisoro and his cousin and that Balisoro was about to stab him.
• Defense witnesses supported Polo's claim of self-defense.
• The trial court found Polo guilty of homicide but did not appreciate the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
• The trial court also did not consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding Polo guilty of homicide.
• The Court agreed with the lower courts that Polo's claim of self-defense did not have factual basis and that he failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of Balisoro.
• The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation was not present, as there was no showing that Balisoro provoked Polo.
• The Court further ruled that Polo's surrender was not voluntary, as...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The trial court's factual findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding.
• For self-defense to be valid, there must be unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
• Polo failed to prove these element...continue reading