Title
Aspiras vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 236166
Decision Date
Oct 30, 2024
Aspiras was convicted of homicide for fatally stabbing his common-law spouse Jet Lee during an argument. Aspiras claimed self-defense but failed to prove aggression or necessity, leading to the affirmation of his conviction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236166)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework governing this case is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as the decision was rendered after 1990, alongside provisions in the Revised Penal Code concerning homicide and justifying circumstances such as self-defense.

Background of the Incident

On the night in question, Kenneth and Jet Lee were engaged in a drinking spree at their residence with family and friends. An argument ensued between the couple, which escalated to Jet Lee screaming for help after she had been stabbed. Witnesses provided testimony supporting the prosecution's arguments regarding a history of jealousy and prior altercations between the couple.

Evidence Presented

Key testimonies included that of Cleopatra Reyes, the victim's mother, who described witnessing the aftermath of the stabbing and Jet Lee's distressed state while blaming Aspiras for the attack. Friends of both the victim and the accused testified to Aspiras' jealous and violent tendencies based on previous encounters, indicating a pattern of abuse that could have led to the incident.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC found Aspiras guilty of homicide, concluding that he had committed the act of stabbing Jet Lee beyond reasonable doubt while rejecting claims of self-defense. The court noted a lack of evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength that would elevate the charge to murder. It determined that Aspiras' narrative was inconsistent and lacked credible support.

Court of Appeals Decision

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's conviction while remedying certain aspects of the damages awarded to the victim's heirs. It found that the RTC had properly examined the evidence and established Aspiras' guilt for homicide but also adjusted the civil aspects of the ruling, awarding additional exemplary damages.

Legal Objections Raised

Aspiras contested the validity of the information leading to his indictment, claiming it lacked the proper approval from the City Prosecutor, as mandated by Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. However, the Court of Appeals refuted this argument, citing that certain procedural requirements had been met, including the certification of the Assistant City Prosecutor and the presumption of regularity in the filing.

Self-Defense Claim

Aspiras argued that he acted in self-defense, insisting that Jet Lee attacked him first with a knife. However, both lower courts found his self-defense claim unconvin

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.