The right to kill ends when aggressor stops

When an unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor. An act of aggression, when its author does not persist in his purpose, or when he discontinues his attitude to the extent that the object of his attack is no longer in peril, is not unlawful aggression warranting self-defense.

When the unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense.

SOURCES: People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 400; People vs. Tejero, G.R. No. 135050, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 382; People vs. Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 572; People vs. Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, 06 December 2000, 347 SCRA 374

Popular Posts