CASE DIGEST
Abuyo y Sagrit v.
People
G.R. No. 250495, [July 6, 2022]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Self-defense of a
Relative; State of Necessity;
In self-defense, the elements of
unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of
sufficient provocation must concur. the law does not does not require the accused to use unerring judgment
when they had the reasonable grounds to believe that they were in apparent
danger of losing their lives or suffering great bodily injury; recognizing the
instinct for self-preservation prevailing over rational thinking in such
situations.
On August 16, 2011, at around 7:30 p.m., petitioner Leo Abuyo and his wife were on their motorcycle heading home when they encountered Cesar Tapel and his son, Charles Tapel, armed with a fan knife and a gun, respectively. Cesar and Charles blocked Leo's way, and a confrontation ensued. Leo's father, Leonardo Abuyo, intervened, but Cesar stabbed him. Leo, in defense, confronted Cesar, and a struggle ensued. Leo, armed with a bolo, eventually stabbed Cesar, resulting in Cesar's death. Leo voluntarily surrendered to the authorities and was charged with Homicide.
Whether or not Leo's actions, resulting
in the death of Cesar, were justified under self-defense and defense of a
relative.
YES.
The court ruled in favor of Leo, stating that the means he employed were
reasonably necessary to repel the unlawful aggression. The court emphasized
that Leo admitted to being the cause of Cesar's death but invoked self-defense
and defense of a relative as justifying circumstances. The burden of proof
shifted to Leo to establish these defenses.
In self-defense, the elements of
unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of
sufficient provocation must concur.
The court found that the first and third requisites were present, as Cesar
attacked and pursued Leonardo without provocation from Leo. The court disagreed
with the lower courts' assessment that Leo failed to prove the reasonable
necessity of the means employed.The court emphasized that the law does not
demand the accused to conduct themselves with the poise of a person not under
imminent threat of fatal harm. Leo's actions were viewed from his standpoint at
the time of the incident, considering the instinct for self-preservation
outweighing rational thinking.
The court highlighted three crucial facts
supporting Leo's claim of self-defense: Leo did not take advantage of
opportunities to attack the disarmed Cesar, the threatening presence of Charles
with a gun, and Leo's voluntary surrender after the incident. Leo's actions
were deemed reasonable under the circumstances, and he was acquitted of Homicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment