Art 11 Digests

G.R. No.
227421, July 23, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO OLARBE Y
BALIHANGO, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS:
 Olarbe and his common-law spouse Juliet were sleeping in their house in Laguna when
suddenly they were awakened by the sound of a gunshot and shouting from Arca who
appeared to be drunk.
 Arca was holding a rifle (an airgun converted to a calibre .22) and shouted "mga putang ina
ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo."
 Then, Arca forcibly entered their house and aimed the gun at them.
 OLARBE immediately grabbed the gun from him and fought for its possession.
 OLARBE was able to get the gun and then OLARBE shot Arca causing the Olarbe to lean
sideward.
 Arca managed to get his bolo from his waist and continued to attack them.
 OLARBE grabbed the bolo and in their struggle for its possession, they reached the outer
portion of the house.
 Then OLARBE managed to acquire the bolo and instantly, he hacked Arca.
 After the killing incident, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities.
 Olarbe's pleaded self-defense and defense of stranger.
 HE WAS CHARGED OF THE CRIME OF MURDER
 RTC convicted accused Rodolfo Olarbe of murder for the killing of the late Romeo
Arca.
o Found accused Guilty of the crime of MURDER because was unable to prove the
justifying circumstance of self-defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence
that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part and further, he employed
treachery when he killed the victim Romeo Arca.
 (CA) affirmed the conviction.
Olarbe contends that it was erroneous to reject his pleas of self-defense and defense of
stranger because he had killed Arca to save himself and his common-law wife from
Arca’s unlawful aggression and that his use of the victim's gun and bolo to repel or stop
the unlawful aggression was necessary and reasonable. Hence, the killing was legally
justified.
ISSUE: WON Olarbe clearly and convincingly established self-defense on his part
RULING:
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE ARE PRESENT.
First, the Court finds that Arca committed continuous and persistent unlawful aggression
against Olarbe and his common-law spouse that lasted from the moment he forcibly
barged into the house and brandished his gun until he assaulted Olarbe's common-law
spouse with the bolo. Such armed assault was not a mere threatening act. The imminent
threat to life was positively strong enough to induce Olarbe to act promptly to repel the
unlawful and unprovoked aggression. Arca's being dispossessed of his gun did not terminate
the aggression, and that although he had been hit on the head, he quickly reached for
the bolo and turned his assault towards Olarbe's common-law spouse. The swiftness of the
action heightened Olarbe's sense that the danger to their lives was present and imminent.
The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety
of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary
threat.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b)
imminent unlawful aggression.
 Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or

with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor
to cause the injury.
 Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely
imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong. Imminent unlawful aggression
must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim.
Second, Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression
does not mean absolute necessity. Although Arca sustained several wounds, the majority of the wounds
were lacerations whose nature and extent were not explained. To rule out reasonable necessity of the means
adopted by Olarbe solely on the basis of the number of wounds would be unfair to him.
It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material
commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter the principal factors the emergency, the
imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than
the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness does not
depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.
Third, the absence of any showing that Olarbe had provoked Arca, or that he had been
induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive has been equally palpable. The SC
deem to be established, therefore, that the third elements of the justifying circumstances
of self-defense and defense of stranger were present.
With Olarbe being entitled to the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of
a stranger, his acquittal follows.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the CA

and ACQUITS accused RODOLFO OLARBE on the grounds of SELF-
DEFENSE and DEFENSE OF A STRANGER; DECLARES him NOT CIVILLY LIABLE to the heirs
of the late Romeo Arca; and DIRECTS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT unless he is
otherwise legally confined for another cause.

Art 11 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art 11 Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art 11 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

227421, July 23, 2018

 HE WAS CHARGED OF THE CRIME OF MURDER

 Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the CA

You might also like