Abuyo Vs People

LEO ABUYO Y SAGRIT, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 250495, July 06, 2022

LOPEZ, M., J.
Doctrine: The courts ought to remember that a person who is assaulted has neither the time
nor the sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and choose the weapon to be used. For,
in emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is apparent that a person has
reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to hold the actor not responsible
in law for the consequences. Verily, the law requires rational equivalence, not material
commensurability.
Facts: On August 16, 2011, petitioner Leo Abuyo y Sagrit (Leo) and his wife were heading
home on board their motorcycle when Leo saw Cesar Tapel (Cesar) and his son, Charles Tapel
(Charles), who were armed with a fan knife (balisong) and a gun blocked their way. Leo
swerved the motorcycle towards the house of his father, Leonardo Abuyo (Leonardo). The two
aggressors followed. Leonardo tried to pacify Charles but Cesar arrived and stabbed Leonardo
in the lower left part of his chest. Leonardo ran towards Leo's house, but Cesar still pursued him
with the fan knife. At that instance, Leo went outside and chased Cesar to the former's house. In
their confrontation, Cesar tried to stab Leo. As a defense, Leo got hold of a bolo on top of the
table and hacked Cesar's right hand. Consequently, Cesar dropped the fan knife. Cesar
managed to pick up the fan knife but Leo stabbed him again in the lower part of his stomach.
Later, Cesar died due to stab injury on his left abdomen and multiple lacerated wounds on his
right hand.
Leo voluntarily surrendered himself. He was charged with homicide but he claimed self-defense
and the defense of a relative. The RTC convicted Leo and ruled that he employed means that
was not reasonably necessary to repel the unlawful aggression. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed
the RTC’s decision. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed before the Court.
Issue: Whether the means employed by Leo is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression of Cesar.
Ruling: Yes. The justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative must be
clearly established through convincing evidence. They cannot be appreciated if uncorroborated
by competent evidence or is patently doubtful. As such, the burden of evidence shifts to Leo to
prove these defenses. In self-defense, the following elements must concur: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
resorting to self-defense. In defense of a relative, the accused likewise needs to establish the
first two requisites of self-defense. In lieu of the third requirement, however, the accused must
prove that "in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the
defense had no part therein."
Here, it is undisputed that the first and third requisites of self-defense and defense of a relative
are present. There was unlawful aggression when Cesar attacked and pursued Leonardo, and
turned and attempted to stab Leo. In these circumstances, Leo had the right to repel the
unlawful aggression in order to protect himself and his father. Also, there was no provocation on
the part of Leo since the attack originated from Cesar and Charles. Leo and his wife were
peacefully traversing their way home when Cesar and Charles blocked their way and chased
them. Similarly, Leo was already in his father's house when Cesar and Charles started the
commotion.
The second requisite does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack
and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence which presupposes the
consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the
assailant – but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-ŕ-vis the unlawful
aggression. Moreover, the law requires rational necessity, not indispensable need. In each
particular case, it is necessary to judge the relative necessity, whether more or less imperative,
in accordance with the rules of rational logic. Corollarily, the courts should not demand that the
accused conduct themselves with the poise of a person not under imminent threat of fatal harm.
It must be assumed that one who is assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think,
calculate, and make comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of reason. The
accused had no time to reflect and to reason out their responses. The test is whether the
accused's subjective belief as to the imminence and seriousness of the danger was reasonable
or not, and the reasonableness of the accused's belief must be viewed from their standpoint at
the time they acted.
The Court finds that Leo used reasonable means to defend himself and his father. The facts
show that even after Leo hacked Cesar's right hand, Cesar's unlawful aggression did not cease
when he regained possession of the knife. At that point, Cesar's determination to kill Leo and
Leonardo was aggravated — more imminent and more dangerously real — into a fixed mindset
to subdue Leo's opposition. The CA and the RTC's reasoning that Leo could have grabbed
Cesar's knife when it fell off, and that Leo could have escaped and run away is unfathomable to
a person juxtaposed in the same pressing situation. For one, there is no indication that the knife
was remotely displaced from Cesar's location. In fact, Cesar immediately regained possession
of his knife. The weapon did not fall far from Cesar's control. Cesar only lost grip of the knife
momentarily. To reiterate, the measure of rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it
appeared to Leo at the time of the incident. The law does not require that Leo should mete out
his blows in such manner that, upon a calm and deliberate review of the incident, it will not
appear that he exceeded the precise limits of what was absolutely necessary to put his
antagonist hors de combat, or that he struck one blow more than what was absolutely
necessary to save his own life, or that he failed to hold his hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal
wound where a less severe stroke might have served the purpose.
Fallo: The petition is granted. The decision of the CA is reversed. Petitioner Leo Abuyo y Sagrit
is ACQUITTED of the crime of Homicide.

Abuyo Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abuyo Vs People

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

Abuyo Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEO ABUYO Y SAGRIT, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 250495, July 06, 2022

You might also like