Aquino vs. People

Self-defense is a justifying circumstance that relieves the accused of both criminal and civil liability when unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation concur, and the reasonableness of the accused's defensive response must be judged from his standpoint at the time he acted, not in light of subsequent events or the perspective of others.

Petitioner Daniel Aquino y Espiritu and the victim Lorvin Cordovez y Almera were stay-in welders at a construction site at the IMI Training Center, Bagumbayan, Taguig City, recruited by their uncle and site foreman Antonio Lazaro. They considered each other relatives because Lorvin's aunt had raised Aquino as her own child. The case involves the application of self-defense as a justifying circumstance under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, specifically whether the means employed by an accused who is pinned to the ground and being strangled and punched simultaneously satisfy the requisite of reasonable necessity.

On the evening of April 13, 2014, Aquino and Lorvin were both present at the birthday celebration of their engineer on a construction site at the IMI Training Center, Bagumbayan, Taguig City. Around thirty workers attended, with two tables set up for the party. As the evening progressed, guests began leaving while others continued to drink and exchange stories. Facing one another at one of the tables, Lorvin abruptly asked Aquino why the latter was drawing a higher salary than him. Aquino replied that he did not know and told Lorvin to ask their uncle, Antonio. Irked by this response, Lorvin cussed at Aquino, who immediately moved to another table to avoid any altercation. Lorvin followed and challenged Aquino to a fist fight, resulting in a violent brawl. Things happened so fast that Aquino suddenly found himself lying on the ground with Lorvin on top of him.

According to the prosecution's own evidence, as narrated by witness Antonio, the incident happened swiftly and the next thing they saw was Aquino already lying helpless on the ground with Lorvin on top of him. The prosecution did not refute Aquino's testimony that while in that position, Lorvin was strangling him with his left hand and repeatedly punching him in the face with the other. While being attacked, Aquino grappled for any object he could use to defend himself, grabbed the first item he came into contact with, and struck Lorvin with it. The blows from Lorvin stopped as he stood up profusely bleeding. It was only then that Aquino realized the item he had grabbed was a knife.

Co-workers eventually pacified the two and rushed the wounded Lorvin to the nearest hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Police officers went to the construction site and arrested Aquino. PSINSP Cornelio performed an autopsy and issued Medico-Legal Report No. A14-232SPD, finding that Lorvin sustained two stab wounds—one in the chest and another on the left thigh. The chest wound pierced through the left lung, heart, and thoracic aorta, causing immediate death. Lourdes, Lorvin's mother, testified to hospital, burial, and funeral expenses, submitting an official receipt for funeral services amounting to PHP 27,500.00.

Aquino admitted to stabbing Lorvin but invoked self-defense. He testified that during the fight, he found himself lying on the floor with Lorvin on top of him, strangling his neck with the left hand while punching him with the other. While in that position, he tried to parry the blows and grappled for any object to defend himself, grabbed the first item he touched, and used it to strike Lorvin. He was surprised to discover afterward that the item was a knife.

• Self-Defense: Aquino argued that the courts below erred in ruling that the second requisite for self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code—reasonable necessity of the means employed—was absent, disregarding clear evidence that Lorvin initiated the unlawful aggression by challenging him to a fist fight.
• Reasonable Necessity: Aquino maintained that he only stabbed Lorvin to defend himself because Lorvin was strangling him with his left hand while repeatedly punching him in the face with the other, while on top of him and pinning him to the ground, and that the justifying circumstance of self-defense should thus be credited in his favor.

• Questions of Fact: The OSG argued that the petition raises questions of fact, which are outside the scope of Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Self-Defense Lacking: The OSG countered that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed that self-defense was absent, since Aquino used a knife during a fist fight despite having only one assailant who was unarmed.

• Scope of Review: Whether the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the lower courts in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in a criminal case.
• Self-Defense: Whether all three elements of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code are present, warranting the acquittal of the petitioner.

• Scope of Review: Yes. In criminal cases, an appeal by certiorari throws the entire case wide open for review, and the Court is not precluded from reviewing factual findings, especially when the courts below misapprehended key facts.
• Self-Defense: Yes. All three elements of self-defense—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation—were present, justifying acquittal.

• Scope of Review: Although questions of fact are ordinarily beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition, an appeal by certiorari in a criminal case throws the entire case wide open for review. The reviewing tribunal may correct errors though unassigned, or reverse the trial court's decision on grounds other than those raised by the parties. Among the recognized exceptions to the general rule is when the courts below misapprehended the facts. Here, the trial court and the Court of Appeals misapprehended certain key facts in relation to the requisites of self-defense, justifying the Court's review of the factual findings.

• Self-Defense: The first element, unlawful aggression, was satisfied because Lorvin committed a series of offensive acts revealing his intent to harm Aquino. Based on the prosecution's own evidence, the aggression originated from Lorvin, who persisted despite Aquino's attempt to avoid trouble by transferring to another table. Lorvin pursued and cussed at Aquino, and prosecution witness Antonio confirmed that Aquino was found lying helpless on the ground with Lorvin on top of him. The prosecution did not refute Aquino's testimony that Lorvin was strangling and punching him in that position. The peril to Aquino's life and limb was real and palpable, not imaginary.

  The third element, lack of sufficient provocation, was satisfied because both prosecution and defense agreed that it was Lorvin who provoked Aquino by confronting him about his salary. Aquino's casual answer and his attempt to avoid further incident by moving to another table did not constitute sufficient provocation.

  The second element, reasonable necessity of the means employed, was also satisfied. Reasonable necessity does not mean absolute necessity; the law requires rational necessity, not indispensable need. Courts should not demand that an accused conduct himself with the poise of a person not under imminent threat, as he has no time to reflect and reason out responses. The test is whether the accused's subjective belief as to the imminence and seriousness of the danger was reasonable, judged from his standpoint at the time he acted. Here, Aquino inflicted two stab wounds—one on the leg (non-fatal) and one on the chest (fatal). The nature, number, and location of the wounds indicated an intent to repel the attack, not to kill. The fatal wound appeared to have been what caused Lorvin to loosen his grip. Aquino instinctively grabbed the first object within reach while being strangled and punched, and was surprised to find it was a knife. Since Aquino was not committing a felony when he stabbed Lorvin in self-defense, he could not be held liable for the consequences of his act under Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Self-defense being a justifying circumstance, Aquino was relieved of both criminal and civil liability.

• Elements of Self-Defense — To successfully invoke self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the accused must satisfactorily prove three elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All three must concur. The Court found all three present: Lorvin initiated the aggression by pursuing and attacking Aquino; Aquino gave no sufficient provocation; and the means employed—grabbing the first object within reach while being strangled and punched—was rationally necessary.

• Unlawful Aggression — Unlawful aggression is the primordial element of self-defense; without it, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test is whether the aggression put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself, and the peril must not be imaginary. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: actual or material (an attack with physical force or weapon, positively determining the intent to cause injury) and imminent (an attack that is impending or at the point of happening, offensive and positively strong). The Court found actual or material unlawful aggression present, as Lorvin pinned Aquino to the ground while strangling and punching him.

• Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed — Reasonable necessity does not mean absolute necessity. The law requires rational necessity, not indispensable need. Courts should not demand that the accused conduct himself with the poise of a person not under imminent threat of fatal harm, as he has no time to reflect and calculate. The test is whether the accused's subjective belief as to the imminence and seriousness of the danger was reasonable, viewed from his standpoint at the time he acted. The accused may be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether he employed rational means. The Court applied this doctrine to find that Aquino's instinctive grabbing of a knife while being strangled and pinned was rationally necessary.

• Self-Defense Extinguishes Both Criminal and Civil Liability — Self-defense is a justifying circumstance that relieves the accused not only of criminal liability but also civil liability, because the accused acted without criminal intent and no crime was committed in the eyes of the law.

• "In judging pleas of self-defense and defense of stranger, the courts should not demand that the accused conduct himself with the poise of a person not under imminent threat of fatal harm. He had no time to reflect and to reason out his responses. He had to be quick, and his responses should be commensurate to the imminent harm." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Olarbe, articulates the standard for evaluating reasonable necessity from the accused's perspective at the time of the incident, a principle central to the Court's acquittal.

• "Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression does not mean absolute necessity. 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." — This formulation distinguishes rational necessity from indispensable need and is frequently cited in self-defense jurisprudence.

• "The nature, number, and locations of these stab wounds indicate that the intention of Aquino was to simply repel the attack by Lorvin and never to kill the latter." — This passage applies the reasonable necessity standard to the specific facts, showing how the character and location of the wounds evidence defensive rather than offensive intent.

• People vs. Nugas, 677 Phil. 168 (2011) — Cited for the definition and classification of unlawful aggression, including the distinction between actual/material and imminent unlawful aggression and the three elements thereof: (a) physical or material attack; (b) actual or imminent attack; and (c) unlawful attack. Followed.

• People vs. Olarbe, 836 Phil. 1015 (2018) — Cited extensively for the doctrine on reasonable necessity of the means employed, particularly the principle that courts should not demand poise from an accused under imminent threat and that reasonableness must be judged from the accused's standpoint at the time he acted. Followed.

• Ganal vs. People, 891 Phil. 588 (2020) — Cited for the principle that the instinct of self-preservation justifies the accused's defensive response, and that the right to take life in self-defense arises from the accused's belief in the necessity for doing so. Followed and applied by analogy.

• People vs. Maghuyop, 887 Phil. 147 (2020) — Cited for the enumeration of the three elements of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Followed.

• Camillo vs. People, G.R. No. 260353, February 8, 2023 — Cited for the definition of sufficient provocation and for the proposition that self-defense relieves the accused of both criminal and civil liability. Followed.

• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines self-defense as a justifying circumstance, requiring: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The Court found all three elements present and applied this provision to acquit the petitioner.

• Article 4(1), Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The Court invoked this provision to explain that since Aquino was not committing a felony when he stabbed Lorvin in self-defense, he could not be held liable for the consequences of his act.

• Article 69, Revised Penal Code — Governs privileged mitigating circumstances and the lowering of penalty by one degree when some but not all elements of self-defense are present. The trial court applied this provision for incomplete self-defense; the Supreme Court's finding of complete self-defense rendered it inapplicable.

• Article 249, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes homicide with reclusion temporal. This was the charge against Aquino, from which he was acquitted.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.