Bayle v. People

A justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of a relative is established by clear and convincing evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; reasonable necessity of the means employed means rational necessity, not absolute necessity, and does not require the defender to choose a less lethal option when the weapon at hand is the available means to repel an actual or imminent attack.

Apolinario and Jessica were married and both police officers. They lived in a rented apartment unit at 190-D 21st Avenue, East Rembo, Makati City, across from the Lampa family compound.

At around 7:00 p.m. on October 17, 2004, Crisanto Lozano was at home watching television when he heard his cousin Lorico Lampa shouting. He went outside and saw Lorico outside 190-D 21st Avenue, Barangay East Rembo, Makati City, in a heated verbal exchange with Apolinario. Crisanto approached to pacify Lorico, but three drunk men who appeared to be Apolinario’s companions blocked his path. Apolinario went up his house, apparently to get his gun; inside, his wife Jessica tried to pacify him, but he went down again. Ricardo Lampa, Lorico’s father, was watching television when Reynaldo Lampa called him and told him that Lorico was outside having an altercation with Apolinario. Ricardo went outside and stood beside Lorico. He saw Apolinario descending the stairs, stop at the middle, and point his gun at Crisanto. Crisanto ran, but Apolinario shot him at the left side of his back. Apolinario then shot Lorico at his upper left chest. After shooting Lorico, Apolinario poked his gun at Ricardo and said, “ikaw, gusto mo sumunod?” Jessica descended and told Apolinario to get inside. Ricardo shouted for help, and Lorico was carried beside the road and brought to the Ospital ng Makati by taxi, where he was declared dead-on-arrival. Crisanto was also brought to the Ospital ng Makati, operated on, and stayed there until October 23, 2004. A few minutes after the incident, policemen including PO1 Nildo Orsua arrived and investigated; Apolinario and Jessica later went with the police peacefully, and Apolinario turned over his firearm.

Dr. Teresita R. Sanchez examined Lorico’s cadaver and noted a gunshot wound entering the left anterior chest, upper portion, with no exit wound and a bulge at the lumbar area; she opined that the assailant was at a higher position than Lorico. She also examined Crisanto and noted a gunshot wound entering the left side and exiting near the armpit, opining that the shooter shot Crisanto at his back; she also noted a lacerated wound on Crisanto’s left arm that may have been caused by a blunt object or physical confrontation. Ricardo testified that Lorico was 27 years old, a senior craftsman in Libya earning US$500.00 a month, and was on vacation. Crisanto testified that he spent P39,640.00 for hospital and medical expenses, supported by receipts.

According to Apolinario and Jessica, they were at their rented unit on October 17, 2004 with Loreto P. Flores and Benjamin Reinedo. Jessica was almost eight months pregnant and gave birth on November 15, 2004. A party was being held at the Lampa compound in front of their apartment to celebrate a baptismal and the arrival of a balikbayan, and men were having a drinking spree inside the compound. Inside the apartment, Apolinario and his friends were chatting and laughing while waiting for Jessica’s brother Christopher Tupas when Lorico shouted outside: “mga walang hiya kayo, ang yayabang ninyo, kabago-bago pa lang ninyo dito ang iingay ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kaya kayo diyan.” Apolinario retorted with a curse, and Jessica tried to pacify him. A few minutes later, someone from the Lampa compound shouted again and hurled curses. Jessica went to the door and told the man shouting, “pasensya na po, bukas na natin pag-usapan kung ano man yan.” As she was about to close the door, the door swung open, causing her to fall with her nose hitting the floor. Crisanto and Allan Lampa, both armed with bladed weapons, entered the house. Crisanto attacked Jessica, but Apolinario jumped over him, while Allan attacked Benjamin and Loreto. Benjamin grappled with Allan for the knife while Loreto repeatedly kicked Allan; Allan fell down the stairs with Benjamin, who did not let go of the knife. Crisanto and Apolinario wrestled, and Crisanto injured Apolinario’s neck when the tip of the knife grazed it. Apolinario freed himself and disarmed Crisanto, then went to their room to get his gun. Crisanto tried to follow, but Jessica grabbed and held his leg. Apolinario came out, saw Crisanto strangling Jessica, and shot Crisanto to prevent further danger to his wife and unborn child. Crisanto fled, jumped out the door, and ran past Loreto. Apolinario tried to help Jessica, but before she could stand, Lorico, armed with a knife, came running towards them, shouting and with eyes blazing. Apolinario shouted “tigil, pulis ako,” but Lorico did not stop, prompting Apolinario to shoot him. Jessica recounted that Lorico was one step away from the door when shot; Apolinario recalled that Lorico was two arm’s-length away. Lorico fell down the stairs. Christopher arrived and pleaded to be let in; Jessica let him in, closed the door, and went with Apolinario and Redentor to Redentor’s apartment downstairs, where Benjamin and Loreto were already present. A few minutes later, policemen arrived, and Apolinario and Jessica peacefully went with them; they were later brought to the Ospital ng Makati because Jessica’s nose was bleeding and Apolinario was injured.

Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Freyra conducted the autopsy on Lorico’s cadaver and recorded her findings in an Anatomical Sketch and Medico-Legal Report No. M-399-04 dated October 17, 2004. She testified that the bullet entered the left infra lobecular region just below the collarbone and was recovered at the vertebra region at the back or center of the spinal cord, and that it traveled in a downward trajectory; she clarified that this could happen if the assailant was on higher ground or if they were on the same level but the victim was stooping or bending. Dr. Sanchez testified that Apolinario suffered abrasions on his neck and right hand, which may have been caused by a blunt or sharp object, and that Jessica suffered contusion or hematoma at the bridge of her nose. The defense also presented photographs of Apolinario’s neck and hand injuries and of the apartment, which showed an outdoor seven-step concrete staircase leading to the apartment, with the seventh step directly connected to the doorway.

On October 19, 2004, Apolinario was charged in two Informations with Homicide for Lorico’s death and Frustrated Homicide for Crisanto’s injuries. He was arraigned on November 9, 2004, assisted by counsel, and pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits followed. The RTC found the defense’s version of the incident more believable and discussed only that version in its final analysis of the facts. It recognized that Crisanto had strangled Jessica and that she was exposed to danger. The CA doubted the defense’s narration: it found no unlawful aggression by Crisanto, characterized Apolinario’s neck and hand injuries as scratches insufficient to prove a struggle, noted that the knife allegedly used by Crisanto was not presented, found Lorico’s alleged knife attack from the stairs highly unbelievable, and said the downward trajectory of the bullet showed Apolinario was on much higher ground. The CA also considered it unlikely that the victims would attack the Bayles because they were police officers.

• Justifying Circumstances: Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in ruling that Apolinario failed to establish the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative.

• Justifying Circumstances: Yes. The SC held that Apolinario established by clear and convincing evidence defense of a relative in shooting Crisanto and self-defense and defense of a relative in shooting Lorico, because unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity were present and there was no sufficient provocation.

• Justifying Circumstances: The SC began from the rule that factual findings and credibility assessments are best left to the trial court, and that the trial court’s factual findings, if supported by evidence, subsist unless sufficiently contradicted. It noted that the RTC, although it convicted Apolinario, adopted the defense’s version in its final analysis and found it more believable; the CA’s doubts did not destroy that version. The SC found the defense testimonies consistent with the physical evidence: Jessica’s nose injury was confirmed by the Medico-Legal Report; Apolinario’s neck and hand abrasions were confirmed by Dr. Sanchez, who testified they could be caused by a sharp object; and Crisanto’s lacerated wound, aside from his gunshot wounds, was consistent with a physical struggle that the prosecution’s version did not explain. The SC distinguished Rugas vs. People: the failure to present the knife there was only one consideration because the accused lacked corroborating evidence and injury and the trial court found him the aggressor, whereas here the Medico-Legal Report and photographs corroborated the knife attack and the RTC itself recognized Crisanto’s unlawful aggression. The SC rejected the CA’s view that Apolinario’s injuries were only scratches, since Dr. Sanchez consistently said the abrasions could be caused by a sharp object; it held that a knife attack from a seven-step staircase was not impossible; it found the downward bullet trajectory consistent with Lorico being at the sixth step while Apolinario was at the apartment floor adjoining the seventh step; and it rejected the assumption that the victims would not attack police officers, since police officers are not immune from violent acts and it was not shown that the Lampas knew the Bayles were police officers. On the merits, the SC applied the requisites of self-defense—(1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation—and of defense of a relative—(1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed, and (3) no part in the provocation by the person making the defense. For Crisanto, there was unlawful aggression when he strangled Jessica, an actual physical assault; the RTC itself recognized the strangling, and Jessica was eight months pregnant, so the danger to her and the unborn child was real and imminent. The means were reasonably necessary: Apolinario already had his service pistol in hand when he saw Jessica being strangled, and reasonable necessity means rational, not absolute, necessity; the defender may use the weapon available even if technically disproportionate. For Lorico, there was unlawful aggression when he rushed at Apolinario and Jessica with a knife, eyes blazing and shouting, after Jessica was still on the floor; the threat was real and serious, especially after Apolinario shouted “tigil, pulis ako” and Lorico did not stop. The SC held that Apolinario did not exceed necessary force: the determination depends on the nature and quality of the weapons, the physical condition and size of the aggressor and defender, and surrounding circumstances; the service pistol was the available weapon, and requiring Apolinario to shoot Lorico’s arm or leg would demand accuracy and concentration he was not in a condition to exercise. Finally, there was no sufficient provocation: Apolinario’s curse was not proportionate or adequate to provoke Lorico and Crisanto to invade a home and attack with bladed weapons. The defense needed only clear and convincing evidence, more than preponderance but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the SC found that quantum satisfied for defense of a relative as to Crisanto and for self-defense and defense of a relative as to Lorico.

• Self-defense — A justifying circumstance with the following requisites:
  • Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
  • Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
  • Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. The SC applied this to the shooting of Lorico: Lorico’s knife-wielding rush was unlawful aggression, the service pistol was the available means, and Apolinario’s curse was not sufficient provocation.
• Defense of a relative — A justifying circumstance with the following requisites:
  • Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
  • Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and
  • In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the person making the defense took no part in the provocation. The SC applied this to Crisanto’s strangling of Jessica, and also to Lorico’s attack.
• Unlawful aggression — Actual physical assault or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury; if a threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. The SC applied this to Crisanto’s strangling of Jessica and Lorico’s knife-wielding rush.
• Reasonable necessity — Does not mean absolute necessity but rational necessity; it is satisfied when the defender uses the weapon available even if technically disproportionate, and depends on the nature and quality of the weapons, the physical condition and size of the aggressor and defender, and surrounding circumstances. The SC applied this to Apolinario’s use of his service pistol.
• Clear and convincing evidence — More than mere preponderance but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt; the defense need not prove absolute certainty. The SC applied this quantum to sustain the justifying circumstances.
• Trial court’s factual findings — Findings of fact and credibility are best left to the trial court; they subsist if supported by evidence and not sufficiently contradicted. The SC applied this because the RTC adopted the defense version and the CA did not sufficiently contradict it.
• Sufficient provocation — Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the aggression, adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense. Apolinario’s curse was not sufficient to justify a violent invasion with bladed weapons.

• “It is settled that reasonable necessity does not mean absolute necessity. It is not the indispensable need, but the rational necessity which the law requires.” — The SC uses this to explain why Apolinario’s use of his service pistol was reasonably necessary to repel the attacks.
• “Unlawful aggression is present, not only when there is actual physical assault, but also when there is a threat to inflict real imminent injury. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.” — The SC uses this to characterize Lorico’s knife-wielding rush as unlawful aggression.
• “Clear and convincing evidence has been described as more than mere preponderance, but the proof required is less than that required of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” — The SC uses this to state the quantum of evidence needed to establish self-defense and defense of a relative.
• “Police officers are definitely not immune from the felonious acts of the vile elements of society.” — The SC uses this to reject the CA’s assumption that the victims would not have attacked the Bayles because they were police officers.

• Rugas vs. People, 464 Phil. 493 (2004) — Distinguished; failure to present the knife was not fatal here because the defense had corroborating evidence and injury, and the trial court recognized unlawful aggression.
• People vs. An, 612 Phil. 476 (2009) — Followed; factual findings and credibility assessments are best left to the trial court.
• People vs. Aglipa, 391 Phil. 879 (2000) — Followed; self-defense requisites.
• Napone, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 193085, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 63 — Followed; defense of a relative requisites.
• People vs. Macaraig, 810 Phil. 931 (2017) — Followed; definition of unlawful aggression.
• Jayme vs. People, 372 Phil. 796 (1999) — Followed; reasonable necessity means rational, not absolute, necessity.
• Lacson vs. Court of Appeals, 183 Phil. 145 (1979) — Followed; the defender may use the available weapon even if technically disproportionate.
• People vs. Escobal, G.R. No. 206292, October 11, 2017, 842 SCRA 432 — Followed; a threat as unlawful aggression must be offensive and strong.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petition was filed under Rule 45; the SC granted it, reversed and set aside the CA decision and resolution, and acquitted Apolinario.

• Justice Caguioa (Acting Chairperson) (Concurring) — Separate opinion; its text is not included.