The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the use of self-defense to counter unlawful aggression, although not necessarily with the use of dangerous weapon, but through “persistent, reckless and taunting fist blows” that can also cause grave danger and harm.
In a decision made public last Jan. 11, the SC declared that self-defense can also be invoked by a victim not only with the use of dangerous weapons.
The ruling reversed a Court of Appeals’ (CA) 2020 verdict affirming a regional trial court (RTC) conviction of Rulie Compayan Camillo for homicide, and imposing a prison term of 10 to 14 years.
“The trial court and the CA desired restraint on the part of Camillo. They found it unbelievable that Angela could still assume a fighting stance to harm Camillo given that (Noel) Angela was intoxicated and unable to walk properly,” stated the SC decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
“Yet it is arbitrary to expect restraint from Camillo. He was physically and persistently assaulted by a wild, drunk Angela. At the time he was attacked by Angela, Camillo was exerting too much physical effort in carrying a heavy sack of rice,” the ruling read.
“Unlawful aggression manifests in various forms. It cannot be pigeonholed to scenarios where there are dangerous weapons involved. Persistent, reckless, and taunting fist blows can equally cause grave danger and harm,” the SC stressed.
To a discriminating mind, the high court noted that the imminence of unlawful aggression is obscured by the instinct of self-preservation. “This is particularly true in the case of Camillo who, while doing a strenuous job, was suddenly boxed by a drunk person for no apparent reason,” it said.
Case records show that on Feb. 12, 2012, Camillo was working at the store of his employer where he delivered sacks of rice from Olingan, Dipolog City.
While Camillo was carrying a sack of rice, Angela, who was drunk, suddenly boxed him. He continued working, but Angela hit him again.
Camillo put down the second sack of rice he was carrying and punched Angela’s nose and jaw. Angela fell down, hit a concrete pavement, and died. Camillo was subsequently charged with homicide.
Despite claiming self-defense, Camillo was convicted by the trial court which ruled that he acted in retaliation and not self-defense.
In appealing before the high tribunal, Camillo argued that he validly defended himself against Angela’s unlawful aggression when he was boxed several times by the latter. He also said that Angela was in a fighting at the time of their confrontation.
Camillo asserted that he merely used his fist to defend himself and did not use any weapon. He stressed that he had no intention to kill Angela.
In granting Camillo’s petition and acquitting him of homicide, the SC said that in self-defense, three elements must be present: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.
“We disagree that unlawful aggression had ceased when Camillo had put down the sack of rice. All the eyewitnesses attested that Angela did not stop attacking Camillo after the latter put down the first and second sacks of rice,” the SC said.
The SC noted that Angela was still in a fighting stance when Camillo fought back. The court added that Camillo had the right to repel the unlawful aggression with reasonable force.
“Here, Camillo’s defense of using his fists –and nothing more — is reasonably necessary to ward off Angela’s unlawful aggression. Camillo inflicted only two blows on Angela’s face. This strongly indicates that he only intended to repel and deter Angela from further boxing him,” the SC said.
“Unfortunately, the adrenaline force that came with his punch, which knocked Angela out on the floor, was compounded by Angela’s intoxication. Nevertheless, such defensive act is not coupled with criminal intent,” the high court added.
“As such, Camillo cannot be liable for the consequences of his act. Indeed, Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that criminal liability shall be incurred by ‘any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended,” the SC said.
According to the tribunal, in this case, Camillo was not committing a felony when he punched Angela in self-defense. “Therefore, he cannot be liable for the consequences of his act.”
‘In this case, it is undisputed that Camillo did not sufficiently provoke Angela. He was just doing his job when he was suddenly attacked by Angela. They had no proven altercation or misunderstanding that excited Angela to box Camillo,” the SC said.
“What ‘provoked’ Angela, if any, was his own drunkenness, which corrupted his sense of sobriety and civility. His intoxication courted his death,” the ruling stated.
The SC said that while it is regretful that a life was lost, justice in its imperfect but truest sense cannot condone the conviction and incarceration of a person innocent in the eyes of the law.
“Finally, self-defense is a justifying circumstance that relieves Camillo of criminal and civil liabilities. Although Camillo killed Noel, his act did not violate the law. There is no civil liability incurred because Camillo acted without criminal intent and there is no crime committed,” the SC ruled.