Can self-defense be invoked only in cases of unlawful aggressions with the use of dangerous weapons?
No, said the Supreme Court (SC) as it declared that self-defense can also be invoked by a victim because “persistent, reckless, and taunting fist blows can equally cause grave danger and harm.”
With its declaration, the SC reversed a Court of Appeals’ (CA) 2020 decision that affirmed the ruling of the regional trial court (RTC) which convicted Rulie Compayan Camillo of homicide and sentenced him to a prison term ranging from 10 to 14 years.
The SC decision, which was made public last Jan. 11, was written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
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, Noel Angela, who was drunk, suddenly boxed him. He continued working but Angela boxed him again.
Camillo put down the second sack of rice he was carrying on his shoulder and punched Angela’s nose and jaw. Angela fell down, hit a concrete pavement, and died. Camillo was charged with homicide.
Despite his invocation of self-defense, he was convicted by the trial court which ruled that he acted in retaliation and not self-defense.
When he lost his case before the CA, he appealed to the SC.
Camillo told the SC 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 stance when he was defending himself.
He pointed out that he merely used his fist to defend himself and did not use any weapon. He stressed that there was no intention on his part 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, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.
The SC said:
“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 Angela was intoxicated and unable to walk properly.
“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.
“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.
“To a discriminating mind, 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.
“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.
“Angela was still in a fighting stance until he met the wrath of Camillo’s defense. In his right, Camillo had to enable himself 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.
“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.
“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 (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.’
“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.
“What ‘provoked’ Angela, if any, was his own drunkenness, which corrupted his sense of sobriety and civility. His intoxication courted his death.
“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.
“Accordingly, Rulie Compayan Camillo's Petition for Review on Certiorari is granted. The Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City's Decision dated Dec. 11, 2020 and Resolution dated Feb. 21, 2022 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01826-MIN are reversed. Rulie Compayan Camillo is acquitted of homiciee and is ordered immediately released from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.”