RAZON vs. PEOPLE (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. NO. 158053              June 21, 2007

EDWIN RAZON y LUCEA, Petitioner, 

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

PO1 Francisco Chopchopen (Chopchopen) was walking towards Upper Pinget Baguio City, at around midnight of August 1, 1993, when a taxicab driven by Edwin Razon y Lucea (Razon) stopped beside him. Razon told Chopchopen that he was held up by three men at Dreamland Subdivision. Chopchopen then asked Razon to go with him to the place of the incident to check if the persons who held him up were still there. Razon was hesitant at first but eventually went with Chopchopen. While walking, Chopchopen noticed a person lying on the ground and partially hidden by a big stone. Upon closer look, Chopchopen saw that the person's shirt was soaked in blood and that he was hardly breathing. Chopchopen asked Razon to help him bring the person to the hospital. On the way, Chopchopen asked Razon if he was the one who stabbed the victim. Razon answered no. Soon they met a police mobile patrol driven by SPO2 Samuel Bumangil (Bumangil) who followed them to Baguio General Hospital. The victim, who was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo (Gonzalo), was pronounced dead on arrival. He was 23 years old and a polio victim.

Upon questioning, Razon told Bumangil that he was held up by three men, which included Gonzalo whom he stabbed in self-defense. Razon brought out a fan knife and told Bumangil that it was the knife he used to stab Gonzalo. A later search of the cab however yielded another weapon, a colonial knife with bloodstains which was found under a newspaper near the steering wheel. At the police station, Razon admitted having stabbed Gonzalo but insisted that he did so in self-defense.

Not finding credence in Razon's claim of self-defense, RTC of Baguio City convicted him of homicide.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner acted in self-defense.

RULING:

NO.

Here, petitioner admitted having inflicted the wound which killed Gonzalo. The burden is therefore on him to show that he did so in self-defense. As correctly found by the RTC, however, petitioner failed to prove the elements of self-defense.

To escape liability, the person claiming self-defense must show by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that: (1) the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or at least any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression.

The condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense is the element of unlawful aggression. There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof and not just a threatening or intimidating attitude. In case of threat, it must be offensive, strong and positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. For a person to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm to the other.

In this case, petitioner unequivocally admitted that after the three men went out of his taxicab, he ran after them and later went back to his cab to get his colonial knife; then he went down the canal to swing his knife at the victim, wounding and killing him in the process. Such can no longer be deemed as self-defense.

It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the accused.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 12245-R, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Edwin Razon y Lucea" is AFFIRMED.