ARTICLE 9

Justifying Circumstances – Defense of Person or Rights

PEOPLE vs. ANTERO GAMEZ

G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013
REYES, J.:

FACTS: For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the Judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of of Leyte convicting accused-appellant Antero Gamez for parricide
and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

The accused recalls that he and his father, Apolinario Gamez, had always had a strained
relationship while the former was growing up. On August 21, 2004, the accused killed his
father with the use of a long bladed weapon (sundang) and sickle (sarad). Apolinario
sustained multiple hacking and incised wounds on the different parts of his body which
were the direct and approximate cause of his death.

Given the prosecution and the defense’s recollection of the events, the court was able to
piece together the events leading to Apolinario’s death.

After a verbal spat, father and son met along a pathway and, with no one to pacify them,
resumed their quarrel. Apolinario attacked the accused first with a long bolo, hitting the
latter twice on the head. After a skirmish, the accused was able to gain possession of the
bolo. Apolinario, now without a weapon, ran 20 metres before the accused caught up to
him and proceeded to hack him to death. One of the wounds that Apolinario sustained
was a slash to the neck, which almost decapitated him, with a scythe.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused could be exempted from criminal liability based on
self-defense as a justifying circumstance.

HELD: No. If an accused admits killing the victim, but pleads self-defense, the burden of
evidence is shifted to him. In order to escape criminal liability, the following requisites
under Paragraph 2 Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code must be present: (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.

Unlawful aggression is an essential requirement of self-defense. Without it, there can be

no self-defense. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat
to one’s life. It must be continuous; otherwise, it does not constitute aggression warranting
self-defense.
The aggression initially staged by Apolinario could not be considered continuous since it
ended when he was injured by the accused. From then on, the perceived threat to the
accused’s life was no longer present.

Hence, the accused running after his father and hacking him to death could not be
considered an act of self-defense, but an act of retaliation. 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 still existed
when the aggressor was injured by the accused.

There was no justifiable cause exempting the accused-appellant from criminal liability and
the courts convicted him for parricide.