EDWIN RAZON y LUCEA v PEOPLE GF THE PHILIPPINES, S255CRa 254, 6.8 NO. 156053, june 21, 2007 hiv 2 Petition fer Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Cle’ Resolution dated January 31, 2001 and the CA Resolution dated April 14, 200 which denied Rason’s motion for reconsideration FACTS: (On August 1, 1993 around midnight, PO Francisco Chapchopen was walking towards Upper Finget Baguio City when he was met by taxi cab driver, Edwin Bazan, Aazen tale Choprhegen that he was hele up by threr men at Oreamlane ‘Subdivision, When Chepchogen asked Razon if he stabbed fenedct Gonzala, 24 years ald and a palie victim, he answered no cand when questioned fy SPO? Sumangi, he was held um by two men and he stabbed Gonzale in se defense. Razon brought ‘out a fan knife and told Bumangil that it was the knife he used ta stab Gonzalo. A search was conducted an the taxi cab a ‘colonial knéfe with bloodstains was found under a newspaper near the steering whee ‘An autopsy conducted on the body of the victim showed that he sustained 2 stab waunds, waund on the abdomen killed Gonzala, a: it penetrated the small intestines, pancreas and the aidaminal aorta, causing massive hemorrhage and loss ‘of blood. On trial, the RIC convicted him of homicide, it was found out that while there was unlawful aggression by Gonzalo ‘wha paked a knife on Razon’s neck, such aggression ceased when Razon was able ta grab the knife from Guewala and freed his right hand fram the hold of Gonwalo’s twa campanions who stepped aut of the taxicab followed by Gonzala, Raza could had have started the engine and just left theplace. But he did not. Me is further ordered te pay the heirs of Gunzala, ir the _ameunt of 612,770.00 by way of setual damages; PS0,000.C0 by way of moral damsges: and #10,000.00 by way of attorney's i (On appeal, the CA required him, through his counsel Atty. Rigoberta Gallardo ta file an appellant’sbrief. Twe motans ‘far extension of time were filed by Atty. Gallarda, Instead of filing the brief, Atty. Gallardo filed 2 Motion to Withdraw as ‘Caunsel for Razon. CA then directed Razon ta couse the entry of appearance of a new counsel ar manifest whether he wanted the court ta appoint a counsel de ofica to defend him, since na comaliance has been fled by Razan his right to be represented by counsel has been waived; but en July 25, 2001, Razon filed with the CA.a Maticn far Reconsideration which ‘was later an denied by the CA; hence, this appeal ISSUES RULING: 1 Whether the CA was correct in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to file appellant's brief. NO, the CA gave Razen sufficient oppertunity toile his appellant’ brief, instead of complying, however, he cheae te ignate the many directives of ‘the CA and puts the blame an his. former counsel Aity. Gallardo, who was allegedly guilty of grass negigence. Even ifthe Court were to admit that Atty. Gsllarda war negligent, the rule is that negligence of course! binds the client except when the negligence of said counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the chent is deprived of his day in court. No such excepting srcumstance car be said ta be present in this eave because a: properly observed by the appellate court, Razon himself wat guilty ef negligence. While sppeal isan essential! part ef our judicial zystem, = party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down by the Bules of Court enanpeals, mindful ef the fact that an appeal is purely 2 statutory right. Procedural rules are designed to faciitate the adjudication of caves. Goth courts and litigants are therefore enjoinedte abide stricthy ay ‘the rules. 2. Whether petitioner acted in self-defense in killing Gonzalo. NO. itis settled that the mament the first aggressor run amy, Uunlawiul aggression on the parte the first aggressor ceases ta exist: and when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender ne longer has any right ta kil or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. Retaliation isnot the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression by the injured party already ceased ‘when the accused attscked him, while in self-defense the aggression stillexisted when the aggressor was injured by the accused. ‘asta the damages certsin medifirations were made. AIC failed to award the heirs of Genzale, 0,000.00 as civil indemnity for his death. Chvilindemnity is autamaticslly imacsed upon the sceused withaut need ef proof other than the fort cof commissisn ef murder or homicide. Actusl damages is replaced by temperate damages inthe amount off25,000.00. In ‘this ease, Gonzalo's heirs were only able ta present receipts amounting to P,825, 00. This is consistent with the ruling nthe: Court in People v. Werke, citing People v. Villanueva which held that in instances where actual expenses amaumting te less ‘than P2S,000.00are proved during the trial, the award of temperate damages of25,000.00 is justified in lieu of the actual ‘damages of a lesser amaunt. sto moral damages, the RTC correctly awarded the amaunt of450,000.00, as the praserutian ‘wax able to chow that the father of the victim, Benedicto Gonzalo, Sr.,:uffered mental and emotional anguish due to the untimely death ef his en, Moral damages may be awarded in favor ofthe heirs ofa victim wpan sufficient proof of mental anguish, serious ansiety, wounded feelings and similar injury. ATC was enrrect in awarding 210,000.00 as attorney's fees ta the heirs ofthe vietim. as prewided for in Art. 2208 (1) of the-Civil Code, attarney's fees may be awarded ‘where the court deems it justand equitable that attarney’s fees and expenses of litigation should be recovered.