GUILLERMO v PEOPLE

< G.R. No. 153287, June 30, 2008>

TOPIC : <Art.13 Mitigating Circumstances (1) >

<Romero, R.E.>

FACTS:
• Petitioner Noel Guillermo, along with Arnaldo Socias and Joemar Palma, is charged
with homicide for the death of Winnie Alon.

At 5:40 in the afternoon of July 21, 1996, Winnie Alon, Wilfredo Cabison, Eddie Roque, and Vicente
Alon were at the public market of Cuartero, at a restaurant of Melecio Heyres to eat. Noel Guillermo,
Arnel Socias, and Joemar Palma were at the restaurant drinking beer. Then, by Guillermo’s group
invitation, Winnie’s group joined them at their table. Thereafter, an argument ensued when Winnie
Alon was angered by Socias’ remark belittling him for being only an assistant to his brother-in-law
in the wood-cutting craft. Alon took Socias’ collar, so petitioner Guillermo tried to pacify them and
urged them to settle. Alon, being furious, struck Guillermo thrice at the head and broke the bottle
only to hit petitioner again. Petitioner for defense, pulled out his knife and stabbed Winnie Alon
three times, but not aware at what part of the body did he strike the now deceased.

RTC RULING: Guilty of homicide, with mitigating circumstance of incomplete justification

of self-defense.

CA RULING: RTC’s decision affirmed.

ISSUE:
1. WON Noel Guillermo’s self-defense of using a knife to stab Winnie Alon is a
justifying or mitigating circumstance?

PETITIONER:
Guillermo admits he stabbed Winnie Alon but invokes the justifying circumstance of
self-defense (art.11) so that he would not be criminally liable.

SC RULING: ONLY A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

According to Art 13 par.1: Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.

In case at bar, the requisites for the justifying circumstance of self-defense is not
complete:
1 . There was unlawful aggression-indeed, it was Winnie Alon who started the unlawful
st

aggression and not Guillermo by hitting the latter with a bottle several times at the head.
2 .Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it-IN CASE AT BAR, THIS IS
nd

LACKING. Because first, there is an intrinsic difference between a Batangas knife used by
petitioner and the broken bottle used by now deceased Winnie Alon. Second, petitioner only
suffered ONE blow, contrary to his claim that it was three blows at the head. Third, the depth of
the wound inflicted by Guillermo shows the intent to kill and not to merely disable Alon from
hitting.

3 Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself- petitioner
rd

Guillermo was only a third party in the quarrel, he did not take part in the instigation.

In relation to Art.64, since there is partial justification, and not a complete justifying nor an
exempting circumstance, the minimum of prision mayor has to be reduced by one degree which
is prision correcional. Thus, SC affirmed the CA decision of indeterminate penalty of six (6)
years prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, as imposed
by the RTC on petitioner.

ADDITIONAL NOTES