G.R. No.

177302 April 16, 2009

I
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JAIME LOPEZ, ROGELIO REGALADO, AND ROMEO
ARAGON, Appellants.

G.R. No. 177302 April 16, 2009

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

III SYLLABUS TOPIC

Self-Defense & its elements

IV DOCTRINE

Unlawful aggression, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, contemplates assault or at least threatened
assault of an immediate and imminent kind. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb
or right is either actual or imminent. To constitute unlawful aggression, it is necessary that an attack or
material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause injury shall
have been made. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient…there must be a real danger
to life and personal safety.

IV THESIS STATEMENT

Appellants, Jaime Lopez, Rogelio Regalado and Romeo Aragon were charged of Murder by an Information
filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao del Sur.

V RELEVANT FACTS

According to the evidence for the prosecution, on April 25, 1996, appellant Rogelio Regalado stabbed
Edencito Chu after interposing a challenge for Chu to come out. Chu was able to run away but Regalado
chased and hit him with two pieces of firewood, which he picked along the way. Moreover, the appellant
Jaime Lopez came out from a nearby house armed with a hunting knife and joined the chase. They were
soon joined by appellant Romeo Aragon who came from the back of the tailoring shop where the stabbing
first took place. The appellants caught up with Chu and Aragon then boxed Chu until the latter fell and then
kicked him. Lopez then stabbed Chu several times as Regalado looked on. They only left when Chu was no
longer moving, thus, Chu died even before reaching the hospital.

VI ARGUMENTS/CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

PROSECUTION DEFENSE

The appellants are guilty of killing Chu and
qualified by Treachery which absorbed “abuse of
superior strength”.
● In Regalado’s defense, he denied taking
part in the stabbing and claimed that Chu
choked him, causing him to run away from
Chu after extricating himself from the
latter.
● In Lopez’s defense, he interposed “defense
of relative” and “self-defense” claiming
that he intercepted Chu as he was chasing
Regalado, his father-in-law but Chu boxed
him which made him stab the latter
several times and thereafter surrendered
to the police.
● In Argon’s defense, he invoked an alibi
where he was at the wharf, which is 40
meters away from the scene of the
stabbing at the time of the incident.

VII ISSUE

Whether or not “defense of a relative” should be appreciated?

VIII RULINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS/APPELLATE COURT

The RTC found the three appellants to have killed Chu, qualified by Treachery which absorbed “abuse of
superior strength”.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.

IX RULING AND VERDICT

It was held that the “defense of a relative” cannot be appreciated on Lopez’s part because of the absence of
“unlawful aggression” which is an essential element of such defense under paragraph 2, Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, Chu’s threatening words of “Are you going to defend your father-in-law?” was
not considered as something that amounts to unlawful aggression. Another element “reasonably necessity
of the means employed to prevent or repel it” was also found lacking in this case. Nowhere in the records is
it shown that when Chu allegedly chased Regalado, the former was wielding a weapon. Thus, the intention
of Lopez to get a knife for his protection and that of his father-in-law was unwarranted. The fact that Chu
allegedly boxed and taunted him prompting him to stab the victim several times in retaliation negates the
reasonableness of the means employed to repel Chu’s aggression assuming that indeed, Chu started the
aggression. The wounds sustained by Chu xxx indicate that the assailant who inflicted the same was more
in a killing rage than one who was merely acting in defense of a relative.

Appellants’ denial of the existence of treachery in this wise does not convince:

x x x Based on the prosecution witnesses’ testimony, the victim was allegedly asking forgiveness from
accused-appellant Rogelio Regalado and placed his hands on his shoulder when the latter stabbed the
former. Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the victim committed a wrongful act against the
accused-appellant, which was so grave that there was a need for him to ask for forgiveness. Thus, x x x the
victim was expecting a retaliation from herein accused-appellant.

The essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that renders the victim unable and unprepared
to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.

In the case, Chu was caught off-guard when, after he was asking forgiveness from Regalado, the latter
suddenly drew a curved knife and stabbed and pursued the following victim. And once Regalado and his
co-appellants cornered Chu, Aragon kicked and punched him while Lopez stabbed him several times to
thus preclude Chua from defending himself.

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.