G.R. No. 210975 , March 11, 2020
PO1 APOLINARIO BAYLE Y JUNIO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On September 20, 2004, a party was held at the compound owned by the Lampas, located in front of the apartment of petitioner PO1 Apolinario Bayle (Apolinario). Apolinario and his wife, PO2 Jessica T. Bayle (Jessica), were inside their apartment with friends when Lorico R. Lampa (Lorico) shouted curses and threats at them from outside. Apolinario retorted with a curse. Later, the door swung open, causing Jessica to fall. Crisanto L. Lozano (Crisanto) and Allan Lampa (Allan), both armed with bladed weapons, entered. Crisanto attacked Jessica, and Apolinario wrestled with him, eventually disarming him. Apolinario then retrieved his gun from his bedroom. Upon returning, he saw Crisanto strangling his pregnant wife. Apolinario shot Crisanto, who then fled. While Apolinario was helping Jessica stand, Lorico, armed with a knife, charged towards them. Apolinario shouted “tigil pulis ako,” but Lorico continued, prompting Apolinario to shoot him. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Apolinario guilty of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, ruling that the defense failed to prove the justifying circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner, PO1 Apolinario Bayle, should be acquitted on the grounds of the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative for the shooting of Crisanto L. Lozano and the killing of Lorico R. Lampa.

RULING

Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia’s ruling to acquit the petitioner. All elements of the justifying circumstances were proven.
For the shooting of Crisanto, the defense of a relative was established: (1) There was unlawful aggression, as Crisanto’s act of strangling Jessica posed an actual and imminent danger to her life and that of her unborn child. (2) The means employed—using a service pistol against an unarmed aggressor—was reasonably necessary given the emergency and the instinct for self-preservation and defense of family. The “stand ground” rule applies, and Apolinario was not obliged to retreat. (3) Apolinario took no part in sufficient provocation; his earlier curse was not proportionate to the violent aggression.
For the killing of Lorico, both self-defense and defense of a relative were established: (1) There was unlawful aggression when Lorico, armed with a knife, charged towards Apolinario and Jessica despite a warning. (2) The use of a gun was reasonably necessary as Apolinario, while helping his wife, could not be expected to coolly aim at a non-vital part under the chaotic circumstances. (3) There was no sufficient provocation on Apolinario’s part, as his verbal retort was not adequate to justify Lorico’s armed assault.
Therefore, the shootings were justified, and the petitioner must be acquitted.