G.R. No. 274077 , February 24, 2025
DANIEL AQUINO Y ESPIRITU, PETITIONER, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Daniel Aquino y Espiritu was charged with Homicide for stabbing Lorvin Cordovez y Almera to death on April 13, 2014, in Taguig City. During a birthday celebration at their construction site, an altercation ensued after Lorvin questioned why Aquino received a higher salary. Lorvin cursed at and challenged Aquino to a fistfight. A brawl occurred where Aquino found himself pinned to the ground with Lorvin on top, strangling him with one hand and punching him with the other. To defend himself, Aquino grabbed an object, which turned out to be a knife, and struck Lorvin, causing fatal stab wounds. Aquino admitted the stabbing but invoked self-defense. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Homicide, finding only incomplete self-defense, and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the maximum penalty. Aquino filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking acquittal based on complete self-defense.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner acted in complete self-defense, thereby incurring no criminal liability for the death of Lorvin Cordovez.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner. The Court held that all requisites of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code were present: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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.
First, unlawful aggression was established by Lorvin’s acts of initiating a fistfight, pinning Aquino to the ground, strangling him, and repeatedly punching him, which posed a real danger to Aquino’s life.
Second, the means employed were reasonably necessary. Given the position of being pinned and strangled, Aquino had no opportunity to retreat or choose a more lenient means of defense. Grabbing the nearest object, which accidentally was a knife, to repel the life-threatening attack was a reasonable and instinctive response.
Third, there was no sufficient provocation from Aquino; his response to Lorvin’s salary question was not provocative, and he initially moved away to avoid conflict.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals misapprehended these facts. The nature of Lorvin’s attack, not the number of assailants or weapons, determines the reasonableness of the defense. Since all elements of self-defense concur, Aquino incurred no criminal liability. The appealed Decision was reversed and set aside, and Aquino was acquitted.