SC acquits ‘drunk killer’
The accused argued that he validly defended himself against Angela’s unlawful aggression when he was punched several times by the victim and also said that Angela was in a fighting stance when he was defending himself
Daily TribuneThe accused argued that he validly defended himself against Angela’s unlawful aggression when he was punched several times by the victim and also said that Angela was in a fighting stance when he was defending himself
The Supreme Court reversed a decision of Court Appeals which affirmed the ruling of a lower court convicting a man to 10 to 14 years imprisonment for homicide after counterpunching a drunk man.
The SC decision, which was made public last 11 January was written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
The case stemmed after the suspect — identified as Rolly Camillo — was attacked by a drunk man identified as Noel Angela while working at the store of his employer where he delivered sacks of rice from Olingan, Dipolog City on 12 February 2012.
Investigations showed that Camillo was being boxed by Angela and after he was annoyed, he put down the second sack of rice he was carrying on his shoulder and punched Angela’s nose and jaw who fell down, hit a concrete pavement and died.
Camillo was charged with homicide and invoked self-defense but he was convicted by the trial court ruling that he acted in retaliation and not self-defense.
In question if self-defense be invoked only in cases of unlawful aggressions with the use of dangerous weapons, the SC said no and declared that self-defense can also be invoked by a victim because “persistent, reckless, and taunting fist blows can equally cause grave danger and harm.”
But Camillo lost his case before the CA, prompting him to file an appeal to the SC.
The accused argued that he validly defended himself against Angela’s unlawful aggression when he was punched several times by the victim and also said that Angela was in a fighting stance when he was defending himself.
He pointed out that he merely used his fist to defend himself and did not use any weapon. He stressed that there was no intention on his part to kill Angela.
In granting Camillo’s petition and acquitting him of homicide, the SC said that in self-defense, three elements must be present: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense.
“The trial court and the CA desired restraint on the part of Camillo. They found it unbelievable that Angela could still assume a fighting stance to harm Camillo given that Angela was intoxicated and unable to walk properly,” said the SC in its decision.
“Yet it is arbitrary to expect restraint from Camillo. He was physically and persistently assaulted by a wild, drunk Angela. At the time he was attacked by Angela, Camillo was exerting too much physical effort in carrying a heavy sack of rice,” it added.
“To a discriminating mind, the imminence of unlawful aggression is obscured by the instinct of self-preservation. This is particularly true in the case of Camillo who, while doing a strenuous job, was suddenly boxed by a drunk person for no apparent reason,” said the SC.
“We disagree that unlawful aggression had ceased when Camillo had put down the sack of rice. All the eyewitnesses attested that Angela did not stop attacking Camillo after the latter put down the first and second sacks of rice. Angela was still in a fighting stance until he met the wrath of Camillo’s defense. In his right, Camillo had to enable himself to repel the unlawful aggression with reasonable force,” it added.
