G.R. No. 102596 December 17, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICASIO ENOJA @ “Nick”, JOSE ENOJA @ “Moros”, ANTONIO GALUPAR @ “Tony”, RONNIE ENOJA @ “Bud-oy”, and YOLLY ARMADA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The five accused-appellants, all related farmers from Barangay Caraudan, Janiuay, Iloilo, were convicted of murder for the killing of Siegfred Insular, a suspected NPA commander. The incident occurred on July 2, 1987. The factual findings, adopted by appellants in their brief, establish that while Insular and his wife Paterna were walking home, they encountered Yolly Armada, who blocked their path and shot Siegfred. As the victim fell, several armed men, including the other appellants, appeared and took turns firing at him. The appellants then detained Paterna and a witness overnight. The prosecution’s theory was that the killing was motivated by the appellants’ belief that the NPA, to which the victim allegedly belonged, was responsible for prior violent attacks on their family.
The defense, however, interposed the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. They claimed that the killing was an act of retaliation because the NPA had allegedly killed the daughter and son of their brother, Romulo Enoja, and burned their mother’s house just days before. They asserted that Insular was an NPA commander and thus a legitimate target in their act of vengeance.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants are entitled to the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is that defense of a relative requires the existence of four elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive; and (4) the defender had no part in provoking the victim. The Court found the appellants’ claim utterly devoid of merit. The killing was not an act of defense but one of retaliation and revenge for past wrongs allegedly committed by the NPA. There was no unlawful aggression emanating from the victim, Siegfred Insular, at the time of the shooting. He was merely walking with his wife and even greeted Armada peacefully. The essence of defense of a relative is repelling an imminent or ongoing unlawful aggression, not exacting vengeance for a prior completed act. The appellants’ motive of retaliation negates the very essence of the justifying circumstance. Consequently, the killing was attended by treachery, as the attack was sudden and gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself, qualifying the crime as murder. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed, with modifications to the civil indemnity.