G.R. No. 124506 September 9, 1999
ROMEL JAYME y REFE, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Romel Jayme was convicted of frustrated homicide by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals. The prosecution’s version was that on May 25, 1992, at about 6:30 PM, Ramil Cruz was walking when petitioner, without provocation, suddenly stabbed him twice. Ramil’s brother, Edwin Cruz, witnessed the stabbing, rushed to help, and was also hit on the arm. Ramil suffered two perforating and penetrating stab wounds requiring hospitalization. The defense version was that at about 5:45 PM, while petitioner was fetching water, a man (Ramil Cruz) blocked his way, said “Pare ito ba? Alalayan niyo ako,” suddenly pulled a knife and thrust it at him. Petitioner wrestled for the knife, was being boxed by several persons from behind, managed to get the knife and swung it, was hit on the head, dropped the knife, and fled. A defense witness testified that earlier, Edwin Cruz asked for help against an enemy, and he saw Ramil Cruz, who had been drinking, suddenly box Romel Jayme. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Ramil Cruz, who was under the influence of liquor, was the unlawful aggressor who attacked petitioner without provocation. The Court of Appeals, however, held that petitioner employed unreasonable means in repelling the attack by using a knife, thus convicting him but crediting him with the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Romel Jayme acted in legitimate self-defense, entitling him to acquittal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted petitioner. The Court found that all elements of self-defense were present: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. The Court affirmed the lower courts’ finding that Ramil Cruz was the unlawful aggressor, attacking petitioner suddenly with fist blows while under the influence of liquor. As to the reasonable necessity of the means, the Court held that under the circumstances—the sudden attack at night, the element of surprise, petitioner’s perception that the aggressor was armed with a knife and was with companions ganging up on him, and the fact he was subsequently hit on the head—it was reasonable for petitioner to use a knife to disable his adversary. The knife was his only means of defense, and there was a reasonable necessity for its use. The cases cited by the Court of Appeals were distinguished as inapplicable due to different factual circumstances. Consequently, petitioner acted in legitimate self-defense.