G.R. No. 151978 ; July 14, 2004
ARTURO ROMERA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Arturo Romera was charged with frustrated homicide for stabbing Roy Mangaya-ay. The prosecution’s version established that on October 4, 1998, after an earlier altercation, Romera waited for the victim’s group armed with a bolo. Upon seeing them, he uttered a challenge, pursued the victim who slipped, held him by the collar, and stabbed him in the stomach, inflicting a serious wound requiring extensive hospitalization. Romera later surrendered to authorities.
Romera interposed self-defense, claiming the victim, who was drunk, initiated the attack at his house by hacking at his door with a bolo. He testified that he managed to wrestle the bolo away from the victim and, in the ensuing struggle, stabbed him. He asserted he stopped further attack when the victim begged for forgiveness. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this defense and convicted him of frustrated homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s rejection of Romera’s claim of self-defense and in its imposition of the penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the lower courts’ factual findings, which are accorded great weight and respect. For self-defense to be valid, the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation is required. Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element.
The Court agreed with the lower courts that even assuming the victim was the initial aggressor at Romera’s house, any unlawful aggression ceased the moment Romera successfully gained possession of the bolo. At that point, the danger to his life had ended, and there was no more imminent attack to repel. His subsequent act of stabbing the victim was no longer an act of defense but one of retaliation or vengeance, negating self-defense. Consequently, his conviction for frustrated homicide stands.
Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. However, it also recognized the presence of the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem (lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong), as the single stab wound, while serious, did not indicate a determined intent to kill, and Romera desisted from further attack. With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty should be lowered by one degree pursuant to Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. The awards for actual damages and attorney’s fees were affirmed.