G.R. No. 156567; November 27, 2003
JOSE RIMANO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Rimano was charged with homicide for the death of Nestor Importado and frustrated homicide against Isaias Ibardolasa, Jr. The prosecution evidence established that on October 16, 1991, Nelson Importado initially attacked Rimano with a knife in front of a billiard hall. During a struggle, Rimano gained possession of the knife and stabbed Nelson, who retreated. Nestor Importado, Nelson’s brother, then rushed and boxed Rimano, who retaliated with successive stabbing blows. When Isaias Ibardolasa, Jr. intervened to separate them, Rimano also stabbed him. The incident was witnessed by Froilan Sucro from a nearby house.
Rimano invoked self-defense, claiming Nestor Importado was the initial aggressor who tried to stab him without provocation. He testified that he merely wrestled for the knife and that Nelson was accidentally stabbed during the struggle. He asserted that his actions against Nestor and Isaias were a continuous act of defense. The trial court convicted him of homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide, a decision modified by the Court of Appeals, which acquitted him in one frustrated homicide case but affirmed his convictions for homicide and the other count of frustrated homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense in favor of petitioner Jose Rimano for the crimes of homicide and frustrated homicide.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the convictions. The legal logic is that self-defense, being an affirmative allegation, requires the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found that Rimano failed to prove unlawful aggression on the part of Nestor Importado and Isaias Ibardolasa, Jr. at the moment he inflicted the fatal wounds.
The evidence showed that after the initial aggression by Nelson Importado, who had already retreated, it was Nestor who approached and boxed Rimano. The Court ruled that a fist blow does not constitute unlawful aggression that justifies the use of a lethal weapon like a knife. Furthermore, when Isaias intervened merely to pacify, his act was not an aggressive attack. Rimano’s act of delivering multiple stab wounds, including to Nestor’s back as he fled, and stabbing Isaias in the back while pinned, demonstrated a retaliatory intent that exceeded the necessity of defense. The nature, number, and location of the wounds were inconsistent with a person acting in self-preservation. Thus, the justifying circumstance was not present, and his criminal liability stands.