G.R. No. 169425 ; March 4, 2008
ROBERTO LICYAYO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Roberto Licyayo was charged with Homicide for the death of Rufino Guay and Direct Assault upon a police officer. The prosecution evidence established that on February 16, 1992, a brawl erupted at a store in Kiangan, Ifugao, involving Rufino Guay and Aron Licyayo, the petitioner’s brother. Police officers, responding to the commotion, arrived and saw petitioner holding a double-bladed knife. When PO3 Miguel Buyayo, in civilian clothes, held petitioner from behind to restrain him, petitioner turned and attempted to stab the officer, who retreated.
Ignoring the officers’ pleas to disarm, petitioner proceeded to stab Rufino Guay multiple times, causing fatal injuries. The defense presented a different narrative, claiming petitioner acted in defense of his brother, Aron, who was allegedly being attacked by Rufino and his companions. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of Homicide but dismissed the Direct Assault charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed the homicide conviction with modifications to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioner acted in legitimate self-defense or defense of a relative, which would exempt him from criminal liability for the killing of Rufino Guay.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the settled principle that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with clear and convincing evidence by the accused. Upon an appeal, the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive. The Court found no reason to deviate from these findings.
The prosecution witnesses, including police officers, credibly established that petitioner was the unlawful aggressor. He was seen walking towards the fray armed with a knife, ignored police intervention, and deliberately stabbed the unarmed victim. The claim of defense of a relative fails because the evidence showed Aron was the initial aggressor in the fistfight with Rufino. One cannot invoke defense of a relative when the relative provoked the attack. Petitioner’s use of a lethal weapon against an unarmed victim who was already engaged with another person was not a reasonable and necessary means to repel an aggression. Consequently, all elements of Homicide were present: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; and (3) the killing was not attended by any justifying circumstance. The award of damages was modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence, granting civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages in lieu of unproven actual loss.