G.R. No. 250495 . July 06, 2022
LEO ABUYO Y SAGRIT, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Leo Abuyo was charged with Homicide for stabbing Cesar Tapel. The incident occurred when Leo and his wife, on a motorcycle, were blocked by Cesar and his son Charles, who were armed with a fan knife and a gun, respectively. Leo evaded them and sped to his father Leonardo’s house. Charles followed, kicked the fence, pointed his gun, and demanded Leo come out. When Leonardo intervened to pacify Charles, Cesar arrived and stabbed Leonardo. As Leonardo fled towards Leo’s house with Cesar in pursuit, Leo went outside. Cesar then attempted to stab Leo.
At trial, Leo invoked self-defense and defense of a relative. He testified that upon seeing his father stabbed and being attacked himself, he grabbed a bolo, hacked Cesar’s hand to disarm him, and stabbed him when Cesar tried to retrieve the knife. The Regional Trial Court convicted Leo of Homicide, finding the means employed not reasonably necessary, though it appreciated incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative in favor of petitioner Leo Abuyo.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Leo Abuyo. The legal logic centers on the requisites of self-defense and defense of a relative, particularly the existence of unlawful aggression and the reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it. The Court found that unlawful aggression was clearly present and ongoing. Cesar Tapel had just stabbed Leo’s father and was pursuing him with a knife when he directly attempted to stab Leo. This constituted a real danger to life, satisfying the indispensable element of unlawful aggression for both defenses.
On the second requisite, the Court held that the means Leo employed—using a bolo to disarm and ultimately stab the armed aggressor—were reasonably necessary under the circumstances. The law does not require a person under attack to calibrate their defense with precision; they are only required to act rationally based on a reasonable belief of imminent peril. The lower courts incorrectly required a detached reflection unavailable in the face of a sudden, violent assault. Given the armed aggression against his father and himself, Leo’s actions were a rational and instinctive response to repel the life-threatening attack. Consequently, all elements of the justifying circumstances were proven, warranting acquittal.