GR 76235; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 76235; January 21, 1991
PROCERFINA OLBINAR, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FERNANDO JIMENEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Procerfina Olbinar was charged with serious physical injuries for hacking Fernando Jimenez with a bolo. The prosecution evidence showed that on June 8, 1980, Jimenez was attempting to break up a fight between Romeo Cahilog and Emiliano Olbinar (Procerfina’s husband) when Procerfina arrived and hacked Jimenez, injuring his ear and forearm. The defense, however, presented a different account. Procerfina testified that she heard her husband shouting for help, rushed to the scene, and saw Jimenez and Cahilog mauling her bloodied husband who was on the ground. After failing to stop them, she retrieved a bolo, and when Jimenez tried to disarm her, she brandished the weapon, hitting him in the process.
ISSUE
Whether Procerfina Olbinar acted in complete self-defense of her spouse, a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, which would exempt her from criminal liability.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Procerfina Olbinar. The legal logic centers on the concurrence of all requisites for defense of a relative. The lower courts correctly found unlawful aggression existed, as established by Jimenez’s own judicial admission of guilt in a separate case for assaulting Emiliano Olbinar. However, they erroneously held that the means employed (using a bolo) were not reasonably necessary. The Supreme Court clarified that reasonableness must be judged from the defender’s perspective at that critical moment. Procerfina, a woman facing two male assailants who had overpowered her husband, acted instinctively in a sudden, violent situation to repel the attack. She had no opportunity for cool reflection or to choose a less forceful means. Given the immediacy of the threat to her husband’s safety, her use of the bolo was a proportional and necessary response to the unlawful aggression. Therefore, all elements of justifying circumstance of defense of a relative were present, warranting her acquittal.