Title
Abuyo y Sagrit vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 250495
Decision Date
Jul 6, 2022
Leo Abuyo, confronted by armed aggressors, defended himself and his father, resulting in Cesar Tapel's death. Supreme Court acquitted Leo, ruling his actions as justified self-defense.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 264473)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Incident
    • On August 16, 2011 at around 7:30 p.m., petitioner Leo Abuyo y Sagrit (Leo) and his wife rode their motorcycle home in Purok 1, Barangay Dogongan, Daet, Camarines Norte.
    • They were confronted by Cesar Tapel (armed with a fan knife) and his son Charles Tapel (armed with a handgun) who blocked their path.
    • Leo diverted to his father Leonardo Abuyo’s house nearby. Charles followed, kicked the fence, pointed his gun, and summoned Leo. Cesar then stabbed Leonardo in the chest and pursued him into Leo’s house.
    • Leo armed himself with a bolo, hacked Cesar’s right hand (causing him to drop the knife), but Cesar immediately retrieved the fan knife. Leo then stabbed Cesar in the abdomen. Cesar died from his wounds.
  • Post-Incident and Procedural History
    • Leo voluntarily surrendered to authorities.
    • He was charged with homicide under the Revised Penal Code (armed with a bolo and stones, intent to kill). He pleaded not guilty and asserted self-defense and defense of a relative.
    • On December 8, 2017, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of homicide, acknowledging incomplete self-defense and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances, and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 8 years imprisonment plus damages.
    • On June 28, 2019, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modified damage awards. A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 12, 2019. Leo filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether Leo successfully established the elements of self-defense.
    • Existence of unlawful aggression by Cesar and Charles.
    • Reasonable necessity of the means employed (the bolo strikes).
    • Absence of sufficient provocation on Leo’s part.
  • Whether Leo successfully established the elements of defense of a relative (his father Leonardo).
    • Unlawful aggression against Leonardo.
    • Reasonable necessity of the defensive means.
    • No participation by Leo in any provocation.
  • Whether the CA and RTC erred in demanding material parity of arms and calm deliberation from Leo under imminent threat.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.