Title
Camillo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 260353
Decision Date
Feb 8, 2023
Rulie, attacked twice by drunk Noel, punched back in self-defense, causing Noel's death. SC acquitted Rulie, ruling his actions justified under self-defense.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260353)

Petitioner

Rulie Compayan Camillo, convicted by the Regional Trial Court of homicide and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Respondent

People of the Philippines.

Key Dates

  • February 12, 2012: Incident date.
  • October 22, 2018: Trial court conviction.
  • December 11, 2020: Court of Appeals Decision.
  • February 21, 2022: Court of Appeals Resolution.
  • February 8, 2023: Supreme Court Decision.

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
  • Revised Penal Code, Article 11(1) (self-defense), Article 4(1) (liability for unintended results), Article 249 (homicide)

Facts

While carrying a heavy sack of rice, Rulie was boxed twice without provocation by an intoxicated Noel. Feeling threatened, Rulie dropped the sack and delivered a powerful punch to Noel’s nose and jaw. Noel fell backward onto the pavement and died shortly thereafter.

Procedural History

  1. Trial court found absence of justifying circumstance, ruled Rulie acted in retaliation, and convicted him of homicide (prision mayor to reclusion temporal). Civil indemnity and moral damages of ₱50,000 each were imposed.
  2. Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but granted temperate damages of ₱50,000 and canceled Rulie’s bail, ordering his arrest.
  3. Rulie elevated the case by petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether Rulie’s act constituted homicide or was justified under self-defense.

Rulings of Lower Courts

  • Trial court: No unlawful aggression at time of fatal blow; defense was retaliatory.
  • Court of Appeals: Aggressor’s intoxication and physical state negated imminent threat; means employed by Rulie disproportionate.

Legal Analysis: Self-Defense

  1. Unlawful Aggression

    • Defined as a real, material, or imminent threat to life or personal safety.
    • Assessed from the accused’s perspective under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to him.
    • Persistent and reckless fist blows by a drunken aggressor constitute unlawful aggression.
  2. Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed

    • The force used must correspond to the nature and urgency of the threat.
    • In sudden confrontations, instinct for self-preservation may override calm reflection; only reasonable defensive force is required.
    • Two punches to Noel’s face, delivered to repel further unprovoked attacks, met this standard.
  3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation

    • Provocation must come from the defendant’s unjust or improper conduct.
    • Rulie did not provoke Noel; he was attacked while performing his duties.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed and acquitted Rulie, holding that:

  • Unlawful aggression by Noel persisted until the moment of the defensive blow.
  • Rulie’s use of fist blows was a rational response to an imminent threat posed by a larger, intoxicated assailant.
  • No sufficient provocation originated from Rulie to justify Noel’s assault.
  • Self-defe

...continue reading

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