Title
People vs. Olarbe y Balihango
Case
G.R. No. 227421
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2018
Rodolfo Olarbe acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court, ruling his actions as legitimate self-defense and defense of his spouse against Arca's continuous unlawful aggression.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-35645)

Petitioner and Respondent

• Petitioner: People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee)
• Respondent: Rodolfo Olarbe y Balihango (Accused-Appellant)

Key Dates

• Incident: Night of May 7–8, 2006
• RTC Judgment: August 13, 2014 (Branch 27, Santa Cruz, Laguna)
• CA Decision: March 22, 2016 (CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07112)
• Supreme Court Decision: July 23, 2018 (G.R. No. 227421)

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 11 (Justifying Circumstances: self-defense and defense of a stranger)

Procedural History

• RTC convicted Olarbe of murder with evident premeditation and treachery; sentenced to 20 years & 1 day to reclusion perpetua, with civil damages.
• CA affirmed the conviction but reduced damages to temperate damages of ₱25,000.
• Olarbe elevated the case to the Supreme Court, invoking self-defense and defense of a stranger.

Facts of the Case

• Around midnight Olarbe and his wife were sleeping when Arca, armed with a converted airgun (.22) and a bolo, fired a shot outside their home and shouted death threats.
• Arca forcibly entered, aimed his rifle at them, and Olarbe wrested the gun away and shot him, causing Arca to lean.
• Despite the head wound, Arca drew his bolo and attacked Juliet; Olarbe struggled for the bolo and hacked Arca to death.
• Immediately thereafter, Olarbe surrendered to police and reported the killing.

Issue

Whether Olarbe successfully proved by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances of (1) self-defense and (2) defense of a stranger under Article 11, Revised Penal Code.

Elements of Self-Defense and Defense of a Stranger

Under Article 11, Revised Penal Code, the accused must establish:

  1. Unlawful aggression by the victim;
  2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression;
  3. Lack of sufficient provocation (self-defense) or absence of revenge or other evil motive (defense of a stranger).

Supreme Court’s Analysis

• Unlawful Aggression: Arca’s midnight intrusion, threats, brandishing of a converted rifle, and continued assault with a bolo constituted actual and imminent unlawful aggression.
• Reasonable Necessity: The fight for both gun and bolo at point-blank range created a genuine perception of deadly peril. In emergencies, the law requires only a rational—not perfect—equivalence between attack and defense. Olarbe’s use of the victim’s weapons was proportionate to the ongoing threat.
• Lack of Provocation/Evil Motive: Nothing in the record suggested Olarbe provoked the attack or acted out of revenge; he acted to protect himself and his spouse. His immediate surrender further corroborated his innocence.
• Speculation by Lower Courts: The RTC and CA erred in spe




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.