Title
Supreme Court
Razon y Lucea vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 158053
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2007
Taxi driver Edwin Razon claimed self-defense after fatally stabbing Benedict Gonzalo during an alleged hold-up. Courts rejected his defense, convicted him of homicide, and upheld the ruling after his appeal was dismissed for procedural noncompliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191258)

Factual Background

On August 1, 1993, at approximately midnight, Edwin Razon, a taxi driver, encountered PO1 Francisco Chopchopen while claiming he had been held up by three men, one of whom was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo, Jr. After discovering Gonzalo lying on the ground and gravely injured, Chopchopen aided in transporting him to the hospital. Gonzalo was pronounced dead on arrival due to multiple stab wounds. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death resulted from a significant wound that perforated vital organs.

Admission and Investigation

Razon initially claimed to have acted in self-defense, stating he was attacked while driving his cab and was compelled to use a knife in retaliation. He admitted to possessing a fan knife that he alleged he used during the altercation, while an additional blood-stained knife was found in his cab. During police questioning, Razon maintained that he had acted to defend himself against Gonzalo's aggression.

Trial Court Proceedings

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found insufficient proof to substantiate Razon’s claim of self-defense, concluding that he was guilty of homicide. The court imposed a sentence ranging from six years and a day to 14 years, along with monetary compensation to Gonzalo's heirs for actual damages, moral damages, and attorney's fees. Razon subsequently filed a notice of appeal.

Handling of Appeal

The Court of Appeals (CA) required Razon to submit an appellant's brief, but his counsel, Atty. Rigoberto D. Gallardo, indicated Razon's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Multiple motions for extensions were filed, leading to Atty. Gallardo withdrawing from representation, claiming Razon's inaction. The CA's repeated directives for Razon to secure new counsel or accept a counsel de oficio eventually led to the dismissal of his appeal due to abandonment after he failed to file the necessary brief.

Legal Arguments

  1. Negligence of Counsel: Razon asserted that he should not be bound by Atty. Gallardo's negligence, which he argued led to the abandonment of his appeal. However, the principle that negligence of counsel binds a client was affirmed, unless such negligence is so gross that it deprives the client of their day in court.

  2. Self-Defense Claim: Razon's self-defense argument was examined under the legal framework requiring the defendant to establish: unlawful aggression, necessity of means of defense, and absence of provocation. It was concluded that no unlawful aggression existed at the time Razon followed Gonzalo outside his cab, nullifying his claim of self-defense.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA found Razon's appeal abandoned due to his negligence and failure to comply with multiple orders. His post-dismissal motion for reconsideration was also dismissed as it was filed late, illustrating continuous inaction in pursuing a legitimate defense.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld CA's decisions on both issues: 1) Razon was appropriately found negligent and bound by his counsel's actions, leading to the abandonment of the appeal; 2) Razon's self-defense claim was unsupported by evidence, a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.