DANILO REMEGIO
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR 196945, September 27, 2017
MARTIRES, J.:
FACTS:
Danilo Remegio was the caretaker of a parcel of land belonging to his brother-in-law, Isidro
Dubria. On December 12, 1998, he heard the sound of chainsaw and saw Sumugat cutting the
uprooted ipil-ipil tree due to the typhoon. He approach him and told him to cut only the branches
and not its trunk as it would be placed in the warehouse because his in-laws would be arriving
from the United States. Sumugat became infuriated and shouted, "You have nothing to do with
this. You are only an in-law. I will kill you. " He then drew a revolver from his waist and aimed it
at Danilo. Danilo raised both his hands and told him that he would not fight him, but Sumugat
insisted that he will kill him. Fearing for his life, Danilo grappled with Sumugat for possession of
the gun. He successfully took the gun from Sumugat but the latter picked up the chainsaw, turned
it on, and advanced towards him. Thereafter, Danilo shot at the ground to warn Sumugat but the
latter continued thrusting the chainsaw at him. He then parried the chainsaw blade with his left
hand, but he lost his balance and accidentally pressed the gun's trigger, thus firing a shot which hit
Sumugat in the chest.
However, the prosecution presented a witnesses claiming that Danilo approached Sumugat
while cutting the ipil-ipil tree with the chainsaw and told him to stop, otherwise he will be shoot.
Sumugat answered that the tree was obstructing the way. Danilo then drew his gun and fired at
Sumugat's direction, but he missed. Sumugat turned on the chainsaw, which provoked Danilo to
shoot him on the left foot. Infuriated, Sumugat continued to brandish the chainsaw, but Danilo shot
him in the chest. Before he fell down, Sumugat swung the chainsaw, hitting petitioner in the palm.
Danilo then threw the gun into a canal. Thus, Danilo was charged with homicide.
RTC found Danilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether Danilo is entitled to invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense
RULING:
Yes. For self-defense to prosper, petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence
the following elements as provided under the first Decision 7 G.R. No. 196945 paragraph, Article
11 of the RPC: ( 1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
First, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. There can be no self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person
who defended himself. In this case, the utterance of Sumugat to kill petitioner coupled by his act
of aiming a gun at him, and his continued thrusting of the chainsaw that hit petitioner's palm
constitute unlawful aggression.
Second, the use of a gun to repel such attack would undoubtedly be reasonable. The gun
which Danilo grabbed from the victim was the only weapon available to him and that the victim
was continuing to thrust the chainsaw towards him. Indeed, a chainsaw is difficult to operate. It
could be reasonably inferred, however, that it was not the victim's first time to operate a chainsaw
considering that he was previously using the same to cut the uprooted tree without any person
assisting him for that matter even if he was older than Danilo. Also, the chainsaw was switched on
when the victim was thrusting it towards Danilo. Hence, the danger that Danilo would be cut into
pieces by the chainsaw was very real.
Lastly, Danilo's act of telling the victim not to cut the trunk of the uprooted tree could
hardly be considered provocation.
Wherefore, the decision of RTC and CA are reversed and set aside, Danilo Remegio is
hereby acquitted of homicide.
