Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

THIRTEENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

- versus - ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, N.G.,

Chairperson
ALIÑO-GELUZ, E.R., and
PO1 SAIPHAR ABBILOL y DELA ROSA, J.L.R., JJ
SABDANI,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:
August 31, 2022

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

ALIÑO-GELUZ, J.:

On appeal is the Joint Decision1 dated April 17, 2019 of the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City, Branch 153 in Criminal
Cases Nos. 152782-TG and 152783-TG finding accused-appellant
PO1 Saiphar Abbilol y Sabdani (Abbilol) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes of homicide and frustrated homicide.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On December 3, 2013, Abbilol was charged with the crimes of

1
Rollo, pp. 44-69.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 2
Decision

homicide and frustrated homicide in two separate Informations,2 the

accusatory portions of which read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 152782-TG

That on or about the 1st day of December, 2013, in the City

of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
court the above-named accused, armed with a gun, a deadly
weapon, with intent to kill, and without any justifiable cause, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot one Vindy
Porras y Pamplona, inflicting mortal wounds on the trunk, which
resulted to his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 152783-TG

That on or about the 1st day of December, 2013, in the City

of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
court the above-named accused, armed with a gun, a deadly
weapon, with intent to kill, and without any justifiable cause, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault,
and shoot one Isrell Bismanos y Oronos, hitting him on the right
arm and area of his body, inflicting upon the latter injuries but
nevertheless did not produce it due to the timely medical assistance
rendered to said complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned, Abbilol pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During the pre-trial, Abbilol raised self-defense as his defense. Thus,
reverse trial ensued.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented four witnesses, namely, accused-

appellant Abbilol, eyewitnesses Maricris Lacandula (Maricris) and
2
Records, pp.1 and 3.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 3
Decision

Gilbert Flores (Flores), and the investigating police officer, PO2

Victor Amado Biete (PO2 Biete). They essentially testified as follows:

Abbilol is a police officer, with the rank of Police Officer 1

assigned at the 1st Company, Regional Safety Batallion, National
Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig
City. As a police officer, Abbilol was officially issued a Glock 17 .
9mm, Generation 4 pistol as a service firearm, which he can carry
even off-duty, provided the same is placed inside a bag. 3

On December 1, 2013, during Abbilol’s off-duty hours at around

6:00 p.m., he was traversing C-6 Road in Taguig City, coming from a
classmate’s house in Tipas, Taguig City. Abbilol was driving his
motorcycle with Maricris as the back-rider. They were heading
towards Central Bicutan, Taguig City, where Maricris was to be
dropped off.

Along the way, a white Mitsubishi Adventure swerved from left

to right and recklessly overtook them, almost causing them to hit the
gutter of the road. As a police officer, Abbilol stopped the said
vehicle. He introduced himself as a police officer and cautioned the
driver, later identified as Vindy Porras (Vindy), to be more careful in
driving. Vindy apologized. Thereafter, both parties continued on their
way, heading in the same direction. The white Mitsubishi Adventure
eventually overtook Abbilol’s motorcycle.4

Upon reaching the intersection of C-6 and M.L. Quezon Street

in Taguig City, the white Mitsubishi Adventure stopped while waiting
for Flores, the traffic enforcer on duty, to give a go signal. When
Flores gave the go signal, the white Mitsubishi Adventure did not
obey him, and instead stayed put until Abbilol’s motorcycle arrived
from behind. As Abbilol’s motorcycle approached the intersection, the
white Mitsubishi Adventure swerved to the right and blocked Abbilol’s
path, such that Abbilol’s motorcycle was positioned behind the white
Mitsubishi Adventure.5

3
Rollo, p. 23.
4
Id. at pp. 23-24.
5
Id.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 4
Decision

Thereafter, Vindy went down from the white Mitsubishi

Adventure and, armed with a fan knife, struck Abbilol, aiming at the
latter’s head. Instinctively, Abbilol raised his left hand to parry the
strike and covered his head, causing a cut on his left arm with a four-
inch laceration. The attack caused Abbilol to fall from his motorcycle
and push Maricris out of harm’s way. The two parties ended up
grappling and rolling on the ground, with Vindy continuously stabbing
Abbilol, hitting him on different parts of his body. 6

During the struggle, Abbilol managed to get his gun from his
body bag and shoot Vindy. However, Vindy continued to attack
Abbilol, forcing Abbilol to fire two more shots at him. Only then did
Vindy loosen his grip on Abbilol, and slumped on top of the latter. 7

Thereafter, while Abbilol was still on the ground, Vindy’s

companion, later identified as Isrell Bismanos (Isrell), charged at
Abbilol with a knife. Abbilol pointed his gun at Isrell, who was about
three to four meters away, warning the latter not to come close.
However, Isrell continued to charge at Abbilol, forcing Abbilol to shoot
Isrell once on his right arm. After being hit, Isrell ran away.8

Subsequently, Abbilol stood up and saw that a person coming

from inside the vehicle, later identified as one Jerry Lasala (Jerry)
was walking towards him. He warned Jerry and when he saw that the
latter was an amputee, he just arrested him. He brought Jerry to the
police outpost nearby, where he recounted the incident to the police
officers.9

According to Flores, who had witnessed the incident up close,

both attackers dismounted the white Mitsubishi Adventure
simultaneously, one from the driver’s side and the other from the
passenger’s side. Both attackers approached Abbilol together,
although their attacks happened successively. 10
6
Id.
7
Id. at p. 25.
8
Id.
9
Id at pp. 50-51.
10
Id at p. 25.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 5
Decision

Vindy died from the gunshot wounds. His gunshot wounds were
all in the front of his body, suggesting he was facing Abbilol when
shot.

Isrell survived. His wounds were on his right arm.11

As a result of the attack, Abbilol suffered a deep laceration on

his left forearm, plus several other injuries, including abrasions on his
frontal left thumb, right arm, and left temple. 12

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, private

complainant in Criminal Case No. 152783-TG and eyewitness, Isrell,
private complainant in Criminal Case No. 152782-TG Jubeth Porras
(Jubeth), and medico-legal officer Police Superintendent Voltaire
Nulud (PSupt. Nulud).

Isrell testified that on December 1, 2013, he was on board a

Mitsubishi Adventure vehicle with Vindy and Jerry. Vindy was the
driver. Isrell was seated on the second row directly behind Vindy,
while Jerry was seated on the first row beside Vindy. As they were
traversing C-6 Road, they saw Abbilol on board a motorcycle with a
female back-rider. Abbilol slowed down, hence, they overtook him
and simply continued on their trip.13

At the intersection of C-6 Road and M.L. Quezon Street in

Taguig City, Abbilol blocked the Mitsubishi Adventure and waved at
Vindy. Abbilol stopped his motorcycle in front of the Mitsubishi
Adventure. Vindy alighted from the said vehicle, while Isrell and Jerry
stayed inside. A commotion then ensued. Soon, Abbilol and Vindy
were struggling and grappling with each other. After a while, Isrell
saw gunfire coming out of Vindy’s nape. He heard five gunshots. 14
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id. at pp. 81-82.
14
Id. at p. 82.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 6
Decision

With Vindy already wriggling on the ground, Isrell came out of

the vehicle with his hands raised shouting, “Tama na.” However,
Abbilol began shooting at him from about four to five meters away.
Abbilol fired at Isrell three times. On the first shot, Isrell was hit on his
right forearm as he was raising his hands. On the second shot, Isrell
was hit on his right upper arm. Abbillol uttered, “Ang tibay mo,” and
pointed his gun at Isrell’s forehead. Abbilol fired the gun, but Isrell
was able to duck and avoid the bullet. Isrell then saw Abbilol reaching
for something from his bag. At that point, lsrell ran to the barangay
hall of Lower Bicutan to seek help. There, a civilian brought lsrell to
Pateros District Hospital. As he was not attended to immediately, he
decided to transfer to the Ospital ng Makati with the help of his live-in
partner, Lovely Gutlay. At the hospital, he gave his statement to the
police.15

PSupt. Nulud, who examined Vindy’s cadaver, testified that the

gunshot wounds sustained by Vindy were in a downward trajectory,
suggesting that Abbilol shot him from a higher position. PSupt. Nulud
also clarified that each of the wounds sustained by Vindy could
immobilize him completely, regardless of the caliber of the firearm,
because of the major organs affected like the liver, lungs, and heart.
He also noted that the wounds were clustered, indicating that Vindy
was not given the chance to move, and that the incident happened in
a very short period of time. According to PSupt. Nulud, each of
Vindy’s three gunshot wounds could have caused his spontaneous
death.16

Jubeth, Vindy’s sister, testified on the civil aspect of the crime.

She had no personal knowledge of the commission thereof. 17

RULING OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

On April 17, 2019, the trial court rendered the assailed decision

15
Id.
16
Id. at pp. 82-83.
17
Id. at p. 83.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 7
Decision

finding Abbilol guilty of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The

dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court hereby finds,

as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 152782, there being an incomplete self-

defense, ACCUSED, Saiphar Abbilol, is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Homicide. Pursuant to Article 69 of the
Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision
mayor minimum, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay the
heirs of the victim, Vindy Porras, the. following amounts[:] (a)
₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (b) ₱50,000.00 as moral
damages; (c) ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (d)
₱50,000.00 as temperate damages;

2. In Criminal Case No. 152783, there being an incomplete self-

defense, ACCUSED, Saiphar Abbilol, is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Frustrated Homicide, and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of one (1)
month and one [(1)] day to one (1) month and ten (10) days of
arresto mayor. He is further ordered to pay Isrell Bismanos the
following amounts: Php3,565.00 as actuaI damages,
Php20,000.00 as civil indemnity and Php20,000.00 as moral
damages.

SO ORDERED.18

THE APPEAL

Aggrieved, Abbilol19 filed the instant appeal. He assigned the

following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:

A. As to Criminal Case No. 152782-TG:

18
Id, at p. 68.
19
Quiamco did not file an appeal.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 8
Decision

I. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO

ERRED IN RULING THAT
ACCUSED/APPELLANT FAILED TO USE
REASONABLE MEANS TO REPEL THE
ATTACK ON HIM;

II. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO

ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS
INCOMPLETE SELF[-]DEFENSE;

III. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED

IN AWARDING CIVIL INDEMNITY TO THE
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT;

B. As to Criminal Case No. 152783-TG:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO

ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS
NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION FROM
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT;

II. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO

ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS
INCOMPLETE SELF[-]DEFENSE;

III. THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO

ERRED IN AWARDING CIVIL INDEMNITY
TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

As to Criminal Case No. 152782-TG, Abbilol alleges that the

trial court’s conclusion that he had failed to use reasonable means to
repel Vindy’s attack on him was based on a misappreciation of facts.
Abbilol asserts that he and Vindy were very close to each other
during the incident, and that there was one continuous onslaught on
him, leaving him no time to gather himself and prepare for the next
onslaught. He argues that he could not have been expected to call for
help because his position as a police officer dictated that he should
defend himself, and the traffic enforcer would not have come for his
aid. Likewise, Abbilol asserts that he had no choice but to shoot
Vindy more than once, considering the swiftness and continuousness
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 9
Decision

of the attack.

As to Criminal Case No. 152783-TG, Abbilol alleges that there

was imminent unlawful aggression on the part of Isrell, whom he
asserts was charging at him with a knife.

In arguing that there was reasonable necessity of the means

employed to repel and prevent the successive attacks on him, Abbilol
invokes People v. Maliwanag20 and Masipequiña v. CA21 wherein the
Supreme Court acquitted an accused who shot at an assailant who
was wielding only a knife.

Meanwhile, plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, through

the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), raised the following
argument in its Appellant’s Brief:22

The trial court correctly found appellant

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged. However, the trial court erred in
appreciating incomplete self-defense as [a]
mitigating circumstance.23

The OSG argues that Abbilol failed to prove that there was
unlawful aggression on the part of Vindy and Isrell. As to Vindy, the
OSG posits that it would have been illogical for him to block Abbilol at
the intersection and confront the latter, who had already introduced
himself as a police officer to their group in their earlier encounter. As
to Isrell, the OSG posits that it would have been foolish for him to
attack Abbilol, who had just shot Vindy and whom he already knew
was armed with a gun.

Likewise, the OSG argues that Abbilol failed to prove that there
was reasonable necessity for shooting Vindy three times. It invokes
PSupt. Nulud’s statement in his testimony that any one of the gunshot
20
G.R. No. L-30302, August 14, 1974.
21
G.R. No. L-51206, August 25, 1989.
22
Id. at pp. 79-90.
23
Id at p. 83.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 10
Decision

wounds suffered by Vindy could have immediately immobilized him.

Thus, the OSG asserts that Abbilol used excessive force to repel the
alleged attack from Vindy.

The issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not Abbilol

had acted in complete self-defense in shooting and killing Vindy, and
in shooting Isrell.

THIS COURT’S RULING

The appeal is partially meritorious.

Saiphar Abbilol is guilty of

homicide against the person of
Vindy Porras; Saiphar Abbilol
acted in incomplete self-
defense

As to Criminal Case No. 152782-TG, Abbilol is guilty of the

crime of homicide. He failed to prove all the elements of self-defense.

An accused who pleads any justifying circumstance in Article 11

of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) admits to the commission of acts
that show the commission of a crime. It thus becomes his burden to
prove the justifying circumstance with clear and convincing evidence;
otherwise, his conviction for the crime charged follows. 24

In order for Abbilol to exonerate himself on the ground of self-

defense under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the RPC, he must establish
the following facts, namely: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person resorting to self-defense. 25

24
People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018.
25
Id.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 11
Decision

We find that Abbilol failed to clearly and convincingly establish

the justifying circumstance of self-defense in shooting and killing
Vindy.

1. There was actual or material unlawful aggression on the part

of the deceased Vindy.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material

unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or
material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or
with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent
of the aggressor to cause the injury. 26

Here, it is undisputed that Vindy attacked Abbilol with a knife,

inflicting several wounds upon the latter, including a deep laceration
on his left forearm. The attack appears to be premeditated
considering that Vindy and his group waited for Abbilol at the
intersection to block his motorcycle and confront him. This occurred
after some time had elapsed from their initial encounter wherein
Abbilol stopped the white Mitsubishi Adventure due to the zig-zag
manner of driving by Vindy. It is worthy to note that traffic enforcer
Flores testified that Jerry smelled of liquor, 27 such that Vindy and his
group were likely drunk during the incident.

2. However, the defense failed to prove that there was

reasonable necessity of the means employed by Abbilol to repel
Vindy’s aggression.

The defense argues that it was necessary for Abbilol to shoot

Vindy more than once, since Abbilol had no time to calculate how
many times he should shoot Vindy for the latter to stop stabbing him.

We are not impressed.

It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed

does not imply material commensurability between the means of
26
Id., citing People v. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011.
27
TSN dated October 7, 2015, p. 15.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 12
Decision

attack and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in

the consideration of which will enter the principal factors the
emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is
exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or
impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not
depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of
such injury.28

The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the

consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used
by the defender and the assailant, but of the totality of circumstances
surrounding the defense vis-à-vis the unlawful aggression.29

Here, the Medico-Legal Report30 issued by PSupt. Nulud shows

that Vindy suffered five gunshot wounds 31 in the thorax and abdomen
which led to his death. Significantly, PSupt. Nulud testified that any
one of the gunshot wounds suffered by Vindy could have immediately
immobilized him.

Thus, while there was unlawful aggression on the part of Vindy,

it was overkill for Abbilol to continuously shoot at Vindy even after the
latter had been immobilized. His continuous shooting constitutes
force beyond what is reasonably required to repel Vindy’s aggression,
and is therefore unjustified.

3. There was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of

Abbilol.

28
People v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244 (1996).
29
People v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010.
30
Records, p. 179.
31
1. Gunshot wound, thru and thru, point of entry, right infra clavicular region, measuring 1 cm x
1 cm, 8 cm from the anterior x x x.
2. Gunshot wound, thru and thru, point of entry, right chest, measuring 1 cm x 1 cm, 10 cm
from the anterior midline x x x.
3. Gunshot wound, point of entry, left chest, measuring 1 cm x 1 cm, 14 cm from the anterior
midline x x x.
4. Gunshot wound, thru and thru, point of exit, sternal region, measuring 1 cm x 1 cm, 1 cm
from the anterior midline x x x.
5. Gunshot wound, thru and thru, point of entry, left hypochondriac region, measuring 1 cm x 1
cm from the anterior midline x x x.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 13
Decision

While Abbilol could have provoked Vindy when he stopped their

vehicle for almost causing an accident, the same does not amount to
sufficient provocation for Vindy to subsequently attack Abbilol at the
intersection.

In fine, there was incomplete self-defense on the part of Abbilol

in shooting and killing Vindy. We uphold his conviction for the crime
of homicide.

Saiphar Abbilol is guilty of the

crime of serious physical
injuries only, not frustrated
homicide, on the person of Isrell
Bismanos; Saiphar Abbilol
acted in incomplete self-
defense

As to Criminal Case No. 152783-TG, Abbilol is guilty of the

crime of serious physical injuries, not frustrated homicide.

The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the

accused's intent to take his victim's life. The prosecution has to prove
this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt
regarding homicidal intent.32 When such intent is lacking but wounds
are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not attempted or frustrated
homicide but physical injuries.33

In the present case, intent to kill the victim could not be inferred
from the surrounding circumstances. Abbilol shot Isrell only once. The
Medico-Legal Report34 issued by the doctor who attended Isrell
shows that the bullet did not hit any vital part of the Isrell’s body.35 If
Abillol intended to kill Isrell, he could have shot him multiple times or
32
Colinares v. People, G.R. No. 182748, December 13, 2011.
33
See Pentecostes, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 167766. April 7, 2010.
34
Records, p. 177.
35
1. Punctured wound #2, anterior and lateral aspect, right deltoid.
2. Punctured wound, proximal third, right forearm.
3. Swelling, right forearm.
4. Clear breath sounds, RRR, soft and flat abdomen,
Full and equal pulses.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 14
Decision

chased him when he ran away. Favorably to Abbilol, the inference

that intent to kill existed should not be drawn in the absence of
circumstances sufficient to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the issue of self-defense, We find that Abbilol failed

to clearly and convincingly establish the justifying circumstance of
self-defense in shooting Isrell.

1. There was imminent unlawful aggression on the part of the

Isrell.

The trial court’s conclusion that there was no unlawful

aggression from Isrell proceeded from its erroneous finding that “the
allegation of the accused that Isrell was armed with a knife to confront
him was not substantiate[d] considering that at that time [Isrell]
already knew that his friend [Vindy] was already shot.” 36

There is no logic in the trial court’s reasoning. The fact that

Vindy had already been shot does not negate unlawful aggression
from Isrell. On the contrary, Vindy’s state may have impelled Isrell to
seek immediate vindication on behalf of his friend.

Here, the testimonies of Abbilol, Maricris, and Flores tend to

establish that Isrell charged towards Abbilol with a knife. Maricris
testified:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q: And what happened after that?

A: I saw [t]he passengers (sic) of the vehicle went (sic) out of the
vehicle carrying with him [a] bladed weapon, sir.

Q: What did Saiphar [Abbilol] do?

A: He also introduced himself as [a] police officer to the passenger
of the vehicle and pointed the gun at the person so that the person
will not come near him, sir.

Q: And what happened next?

A: The passenger continuously approached Abbilol, sir.
36
Rollo, p. 65.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 15
Decision

Q: And what did Abbilol do?

A: He aimed his gun to the person, sir.

Q: After aiming, what happened?

A: He fired his gun because he continuously approaching (sic) him,
sir.37

Meanwhile, traffic enforcer Flores testified:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q: How about the one who alighted from the right part of the
vehicle?
A: He also approached Abbilol, sir.38

In contrast, Isrell’s version was that he alighted from the vehicle

with his hands raised shouting “Tama na!” but Abbilol fired at him. He
tried to fend off the shots by placing his hands in front of him, thus, he
suffered two gunshot wounds, one on his right forearm, and the other
at his right upper arm. After he was shot twice, he heard Abbilol utter
the words “Ang tibay mo.” Abbilol then pointed the gun towards his
head and fired at him but he managed to duck the bullet. After the
last shot, he ran away. 39

We find the corroborative accounts of Abbilol, Maricris, and

Flores to be more credible than that of Isrell.

It is worthy to note that Isrell tried to conceal the fact that it was
the white Mitsubishi Adventure which blocked the path of Abbilol’s
motorcycle. This shows that his testimony was not entirely truthful,
casting doubt on his credibility as a witness.

The prosecution wants to impress that it was not plausible for

Vindy and Isrell to attack Abbilol after the latter had introduced
himself as a police officer. However, the testimonies of Maricris and
Flores however clearly show that Vindy and Isrell were not
37
TSN dated July 30, 2014, pp. 15-16.
38
TSN dated October 7, 2015, p. 13.
39
Rollo, pp. 57-58.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 16
Decision

intimidated by Abbilol’s position, as they went ahead and accosted

the latter despite such fact.

The second kind of unlawful aggression is imminent unlawful

aggression.40 Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is
impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be
offensive and positively strong. It must not be a mere threatening
attitude of the victim.41 In this regard, the Supreme Court has held
that opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack is an
imminent unlawful aggression.42

Here, Isrell, armed with a knife, charged towards Abbilol while

the latter was on the ground. Thus, there was imminent unlawful
aggression on the part of Isrell.

2. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed by

Abbilol to prevent Isrell’s attack.

The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in People v. Maliwanag is

relevant:43

There was reasonable necessity of the means employed to

repel the aggression from the deceased as the appellant’s only
recourse in defending himself was to use his service pistol against
one who wielded a deadly balisong knife.

That Isrell was armed only with a knife did not render Abbilol's
act of shooting him an unreasonable act of self-defense. Abbilol had
warned Isrell not to come close, yet Isrell continued to charge at
Abbilol with a knife. Abbilol made use of the only weapon available to
him in the face of an imminent threat to his life and limbs. Isrell’s
capacity to inflict mortal wounds on him using a knife was a real and
imminent danger to reckon with.

40
See supra p. 10.
41
People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018, citing People v. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606,
November 23, 2011.
42
Id.
43
G.R. No. L-30302, August 14, 1974.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 17
Decision

3. However, Abbilol gave sufficient provocation for Isrell to

attack him.

As to the third requisite that the provocation must be sufficient,

it should be proportionate to the aggression and adequate to stir the
aggressor to its commission. To be entitled to self-defense, however,
the one defending himself must not have given cause for the
aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking the
aggressor.44

The case of Rimano v. People45 also involves successive

attacks against the accused, who repelled the attacks but was
charged with homicide and frustrated homicide. The Supreme Court
found that unlawful aggression existed and the same came from the
victims. The issue was in the presence or absence of the second and
third requisites of self-defense. In the frustrated homicide case (with
the second attacker as victim), the Supreme Court ruled that the
accused gave sufficient provocation for the victim to assault him by
the unreasonable necessity of the means he employed in defending
himself against the first attacker. Consequently, the third element of
self-defense was absent. Thus, the High Court held:

Anent the third requisite, we find that petitioner gave

sufficient provocation for Isaias Ibardalosa, Jr. to assault him.
Contradistinguished to his act of stabbing Nelson Importado, which
was justified and hence cannot be considered as sufficient
provocation insofar as his brother, Nestor, is concerned, petitioner's
act of stabbing Nestor 6 times can no longer be considered justified
or a legitimate self-defense because of the unreasonable necessity
of the means he employed. Inflicting 5 stab wounds at the frontal
portion of Nestor's body and another one at the back before the
latter fled can be considered as sufficient provocation to cause
Nestor's friend, Isaias Ibardalosa, Jr., to intervene and thereafter
wrestle with petitioner. Hence, self-defense cannot successfully be
raised to justify petitioner's act of stabbing Isaias Ibardalosa, Jr.,
because he gave the latter sufficient provocation to assault him. At
the most, he could be credited with the privileged mitigating

44
Rimano v. People, G.R. No. 156567, November 27, 2003.
45
G.R. No. 156567, November 27, 2003.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 18
Decision

circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

Earlier, We found that there was unreasonable necessity of the

means employed by Abbilol in shooting Vindy when he inflicted five
gunshot wounds on the frontal portion of Vindy’s body. This can be
considered as sufficient provocation to cause Isrell to avenge his
friend’s injuries. Hence, Abbilol cannot successfully raise self-defense
to justify his act of shooting Isrell, because he gave the latter
sufficient provocation to attack him.

In fine, there was incomplete self-defense on the part of Abbilol

in shooting Isrell. Since the Medico-Legal Report46 stated that the
injuries will have incapacitated Isrell for a period of no less than 31
days, the crime committed is serious physical injuries under Article
263, subdivision number 4 of the RPC.47

Computation of penalties

Criminal Case No. 152782-TG

Article 249 of the RPC provides that the penalty for homicide is
reclusión temporal.

Under Article 69 of the RPC, in order to avail of the privileged

mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense which, at the
discretion of the court, reduces the penalty by one or two degrees
than that prescribed by law, Abbilol must prove the existence of a
majority of the requisites for self-defense. In the case at bar, a
majority of the requisites of the justifying circumstance of self-defense
are present in Criminal Case No. 152782-TG. Under the
circumstances, We deem it proper to lower the penalty by one degree
than that prescribed by law, which is prisión mayor.
46
See supra note 34.
47
ARTICLE 263. Serious Physical Injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault
another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
xxx xxx xxx
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in
its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the
illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.
xxx xxx xxx
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 19
Decision

Considering that the ordinary mitigating circumstance of

voluntary surrender is present, the proper imposable penalty is
prisión mayor in its minimum period.48

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Abbilol is entitled to

an indeterminate penalty, the minimum of which shall be within the
range of prisión correccional, and the maximum of which shall be
within the range of prisión mayor minimum.

Criminal Case No. 152783-TG

Article 263, subdivision number 4 of the RPC provides that the

penalty for serious physical injuries if the physical injuries inflicted
shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured
person for more than 30 days is arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prisión correccional in its minimum period.

In the case at bar, a majority of the requisites of the justifying

circumstance of self-defense are present in Criminal Case No.
152783-TG. Under the circumstances, We deem it proper to lower
the penalty by one degree than that prescribed by law, which is
arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods.

Considering that the ordinary mitigating circumstance of

voluntary surrender is present, the penalty shall be imposed in its
minimum period.49

Since the maximum period of the penalty imposed does not

exceed one year, Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.50

48
Article 64(2) of the RPC.
49
Id.
50
Section 2, Act No. 4103.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 20
Decision

Damages

Criminal Case No. 152782-TG

In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, 51 and in light of the

fact that no documentary evidence of burial or funeral expenses was
presented during trial, this Court finds it proper to award the following
damages to Vindy’s heirs: (1) ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2)
₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and (3) ₱25,000.00 as temperate
damages.

Since no aggravating circumstances were proven during the

trial, We delete the award of exemplary damages. 52

Criminal Case No. 152783-TG

In light of the documentary evidence of hospital expenses

proven during trial, this Court finds it proper to award Isrell ₱3,565.00
as actual damages.

With the downgrading of the offense to serious physical injuries,

We delete the award of civil indemnity. 53 In view of Isrell’s unlawful
aggression, We similarly delete the award of moral damages.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The

Decision dated April 17, 2019 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 153, Taguig City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 152782-TG and
152783-TG is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

In Criminal Case No. 152782-TG, Saiphar Abbilol is GUILTY

of HOMICIDE and is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2)
years of prisión correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one
(1) day of prisión mayor, as maximum. He is ordered to PAY the heirs
of Vindy Porras the following amounts:

51
People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
52
Id.
53
See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 21
Decision

a) ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity;

b) ₱50,000.00 as moral damages; and

c) ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages.

In Criminal Case No. 152783-TG, Saiphar Abbilol is GUILTY

of SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES and is sentenced to two (2)
months of arresto mayor. He is ordered to PAY Isrell Bismanos the
amount of ₱3,565.00 as actual damages.

These monetary awards shall earn six percent (6%) legal

interest per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CR NO. 43531 Page 22
Decision

WE CONCUR:

NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice

JOSE LORENZO R. DELA ROSA

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court (Sec. 5, Rule 8, RIRCA [a]).

NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Thirteenth Division