People v. Lopez, et. al. G.R. No. 177302 April 16, 2009 Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J. FACTS: According to the prosecution:On April 25, 1996, appellant Rogelio Regalado stabbed Edencito Chu (Chu) after interposing a challenge for Chu to come out so that they “measure his courage.” Chu was able to run away but Regalado chased him and hit him with two pieces of firewood which he picked along the way. Appellant Jaime Lopez came out from a nearby house armed with a hunting knife and joined the chase. They were soon joined by appellant Romeo Aragon who came from the back of the tailoring shop where the stabbing first took place. The three were able to catch up with Chu. Aragon boxed Chu until the latter fell and then kicked him. Lopez then stabbed Chu several times as Regalado looked on. They only left when Chu was no longer moving. Chu died before reaching the hospital. Regalado, in his defense, denied taking part in the stabbing and claimed that Chu choked him, causing him to run away from Chu after extricating himself from him. Appellant Lopez interposed “defense of relative” and “self-defense” claiming that he intercepted Chu as he was chasing, Regalado, Lopez’ father-in-law but Chu boxed him so he stabbed him several times and thereafter surrendered to the police. Appellant Aragon invoked an alibi that he was at the wharf, which is 40 meters away from the scene of stabbing at the time of the incident. The RTC found the three appellants to have killed Chu, qualified by treachery which absorbed "abuse of superior strength". The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Hence, this appeal.

People v Lopez, Et. Al

Download DOC Report

Upload
amb
View
219
Download
10

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Phil Crim Law Digest

Citation preview

People v

People v. Lopez, et. al.

G.R. No. 177302 April 16, 2009Ponente: Carpio-Morales, J.

FACTS:

According to the prosecution:On April 25, 1996, appellant Rogelio Regalado stabbed Edencito Chu (Chu) after interposing a challenge for Chu to come out so that they measure his courage. Chu was able to run away but Regalado chased him and hit him with two pieces of firewood which he picked along the way. Appellant Jaime Lopez came out from a nearby house armed with a hunting knife and joined the chase. They were soon joined by appellant Romeo Aragon who came from the back of the tailoring shop where the stabbing first took place. The three were able to catch up with Chu. Aragon boxed Chu until the latter fell and then kicked him. Lopez then stabbed Chu several times as Regalado looked on. They only left when Chu was no longer moving. Chu died before reaching the hospital.

Regalado, in his defense, denied taking part in the stabbing and claimed that Chu choked him, causing him to run away from Chu after extricating himself from him. Appellant Lopez interposed defense of relative and self-defense claiming that he intercepted Chu as he was chasing, Regalado, Lopez father-in-law but Chu boxed him so he stabbed him several times and thereafter surrendered to the police. Appellant Aragon invoked an alibi that he was at the wharf, which is 40 meters away from the scene of stabbing at the time of the incident.

The RTC found the three appellants to have killed Chu, qualified by treachery which absorbed "abuse of superior strength". The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision.

Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not defense of a relative should be appreciated on Lopezs part.

HELD:

The SC ruled that the defense of a relative cannot be appreciated on Lopezs part because of the absence of unlawful aggression which is an essential element of defense of a relative under par. 2 of Art. 11 in the RPC. Chus threatening words of, Are you going to defend your father-in-law? was not considered by the SC as something that amounts to unlawful aggression. Another element, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it was also found lacking by the SC in the instant case. Nowhere in the records is it shown that when Chu allegedly chased Regalado, the former was wielding a weapon. Thus, the intention of Lopez to get a knife for his protection and that of his father-in-law was unwarranted.