People (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs.

Olarbe (Accused-Appellant)

G. R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018

Facts: On May 2006, Olarbe and his common-law wife were sleeping in their
house in Luisiana,Laguna, when at midnight, they were awakened by the
seemingly drunk Arca, carrying a rifle and a bolo, shouting insults and
threatening to kill them from outside their home. Arca then forcibly entered
their home and held the two at gunpoint, but Olarbe grabbed the gun and from
Arca and fought for its possession, and the accused won the gun and shot
Arca.

However, Arca still managed to get his bolo from his waist and attack them,
until the fight had moved to the outer portion of the house, where accused and
deceased fought again for the possession of the bolo, which Olarbe managed
to acquire, and hack Arca, and after the killing incident, surrendered himself to
the authorities.

Olarbe was charged and convicted of the murder of Romeo Arca on the year of
2014 by the Regional Trial Court, and this conviction was also reaffirmed by
the Court of Appeals in 2016, and again invokes self defense and defense of
stranger in his case.

Issue: Whether or not Olarbe may be acquitted on grounds of self-defense.

Ruling: Yes, the court rules that Olarbe may be acquitted on grounds of
self-defense, and reverses the statements of the Regional Trial Court and
Court of Appeals, pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 3 of the Penal Code, where
“Any person acting in defense of the person or rights of the stranger, provided
that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this
article are present and that the person defending may not be induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.”

The first and second requisites from the first paragraph of justifying
circumstances are “Unlawful Aggression”, and “Reasonable necessity of the
means provided to prevent or repel it.” The Court held that Olarbe had
established the justifying circumstances invoked, as Arca’s act was a
culmination of consistent aggression towards Olarbe and his common-law wife,
and Olarbe’s actions were of someone driven to protect himself and his
spouse, and repel the unlawful aggression towards them, as the danger to
their lives was imminent.
The Court’s rationale also holds in his pleas of self-defense and defense of
stranger, that they should not demand that he conduct himself in a rational
manner as the threat to their lives were fatally close, and he had to respond
quickly to them. Thus, pursuant to Article 11, paragpraph 3, Olarbe was
acquitted on grounds of self-defense and defense of stranger.