Edwin Razon vs. People GR No.

158053 June 21, 2001

Facts:

PO1 Francisco Chopchopen was walking when the taxi cab driven by herein petitioner Ewin Razon stopped beside him and the latter told him that he was held up by three men at a nearby subdivision. Chopchopen then asked Razon to accompany him to the said place in case the three men were still there. Hesitant at first, Razon eventually agreed to take Chopchopen thereat where they found the almost lifeless body of victim Benedict Gonzalo who later died from stab wounds moments after he was immediately brought to the hospital by Chopchopen, Razon and another police officer. When asked if Razon was responsible for Gonzalos demise, herein petitioner replied in the negative. Upon questioning, Gonzalo reiterated that he was held up by Gonzalo and two others and that he stabbed the victim in self-defense. Razon produced a fan knife and said that it was what he used to kill Gonzalo. However, upon search of petitioners taxi cab, a blood-stained colonial knife was found. Razon alleged that when the three men boarded his taxi cab after posing as passengers, Gonzalo poked the fan knife at him and declared a hold up. Razon then wrestled the said weapon from the victim as he also wrenched free from the grip of Gonzalos companions. Gonzalo and his companions then fled the taxi. Razon ran after them and caught up with Gonzalo who was a polio victim. Herein victim swung his wooden cane at Petitioner and so Razon went back to the taxi and produced the colonial knife he kept thereat then attacked Gonzalo with both blades which lead to the victims stabbing and eventual death.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner acted in self defense in killing Gonzalo.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Petitioner did not act in self defense. Self-defense cant be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. The condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense is the element of unlawful aggression. There cannot be self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Granting that Gonzalo Et Al held up Razon, but when herein victim and his companions fled from the taxicab and Petitioner pursued them, Razon became the aggressor. It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and where unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise retaliation and not self-defense is committed.