G.R. Nos.

L-41269-70 August 6, 1979

CARLOS CASTAARES, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

GUERRERO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Carlos Castaares was accused and convicted for the homicide and murder of
Manuel and Felizardo Pacheco, brothers, on February 7, 1967 between ten and eleven
oclock in the evening within the Rufina Patis Compound at Calle Pescador, Malabon, Rizal.
The petitioner admitted the crime but interposed as his defense the justifying circumstance
of self defense. Nonetheless, he was sentenced for imprisonment of eight years and one
day to fourteen years, eight months and one day.

Upon appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals recognized the unlawful aggression on the
part of the victims and modified the sentence to only imprisonment of six years and one day
to twelve years and one day, and reduced the crime to two counts of homicide. Motion for
reconsideration was then denied, thus the petitioner filed a petition for review seeking
reversal of the respondents decision and praying that he be acquitted of the crimes
charged, with costs de oficio.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused (i.e., petitioner) acted in complete self defense in the killing of
the Pacheco brothers and thus be absolved from any criminal liability therein.

RULING:

Yes. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code states the elements of self-defense, being

(1) Unlawful aggression

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

The first element was complied when the victims went back to the accused after one of the
victims, Felizardo, had a heated argument with the accused. Upon return, Felizardo was
already equipped with a knife and Manuel with a gun. The accused however was unarmed.
Therefore, this situation constitutes unlawful aggression.
The second element was complied when the accused defused Manuel since the latter has
the stronger weapon. He also shot the victims when there was a clear intent to attack the
accused. Therefore, the means employed were necessary to defend himself.

Lastly, the third element was complied because the accused had no clear intent to kill the
victims. It was shown in the facts of this case that Felizardo was the one who first spoke
with the accused about getting some fish. However, the accused did not give the same to
the victims, hence compelling the victims to even out the score.

Since all of the elements of self defense are complete, the Supreme Court reversed the
Court of Appeals ruling and acquitted the accused of all charges against him.