Sombol vs.

People
G.R. No. 194564
Petitioner: Sergio Sombol
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Date promulgated: April 10, 2013
Ponente: Sereno, CJ
FACTS:
On August 2, 2000 at around 5:30 pm at Barangay Catmon, Southern Leyte, Sergio Sombol (Sombol), with
intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and stab one Rogelio
Arcibal, with the use of a sharp-pointed bolo, inflicting a Stab wound 3 cm. (R) upper quadrant with
omental Herniation, penetrating peritoneal cavity, perforating the ileum # 7, incising the mesentery with
massive bleeding which caused the death of the victim.
According to the prosecution, on the said date, Primo Bungcaras was at a waiting shed with Richard
Alcala, Manuel Bacus and Wendel Tanquezon. They were joined by Rogelio Arcibal (Rogelio), the victim,
and soon by the accused. The latter tapped the right shoulder of Arcibal and pulled out a sharp weapon
and stabbed the victim in the stomach.
On the other hand, Fortunato Polo (Polo) testified that upon being tapped by the accused, the victim
picked up a soldering iron, and walked towards the former. According to Polos testimony, Arcibal did not
do anything with the soldering iron, but Sombol pulled out a knife and stabbed the victim. However,
Sombol alleged that the Arcibal attacked him with the iron so he stabbed the victim in self-defense.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), found Sombol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.
The lower court ruled that he had not acted in self-defense. Relying on the testimony of defense witness
Polo, the RTC found that Sergio Sombol pulled out a knife from his waist and stabbed Rogelio Arcibal on
the stomach despite the fact that the later did nothing with the soldering iron. As unlawful aggression
had not been proven, the trial court refused to give credence to Sombols plea of self-defense.
ISSUES:
Whether or not RTC erred in failing to appreciate the justifying circumstance of self-defense in his favor
HELD:
No. The elements of self-defense are set forth in Article 11, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code. For the first
element of unlawful aggression to be present, jurisprudence dictates that there must be an actual
physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. It presupposes actual,
sudden, unexpected or imminent danger and not merely threatening and intimidating action. Sombol
failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression, his plea of self-defense fails. Without unlawful
aggression, the accused has nothing to prevent or repel.
As the accused admitted that he inflicted the fatal injury and failed to prove self-defense, the lower court
correctly found him guilty of homicide.