FACTS:

The case involves an appeal via certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming, with modification as to the penalty, the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting the petitioner of frustrated homicide. The petitioner claimed self-defense.

According to the prosecution's version of events, on May 25, 1992, Ramil Cruz was on his way to the Torres Store to buy ice when he was suddenly stabbed by the accused, Romel Jayme, without provocation. Ramil was stabbed twice, once on his left side and a second time on the left side when he faced Romel. Edwin Cruz, Ramil's brother and a tricycle driver, witnessed the stabbing and rushed to help his brother. However, Romel was able to free himself and hit Edwin on the right arm. Edwin went home to call his other brother, Mario, and together they picked up stones to throw at Romel, who fled the scene. Ramil was brought to the hospital and treated for "perforating and penetrating" stab wounds.

The defense version, on the other hand, stated that Romel was fetching water when his way was blocked by a man who pulled out a knife and thrust it at him. Romel managed to twist the hand of his attacker and wrestle for possession of the knife. While struggling, Romel was also being attacked from behind. He was able to grab the knife and swing it, but he was hit at the back of his head, causing him to fall and drop the knife. Romel suffered a lacerated wound in his head. He recognized his attackers only by their faces.

The Court of Appeals concluded, based on the trial court's findings, that Ramil Cruz attacked the accused without provocation and that Romel Jayme acted in self-defense. The Court of Appeals found the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and the absence of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. They credited the accused with the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and affirmed his conviction for frustrated homicide.

The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, disagreeing with the Court of Appeals and the Solicitor General's submission that there was no reasonable necessity for the accused to use a knife to defend himself. The Supreme Court disagreed with both the Court of Appeals and the Solicitor General, emphasizing that the appellate court had recognized the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner acted in legitimate self-defense

2. Whether there was reasonable necessity for the petitioner to use a knife to repel the attack

RULING:

1. The Court finds that the petitioner acted in legitimate self-defense. He is acquitted of the charge of frustrated homicide.

2. The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals' finding that there was no reasonable necessity for the petitioner to use a knife to repel the attack.

PRINCIPLES:

• In order for self-defense to be considered legitimate, there must be proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.

• The presence of unlawful aggression must be established by clear and convincing evidence, and it must be real and imminent.

• The necessity of the means employed to repel the attack is determined by the reasonableness of such means under the circumstances.