FACTS:

This case involves the review of a decision by the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant Antero Gamez for the crime of parricide. The accused-appellant was charged with killing his father, Apolinario Gamez, by attacking and hacking him with a long bladed weapon. The defense invoked self-defense during the trial. They presented testimonies from the accused-appellant himself, his attending physician, and an eyewitness. These witnesses narrated the events that led to the fatal encounter, which included a strained father-son relationship and an argument between the accused-appellant and his father.

The defense claimed that the accused-appellant was attacked first by Apolinario, and in their scuffle, he was able to defend himself by using the same weapon to hack his father. On the other hand, the prosecution presented a rebuttal witness who testified that the accused-appellant approached Apolinario with the intention to harm him. The autopsy showed that Apolinario sustained fatal wounds, including one that almost decapitated his head.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty of parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The CA affirmed the conviction and also awarded moral damages to the heirs of Apolinario Gamez. The accused-appellant then filed a petition for review, asserting that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim of self-defense. He adopted the arguments made in his brief before the CA.

ISSUES:

RULING:

PRINCIPLES:

• Self-defense requires an ongoing unlawful aggression towards the person claiming self-defense. Once the aggression has ceased, self-defense can no longer be invoked.

• Retaliation is different from self-defense. It involves intentionally causing harm to another person as a response or revenge for a previous act.