United States v. Aviado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Sabino Aviado, an internal revenue agent, received information about an illicit distillery. He proceeded to the location with companions. Upon arrival, Aviado apprehended one of the individuals, Juan Soriano. Soriano attempted to flee, and during the pursuit, Aviado released Soriano to ascertain his intentions. Soriano then attacked Aviado with a bolo, wounding him on the arm. Subsequently, Soriano attacked Aviado's companion, Juan Canlas. To save Canlas's life, Aviado fired his weapon, hitting Soriano. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicted the defendant, Sabino Aviado, of homicide and sentenced him to six months and one day of prision correccional, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P500, and to pay the costs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether a peace officer is justified in killing an escaping prisoner to protect another peace officer whom the prisoner is attacking. Whether the accused, Sabino Aviado, acted in lawful defense of a companion when he shot Juan Soriano.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is reversed, and the defendant and appellant is acquitted, with costs of both instances de oficio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether a peace officer is justified in killing an escaping prisoner to protect another peace officer whom the prisoner is attacking: The Court held that a peace officer is justified in killing an escaping prisoner to protect another peace officer whom the prisoner is attacking. This is based on the principle that what one may do in his own defense, another may do for him. The Penal Code, in article 8, paragraph 6, exempts from criminal liability anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided certain circumstances are met and the defender is not actuated by evil motive. In this case, the accused was acting in defense of his companion, Juan Canlas, against the unlawful aggression of the deceased, Juan Soriano. The Court found that there was an imminent danger to the life of Canlas, and Aviado's action was a reasonable necessity to prevent or repel the attack. The Court cited the case of In re Neagle and The United States vs. Salazar and Villanueva to support the principle that a person may take human life to protect a companion or another person, even a stranger, when faced with imminent danger. On Whether the accused, Sabino Aviado, acted in lawful defense of a companion when he shot Juan Soriano: The Court found that the accused acted in lawful defense of his companion. The facts demonstrated the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased, Juan Soriano, who attacked both Aviado and subsequently Canlas with a bolo. The Court also found that there was a reasonable necessity for the means employed by Aviado to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, as Soriano's attack posed an imminent threat to the life of his companion, Canlas. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the accused was actuated by any evil motive, revenge, or resentment; his actions were solely motivated by the duty to protect his companion. The Court concluded that Aviado did what any red-blooded man would do under similar circumstances, and that his actions were justifiable under the law.
Main Doctrine
A peace officer is justified in killing an escaping prisoner to protect another peace officer whom the prisoner is attacking, provided the act is not actuated by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive, and there is unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity for the means employed.