Videos capturing the “Antipolo road rage” incident, which escalated into a confrontation and a fatal shooting in Barangay Boso Boso, have been widely shared on social media.
Footage shows an SUV driver, identified only as “Kenneth,” firing a handgun at motorcycle riders who were allegedly assaulting him on Sunday, March 30. In the process, Kenneth inadvertently shot his wife, Camille.
Kenneth was arrested later that day, and charged with multiple counts of frustrated homicide. Four individuals were injured during the altercation, three sustaining gunshot wounds, while one person lost his life due to head wounds.
READ on Philstar.com: Charges filed vs shooter in Antipolo road rage
The incident has sparked intense public debate on platforms. Reactions have been polarized. Many commenters expressed sympathy for Kenneth, arguing that he acted in self-defense after being harassed by motorcycle riders on the roadside.
Critics of motorcycle riders also claimed they sometimes flout traffic rules and road ethics, contributing to dangerous situations for other motorists. An X user wrote:
“Ang tatapang ng mga Kamote Drivers, sana makita sa dashcam kung nag ka gitgitan.”
However, others with law enforcement authorities, asserting that Kenneth’s use of a firearm went beyond what could be considered self-defense. As one said:
“The way these Pinoys switched up over that Antipolo road rage incident is crazy. Self-defense means using just enough force to stop a real threat. If you’re out here shooting multiple people, that ain’t self-defense that’s straight-up excessive.”
The suspect’s actions also violated the election gun ban currently in place.
Some observers, meanwhile, expressed disappointment over what they perceive as a tendency among Filipinos to condone violence, noting that many defended Kenneth’s decision to resort to using his gun.
“Nakakalungkot na mabasa na andaming pabor sa ginawa nung lalaki sa road rage sa Antipolo. Dami pa nagsabi, it was self defense daw. No, it is not. Excessive force ang ginamit nya. If he really just wanted to defend himself, pretty sure a warning shot would have suffices,” one said.
Another tweeted: “Na-stress ako magbasa ng comments about sa road rage sa Antipolo. Puro utak-kriminal na ba ang mga tao ngayon?”
Meanwhile, bystanders who recorded the altercation were criticized for failing to intervene and prevent the conflict from escalating into tragedy. An opinion goes:
“The fact na ang daming POV nung road rage incident dun sa Antipolo means mas pinili pa ng mga bystanders na mag-take ng video kesa awatin ‘yung suspect. Smh.”
The incident has heightened fears among motorists navigating the Philippines’ often perilous roads, echoing broader concerns about road safety and the likelihood of confrontations between drivers.
A motorist confessed:
“Sobrang triggered yung takot ko sa nakita kong sh00ting sa antipolo due to road rage. Ss a driver myself, sobrang paranoid ko na baka makatagpo ako ng ganoong driver. Alam ko naman sa sarili kong never ko papatulan yung galit nila pero nakakatakot pa rin jusq.”
At least one Facebook user wrote a string of behaviors, especially keeping calm, drivers can resort to when harassed on the road:
After watching the Antipolo road rage-shooting incident on an FB post, one of the comments stood out. pic.twitter.com/gamN0ZYhIQ
— Cece 🇵🇭 (@MamaPiaya) March 31, 2025
Commendations. In response to the swift apprehension of the suspect, Philippine National Police chief Gen. Rommel Francisco Marbil commended eight police officers on Monday, March 31 for their prompt action in capturing Kenneth.
Legal implications
Kenneth has been found to own a license to carry a firearm, but having used it, he is likely in violation of the nationwide gun ban. This Commission on Elections-imposed ban during poll periods is an effort to reduce election-related violence by prohibiting civilians from carrying firearms outside their homes unless they have a permit.
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, meanwhile, outlines conditions under which self-defense may be invoked. These are:
- There must be an actual, imminent, and unlawful attack on the person or property of the one claiming self-defense.
- The means used in self-defense must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the attack.
- The act of self-defense must not have been provoked by the person defending themselves.
Excessive use of force—such as shooting someone multiple times—may disqualify claims of self-defense.
