THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSE LAUREL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
This appeal was raised by the four above-named defendants, from the judgment of conviction, found on page 117 of
the record, rendered by the Honorable Mariano ui.
The facts in this case are as follows! "n the night of #ecember $%, 1&'&, while the girl oncepcion (at was wal)ing
along the street, on her way from the house of *+e,uiel astillo, situated in the pueblo of Tanauan, -rovince of
.atangas, accompanied by several young people, she was approached by /ose (aurel who suddenly )issed her and
immediately thereafter ran off in the direction of his house, pursued by the girl0s companions, among whom was the
master of the house above mentioned, *+e,uiel astillo1 but they did not overta)e him.
"n the second night after the occurrence just related, that is, on the $2th, while *+e,uiel astillo and /ose (aurel,
together with #omingo -anganiban and several others of the defendants, were at an entertainment held on an upper
floor of the parochial building of the said pueblo and attended by many residents of the town, it is alleged that the
said astillo and (aurel were invited by -anganiban, the former through his brother, 3o,ue astillo, and the latter,
directly, to come out into the yard, which they did, accompanied by -anganiban and the other defendants referred
to. 4fter the e+change of a few words and e+planations concerning the )iss given the girl (at on the night of the
$%th of that month, a ,uarrel arose between the said /ose (aurel and *+e,uiel astillo, in which #omingo
-anganiban, 5icente 6arcia, and onrado (aurel too) part, and as a result of the ,uarrel *+e,uiel astillo was
seriously wounded. He succeeded in reaching a drug store near by where he received first aid treatment1 /ose (aurel
also received two slight wounds on the head.
#r. 7i+to 3ojas, who began to render medical assistance to *+e,uiel astillo early in the morning of the following
day, stated that his e+amination of the latter0s injuries disclosed a wound in the left side of the chest, on a level with
the fourth rib, from 8 to 9 centimeters in depth, reaching into the lung1 another wound in the bac) of the left arm and
in the conduit through which the ulnar nerve passes, from 1' to 11 centimeters in length, penetrating to the bone and
injuring the nerves and arteries of the said region, especially the ulnar nerve, which was served1 a contusion on the
right temple, accompanied by ecchymosis and hemorrhage of the tissues of the eye1 and, finally, another contusion
in the bac) of the abdomen near the left cavity, which by reaction injured the stomach and the right cavity.
4ccording to the opinion of the physician above named, the wound in the left side of the breast was serious on
account of its having fully penetrated the lungs and caused the patient to spit blood, as noticed the day after he was
wounded, and there must have been a hemmorhage of the lung, an important vital vascular organ1 by reason of this
hemorrhage or general infection the patient would have died, had it not been for the timely medical aid rendered
him. The wound on the bac) of the left arm was also of a serious nature, as the ulnar nerve was cut, with the result
that the title and ring fingers of the patient0s left hand have been rendered permanently useless. :ith respect to the
contusion on the right temple, it could have been serious, according to the )ind of blows received, and the contusion
on the bac) of the abdomen was diagnosed as serious also, on account of its having caused an injury as a result of
which the wounded man complained of severe pains in the stomach and left spleen. The said physician stated that
he had attended the patient fourteen consecutive days1 that the contusion on the abdomen was cured in four or five
days, and that on the right temple in ten or twelve days, although this latter injury was accompanied by a
considerable ecchymosis which might not disappear for about three months, the time re,uired for the absorption of
the coagulated blood1 that the stitches in the wound of the left arm were ta)en out after twelve days, and when
witness ceased to attend the patient, this wound was healing up and for its complete cure would re,uire eight or
more days0 time1 and that the wound in the breast, for the reason that it had already healed internally and the danger
of infection had disappeared, was healing, although still more time would be re,uired for its complete cure, the
patient being able to continue the treatment himself, which in fact he did.
;n view of the stri)ingly contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution and by the defense, and in order to
decide what were the true facts of the case we shall proceed to recite the testimony of the party who was seriously
wounded and of his witnesses, and afterwards, that of his alleged assailants and of their witnesses, in order to
determine the nature of the crime, the circumstances that concurred therein and, in turn, the responsibility of the
criminal or criminals.
*+e,uiel astillo testified that while he, together with -rimitivo 6on<ale<, was in the hall of the parochial building
of Tanauan, attending an entertainment on the night of #ecember $2, 1&'&, he was approached by his brother,
3o,ue astillo, who told him, on the part of #omingo -anganiban, that /ose (aurel desired to spea) with him and
was awaiting him on the ground floor of the said building, to give him an e+planation with regard to his =(aurel0s>
having )issed oncepcion (at on the night of the $%th in the street and in the presence of the witness and other
young people1 that the witness, *+e,uiel astillo, therefore, left the parochial building, accompanied by his brother
3o,ue and -rimitivo 6on<ale<, and met 7ofronio 5elasco, 6audencio 6arcia, and 4lfonso Torres, at the street door1
that after he had waited there for half an hour, /ose laurel, onrado (aurel, 5icente 6arcia, /ose 6arcia, and
#omingo -anganiban, li)ewise came down out of the building and /ose (aurel approached him and immediately
too) him aside, away from the door of the building and the others1 that (aurel then said to him that, before ma)ing
any e+planations relative to the said offense against the girl oncepcion (at, he would as) him whether it was true
that he =the witness, astillo> had in his possession some letters addressed by (aurel to the said girl, to which the
witness replied that as a gentleman he was not obliged to answer the ,uestion1 that thereupon /ose (aurel suddenly
struc) him a blow in the left side of the breast with a )nife, whereupon the witness, feeling that he was wounded,
struc) in turn with the cane he was carrying at his assailant, who dodged and immediately started to run1 thereupon
witness received another )nife thrust in the left arm followed by a blow in the left side from a fist and witness, upon
turning, saw 5icente 6arcia and #omingo -anganiban in the act of again assaulting him1 just then he was struc) a
blow with a cane on his right temple and, on turning, saw behind him onrado (aurel carrying a stic), and just at
the moment -rimitivo 6on<ale< and several policemen approached him calling of peace1 his assailants then left him
and witness went to the neighboring drug store where he received first aid treatment. :itness further testified that
he had been courting the girl oncepcion (at for a month1 that, because his sweetheart had been )issed by /ose
(aurel, he felt a little resentment against the latter, and that since then he had no opportunity to spea) with his
assailant until the said night of the attac).
3o,ue astillo, a witness for the prosecution, testified that, at the re,uest of #omingo -anganiban, he had
suggested to his brother, *+e,uiel astillo, that the latter should go down to the door of the ground floor of the
parochial building, where /ose (aurel was waiting for him, so that the latter might ma)e e+planations to him with
regard to what had ta)en place on the night prior to the $%th of #ecember1 that *+e,uiel, who was in the hall beside
-rimitivo 6on<ale<, immediately upon receiving the notice sent him in (aurel0s name, got up and went down with
6on<ale< and the witness, though the latter remained at the foot of the stairs in conversation with 5irginio de 5illa,
whom he found there1 that, after a little while, witness saw /ose (aurel, /ose 6arcia, #omingo -anganiban, 5icente
6arcia, and onrado (aurel come down from the said building, and, on observing something bulging from the bac)
of the latter0s waist he as)ed him what made that bulge, to which (aurel replied that it meant ?peace1? witness
thereupon said to him that if he really desired ?peace,? as witness also did, he might deliver to the latter the revolver
he was carrying, and to prove that he would not ma)e bad use of the weapon, (aurel might ta)e the cartridges out
and deliver the revolver to witness. This he did, the witness received the revolver without the cartridges, and his
fears thus allayed, the witness returned to the upper floor to the entertainment1 but that, at the end of about half an
hour, he heard a hubbub among the people who said that there was a ,uarrel, and witness, suspecting that his
brother *+e,uiel had met with some treachery, ran down out of the house1 on reaching the ground floor he met
-rimitivo 6on<ale<, who had blood stains on his arms1 that 6on<ale< then informed him that *+e,uiel was badly
wounded1 that he found his said brother in 4rsenio 6on<ale<0 drug store1 and that his brother was no longer able to
spea) but made )nown that he wanted to be shriven. :itness added that on that same night he delivered the revolver
to his father, 7i+to astillo, who corroborated this statement.
The other witness, -rimitivo 6on<ale<, corroborated the testimony given by the preceding witness, 3o,ue astillo,
and testified that, while he was that night attending the entertainment at the parochial building of Tanauan, in
company with *+e,uiel astillo, the latter received notice from his =astillo0s> brother, through #omingo
-anganiban, to the effect that /ose (aurel desired to spea) with him concerning what occurred on the night of
#ecember $%1 that thereupon *+e,uiel, the latter0s brother, 3o,ue and the witness all went down out of the house,
though 3o,ue stopped on the main stairway while witness and *+e,uiel went on until they came to the main door of
the ground floor where they met 4lfonso Torres and 6audencio 6arcia1 that, after a while, /ose (aurel, onrado
(aurel, 5icente 6arcia, /ose 6arcia 4,uino, and #omingo -anganiban came up1 that when /ose (aurel met
*+e,uiel astillo he caught the latter by the hand and the two separated themselves from the rest and retired to a
certain distance, although 5icente and /ose 6arcia, onrado (aurel, and 4lfonso Torres placed themselves the
nearest to the first two, /ose (aurel and *+e,uiel astillo1 that at this juncture witness, who was about % or 7 meters
away from the two men last named, observed that /ose (aurel, who had his hand in his poc)et while he was tal)ing
with *+e,uiel, immediately drew out a hand)erchief and therewith struc) *+e,uiel a blow on the breast1 that the
latter forthwith hit his assailant, (aurel, with a cane which he was carrying1 that (aurel, upon receiving a blow,
stepped bac), while *+e,uiel pursued him and continued to stri)e him1 that thereupon 5icente 6arcia stabbed
*+e,uiel, who had his bac) turned toward him and onrado (aurel struc) the said *+e,uiel a blow on the head with
a cane1 that when witness approached the spot where the fight was going on, several policemen appeared there and
called out for peace1 and that he did not notice what /ose 6arcia 4,uino and 4lfonso Torres did.
(ucio 5illa, a policeman, testified that on the hearing the commotion, he went to the scene of it and met /ose (aurel
who was coming away, wal)ing at an ordinary gait and carrying a bloody poc)et)nife in his hand1 that witness
therefore arrested him, too) the weapon from him and conducted him to the municipal building1 and that the
sergeant and another policemen, the latter being the witness0s companion, too) charge of the other disturbers.
The defendant, /ose (aurel, testified that early in the evening of the $2th of #ecember he went to the parochial
building, in company with #iosdado 7iansance and several young people, among them his cousin .alta<ara
3ocamora, for the purpose of attending an entertainment which was to be held there1 that, while sitting in the front
row of chairs, for there were as yet but few people, and while the director of the college was delivering a discourse,
he was approached by #omingo -anganiban who told him that *+e,uiel astillo wished to spea) with him, to
which witness replied that he should wait a while and -anganiban thereupon went away1 that, a short time
afterwards, he was also approached by 4lfredo @atco who gave him a similar message, and soon afterwards Aelipe
4lmeda came up and told him that *+e,uiel astillo was waiting for him on the ground floor of the house1 this
being the third summons addressed to him, he arose and went down to ascertain what the said *+e,uiel wanted1
that, when he stepped outside of the street door, he saw several persons there, among them, *+e,uiel astillo1 the
latter, upon seeing witness, suggested that they separate from the rest and tal) in a place a short distance away1 that
thereupon *+e,uiel as)ed witness why he )issed his, *+e,uiel0s sweetheart, and on (aurel0s replying that he had
done so because she was very fic)le and prodigal of her use of the word ?yes? on all occasions, *+e,uiel said to him
that he ought not to act that way and immediately struc) him a blow on the head with a cane or club, which assault
made witness di<<y and caused him to fall to the ground in a sitting posture1 that, as witness feared that his
aggressor would continue to assault him, he too) hold of the poc)et)nife which he was carrying in his poc)et and
therewith defended himself1 that he did not )now whether he wounded *+e,uiel with the said weapon, for, when
witness arose, he noticed that he, the latter, had a wound in the right parietal region and a contusion in the left1 that
witness was thereupon arrested by the policemen, (ucio 5illa, and was unable to state whether he dropped the
poc)et)nife he carried or whether it was pic)ed up by the said officer1 that it too) more than a wee) to cure his
injuries1 that he had been courting the girl oncepcion (at for a year, but that in "ctober, 1&'&, his courtship ended
and *+e,uiel astillo then began to court her1 and that, as witness believed that the said girl would not marry him,
nor *+e,uiel, he )issed her in the street, on the night of #ecember $%, 1&'&, and immediately thereafter ran toward
his house.
.alta<ara 3ocamora stated that, while she was with /ose (aurel on the night of #ecember $2, 1&'&, attending an
entertainment in the parochial building of Tanauan, the latter was successively called by #omingo -anganiban,
4lfredo @atco, and Aelipe 4lmeda, the last named saying! ?6o along, old fellow1 you are friends now.? asimiro
Tapia testified that, on the morning following the alleged crime, he visited /ose (aurel in the jail, and found him
suffering from the bruises or contusions1 that to cure them, he gave him one application of tincture of arnica to
apply to his injuries, which were not serious.
.enito 5alencia also testified that, while the entertainment, he saw #omingo -anganiban approach /ose (aurel and
tell him that *+e,uiel astillo was waiting for him downstairs to tal) to him1 that (aurel refused to go, as he wished
to be present at the entertainment, and that -anganiban then went away1 that, soon afterwards, witness also went
down, intending to return home, and, when he had been on the ground floor of the parochial building for fifteen
minutes, he saw, among the many people who were there, *+e,uiel astillo and /ose (aurel who were tal)ing apart
from a group of persons among whom he recogni<ed 3o,ue astillo, -rimitivo 6on<ale< and onrado (aurel1 that
soon after this, witness saw *+e,uiel astillo stri)e /ose (aurel a blow with a cane and the latter stagger and start to
run, pursued by the former, the aggressor1 that at this juncture, onrado (aurel approached *+e,uiel and, in turn,
struc) him from behind1 and that the police presently intervened in the fight, and witness left the place where it
occurred.
The defendant #omingo -anganiban testified that, while he was at the entertainment that night, he noticed that it
threatened to rain, and therefore left the house to get his horse, which he had left tied to a post near the door1 that, on
reaching the ground floor, the brothers 3o,ue and *+e,uiel astillo, as)ed him to do them the favor to call /ose
(aurel, because they wished to tal) to the latter, witness noticing that the said brothers were then provided with
canes1 that he called /ose (aurel, but the latter said that he did not wish to go down, because he was listening to the
discourse which was then being delivered, and witness therefore went down to report the answer to the said
brothers1 that while he was at the door of the parochial building waiting for the dri<<le to cease, /ose (aurel and
Aelipe 4lmeda came up to where he was, and just then *+e,uiel astillo approached the former, (aurel, and they
both drew aside, about $ bra<as away, to tal)1 that soon afterwards, witness saw *+e,uiel astillo deal /ose (aurel
two blows in succession and the latter stagger and start to run, pursued by his assailant1 the latter was met by several
persons who crowded about in an aimless manner, among whom witness recogni<ed 3o,ue astillo and onrado
(aurel1 and that he did not see -rimitivo 6on<ale< nor 6audencio 6arcia at the place where the fight occurred,
although he remained where he was until a policeman was called.
onrado (aurel, a cousin of /ose (aurel, testified that, on the night of #ecember $2, 1&'&, he was in the parochial
building for the purpose of attending the entertainment1 that he was then carrying a revolver, which had neither
cartridges nor firing pin, for the purpose of returning it to its owner, who was a onstabulary telegraph operator on
duty in the pueblo of Tanauan1 that the latter, having been informed by a gunsmith that the said revolver could not
be fi+ed, re,uested witness, when they met each other in the coc)pit the previous afternoon, to return the weapon to
him during the entertainment1 that, on leaving the said building to retire to his house and change his clothes, he met
3o,ue astillo, his cousin and confidential friend, on the ground floor of the parochial building or convent and the
latter, seeing that witness was carrying a revolver, insisted on borrowing it, notwithstanding that witness told him
that it was unserviceable1 that, after he had changed his clothes, he left his house to return to the parochial building,
and near the main door of said building he found *+e,uiel astillo and /ose (aurel tal)ing by themselves1 that a
few moment afterwards, he saw *+e,uiel stri)e /ose two blows with a cane that nearly caused him to fall at full
length on the ground, and that /ose immediately got up and started to run, pursued by his assailant, *+e,uiel1 that
witness, on seeing this, gave the latter in turn a blow on the head with a cane, to stop him from pursuing /ose,
witness fearing that the pursuer, should he overta)e the pursued, would )ill him1 that, after witness struc) *+e,uiel
astillo with the cane, the police intervened and arrested them1 and that, among those arrested, he saw -anganiban
and 5icente 6arcia, and, at the place of the disturbance, 3o,ue astillo and -rimitivo 6on<ale<.
5icente 6arcia denied having ta)en part in the fight. He testified that he also was attending the entertainment and,
feeling warm, went down out of the parochial building1 that, upon so doing, he saw #omingo -anganiban and /ose
(aurel, but was not present at the fight, and only observed, on leaving the building, that there was a commotion1
then he heard a policeman had arrested /ose (aurel.
:ell-written briefs were filed in first instance, both by the prosecution and by the defense1 but, notwithstanding the
large number of persons who must have been eyewitnesses to what occurred, it is certain that the prosecution was
only able to present the witness, -rimitivo 6on<ale<, a relative of *+e,uiel astillo, to testify as to how and by
whom the assault was begun.
*ach one of the combatants, *+e,uiel astillo and /ose (aurel accused the other of having commenced the assault.
astillo testified that (aurel, after the e+change of few words between them, suddenly and without warning stabbed
him with a )nife, while (aurel swore that, after a short conversation astillo struc) him two blows with a cane, on
which account, in order to defend himself, he sei<ed a poc)et)nife he carried in his poc)et. ;n view, therefore, of
these manifest contradictions, and in order to determine the liability of the defendant, /ose (aurel, who, it is proved,
inflicted the serious wound on *+e,uiel astillo, it is necessary to decide which of the two was the assailant.
Ta)ing for granted that /ose (aurel did actually )iss oncepcion (at in the street and in the presence of *+e,uiel
astillo, the girl0s suitor, and of others who were accompanying her, the first ,uery that naturally arises in the
e+amination of the evidence and the circumstances connected with the occurrence, is! :ho provo)ed the encounter
between (aurel and astillo, and the interview between the same, and who invited the other, on the night of
#ecember $2, 1&'&, to come down from the parochial building of Tanauan, to the lower floor and outside the
entrance of the sameB *ven on this concrete point the evidence is contradictory, for, while the witnesses of *+e,uiel
astillo swore that the latter was invited by /ose (aurel, those of the latter testified, in turn, that (aurel was invited
three consecutive times by three different messengers in the name and on the part of the said astillo.
;n the presence of this mar)ed contradiction, and being compelled to in,uire into the truth of the matter, we are
forced to thin) that the person who would consider himself aggrieved at the )iss given the girl oncepcion (at, in
the street and in the presence of several witnesses, would undoubtedly be *+e,uiel astillo, the suitor of the girl,
and it would appear to be a reasonable conclusion that he himself, highly offended at the boldness of /ose (aurel,
was the person who wished to demand e+planation of the offense.
Cpon this premise, and having weighed and considered as a whole the testimony, circumstantial evidence, and other
merits of the present case, the conviction is ac,uired, by the force of probability, that the invitation, given through
the medium of several individuals, came from the man who was offended by the incident of the )iss, and that it was
the perpetrator of the offense who was invited to come down from the parochial building to the ground floor thereof
to ma)e e+planations regarding the insult to the girl (at, the real suitor of whom was at the time the said *+e,uiel
astillo. 4ll this is not mere conjecture1 it is logically derived from the above related facts.
.oth /ose and *+e,uiel were attending the entertainment that night in the upper story of the parochial building.
*+e,uiel was the first who went below, with his cousin, -rimitivo 6on<ale<, )nowing the (aurel remained in the
hall above, and he it was who waited for nearly half an hour on the ground floor of the said building for the said
/ose (aurel to come down. The latter was notified three times, and successively, in the name and on the part of
*+e,uiel astillo, first by #omingo -anganiban, then by 4lfredo @atco and finally by Aelipe 4lmeda--three
summonses which were necessary before /ose (aurel could be induced, after the lapse of nearly half an hour, to
come down. Meanwhile, for that space of time, *+e,uiel astillo was awaiting him, undoubtedly for the purpose of
demanding e+planations concerning the offensive act committed against his sweetheart. The natural course and the
rigorous logic of the facts can not be arbitrarily be rejected, unless it be shown that other entirely anomalous facts
occurred.
;f, in the natural order of things, the person who was deeply offended by the insult was the one who believed he had
a right to demand e+planations of the perpetrator of that insult, it is ,uite probable that the aggrieved party was the
one who, through the instrumentality of several persons, invited the insulter to come down from the upper story of
the parochial building, where he was, and ma)e the e+planations which he believed he had a right to e+act1 and if
this be so, *+e,uiel astillo, seriously affected and offended by the insult to his sweetheart, oncepcion (at, must
be held to be the one who brought about the encounter gave the invitation and provo)ed the occurrence, as shown
by his conduct in immediately going down to the entrance door of the said building and in resignedly waiting, for
half an hour, for /ose (aurel to come down.
Moreover, if the latter had provo)ed the encounter or interview had on the ground floor of the building, it is not
understood why he delayed in going down, nor why it became necessary to call him three times, in such manner that
*+e,uiel astillo had to wait for him below for half an hour, when it is natural and logical to suppose that the
provo)ing party or the one interested in receiving e+planations would be precisely the one who would have
hastened to be in waiting at the place of the appointment1 he would not have been slow or indisposed to go down, as
was the case with /ose (aurel.
;f, as is true, the latter was the one who insulted the girl oncepcion (at D an insult which must deeply have
affected the mind of *+e,uiel astillo, the girl0s suitor at the time D it is not possible to conceive, as claimed by the
prosecution, how and why it should be /ose (aurel who should see) e+planations from *+e,uiel astillo. ;t was
natural and much more li)ely that it should have been the latter who had an interest in demanding e+planations from
the man who insulted his sweetheart. ;n view of the behavior of the men a few moments before the occurrence, we
are of the opinion that astillo was the first to go down to the entrance door of the parochial building, )nowing that
/ose (aurel was in the hall, and, notwithstanding the state of his mind, he had the patience to wait for the said
(aurel who, it appears, was very reluctant to go down and it was necessary to call him three times before he finally
did so, at the end of half an hour.
4fter considering these occurrences which too) place before the crime, the ,uery of course arises as to which of the
two was the first to assault the other, for each lays the blame upon his opponent for the commencement of the
assault. *+e,uiel astillo testified that after he had replied to /ose (aurel that he, the witness, was not obliged to say
whether he had in his possession several letters addressed by laurel to the girl oncepcion (at, (aurel immediately
stabbed him in the breast with a )nife1 while /ose (aurel swore that, upon his answering the ,uestion put to him by
astillo as to why the witness had )issed his sweetheart, saying that it was because she was very fic)le and prodigal
of the word ?yes? on all occasions, *+e,uiel said to him in reply that he ought not to act in that manner, and
immediately struc) him a couple of blows on the head with a club, wherefore, in order to defend himself, he drew
the )nife he was carrying in his poc)et.
:ere the statements made by *+e,uiel astillo satisfactorily proven at the trial, it is un,uestionable that /ose (aurel
would be liable as the author of the punishable act under prosecution1 but, in view of the antecedents aforerelated,
the conclusions reached from the evidence, and the other merits of the case, the conclusion is certain that the assault
was commenced by *+e,uiel astillo, who struc) /ose (aurel two blows with a cane, slightly injuring him in two
places on the head, and the assaulted man, in self-defense, wounded his assailant with a poc)et)nife1 therefore, /ose
(aurel committed no crime and is e+empt from all responsibility, as the infliction of the wounds attended by the
three re,uisites specified in paragraph 9, article 2 of the -enal ode.
Arom the evidence, then, produced at the trial, it is concluded that it was *+e,uiel astillo who, through the
mediation of several others, invited (aurel to come down from the upper story of the parochial building, and that it
was he, therefore, who provo)ed the affray aforementioned, and, also, it was he who unlawfully assaulted /ose
(aurel, by stri)ing the latter two blows with a cane inasmuch as it is not li)ely that after having received a
dangerous wound in the left breast, he would have been able to stri)e his alleged assailant two successive blows and
much less pursue him. ;t is very probable that he received the said wounds after he had assaulted /ose (aurel with
the cane, and (aurel, on his part, in defending himself from the assault, employed rational means by using the )nife
that he carried in his poc)et.
Aor all the foregoing reasons, /ose (aurel must be ac,uitted and held to be e+empt from responsibility on the
ground of self-defense. The case falls within paragraph 9 of article 2 of the -enal ode, inasmuch as the defensive
act e+ecuted by him was attended by the three re,uisites of illegal aggression on the part of *+e,uiel astillo, there
being a lac) of sufficient provocation on the part of (aurel, who, as we have said, did not provo)e the occurrence
complained of, nor did he direct that *+e,uiel astillo be invited to come down from the parochial building and
arrange the interview in which astillo alone was interested, and, finally, because (aurel, in defending himself with
a poc)et)nife against the assault made upon him with a cane, which may also be a deadly weapon, employed
reasonable means to prevent or repel the same.
Cnder the foregoing reasoning, the other accused, onrado (aurel and 5icente 6arcia, who li)ewise, were
convicted as principals of the crime under prosecution, are comprised within the provisions of paragraph E of the
said article 2 of the -enal ode, which are as follows!
He who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or
adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree, provided the first and second circumstances mentioned in the foregoing number are attendant,
and provided that in case the party attac)ed first gave provocation, the defender too) no part therein.
onrado (aurel and 5icente 6arcia, first cousins of /ose (aurel, as shown in the trial record to have been proven
without contradiction whatsoever, did not provo)e the trouble, nor did they ta)e any part in the invitation e+tended
to /ose (aurel in the name of and for *+e,uiel astillo1 in assisting in the fight between astillo and (aurel, they
acted in defense of their cousin, /ose (aurel, when they saw that the latter was assaulted, twice struc) and even
pursued by the assailant, astillo1 conse,uently onrado (aurel and 5icente 6arcia have not transgressed the law
and they are e+empt from all responsibility, for all the re,uisites of paragraph 9 of the aforecited article attended the
acts performed by them, as there was illegal aggression on the part of the wounded man, *+e,uiel astillo,
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the said aggression on the part of the
aforementioned onrado (aurel and 5icente 6arcia, who acted in defense of their cousin, /ose (aurel, illegally
assaulted by *+e,uiel astillo, neither of the said codefendants having provo)ed the alleged crime.
:ith regard to #omingo -anganiban, the only act of which he was accused by the wounded man, *+e,uiel astillo,
was that he struc) the latter a blow on the left side with his fist, while astillo was pursuing (aurel.
#omingo -anganiban denied that he too) part in the ,uarrel and stated that he )ept at a distance from the
combatants, until he was arrested by a policeman. His testimony appears to be corroborated by that of -rimitivo
6on<ale<, a witness for the prosecution and relative of *+e,uiel astillo, for 6on<ale< positively declared that
-anganiban was beside him during the occurrence of the fight and when the others surrounded the said *+e,uiel
astillo1 it is, therefore, neither probable nor possible that -anganiban engaged in the affray, and so he contracted no
responsibility whatever.
*+e,uiel astillo0s wounds were very serious, but, in view of the fact that conclusive proof was adduced at the trial,
of the attendance of the re,uisites prescribed in Fos. 9 and E of article 2 of the -enal ode, in favor of those who
inflicted the said wounds, it is proper to apply to this case the provision contained in the ne+t to the last paragraph
of rule E1 of the provisional law for the application of the said code.
:ith respect to the classification of the crime we believe that there is no need for us to concern ourselves therewith
in this decision, in view of the findings of fact and of law made by the court below upon the ,uestion of the liability
of the defendants.
.y reason, therefore, of all the foregoing, we are of opinion that, with a reversal of the judgment appealed from, we
should ac,uit, as we do hereby, the defendants /ose (aurel, 5icente 6arcia, onrado (aurel, and #omingo
-anganiban. They have committed no crime, and we e+empt them from all responsibility. The costs of both
instances shall be de oficio, and the bond given in behalf of the defendants shall immediately be canceled.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NARCISO CABUNGCAL, defendant-appellant.
The appellant, Farciso abungcal, was sentenced by the ourt of Airst ;nstance of Tayabas for the crime of
homicide to fourteen years, eight months and one day reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of -E'' and to pay the costs of the action.
"n March $1, 1&$% the appellant invited several persons to a picnic in a fishery of his property in thebarrio of
Misua, municipality of ;nfanta, -rovince of Tayabas. They spent the day at said fishery and in the afternoon
returned in two boats, one steered by the appellant and the other by an old woman named 4nastasia -enaojas. Fine
persons were in the boat steered by the appellant, the great majority of whom were women and among them the
appellantGs wife and son and a nursing child, son of a married couple who had also gone in this boat. The deceased
/uan (o,uenario was another passenger in this boat. Cpon reaching a place of great depth the deceased roc)ed the
boat which started it to ta)e water, and the appellant, fearing the boat might capsi<e, as)ed the deceased not to do it.
4s the deceased paid no attention to this warning and continued roc)ing the boat, the appellant struc) him on the
forehead with an oar. The deceased fell into the water and was submerged, but a little while after appeared on the
surface having grasped the side of the boat, saying that he was going to cap<ise it and started to move it with this
end in view, seeing which the women began to cry, whereupon the appellant struc) him on the nec) with the same
oar, which submerged the deceased again. :ith the movement that the appellant made in giving him the second
blow, the boat upset and then the appellant proceeded to save his passengers. ;n the meantime the aged 4nastasia
-enaojas, who steered the other boat, and who at that time was about $'' or 8'' meters away, having heard the
cries of the wrec)ed persons, ,uic)ened its speed, repaired to and arrived in time to pic) up the passengers who are
clinging to the side of the capsi<ed boat, ta)ing them later to the river ban). The appellant, after having thus saved
his passengers, proceeded to search for the deceased but was unable to find him and his body was recovered later.
The 4ttorney-6eneral is of the opinion that the mitigating circumstances described in the first, third, fourth and
seventh paragraphs of article & of the -enal ode are present without any aggravating circumstance, and the penalty
to be imposed on the appellant should be one or two degrees less than that prescribed by the law.
;n view of the facts stated, we are of the opinion that the appellant is completely e+empt from all criminal liability.
#ue to the conditions of the river at the point where the deceased started to roc) the boat, if it had capsi<ed the
passengers would have run the ris) of losing their lives, the majority of whom were women, especially the nursing
child. The conduct of the deceased in roc)ing the boat until the point of it having ta)en water and his insistence on
this action, in spite of the appellantGs warning, gave rise to the belief on the part of the plaintiff that it would capsi<e
if he did not separate the deceased from the boat in such a manner as to give him no time to accomplish his purpose.
;t was necessary to disable him momentarily. Aor this purpose the blow given him by the appellant on the forehead
with an oar was the least that could reasonably have been done. 4nd this consideration militates with greater weight
with respect to the second blow given in his nec) with the same oar, because, then the danger was greater that the
boat might upset, especially as the deceased had e+pressed his intention to upset it.
;n view of all the circumstances of the case, in doing what the appellant did was in lawful defense of the lives of the
passengers of the boat, two of whom were his wife and child. The recourse of ta)ing the boat to the shore was not
ade,uate in those circumstances, because that would re,uire sometime, whereas the deceased might in an instant
cause the boat to capsi<e without giving time to arrive at the shore.
The appellant having acted in defense of his wife and child and the other passengers in the boat and the means
employed having been reasonably necessary in this defense, while it was at the cost of the life of the deceased, he is
completely e+empt from criminal liability.
3eversing the judgment appealed from, the appellant is ac,uitted, with the costs de oficio. 7o ordered.
/ohnson, 7treet, Malcolm, 5illamor, "strand, 3omualde< and 5illa-3eal, //., concur.

Mahawan v PeopleFa!"#
"n "ctober E, 1&&% at about 8 -.M., #iosdada -aradero was tending to her store when AernandoMahawan =petitioner> arrived and
as)ed for a bottle of beer. The former told the latter that there was no more beer. :hen -aradero was about to open
the refrigerator to show the petitioner that there was really no beer, the latter snea)ed inside the store. The lady
closed the refrigerator door and faced the petitioner. 7uddenly, the petitioner pulled put his gun and shot her at the
left chest. -aradero fell down. :hen the petitioner was going near, -aradero grabbed a )nife to defend herself. The petitioner fired
his gun again but this time merely gra<ing the left ear of -aradero. -etitioner snatched the )nife from her hand and then fled. -aradero
underwent operation as her vital organs were hit by the trajectory of the bullet. .eing convicted for frustrated homicide, the petitioner tried
to invo)e self-defense.
I""$e"#
:hether or not self-defense can be invo)ed by the petitioner in this case.
Hel%#
7elf-defense cannot be invo)ed since the petitioner failed to establish the concurrence of the three elements necessary to prove its e+istence.
Ra!&o#
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming self defense. To be able prove the e+istence of self-defense, three
elements must concur!
Unlaw'$l A(()e""&on
. -etitioner went to the store and as)ed for beer. Cpon )nowing that there was already none, he confronted
-aradero and shot his gun at her. Arom the given facts, it can be deduced that during the encounter, the petitioner was clearly the HaggressorG.
Aurthermore, the star) contrast between the injuries incurred by either parties =-aradero incurring fatal wounds and petitioner merely
incurring slashes>militate against petitionerGs claim of unlawful aggression on the part of -aradero.
Rea"ona*le nee""&!+ o' !he ,ean" e,plo+e% !o p)even! o) )epel &!.
;n the case at bar, it can be clearly seen that there was no reasonable necessity to shoot -aradero since she was merely tending to her store. ;t
is also worth noting the discrepancy between -aradero and the petitioner in terms of height, built, and the difference in se+.

Moreover, even alluding to the petitionerGs version of events, there is still no reasonable necessity on his part. He
claimed that they were outside when the event happened. He could have runaway and called for the police or his
neighbors. 4nd since -aradero was merely holding a )nife, he could have made a warning shot first instead of
immediately firing at the victimGs chest. ;n sum, he could have employed less harmful ways to defend himself.
La- o' "$''&&en! p)ovoa!&on
. ;t was already mentioned that the petitioner fired his gun at the lady. The latter merely used the )nife for self-
defense. learly, the petitioner provo)ed -aradero and not the other way around

MAHA.AN v" PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. /01123FACTS#
-rivate complainant #iosdada 7. -aradero operates a store on the ground floor of her house in .. 4ranas *+tension, ebu ity. "n
E "ctober 1&&%, -aradero was tending her store when petitioner

Aernando *stabas Mahawan arrived and as)ed her for a bottle of beer. 7he told petitioner that there was no more beer. :hen she was about
to open the refrigerator in the store to show petitioner that there was really no more beer, petitioner snea)ed inside the store. 7uddenly,
petitioner pulled out a gun =caliber .82 revolver> and shot her on the left chest. 7he retreated and fell on the ground. -rivate complainant
grabbed a )itchen )nife nearby to defend herself. -etitioner shot -aradero again but the bullet this time merely gra<ed her left earlobe.
-etitioner snatched the )itchen )nife from her hand and escaped from the store.
-araderoGs sister and some neighbors brought her to hong Hua Hospital where the gunshot wound in her left chest was treated. 7he also
underwent a surgical operation on her colon, liver and diaphragm as these vital organs were hit by the trajectory of the bullet. 4fter
the incident, petitioner immediately went to his brotherGs house and thereupon called via telephone a policeman named 7-"$Iuevedo.
He told 7-"$ Iuevedo that he wanted to surrender. "n 12 "ctober 1&&%, ;nformation was filed before the 3T charging petitioner with
frustrated homicide.
I""$e#
=1> :hether or not petitioner failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of -aradero=$> :hether or not second and third elements
of self-defense are wanting in the case at bar=8> :hether or not petitioner had intent to )ill
Hel%#
=1> @es, petitioner failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of -aradero. The fact that petitioner sustained injuries on his hand and
stomach, allegedly caused by -araderoGs )nife, does not signify that he was a victim of unlawful aggression. The medical certificate
presented by petitioner states that the latter sustained incised wounds on the $
nd
and E
th
fingers measuring $ centimeters and abdominal
abrasion measuring $.E centimeters. -etitioner was discharged on the same day he was treated in the hospital. ;t is clear from the foregoing
that the injuries he sustained were not serious or severe. The superficiality of the injuries was not an indication that his life and limb were in
actual peril.=$> @es, both second and third elements are wanting in the case. 7econd *lement! 3easonable means employed to prevent or
repel it. The second element of self-defense re,uires that the means employed by the person defending himself must be reasonably
necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression of the victim.

There was no reason or necessity for petitioner to shoot -aradero with a gun. -aradero was merely tending her store and did not attac) or
place in danger the life of petitioner during the incident. Aurther, when -aradero allegedly approached and tried to stab him, petitioner was
not trapped or cornered in a specific area such that he had no way out. Third *lement! (ac) of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person ma)ing the defense. -etitioner shot -aradero when she told him there was no more stoc) of cigarettes. -aradero then was forced to
grab a )nife to defend herself. learly, petitioner provo)ed -aradero and not the other way around. Hence, the element of lac) of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person ma)ing the defense is also wanting in the present case.=8> @es, there was intent to )ill on the part of the
petitioner. 4n essential element of homicide, whether in its consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offender to )ill the
victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. The injury on -araderoGs colon was fatal and
would have caused her death were it not for the timely medical attention given her.
The seriousness of -araderoGs injuries was also shown by the fact that she was confined and operated on twice in different hospitals for the
wound sustained in the colon. 5erily, the foregoing circumstances clearly manifest intent to )ill on the part of petitioner
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
TEODORO SABIO, defendant-appellant.
4t about si+ p.m. of 4pril 1$, 1&%8, Teodoro 7abio was s,uatting with a friend, ;rving /urilla, in the pla<a of entral
Manapla, Manapla, Fegros "ccidental. 3omeo .acobo and two others D 3uben MiJosa and (eonardo 6arcia D
approached them. 4ll of them were close and old friends.
3omeo .acobo then as)ed 7abio where he spent the holy wee). 4t the same time, he gave 7abio a ?foot)ic)
greeting?, touching 7abio0s foot with his own left foot. 7abio thereupon stood up and dealt 3omeo .acobo a fist
blow, inflicting upon him a lacerated wound, K inch long, at the upper lid of the left eye. ;t too) from 11 to 1$ days
to heal and prevented 3omeo .acobo from wor)ing during said period as employee of 5ictorias Milling o., ;nc.
7abio was thereafter prosecuted for less serious physical injuries. ;n the municipal court he was found guilty and
sentenced to imprisonment of E months and 1' days plus costs. ;n the ourt of Airst ;nstance, however, to which he
appealed, he was found guilty but with the mitigating circumstance of provocation, so that the penalty imposed was
one =1> month and five =E> days of arresto mayor plus indemnity of -1'' and costs.1wph1.t
#efendant appealed from this judgment to Cs to raise as a pure ,uestion of law the sole issue of whether, under the
facts is determined below, a fist blow delivered in retaliation to a ?foot-)ic) greeting? is an act of self-defense
andLor justifying circumstance entitling the accused to ac,uittal and relief from all liabilities, civil and criminal.
4 primordial re,uisite for self-defense is unlawful aggression =4rt. 11, 3ev. -enal ode>. 4nd for unlawful,
aggression to be present, there must be real danger to life or personal safety =-eople vs. .eatri< @uman, %1 -hil.
72%>. Aor this reason, a mere push or a shove, not followed by other acts, has been held insufficient to constitute
unlawful aggression =-eople vs. @uman, supra>. 4 playful )ic) D the lower court rejected defendant0s claim that it
was a ?vicious )ic)? D at the foot my way of greeting between friends may be a practical jo)e, and may even hurt1
but it is not a serious or real attac) on a person0s safety. 4ppellant0s submission that it amounts to unlawful
aggression cannot therefore be sustained. 4s rightly found by the ourt of Airst ;nstance, such )ic) was only a mere
slight provocation.
3eference is made to a decision of the 7upreme ourt of 7pain =prom. /an. $', 1&'9, 7$ /ur. rim. 1$8-1$E>,
considering a slap on the face an unlawful aggression. Fo parity lies between said case and the present. 7ince the
face represents a person and his dignity, slapping, it is a serious personal attac). ;t is a physical assault coupled with
a willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of in individual0s personality. ;t may therefore be fre,uently regarded as placing
in real danger a person0s dignity, rights and safety. 4 friendly )ic) delivered on a person0s foot obviously falls short
of such personal aggression.
:herefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto. osts against appellant. 7o ordered.
LADISLAO ESPINOSA
-etitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
3espondent
The Ca"e
This case comes before this ourt as an appeal, by way of a -etition for 3eview on ertiorariunder 3ule 9E
of the 3ules of ourt, from the #ecisionM1N of the ourt of 4ppeals affirming the conviction of herein
petitioner, (adislao *spinosa, for the crime of 7erious -hysical ;njuries under the third paragraph of 4rticle $%8 of
the 3evised -enal ode.M$N The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads!
:H*3*A"3*, the #ecision of the 3egional Trial ourt of ;ba, Oambales, .ranch 71 dated 8' March $''E,
finding appellant (adislao *spinosa 6C;(T@ beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of7*3;"C7 -H@7;4(
;F/C3;*7 is 4AA;3M*# with the M"#;A;4T;"F that he will suffer the straight penalty of si+ =%> months
of 4rresto Mayor and pay the amount of -E9,&$E.E' as actual damages.
:ith costs against accused-appellant.
The Fa!"
The undisputed facts of the case, as found by the 3egional Trial ourt, and as confirmed by the ourt of
4ppeals on appeal, may be so summari<ed!
"n % 4ugust $''', at about 1' oGcloc) in the evening, private complainant 4ndy Merto, bearing a grudge
against the petitioner, went to the house of the latter in the Municipality of 7ta. ru<, Oambales. :hile standing
outside the house, private complainant Merto shouted violent threats, challenging the petitioner to face him outside.
7ensing the private complainantGs agitated state and fearing for the safety of his family, petitioner went out of
his house to reason with and pacify Merto. However, as soon as he drew near the private complainant, the latter
hurled a stone at the petitioner. The petitioner was able to duc) just in time to avoid getting hit and instinctively
retaliated by hitting the left leg of the private complainant with a boloscabbard. The private complainant fell to the
ground. -etitioner then continuously mauled the private complainant with a bolo scabbard, until the latterGs cousin,
3odolfo Muya, restrained him.M8N
4s a conse,uence of the incident, private complainant Merto sustained two =$> bone fractures, one in his left
leg and another in his left wrist. ;t too) about si+ =%> months for these injuries to completely heal.M9N
"n $$ 7eptember $''', petitioner was originally charged with Arustrated Homicide, under an
;nformationMEN which reads as follows!
That on or about the %th day of 4ugust $''% at about 1' oGcloc) in the evening, at .rgy.-agatpat, in the
Municipality of 7ta. ru<, -rovince of Oambales, -hilippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable ourt,
the said accused, with treachery, evideMntN premeditation and intent to )ill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, assault, attac) and hac) several times one 4ndy Merto, thereby inflicting upon the latter the
following physical injuries, to wit!
1. Aracture open ;;; 4 -L8 Tibia left secondary to Hac)ing :ound1
$. ;ncised wound, wrist joint with ;ncised *+tensor -ollicis .revis Tendon, (eft 7L- A #ebridement 3ight
:rist 7L- (ong ircular ast, (eft
thus performing all the acts of e+ecution which would produce the crime of murder as a conse,uence, but
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, that is by the timely and able medical
assistance rendered to said 4ndy Merto which prevented his death.
"FT343@ T" (4:.
-etitioner pleaded not guilty, and trial thereafter ensued.
"n 19 #ecember $''9, the 3egional Trial ourt of ;ba, Oambales, .ranch 71, convicted petitioner only of
7erious -hysical ;njuries under the third paragraph of 4rticle $%8 of the 3evised -enal ode, noting that the
prosecution had failed to prove the element of Pintent to )ill,Q which is necessary to a conviction for Arustrated
Homicide. The dispositiveM%N portion of the ruling reads!
:H*3*A"3* premises considered, judgment is rendered finding accused (adislao *spinosa 6C;(T@
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 7erious -hysical ;njuries defined and penali<ed under 4rt. $%8, paragraph
8 of the 3evised -enal ode and is hereby sentenced MtoN suffer the penalty of si+ =%> months of 4rresto Mayor as
minimum to two =$> years, eleven =11> months and ten =1'> days ofprision correccional as ma+imum. 4ccused is
ordered to pay private complainant 4ndy Merto the amount of -E9,&$E.E' as and by way of actual damages.
Cndeterred, petitioner filed a Motion for 3econsideration dated 7 Aebruary $''E, before the trial court,
invo)ing for the first time complete self-defense, under the first paragraph of 4rticle 11 of the 3evised -enal
ode. ;n a 3esolutionM7N dated 8' March $''E, the trial court denied petitionerGs motion for reconsideration
holding that self-defense cannot be appreciated to justify the act of petitioner. The trial court cites the means
adopted by the petitioner in repelling the attac) as not reasonably necessary in view of the surrounding
circumstances and the severity of the victimGs injuries.
"n appeal, the ourt of 4ppeals affirmed the judgment of conviction with the modification that the penalty
imposed by the trial court should be lowered by one degree in accordance with the privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense under 4rticle %&M2N of the 3evised -enal ode. onse,uently, the Motion
for 3econsiderationM&N filed by the petitioner was also denied by the ourt of 4ppeals via a 3esolutionM1'N dated 9
/anuary $''2.
Hence, this appeal.
The I""$e
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether under the set of facts given in this case, complete self-defense
may be appreciated in favor of the petitioner.
The R$l&n( o' !he Co$)!
The ourt rules in the negative.
The re,uirements of self-defense as a justifying circumstance are found in the first paragraph of 4rticle 11 of
the 3evised -enal ode, to wit!
A)!&le //. /ustifying circumstances. R The following do not incur any criminal liability!
1. 4nyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following re,uisites concur!
Airst. Cnlawful aggression1
7econd. 3easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it1
Third. (ac) of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
;n their decisions, both the trial court and the ourt of 4ppeals found that the first and third elements of self-
defense are present in the case at bar. This finding was never ,uestioned by either of the parties and, as such, may
be ta)en as established for purposes of this appeal. Fonetheless, to dispel any doubts, the ourt hereby affirms the
e+istence of the first and third elements of self-defense, based on the following reasons!
Airst, unlawful aggression on the part of private complainant Merto was manifested by his attac) upon the
person of the petitioner in throwing a stone at the latter. This sudden and une+pected assault posed actual danger on
the life or limb of the petitioner, prompting the latter to ta)e steps in his defense. To the mind of the ourt, this is an
offensive positively strong enough to be the basis for a defensive action.
7econd, there is lac) of sufficient, if not total absence of, provocation on the part of the petitioner. The facts
are clear that it is private complainant Merto who invited the confrontation with petitionerDby shouting violent
threats at the latter.
The argumentation is on the e+istence of the second element, i.e., reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. The trial court and the ourt of 4ppeals were in agreement
that the means employed by the petitioner in conducting his defense is disproportionate to what was necessary to
prevent or deter the attac) of private complainant Merto.
;n arguing that the means employed was reasonable to repel the unlawful aggression, the petitioner invo)es
the application of the Pdoctrine of rational e,uivalence,Q delineated in -eople v. 6utual,M11N to wit!
+ + + ;t is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability
between the means of attac) and defense. .ha! !he law )e4$&)e" &" )a!&onal e4$&valene, &n !he on"&%e)a!&on o'
wh&h w&ll en!e) !he p)&n&pal 'a!o)" !he e,e)(en+, !he &,,&nen! %an(e) !o wh&h !he pe)"on a!!a-e% &"
e5po"e%, an% !he &n"!&n!, ,o)e !han !he )ea"on, !ha! ,ove" o) &,pel" !he %e'en"e, an% !he p)opo)!&ona!ene""
!he)eo' %oe" no! %epen% $pon !he ha), %one, *$! )e"!" $pon !he &,,&nen! %an(e) o' "$h &n6$)+. =*mphasis
supplied>
Tersely put, petitioner contends that the trial court and the ourt of 4ppeals erred in citing the severity of the
injuries sustained by private complainant Merto, as an indicator that belies the reasonableness of the means adopted
by the former to repel the attac) of the latter. ;nstead, petitioner wants to place emphasis on the fact that he merely
acted out of instinct and that he used a bolo scabbardDas opposed to using the bolo itselfDin incapacitating the
private complainant.
The ourt is not impressed.
The very application of the doctrine of rational e,uivalence, invo)ed by the petitioner, militates against his
claim. The doctrine of rational e,uivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and ,uality of the
weapons used by the defender and the assailantDbut of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-S-
vis, the unlawful aggression.
7ignificantly, a perusal of the facts shows that after petitioner was successful in ta)ing down private
complainant MertoDthe former continued to hac) the latter, who was, by then, already neutrali<ed by the
blow. This fact was clearly established by the testimony of 3odolfo Muya, who recounted having seen the
petitioner continuously hac)ing the private complainant with the boloscabbard, even as the latter lay almost
motionless upon the muddy ground.M1$N learly, this Pcontinuous hac)ingQ by the petitioner constitutes force
beyond what is reasonably re,uired to repel the private complainantGs attac)Dand is therefore unjustified.
-eople v. .eltran, /r.,M18N which also involves repetitious hac)ing by the accused even after the aggressor had
been neutrali<ed, is especially instructive!
The a! o' appellan! &n )epea!e%l+ ha-&n( No),an on h&" hea% an% ne- wa" no! a )ea"ona*le an% nee""a)+
,ean" o' )epell&n( !he a(()e""&on alle(e%l+ &n&!&a!e% *+ !he la!!e). 4s stated earlier, no convincing evidence was
presented to show that Forman was armed with an ice-pic) at the time of the incident. ;n fact, no ice-pic) was
found in the crime scene or in the body of the victim. There was also no proof showing that Forman attempted to
stab appellant or tried to barge into the latterGs house. 6ranting arguendo that Forman was armed with an ice-pic),
the repeated hac)ings were not necessary since he can overpower or disable Forman by a single blow on non-vital
portionLs of his body.
4gain, as correctly observed by the "76, had the appellant merely wanted to protect himself from what he
perceived as an unlawful aggression of Forman, he could have just disabled Forman. .hen No),an 'ell on !he
()o$n%, appellan! "ho$l% have ea"e% ha-&n( !he 'o),e) "&ne !he alle(e% a(()e""&on o) %an(e) no lon(e)
e5&"!". B+ appellan!7" own !e"!&,on+, howeve), he ha-e% No),an w&!h h&" *olo even when !he la!!e) wa"
al)ea%+ l+&n( on !he ()o$n%. I! appea)", !he)e'o)e, !ha! !he ,ean" $"e% *+ appellan!, wh&h we)e
"&,$l!aneo$" an% )epea!e% ha-&n(", we)e a%op!e% *+ h&, no! onl+ !o )epel !he a(()e""&on o' No),an *$! !o
en"$)e !he la!!e)7" %ea!h. In "$,, "$h a! 'a&le% !o pa"" !he !e"! o' )ea"ona*lene"" o' !he ,ean" e,plo+e% &n
p)even!&n( o) )epell&n( an $nlaw'$l a(()e""&on. =*mphasis supplied>
Fotwithstanding the fact that the petitioner merely used a scabbard in fending off the unlawful aggressionD
the totality of the circumstances shows that after the aggressor was ta)en down to the ground, the petitioner ceased
to be motivated with the lawful desire of defending himself. He was, by then, acting with intent to harm the private
complainant whose aggression had already ceased.
Ainally, in trying to disprove the testimony of 3odolfo Muya that there was Pcontinuous hac)ing,Q the
petitioner also posits that the injuries sustained by the private complainant could not have been serious enough to be
the product of repeated hac)s, and claims that the same are merely a product of a single blow. This contention has
had ample study and consideration in the trial court and in the ourt of 4ppeals. ;t deserves no further ado.
4s to whether the fractures suffered by the private complainant resulted from a single blow or a product of
multiple hac)ings is a ,uestion of fact best left to the judgment of the trial court. ;t is a well-settled principle that
factual findings of the trial courtDespecially if already affirmed by an appellate courtDare binding and conclusive
upon this ourt, save only for certain compelling reasons which are absent in this case.M19N Hence, the ourt
refuses to disturb the facts, and defers to the determination of the 3egional Trial ourt and of the ourt of 4ppeals.
:H*3*A"3*, the instant appeal is #*F;*# for lac) of merit. 4ccordingly, the appealed #ecision of the
ourt of 4ppeals, dated $E 7eptember $''7, in 4-6.3. 3 Fo. $&%88 is hereby4AA;3M*# ;F T"T". Fo
pronouncement as to costs.
7" "3#*3*#.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO CAMPOS + ARMADO, RENATO DE
LA CRU8 + BORAC, accused.
The case is an appeal from the decision
M1N
of the 3egional Trial ourt, aloocan ity, .ranch 1$9, convicting
4lejandro ampos y 4rmado and 3enato dela ru< y .orac of robbery with homicide with frustrated homicide
M$N
,
and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify jointly and severally Aelipa /acobe in the
amount of -8','''.'' for burial e+penses of Mercelina 4lfaro /acobe, the amount of -%','''.'' for hospital
e+penses of Aelicidad 4lfaro, and the amount of -1','''.'' representing the amount stolen from the victims, and to
pay the costs.
"n 4ugust 12, 1&2&, 4ssistant ity Aiscal .artolome 6. 5iola, /r. filed with the 3egional Trial ourt, aloocan
ity, an information charging 4lejandro ampos y 4rmado and 3enato dela ru< y .orac with robbery with
homicide, committed as follows!
?That on or about the 17th day of 4ugust 1&2&, in Taloo)an ity, Metro-Manila and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable ourt, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with intent to
gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation employed on the person of one M*3*(;F4 4(A43" #*
/4".*, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously ta)e, rob and carry away cash money amounting
to -1','''.'' belonging to said complainant, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforestated amount of
-1','''.''1 that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to ta)e, rob and carry
away the said amount of -1','''.'', the herein accused in pursuance of their conspiracy did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent to )ill the victim, attac) and stab on the different vital parts of the
body, thereby inflicting upon said M*3*(;F4 4(A43" #* /4".*, serious physical injuries, which directly
caused her death1 and also with deliberate intent to )ill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attac), assault and stab with a bladed instrument on the vital parts of the body one A*(;;#4# 4(A43" y 3CO,
thus, performing all the acts of e+ecution which would have produced the crime of Homicide as a conse,uence, but
which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the herein accused, that is due
to the timely, able and efficient medical attendance rendered the victim at the Iue<on ity 6eneral Hospital, which
prevented the victim0s death.
?"FT343@ T" (4:.Q
M8N
"n 4ugust $&, 1&2&, at the arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.
M9N
Aelicidad 4lfaro and Mercelina 4lfaro /acobe resided inside Ma+im0s Mini Mart at efel0s -ar) 7ubdivision, Tala,
Fovaliches, aloocan ity. .eside the mini mart was efel0s 6eneral Merchandise, a hardware store owned by
Aelipa /acobe, the mother-in-law of Mercelina 4lfaro /acobe.
"n 4ugust 1%, 1&2&, at around 1'!'' in the evening, Aelicidad and Mercelina prepared to sleep. Their bedroom and
the )itchen were located inside the mini mart. Aelicidad turned off all lights in the store e+cept the )itchen
light. Mercelina laid on the bed with her two-year old son, hristopher, while Aelicidad laid on the floor beside
them.
4t around midnight, Aelicidad roused from her sleep and stood up. 7uddenly, someone stabbed her on her left
arm. 7he started to shout as her assailant continued to stab her. 7he was hit on her abdomen, left arm, and left
side. 7he fell to the floor in a sitting position and she loo)ed at the person who stabbed her. 7he recogni<ed accused
4lejandro ampos, who wor)ed at the neighboring gravel and sand area and fre,uented their store to buy gas. 7he
also noticed accused 3enato dela ru< standing near the door of the room. 7he )new accused dela ru< because
they used to wor) together in the efel0s 6eneral Merchandise 7tore, a hardware store adjacent to the mini-mart.
7uddenly, accused ampos moved towards Mercelina and started stabbing her. Mercelina, still lying on the bed,
wo)e up and shouted for help. 4ccused ampos )ept stabbing her.
Thereafter, the two accused left hurriedly, e+iting through the storeroom of the minimart.
4t around midnight of 4ugust 17, 1&2&, .arangay aptain Aederico Hallig was inside the .arangay Hall at Malaria,
Tala, aloocan ity together with .arangay Tanods 3omulo Meglares, /esus 7ienda, Marcos Manalo and Ma+imo
.aylon. 7uddenly, they saw a man running outside the barangay hall with blood on his chest and on his short
pants. The man was holding a )itchen )nife about eleven inches long. 4fter ,uestioning the man, who identified
himself as 4lejandro ampos, the barangay officials brought him to the police station.
Meanwhile, Aelicidad, though wounded, managed to call for help from her mother-in-law, Aelipa /acobe, who
resided beside the store. Aelicidad was brought to Tala Hospital but was later transferred to Iue<on ity 6eneral
Hospital. Mercelina was ta)en to Tala Hospital. 7he was pronounced dead on arrival.
#r. 4mancio 4ngustia of the Iue<on ity 6eneral Hospital found that Aelicidad 4lfaro had several stab wounds on
the chest and a fractured left arm.
MEN
Two teams of surgeons immediately operated on Aelicidad, thereby saving her
life.
#r. #ario 6ajardo of the medico-legal unit of the -hilippine onstabulary rime (aboratory conducted an autopsy
on the body of Mercelina 4lfaro /acobo.
M%N
He found eight stab wounds on different parts of the body of the
deceased. He also found internal injuries in the heart, right lung, liver, stomach and the diaphragm. The cause of
death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to shoc) and hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab wounds.
"n 4ugust 17, 1&2&, Aelicidad, still in her hospital bed, as)ed her father, 3amon 4lfaro, to loo) for a bag containing
money, amounting to ten thousand =-1','''.''> pesos, from the store. 3amon 4lfaro went to the store and found
the bag on the floor, empty.
M7N
That afternoon, policemen brought accused dela ru< and accused ampos to Aelicidad. Aelicidad identified
accused ampos and accused dela ru< as the persons who entered the room in the early morning of 4ugust 17,
1&2& and stabbed her and her sister.
4ccused 4lejandro ampos denied any participation in the stabbing incident. He testified that at that time, he was
at home in Malaria, ;lang-;lang 7treet, Tala, aloocan ity.
Cpon further ,uestioning, accused 4lejandro ampos admitted that he went to the mini-mart on the evening of
4ugust 1%, 1&2&, at the call of accused 3enato dela ru<. 4ccused ampos claimed that he stayed outside the store
when accused dela ru< entered the minimart. Moments later, accused ampos heard shouts of women inside and
saw accused dela ru< emerge from the store. 4ccused dela ru< entrusted a )nife into the hands of accused
ampos and told him to )eep it. 4ccused ampos wal)ed away from the store, holding the )nife. He failed to
notice that the )nife was bloodied. (ater, barangay officials intercepted him and brought him to police head,uarters
for ,uestioning.
4ccused 3enato dela ru<, driver and careta)er of the hardware store owned by Aelipa /acobe, denied any
involvement in the crime. He alleged that 4lejandro ampos implicated him in this serious crime because the latter
was envious that he was receiving a higher salary than the other employees of Aelipa /acobe.
M2N
He claimed that at
around &!'' in the evening of 4ugust 1%, 1&2&, he was at his residence, 9' meters away from the minimart, on the
night in ,uestion.
M&N
He played several games of 3ussian po)er or pusoy with his friends until 11!'' in the evening
when his wife told him to go to sleep. 4t around 1!'' in the morning, his wife wo)e him up because somebody was
calling him outside their house. :hen accused dela ru< opened the door, he saw several policemen who told him
that Mrs. Aelipa /acobe wanted to see him. He went with the policemen but later reali<ed that he was being ta)en to
the police station. There, the policemen informed him that something happened to Mercelina and Aelicidad
4lfaro. 4ccused dela ru< stated that he )new nothing about the incident. (ater, policemen too) him to the
hospital where Aelicidad 4lfaro was lying unconscious. 4ccused dela ru< saw -atrolman 4ntonio -aras
attempting to tal) to Aelicidad. (ater, accused dela ru< and the policemen left the hospital. 4ccused dela ru< did
not see Aelicidad point to him as one of the suspects. ;t was only -at. 4ntonio -aras who told him that Aelicidad
identified him as one of the suspects.
"n "ctober $9, 1&&', the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states!
?:H*3*A"3*, in view of the foregoing, this ourt finds the accused 4lejandro ampos y 4rmado and 3enato
dela ru< y .orac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 3obbery with Homicide with Arustrated Homicide as charged
and hereby sentences each accused to suffer imprisonment of 3*(C7;"F -*3-*TC4. .oth accused are also
directed to indemnify jointly and severally Aelipa /acobe the amount of -8','''.'' for shouldering the burial and
miscellaneous e+penses of Mercelina 4lfaro /acobe, the amount of -%','''.'' for shouldering the hospitali<ation,
operation and the purchase of medicine in the treatment of Aelicidad 4lfaro and to jointly and severally indemnify
the heirs of Mercelina 4lfaro /acobe the amount of -1','''.'' which was stolen from Mercelina 4lfaro. .oth
accused are also directed to pay the costs.
?.oth of the accused shall be entitled to be credited with the full period of their preventive imprisonment pursuant
to 4rt. $& of the 3evised -enal ode provided the re,uirements listed therein have been complied with.
?7" "3#*3*#.
?-romulgated in open court on this $9th day of "ctober 1&&' at Taloo)an ity, Metro Manila.
"nly accused 3enato dela ru< appealed the decision to the 7upreme ourt.
M11N
4ccused-appellant 3enato dela ru< contended that the trial court erred in convicting him because his participation
in the crime was not clearly established. The prosecution witness failed to see anyone ta)ing the contents of the bag
containing the store earnings. The prosecution also failed to prove conspiracy between the two accused in the
stabbing incident.
;n order to be convicted of robbery with homicide, four =9> elements are necessary! =a> the ta)ing of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person1 =b> the property ta)en belongs to another1 =c>
the ta)ing is characteri<ed by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and, =d> on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof the crime of homicide was committed.
M1$N
:e find insufficient evidence to show that accused-appellant dela ru< was guilty of the first three elements of
robbery with homicide. ;n robbery with homicide cases, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any
other essential element of the crime.
M18N
3obbery is the ta)ing of personal property belonging to another, with intent
to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person or by using force upon things.
M19N
;n this case, all
that the witness Aelicidad saw that night was the stabbing of her sister, not the ta)ing of personal property. The
ta)ing cannot be assumed from the actions of accused-appellant as seen by Aelicidad. 7he saw him at the doorway
and then noticed him running out the store after the stabbing occurred. Aelicidad claimed that the bag purportedly
containing money was recovered empty the ne+t day. However, it was undisputed that various persons had entered
the store of the victims after the incident, including investigators and onloo)ers. The bag was not conclusively
shown to contain money nor was the money ever recovered. Aurther, there was no substantial lin) from the loss of
the contents of the bag to the accused, for the money was never seen in the possession of the accused.
Thus, accused may not be held liable for robbery.
3egarding the stabbing involving Aelicidad and Mercelina, the testimony of one of the victims, namely, Aelicidad,
who survived the stabbing, becomes crucial.
Aelicidad categorically stated that accused ampos stabbed her and her sister. ?The most natural reaction of victims
of violence is to strive to loo) at the appearance of the perpetrators of the crime and observe the manner in which
the crime is being committed.?
M1EN
*ven as she fell to the floor, Aelicidad endeavored to see the identity of her
assailant. 7he saw accused ampos as he stabbed her at close range and watched as he moved on to stab her sister.
However, accused-appellant dela ru< alleged that the prosecution witness failed to establish his actual participation
in the stabbing of Aelicidad and Mercelina, as well as his overt acts that tended to show his conspiracy with accused
ampos. :e agree.
onspiracy e+ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
M1%N
#irect proof is not essential to prove conspiracy1 however, the evidence to prove the same
must be positive and convincing.
M17N
7imilar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the conspiracy must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
M12N
;t must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises or conjectures.
M1&N
;n this case, there was no clear indication of the e+istence of conspiracy. Airst, eyewitness0 identification of
accused-appellant at the scene of the crime was not clear. 4lthough the witness was familiar with the accused-
appellant, the lac) of lighting in the store at the time left doubt as to her proper identification of accused-appellant,
who was several meters away from her. 7econd, Aelicidad merely stated that she saw him standing by the door of
the store.
M$'N
Mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to prove conspiracy.
M$1N
4 conspirator must
perform an overt act in furtherance of the plan to commit a felony1 mere presence at the scene of the incident,
)nowledge of the plan or ac,uiescence thereto are not sufficient grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator.
M$$N
Mere presence, )nowledge, ac,uiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party
to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose.
M$8N
Cndoubtedly, accused-appellant did not stab Aelicidad and Mercelina. onsidering the scant evidence showing
conspiracy and accused-appellant0s involvement in the stabbing incident, accused-appellant can not be convicted of
the crime charged. ;t is a+iomatic that the accused is accorded in his favor the disputable presumption of innocence.
M$9N
Cnless the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the constitutional presumption of innocence
applies.
M$EN
.HEREFORE, the ourt 3*5*37*7 the decision of the 3egional Trial ourt, aloocan ity, .ranch 1$9,
convicting accused-appellant 3enato dela ru< y .orac of robbery with homicide. 4ccused-appellant 3enato dela
ru< is hereby 4IC;TT*# on reasonable doubt and is ordered released immediately from confinement unless he
is held for another case.