People vs. Boholst-Caballero [61 SCRA 180 (1974)]

Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal of the judgment of the CFI of Ormoc City finding her guilty of parricide—she allegedly killed her husband, Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife. The couple was married in 1956 and had a daughter. They had frequent quarrels due to the husband's gambling and drinking and there were times when he maltreated and abused his wife. After more than a year, Francisco abandoned his family. In 1958, Cunigunda went caroling with her friends and when she was on her way home she met her husband who suddenly held her by the collar and accused her of going out for prostitution. Then he said he would kill her, held her by the hair, slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt on her and proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda, having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt line while holding unto his waist so she wouldn't fall to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife and thrust it into her husband's left side, near the belt line just above the thigh. He died 2 days after the incident due to the stab wound. Then she ran home and threw the knife away. The next day, she surrendered herself to the police along with the torn dress that she wore the night before.

Issue: Whether or not Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, acted in legitimate self-defense

Held: Yes, she did. Acquitted.

1. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the accused. In this case, the location and nature of the stab wound confirms that the said victim, the husband, was the aggressor.

With her husband kneeling over her and choking her, accused had no other choice but to pull the knife tucked in his belt line and thrust it into his side.

The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where the knife was drawn from is a strong indication of the truth of the testimony of the accused. Based on the re-enactment of the incident, it was natural for her to use her right hand to lunge the knife into husband's left side.

2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present

Unlawful aggression. The husband resorting to pushing her to the ground then choking her just because she was out caroling at night constitutes unlawful aggression, There was imminent danger of injury.

Reasonable necessity of means employed. While being choked, Cunigunda had no other recourse but to take hold of the knife and plunge it into husband's side in order to protect herself. Reasonable necessity does not depend upon the harm done but on the imminent danger of such injury.

Lack of sufficient provocation. provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the aggression. In this case, there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to warrant the attack of her husband. All that she did to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband was to be out caroling at night.

People vs. Alconga

Facts: On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack against Maria De Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one money. Alconga was seated behind Barion and he gave signs to De Raposo. Barion, who was suffering losses in the game, found this out and he expressed his anger at Alconga. The two almost fought outright this was stopped.

The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as a home guard. While the said accused was seated on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion came along and said “Coroy, this is your breakfast” followed by a swing of his “pingahan”, a bamboo stick. Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the bench with the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and hit the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and directed a blow to the accused who was able to parry the attack using his bolo. A hand to handfight ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and having sustained several wounds ran away. He was followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters.

A second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slasehde the cranium. The deceased fell face downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

Issue: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga

Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide

The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand, having been wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon him has ceased absolutely/ Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could have only attacked if there was reason to believe that he is still not safe. In the case at bar, it is apparent that it is Alconga who is the superior fighter and his safety was already secured after the first fight ended. There was no more reason for him to further chase Barion. The second fight will be treated differently and independently. Under the first fight, self-defense would have been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight. In the second fight, there was illegal aggression on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no mitigating circumstance (MC) of Provocation

Note – Provocation in order to be an MC must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. “It should be proportionate to the act committed and adequate to stir one to its commission”

US vs. Mack

Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street in the town of Tacloban, Leyte, in an open space some 3 or 4 feet in width between the tienda of a woman named Olimpia and another building. - The deceased, with another policeman, approached the place and directed Olimpia to close her tienda; ordered the accused and another soldier to go to their quarters - The accused did not obey such order. - Some words may have passed between them, which angered the deceased. - The deceased dragged himself free from his companion and attacked the accused, at the same time drawing his bolo and brandishing it in a threatening manner. Accused got up, drew his revolver, and the deceased having then approached within a distance of from 3 to 6 feet, the accused fired three shots, one hit the left breast the left breast of the deceased, another in the back of his head. - Trial court held that the defendant adopted a mode of defense which was not ―reasonably necessary‖ - accused was taller than the deceased - deceased was perhaps under the influence of liquor - shot a vital part

Issue: Whether there was a ―reasonable necessity‖ for the use of the means employed by accused to defend himself

Held: Yes; Mere physical superiority is no protection to an unarmed man, as against assailant armed with a large bolo If it be true that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he that attack, his intoxication probably rendered him the more dangerous, unless he was so drunk as to be physically helpless, which is not suggested in the evidence. It was dark, the reasonable and natural thing for the accused to do was to fire at the body. The shots were fired in rapid succession in order to repel the attack; it could not be said that these were unnecessary. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime.