G.R. No.

L-35524 March 18, 1932

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

“Par. 1. - SELF-DEFENSE. necessity of the course of action taken by the person making
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided a
that the following circumstances concur: defense, and (2) there be a necessity of the means used. Both
First. Unlawful aggression; must
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to be reasonable.
prevent or repel it; The reasonableness of either or both such necessity depends
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the on
person defending himself.” the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature
and extent
of the aggression.
The second requisite of defense means that (1) there be a

FACTS:

- On February 23, 1931, the accused, a resident - As the accused receded he found himself
of Buenavoluntad, in the municipality of cornered by a pile of logs, the wings of which
Plaridel, Occidental Misamis, was engaged extended out on either side, effectually
with others in the gratuitous labor of hauling preventing any further retreat. As Cubol
logs for the construction of a chapel in the pressed upon him, the accused drew his bolo
barrio above-mentioned. and delivered a blow on Cubol's right shoulder.
- At about 5.30 o'clock in the afternoon on the - Upon this Cubol lunged at the accused with the
day mentioned, when the laborers were evident intention of wresting the bolo from the
resting from the work of the day, one Segundo accused. To prevent this the accused struck
Cubol happened to pass the place where Julian two other blows with the bolo, inflicting two
Sumicad was sitting. deep cuts on Cubol's forehead above the left
- Prior to this date the accused had rendered eye. One of these blows broke through the
five and one-half days service to Cubol, and as cranium.
the latter passed, the accused said to him, - Cubol lived only an hour or so, and died
"Segundo, pay me for the five and one-half from the effect of the wounds received. In
days work for which you owe me." Cubol one of the pockets of the deceased a knife
replied, "What debt!," an exclamation which was found, and the accused testified that,
was followed by an insulting expression. when he struck the deceased with his bolo,
- At the same time he struck the accused with the latter was attempting to draw a knife
his fist. The accused arose from the log upon from his pocket.
which he was sitting and moved backward,
trying to escape, but Cubol pursued him and
continued striking him with his fists.
ISSUE:

- Can self defense be invoked in the case?

RULING:
- YES.
- The accused was 25 years of age when this - The only further question that can
case was tried, has a height of 5 feet and 1- therefore arise in discussion the criminal
½ inches, and weight of 105 pounds. liability of the accused is whether there
- The deceased appears to have been taller, was reasonable necessity for the means
larger and stronger man. The evidence employed by him to prevent or repel the
shows that the deceased was quarrelsome aggression to which he was subjected.
and in the habit of making frequent trouble - Upon this point it will be noted that, when
by fighting in the places where he the aggression was begun by the deceased,
happened to be present with others. In the the accused retreated until he was
local courts he had been convicted and cornered in the angle of a pile of logs.
sentenced to jail for assault and battery in - In response to the blows which the
two different cases. In another case he was deceased delivered with his fists, the
convicted of the offense of inflicting minor accused first delivered a cut on the left
physical injuries, being sentenced to shoulder of the deceased; but, if we rightly
imprisonment for one month and one day. interpret the transcript of the record on
In still another case he had been convicted this point , the sanitary officer who
of theft and sentenced to imprisonment exclaimed the body of the deceased meant
for the same period of one month and one to say that this wound alone could not
day. The proof leaves no reason to doubt have resulted in death. This we consider to
that the deceased was hot-tempered and be the decisive turning point in the case.
that he had the reputation of being a Upon receiving that cut the deceased
trouble maker. should have been admonished that further
- It is a safe inference from this proof — and aggression on his part would be met by
there is nothing to the contrary, — that the determined resistance and that any further
deceased was with good reason advance would be at grave peril to himself.
considered by his neighbors to be a - Instead of acting upon this warning, the
dangerous man. deceased pressed forward in the attempt
- From the facts above stated it is evident to possess himself of the bolo, the only
that the quarrel which resulted in the means of defense then at the command of
death of Segundo Cubol was of his own the accused.
making, and that the accused was not - Under these circumstances what might the
materially to blame in bringing about the accused have been reasonably expected to
trouble. do. Was he to surrender the weapon to his
- Two of the elements of self-defense were assailant, a larger and stronger man than
therefore clearly present, namely, that himself, who was now infuriated by the
the deceased was the aggressor and that blood that had been drawn from his
there was lack of sufficient provocation shoulder? Or was he justified in keeping
on the part of the accused. the weapon in his hands and, as an
ultimate resort, in using it as a means for
his own defense? Our reply is that he was
justified in pursuing the latter alternative.