60.

People vs Boholst-Caballero ________________

No. L-23249. November 25, 1974.* *
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-  FIRST DIVISION.
appellee, vs. CUNIGUNDA BOHOLST-CABALLERO, accused- 181
appellant.
VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 181
Criminal law; Self-defense; Basis of law on self-defense.—The
law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized People vs. Boholst-Caballero
world finds justification in man's natural instinct to protect, repel, and in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong
save his person or rights from impending danger or peril; it is based indication of the truth of the accused’s testimony, for as she lay on the
on that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of his nature ground with her husband bent over her it was quite natural for her
as a human being. right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s
Same; Same; Basis of law on self-defense according to the belt and thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand at the
Classicists and Positivists.—To the Classicists in penal law, lawful moment.
defense is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State to Same; Same; Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully prevent unlawful aggression; Reasonable necessity of the means
attacked, and therefore it is inconceivable for the State to require that employed rests upon the imminent danger of injury; Case at bar.—
the innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance; The second element, that is, reasonable necessity for the means
while to the Positivists, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act employed, is likewise present. The accused who being strangled and
of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggressor. choked by a furious aggressor and rendered almost unconscious by
Same; Same; Requisites.—Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code the strong pressure on her throat had no other recourse but to get
provides that anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights does hold of any weapon within her reach to save herself from impending
not incur any criminal liability provided that the following death. Reasonable necessity of the means employed in self-defense
circumstances concur: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable does not depend upon the harm done but rests upon the imminent
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of danger of such injury. The knife tucked in her husband’s belt afforded
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. the accused the only reasonable means with which she could free and
Same; Same; Same; Requisites must be proved by clear and save herself from being strangled and choked to death.
convincing evidence.—He who seeks justification for his act must Same; Same; Lack of sufficient provocation; Imaginary
prove by clear and convincing evidence the presence of the statutory commission of a wrong not a sufficient provocation; Case at bar.—
circumstances, the rationale being that having admitted the wounding Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the aggression,
or killing of his adversary which is a felony, he is to be held criminally that is, adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming
liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the self-defense. The accused did not give sufficient provocation to
court the fact of legitimate self-defense. warrant the aggression or attack on her person by her husband. While
Same; Same; Unlawful aygresxion; Where the location of the it was understandable for the accused to be angry at his wife for
wound inflicted on the victim confirms the said victim ax the unlawful finding her on the road in the middle of the night, however, he was not
awjressor; Case at bar.—With her husband kneeling over her as she justified in inflicting bodily punishment with an intent to kill by choking
lay on her back on the ground and his hand choking her neck, the his wife’s throat. All that the accused did was to provoke an imaginary
accused had no other recourse but to pull out the knife inserted at the commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband, which is not a
left side of her husband’s belt and plunge it at his body hitting the left sufficient provocation under the law of self-defense.
back portion just below the waist, described by the attending Same; Where there are directly conflicting versions of the
physician as the left lumbar region. The fact that the blow landed incident object of the accusation, duty of the Court to look for other
circumstances to determine the truth as between the conflicting
Page 1 of 10
versions.—Where there are directly conflicting versions of the incident in the sum of SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000.00) without subsidiary
object of the accusation, the Court in its search for the truth perforce imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs”, and prays
has to look for some facts or circumstances which can be used as for an acquittal based on her plea of self-defense.1
valuable aids in evaluating the probability or improbability of a The Solicitor General however asks for the affirmance of the
testimony, for after all the element of probability is always involved in appealed decision predicated on the following testimonial and
weighing testimonial evidence, so much so that when a court as a documentary evidence presented by the prosecution before the trial
judicial fact-finder pronounces judgment that a set of facts constitute court:
the true happening it does so not of its own personal knowledge but Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Caballero, both at the age of
as the result of an evaluating process of the probability or twenty, were married on June 7, 1956, at a ceremony solemnized by
improbability of a fact sought to be proved. the parish priest of the Roman Catholic Church
182 ________________

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 1

 This appeal was originally elevated to the Court of Appeals;
People vs. Boholst-Caballero however, in a Resolution promulgated on May 7, 1964, it forwarded
Same; Same; Absence of motive important in determining the the case to this Court on the ground that the penalty for the crime
truth as between conflicting versions of the incident object of the committed by the accused is reclusion perpetua.
accusation.—Although it is the general rule that the presence of
183
motive in the killing of a person is not indispensable to a conviction
especially where the identity of the assailant is duly established by VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 183
other competent evidence or is not disputed, nonetheless, the People vs. Boholst-Caballero
absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as in Ormoc City.2 The marriage was not a happy one and before the end
between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing. of the year 1957 the couple separated. Late in the evening of January
2, 1958, Francisco Caballero and two companions, namely, Ignacio
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Barabad and Kakong Sacay, drank “tuba” in a certain house in barrio
Ormoc City branch. Estenzo, J. Ipil, Ormoc City. At about midnight, Francisco Caballero and his
companions proceeded home. On the way, they saw Francisco’s wife,
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Cunigunda, standing at the corner of the yard of Igmedio Barabad.
     Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Cunigunda called Francisco and when the latter approached her,
Florencio Villamor and Attorney Concepcion F. Torrijos for plaintiff- Cunigunda suddenly stabbed Francisco with a knife marked by the
appellee. prosecution as its Exhibit C. Francisco called for help to his two
     Accused-appellant in her own behalf. companions who upon seeing that Francisco was wounded, brought
him to the St. Jude Hospital.3 Dr. Cesar Samson, owner of the
MUNOZ PALMA, J.: hospital, personally attended to the victim and found a “punctured
wound on the left lumbar region measuring 1 inch externally” (Exhibit
Convicted for having killed her husband, Cunigunda Boholst- B). First aid was given, but because there was a need for blood
Caballero seeks a reversal of the judgment of the Court of First transfusion and the facilities of the hospital were inadequate to
Instance of Ormoc City finding her guilty of PARRICIDE and provide the necessary treatment, Dr. Samson suggested that the
sentencing her “to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from patient be transported to Cebu City. 4 In the meantime, Cunigunda
EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium Caballero had gone to the Police Department of Ormoc City,
period, as the minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) surrendered to desk sergeant Restituto Mariveles and informed the
MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal in its medium latter that she stabbed her husband.5 While Francisco Caballero was
period as the maximum; to indemnify the heirs of Francisco Caballero
Page 2 of 10
confined at the hospital, he was interrogated by Patrolman Francisco men who played the musical instruments; at about 12:00 o’clock
Covero concerning the identity of his assailant and he pointed to his midnight they divided the proceeds of the carolling in the house of
wife Cunigunda. The questions propounded by Pat. Covero and the Crispina Barabad, after which she went home, but before she could
answers given by the victim were written down in a piece of paper on leave the vicinity of the house of Crispina, she met her husband,
which the victim affixed his thumbmark (Exhibit D) in the presence of Francisco, who upon seeing her, held her by the collar of her dress
his brother, Cresencio Caballero, and another policeman, Francisco and asked her: “Where have you been prostituting? You are a son of
Tomada.6 On January 4, 1958, Francisco Caballero was brought to a bitch.”; she replied: “What is your business. Anyway you have
Cebu City on board the “MV Ormoc” but the trip proved futile because already left us. You have nothing to do with us”; upon hearing these
the victim died at noontime of the same day from the stab wound words Francisco retorted: “What do you mean by saying I have
sustained by him.7 nothing to do with you. I will kill you all, I will kill you all”; Francisco
________________ then held her by the hair, slapped her face until her nose bled, and
pushed her towards the ground; to keep herself from falling she held
2
 Marriage contract marked Exhibit G. on to his waist and as she did so her right hand grasped the knife
3
 T.s.n. March 19,1958, pp. 3-7, witness Ignacio Barabad. tucked inside the belt line on the left side of his body; because her
4
 T.s.n. April 18,1958, pp. 2-7, witness Dr. Cesar Samson. husband continued to push her down she fell on her back to the
5
 T.s.n. June 24,1958, pp. 16-17, witness Restituto Mariveles. ground; her husband then knelt over her, held her neck, and choked
6
 T.s.n. June 24, 1958, pp. 28-32, witness Covero; t.s.n. June 24, her saying: “Now is the time I can do whatever I want. I will kill you”;
1958, pp. 54-62, 67, witness Tomada; t.s.n. pp. 72-73 witness because she had “no other recourse” as she was being choked, she
Cresencio Caballero. pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him hitting the left
7
 see death certificate marked Exhibit H. side of his body near the “belt line” just above his left thigh; when she
finally released herself from the hold of her husband she ran home
184 and on the way she threw the
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 185
People vs. Boholst-Caballero VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 185
Appellant, on the other hand, pleads that We discard the proof People vs. Boholst-Caballero
adduced by the prosecution and believe instead what she declared knife; in the morning of January 3, she went to town, surrendered to
before the trial judge briefly summarized as follows: the police, and presented the torn and blood-stained dress worn by
After her marriage to Francisco Caballero on June 7, 1956, her on the night of the incident (see Exhibit I); Pat. Cabral then
appellant lived with her husband in the house of her parents in barrio accompanied her to look for the weapan but because they could not
Ipil, Ormoc City, and their marriage, although not a harmonious one, find it the policeman advised her to get any knife, and she did, and
was blessed with a daughter; her married life was marked by frequent she gave a knife to the desk sergeant which is the knife now marked
quarrels caused by her husband’s “gambling, drinking, and as Exhibit C for the prosecution.8
serenading”, and there were times when he maltreated and beat her; The sole question thus presented in this appeal is: did appellant
after more than a year she and her husband transferred to a house of stab her husband in the legitimate defense of her person?
their own, but a month had hardly passed when Francisco left her and The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the
her child, and she had to go back to live with her parents who bore the civilized world finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect,
burden of supporting her and her child; in the month of November, repel, and save his person or rights from impending danger or peril; it
1957, her daughter became sick and she went to her husband and is based on that impulse of self-preservation born to man and part of
asked for some help for her sick child but he drove her away and said his nature as a human being. Thus, in the words of the Romans of
“I don’t care if you all would die”; in the evening of January 2, 1958, ancient history: Quod quisque ob tutelam corporis sui fecerit, jure suo
she went out carolling with her friend, Crispina Barabad, and several fecisse existimetur.9 To the Classicists in penal law, lawful defense is
Page 3 of 10
grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a brought out by her demonstration of the incident in question during the
present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, trial of the case; b) there was no wound or injury on appellant’s body
and therefore it is inconceivable for the State to require that the treated by any physician; c) appellant’s insistence that the weapon
innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance; while used by her was a Moro hunting knife and not Exh. C is incredible; d)
to the Positivists, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of she gave contradictory statements concerning the report made by her
social justice done to repel the attack of an aggressor.10 to the police authorities that she was choked by her husband; and e)
Our law on self-defense is found in Art. 11 of the Revised Penal her husband’s abandonment of her and her child afforded the motive
Code which provides: behind appellant’s attack.12
“ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.—The following do not incur any
criminal liability: We are constrained, however, to disagree with the court a quo and
“1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided depart from the rule that appellate courts will generally not disturb the
that the following circumstances concur: findings of the trial court on facts testified to by the witnesses.
“First. Unlawful aggression; An examination of the record discloses that the trial judge
“Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent overlooked and did not give due importance to one piece of evidence
or repel it; which more than the testimony of any witness eloquently confirms the
narration of appellant on how she happened to stab her husband on
________________ that unfortunate night. We refer to the location of the wound inflicted
on the victim.
8
 T.s.n. August 12, 1958, pp. 58-68, witness Cunigunda Caballero. ________________
9
 see 1 Viada, 172, 5th edition. “That which anyone should do for
11
the safety of his own person is to be adjudged as having been done  U.S. vs. Coronel, 30 Phil. 112; People vs. Cruz, 53 Phil.
justly in his own favor.” (Writer’s translation). 635; People vs. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People vs. Davis, L-13337,
10
 Guillermo B. Guevara’s Penal Science and Philippine Criminal Feb. 16, 1961, 1 SCRA 473; People vs. Solana, L-13967, Sept. 29,
Law, 1974 ed. p. 82, citing: Pessina, par. 73; Carrara, par. 291; and 1962, 6 SCRA 60; People vs. Mendoza, L-16392, January 30,1965,13
Calon, Derecho Penal, 292. SCRA 11; People vs. Talaboc, L-25004, October 31, 1969, 30 SCRA
87 People vs. Ordiales, L-30956, November 23, 1971, 42 SCRA
186 238; People vs. Tingson, L-31228, October 24, 1972, 47 SCRA
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 243; People vs. Llamera, L-21604-5-6, May 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 48..
People vs. Boholst-Caballero 12
 pp. 7-9, Decision found in pp. 267-269, original record.
“Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.” 187
xx      xx      xx      xx VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 187
As part of this law is the settled jurisprudence that he who seeks People vs. Boholst-Caballero
justification for his act must prove by clear and convincing evidence Appellant’s account of that fatal occurrence as given in her direct
the presence of the aforecited circumstances, the rationale being that testimony follows:
having admitted the wounding or killing of his adversary which is a “ At that precise time when you were going home to the place of
felony, he is to be held criminally liable for the crime unless he Q your parents, did any unusual incident occur?
establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate self- A Yes, sir.
defense.11
Q What was it?
In this case of Cunigunda Caballero, the trial court did not find her
evidence clear and convincing, and gave these reasons for its A At the time when I went down from the house of Crispina
conclusion: a) appellant’s testimony is inherently improbable as Barabad, when I reached near the banana hill, my husband
Page 4 of 10
 held me. Q After that what happened?
Q What happened when your husband, Francisco Caballero, A He shoved my hands upward and pushed me to the ground
held you? 188
A He asked me from where did I prostitute myself. 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Q What did you answer? People vs. Boholst-Caballero
A I answered that I did not go (on) prostituting. I told him that I   and that was the time my hands were released. He was
was only forced to accompany with the carolling in order to choking me.
earn money for our child. Q When you said your hands were released, was that before or
Q What part of your body did your husband, Francisco Caballero, after you were choked by Francisco Caballero?
hold you? A At that time when I was about to fall to the ground that was
A He held me at the collar of my dress. (Witness holding the right the time I released my hands.
portion of the collar of her dress.) Q When you were almost fallen to the ground, where were the
Q After you answered Francisco, what did he do? hands of Francisco Caballero?
A He said ‘ Where have you been prostituting? You are a son of A On my hair.
a bitch.’ Then I told him ‘What is your business. Anyway you Q You mean to say the two hands of Francisco Caballero?
have already left us. You have nothing to do with us.’ A One of his hands was holding my hair. The other hand
Q When Francisco heard these words, what did he do? pushed me.
A Francisco said ‘What do you mean by saying I have nothing to COURT:
do with you. I will kill you all. I will kill you all.’ Q What hand was holding your hair?
Q And then, what happened? A His right hand was holding my hair while his left hand pushed
A He held my hair and slapped my face twice. Then I staggered me.
and my nose was bleeding. ATTORNEY GARCIA:
Q Do you mean to say that blood flowed out of your nose? Q When you were fallen to the ground what happened?
A Yes, sir. A While I lay prostrate on the ground and believing that I have
Q After you were slapped twice and your nose begun to bleed, no other recourse, while his left hand was holding my neck, I
what happened next? was able to take hold of the weapon from his belt line and I
A He held the front part of my dress just below the collar and thrust it to him.
pushed me towards the ground. Q What was this weapon which you were able to get from his
Q While your husband was holding your dress below the neck belt line?
and tried to push you down, what did you do? A It was a hunting knife.” (tsn. pp. 53-55, witness Cunigunda
A I held a part of his body in order that I would not fall to the Caballero)
ground. On cross-examination, appellant was asked by the private prosecutor
Q And then what happened? to show her position when she stabbed her husband and she did, and
although the stenographic notes on that demonstration are very
A Because I struggled hard in order that I would not fall to the
sketchy which We quote:
ground, I held his belt and that was the time I got hold of a
“ Please demonstrate to this Court when you made the thrust to
weapon along his belt line.
Q your husband?
Page 5 of 10
A When I took hold of the hunting knife I made the thrust in this get hold of the weapon because the two knees of her husband were
manner. (Witness held the ruler with her right hand and on her right thigh “which would have forced her to put her right elbow
kneeled on the floor)” (tsn. p. 67, ibid) towards the ground” (see p. 9 of Decision), for even if it were true that
still We can get a clear picture of what appellant must have done, the two knees of Francisco were on his wife’s right thigh, however,
from the questions and answers immediately following the above- there is nothing in the record to show that the right arm of the accused
quoted portion of the transcript, viz: was held, pinned down or rendered immobile, or that she pressed her
elbow to the ground, as conjectured by the trial judge, in such a
“ You want to make us understand that when you thrust the
manner that she could not reach for the knife. On the contrary, as
Q weapon to the body of your husband you were lying down flat indicated earlier, accused testified and so demonstrated that she was
to the ground ? lying flat on her back, her husband kneeling over her and her right
A I was lying flat on the ground face upward. I was a little bit arm free to pull out the knife and strike with it.
inclined because I tried to struggle trying to get away from the The trial judge also referred to a demonstration made by appellant
hold of my husband. of that portion of her testimony when she was held by the hair and
Q You want to make us understand that your back was touching pushed down to the ground, and His Honor commented that “(S)he
189 could not be falling to the ground, as shown to the Court by her,
considering the fact that the pushing was to and fro as shown in her
VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 189
demonstration.” (p. 8, Decision) The trial judge, however, failed to
25, 1974 consider that it is humanly impossible to have an exact and accurate
People vs. Boholst-Caballero reproduction or reenactment of an occurrence especially if it
  the ground when you made the thrust to 190
your husband? 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
A Yes, sir. People vs. Boholst-Caballero
COURT: involves the participation of persons other than the very protagonists
Q Where were you kneeled by your of the incident being reenacted. In this particular instance appellant
husband”! was asked by the private prosecutor to show how she was pushed
down by her husband, and her demonstration is described in the
A On my right thigh.“ (ibid; italics supplied)
stenographic transcript as follows:
Thus, with her husband kneeling over her as she lay on her back on
the ground and his hand choking her neck, appellant, as she said, had “ Please demonstrate to this Court the position of your husband
no other recourse but to pull out the knife inserted at the left side of Q and you while your husband held your hair.
her husband’s belt and plunge it at his body hitting the left back A He did this way. (Witness held the hair of the Court Interpreter
portion just below the waist, described by the attending physician, Dr. with his left hand and his right hand held the right shoulder of
Cesar Samson, as the left lumbar region. The fact that the blow the Interpreter and pulled the Interpreter to and fro. The
landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong Interpreter represented as the accused and the accused as the
indication of the truth of appellant’s testimony, for as she lay on the
deceased.)
ground with her husband bent over her it was quite natural for her
right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s Q Where were your two hands?
belt and thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand at the A My two hands held his waist line.” (tsn. 66, witness Cunigunda
moment. Caballero; italics supplied)
We do not agree with the trial judge’s observation that as In that demonstration, accused represented the victim while she in
demonstrated by the accused it was physically impossible for her to turn was impersonated by the court interpreter, and so it was difficult if
not impossible for the two to give an accurate reenactment
Page 6 of 10
considering that the accused assumed a role not hers during the objective circumstances” which proved to be of “decisive importance”
actual incident and the court interpreter played a part which was not in ascertaining the veracity of the plea of self-defense, to wit: the
truly his. At any rate, the accused showed how one hand of her location of the wound on the right side of the throat and right arm of
husband held her hair while the other pushed her down by the the deceased, the direction of the trajectories of the bullets fired by
shoulder, and to portray how she in turn struggled and tried to push the accused, the discovery of bloodstains at the driver’s seat, the
back her husband to keep herself from falling, she “pulled the finding of the dagger and scabbard of the deceased, and so on.14
interpreter (representing the accused) to and fro.” The fact is that In the case of appellant Cunigunda Caballero, We find the location
Francisco succeeded in forcing appellant down to the ground as of the fatal wound as a valuable circumstance which confirms the plea
portrayed by the latter when, following the foregoing demonstration, of self-defense.
she was asked by the private prosecutor to show how she stabbed Another, is the lack of motive of appellant in attacking and killing
her husband—a matter which is discussed in pages 8 and 9 of this her husband on that particular night of January 2. Although it is the
Decision. general rule that the presence of motive in the killing of a person is not
It is this particular location of the wound sustained by the victim indispensable to a conviction especially where the identity of the
which strongly militates against the credibility of the lone prosecution assailant is duly established by other competent evidence or is not
witness, Ignacio Barabad. This witness declared that on that night disputed, as in this case, nonetheless, the absence of such motive is
when husband and wife met on the road, Cunigunda called Francisco important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic
and when the latter was near, she immediately stabbed him. If that theories or versions of the killing.15
were true, that is, husband and wife were standing face to face at a ________________
distance of one-half meter when the stabbing occurred (tsn. p. 11,
13
witness Ignacio Barabad), it would have been more natural and  Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 5th edition, Vol. 1, pp. 2-3, cited in
probable for the weapon to have been directed towards the front part Francisco’s Evidence, Vol. VII, Part 1, p. 68.
14
of the body of the victim such as his abdomen or  see also People vs. Maliwanag, et al., L-30302, August 14, 1974
191 (1st Division)
15
VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 191  People vs. Zamora, 59 Phil. 568; People vs. Ramponit, 62 Phil.
People vs. Boholst-Caballero 284; People vs. Divinagracia, 105 Phil. 281; People vs. Ester Murray,
chest, rather than at his back, left side, just above the left thigh. 192
In cases such as the one now before Us where there are directly 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
conflicting versions of the incident object of the accusation, the Court
People vs. Boholst-Caballero
in its search for the truth perforce has to look for some facts or
circumstances which can be used as valuable aids in evaluating the We disagree with the statement of the court a quo that appellant’s
probability or improbability of a testimony, for after all the element of motive for killing her husband was his abandonment of her and his
probability is always involved in weighing testimonial evidence 13, so failure to support her and her child. While appellant admitted in the
much so that when a court as a judicial fact-finder pronounces course of her testimony that her marriage was not a happy one, that
judgment that a set of facts constitute the true happening it does so she and her husband separated in the month of October, 1957, and
not of its own personal knowledge but as the result of an evaluating since then she and her child lived with her parents who supported
process of the probability or improbability of a fact sought to be them, nevertheless she declared that notwithstanding their separation
proved. she still loved her husband (tsn. p. 59, cross-examination of
Thus, in People vs. Aquino, L-32390, December 28, 1973, a appellant). As a matter of fact, appellant had been living with her
decision of the First Division of this Court penned by Chief Justice parents for several months prior to the incident in question and
Querube C. Makalintal, the plea of self-defense of the accused- appeared resigned to her fate. Furthermore, there is no record of any
appellant was sustained on the basis of certain “physical and event which occurred immediately prior to January 2 which could have

Page 7 of 10
aroused her feelings to such a degree as to drive her to plan and day?
carry out the killing of her husband. A I was not able to wear that, Your Honor, because it was torn
On the other hand, it was Francisco Caballero who had a reason out.
for attacking his wife, Cunigunda. Meeting his wife unexpectedly at
Q You did not bring that to the police authorities?
past midnight on the road, Francisco reacted angrily, and suspecting
that she was out for some bad purpose he held her by the collar of her A I showed it to the police authorities, and they told me to keep it,
dress and said: “Where have you been prostituting? You are a son of but not to touch it.” (Tsn. p. 65, ibid)
a bitch.” This was followed by a slapping on the face until Cunigunda’s We do not see, therefore, the alleged contradiction in appellant’s
nose bled, pulling of her hair, pushing her down to the ground, and testimony which was singled out by His Honor as one of his reasons
strangling her—all of which constituted the unlawful aggression for discrediting her plea of self-defense.
against which appellant had to defend herself. That appellant made it clear to the police that she stabbed her
Next to appellant’s lack of motive for killing her husband, is her husband because he attacked her is confirmed by no less than the
conduct shortly after the occurrence. As soon as the sun was up that prosecution witness, Patrolman Restituto Mariveles, who was on duty
morning of January 3 (the stabbing occurred past midnight of January at the desk when appellant arrived at the police headquarters. This
2), Cunigunda went to the city and presented herself at the police witness on cross-examination declared:
headquarters where she reported that she stabbed her husband and “ And she also told you that on that night previous to the incident
surrendered the blood-stained dress she wore that night. On this Q her husband Francisco Caballero beat her up, is that right?
point, the trial judge stated that appellant made contradictory A She told me that she was met on the way by her husband
statements in her testimony concerning the report made by her to the immediately after carolling and she was manhandled by her
police authorities, for while at the start she declared that she did not
husband and when she was struggling to get loose from her
report the “choking by her husband”, she later changed her testimony
and stated that she did relate that fact. (p. 10, Decision) husband she happened to take hold of a knife that was placed
We have gone over the stenographic transcript of the testimony of under the belt of her husband and because she was already
appellant on direct examination and nowhere is half conscious she did not know that she was able to thrust
________________ said knife to the stomach of her husband.” (tsn. p. 23, witness
R. Mariveles)
105 Phil. 591; People vs. Macabenta, 106 Phil. 77. It is indeed regrettable that the statements made by appellant to the
193 police upon her surrender were not taken down in writing to serve as
a faithful and reliable account of her report, nevertheless, We are
VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 193
satisfied by the fact, which is not disputed, that of her own accord
People vs. Boholst-Caballero appellant went to the police authorities early in the morning of January
there a positive and direct statement of hers that she did not report 3, informed policeman Mariveles that she stabbed her husband
that she was choked by her husband. What the trial judge asked of because he manhandled her which rendered her “half-conscious”, and
appellant was whether or not she told the police about the fist mark on
her face and her answer was “No, sir, I forgot.” (tsn. p. 55, supra) And 194
on appellant’s cross-examination, there was no question propounded 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and therefore there was no answer given on the subject-matter of People vs. Boholst-Caballero
appellant’s report to the police concerning the incident except for the brought and showed the dress she wore during the incident which
following: was torn by the collar and with blood stains due to the bleeding of her
“COURT: nose. Another policeman, Joventino de Leon, who at the time was
Q Did you show that dress to the police authorities the following property custodian of the Ormoc City police, corroborated appellant’s
Page 8 of 10
testimony concerning the dress marked Exhibit 1 for the defense. (tsn. recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her reach to save
p. 70 witness J. de Leon) If there was no clear and positive statement herself from impending death. Early jurisprudence of this Court has
in appellant’s testimony either on direct or cross examination that she followed the principle that the reasonable necessity of the means
informed the police that she was choked by her husband, it was employed in self-defense does not depend upon the harm done but
because, as We noted, no question was propounded to her on that rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. (U.S. vs. Paras,
point. 1907, 9 Phil. 367, citing Decision of Dec. 22, 1887) And so the fact
While We are on this subject of appellant’s surrender, mention is to that there was no visible injury caused on the body of the appellant
be made of the knife marked as Exhibit C for the prosecution. In her which necessitated medical attention, a circumstance noted by the
testimony, appellant stated that Exhibit C was not the knife actually trial court, is no ground for discrediting self-defense; what is vital is
used by her in stabbing her husband because the true weapon was that there was imminent peril to appellant’s life caused by the unlawful
her husband’s Moro hunting knife with a blade of around six inches aggression of her husband. The knife tucked in her husband’s belt
which she threw away immediately after the incident; that when she afforded appellant the only reasonable means with which she could
was asked by Pat. Mariveles to look for the weapon and she could not free and save herself from being strangled and choked to death. What
find it, she was advised by policeman Cabral who helped her in the this Court expressed in the case of People vs. Lara, 1925, 48 Phil.
search to get any knife and surrender it to the desk officer and so she 153, 160, is very true and applicable to the situation now before Us,
took the knife Exhibit C and presented it to Pat. Mariveles. (tsn. and We quote:
appellant pp. 56-57, 60) This testimony of appellant was taken against “It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human
her by the court aquo which held that her declaration could not have nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience
been true. We find however no strong reason for disbelieving the to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is apparent, as in this
accused on this point. Appellant does not deny that she turned over case, that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the
Exhibit C to Pat. Mariveles as the knife with which she stabbed her duty of the courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor
husband but she claims that she did so upon advise of another irresponsible in law for the consequences.”16
policeman, Pat. Cabral, and it is quite significant that the latter was
not called upon by the prosecution to refute such declaration. There is Equally relevant is the time-honored principle: Necessitas Non habet
sincerity in appellant’s attempt to rectify a misstatement made by her legem. Necessity knows no law.
to Pat. Mariveles and We are inclined to believe and in fact We do The third element of self-defense is lack of sufficient provocation
believe that the fatal weapon must have had indeed a blade of around on the part of the person defending himself Provocation is sufficient
six inches as stated by appellant for it to penetrate through the left when it is proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough to
lumbar region to the victim’s large intestine and cause the discharge impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense.17 Undoubtedly
of fecal matter, (tsn. Dr. C. Samson, p. 6) appellant herein did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the
All the elements of self-defense are indeed present in the instant aggression or attack on her person by her husband, Francisco. While
case. it was
The element of unlawful aggression has been clearly established ________________
as pointed out above. 16
195  See also People vs. Encomienda, No. L-26750, August 18,
1972, 46 SCRA p. 522.
VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 25, 1974 195 17
 Guevara’s supra p. 89, citing Decision of Supreme Court of
People vs. Boholst-Caballero Spain, February 20, 1893, 50 Jur. Crim. 166-168; Padilla’s Criminal
The second element, that is, reasonable necessity for the means Law, Book I, 1971 ed., p. 197.
employed is likewise present. Here we have a woman who being
strangled and choked by a furious aggressor and rendered almost 196
unconscious by the strong pressure on her throat had no other 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Page 9 of 10
 People vs. Boholst-Caballero unexplained nonpresentation of the bolo allegedly used by the
understandable for Francisco to be angry at his wife for finding her on deceased, the failure of the appellant concerned to report immediately
the road in the middle of the night, however, he was not justified in to the authorities the alleged attempt against him by the deceased
inflicting bodily punishment with an intent to kill by choking his wife’s and the lack of motive on the part of the deceased to assault the
throat. All that appellant did was to provoke an imaginary commission accused all belie and negative the plea of self-defense. (People vs.
of a wrong in the mind of her husband, which is not a sufficient Constantino, L-23558, August 10, 1967).
provocation under the law of self-defense. Upon being confronted by b) Unlawful aggression.—Real aggression presupposes an act
her husband for being out late at night, accused gave a valid excuse positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, not
that she went carolling with some friends to earn some money for their merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack.
child. January 2 was indeed within the Christmas season during which (U.S. vs. Banzuela, 31 Phil. 565; U.S. vs. Santos, 17 Phil. 87.)
by tradition people carol from house to house and receive monetary (People vs. Yucierto, CA-G.R. No. 1905-R, Oct. 9, 1947).
gifts in a Christian spirit of goodwill. The deceased therefore should c) Reasonable necessity of means employed.—As to the
have given some consideration to his wife’s excuse before jumping to reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the
conclusions and taking the extreme measure of attempting to kill his 197
wife.
VOL. 61, NOVEMBER 26, 1974 197
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, We find that
accused-appellant acted in the legitimate defense of her person, and Maspil vs. Romero
We accordingly set aside the judgment of conviction and ACQUIT her aggression, it has been held that this does not imply a material
with costs de oficio. commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What
So Ordered. the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which
     Makalintal, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar and Esguerra, will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to
JJ., concur. which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the
     Castro, J., On leave. reason, that moves or impels the defense, and, according to
jurisprudence of courts, the proportionateness thereof does not
Judgment set aside. depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of
Notes.—a) Circumstances which negate plea of self-defense.— such injury. (People vs. Canson, CA-G.R. No. 3357-R, Oct. 25, 1949).
The nature, number and location of the wounds of the deceased, the

Page 10 of 10