G.R. No. L-6189 November 29, 1954
SAMSON VILORIA CALDERON, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Samson Viloria Calderon, a soldier, was part of a military cordon around an area in Santa Ana, Manila, on the night of April 1, 1951, due to suspicion that Huk leaders were inside. The cordon was placed near the fenced residential lot of Eustacio Rodil. Rodil’s family, awakened by noises and believing a theft was being attempted, turned on lights and threw stones towards the fence. Eustacio Rodil went to investigate, carrying an army bolo. Calderon, positioned outside the fence, shot Rodil, who later died from his wounds. Calderon admitted firing the shot but claimed he believed Rodil was a Huk who was attacking him. He testified that Rodil ignored orders to halt, threatened to kill the soldiers, swung a bolo at him three times over the fence, and attempted to climb it, forcing him to fire in self-defense. The trial court convicted Calderon of homicide through reckless negligence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found him guilty of homicide, rejecting his claims of self-defense, defense of mistake of fact, and acting under an uncontrollable fear of injury.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting Calderon’s defenses of self-defense, uncontrollable fear, and mistake of fact, and in applying the ruling in People vs. Oanis to his case.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the evidence did not support Calderon’s claim of unlawful aggression by the deceased. The circumstances—lights were on in Rodil’s yard, stones were being thrown by Rodil’s family to drive away an intruder, Rodil was an elderly man within his own property, and there was a wire fence between them—negated the reasonableness of Calderon’s belief that he was being attacked by a Huk. The testimony of Calderon’s companion did not corroborate his claim of a bolo attack. The Court found that Calderon failed to exercise the necessary caution and prudence required of a soldier in such a situation. The shooting was not justified as self-defense, as there was no unlawful aggression, nor was it a case of mistake of fact under Article 11(3) of the Revised Penal Code, as the mistake was not excusable. The ruling in People vs. Oanis, which holds peace officers to a high degree of responsibility, was correctly applied. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed.