G.R. No. C.A. No. 384 ; February 21, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, defendants. AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant.

FACTS

Nicolas Jaurigue and his daughter, Avelina Jaurigue, were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. Nicolas was acquitted, but Avelina was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. She appealed, claiming she acted in legitimate defense of her honor, that mitigating circumstances should be applied, and that the aggravating circumstance of committing the offense in a sacred place was erroneous.
The evidence established that the deceased, Amado Capina, had been unsuccessfully courting Avelina. About a month before the incident, he snatched her handkerchief. On September 13, 1942, Amado approached Avelina, declared his love, and upon her refusal, suddenly embraced, kissed, and touched her breasts. Avelina fought him off, slapping and kicking him. She later informed her mother and began carrying a fan knife for protection.
On September 15, 1942, around midnight, Amado surreptitiously entered Avelina’s room while she slept and touched her forehead. She screamed, awakening her parents. Amado emerged, kissed her father’s hand asking for forgiveness. The matter was reported to the barrio lieutenant and Amado’s parents, who apologized.
On the evening of September 20, 1942, Avelina and her father attended religious services at a chapel. Avelina sat on a bench. Amado, also present, went and sat beside her. Without a word, he placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina, conscious of her dignity and honor, pulled out her fan knife with her right hand to punish his offending hand. Amado seized her right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed him once in the neck, inflicting a fatal wound. Amado died minutes later. When her father asked why she did it, Avelina replied, “Father, I could not endure anymore.” She surrendered to the barrio lieutenant, saying, “I place myself at your disposal.” Following advice, she and her father went home, locked themselves in, and later surrendered to arriving policemen, giving her statement.

ISSUE

1. Whether appellant Avelina Jaurigue acted in legitimate defense of her honor, exempting her from criminal liability.
2. Whether the mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and voluntary surrender should be applied in her favor.
3. Whether the aggravating circumstance of the offense being committed in a sacred place was correctly appreciated.

RULING

The Court modified the judgment. It held that Avelina Jaurigue did not act in complete self-defense justifying absolute exemption, but the circumstances warranted a reduction of the penalty by two degrees.
1. On Legitimate Defense of Honor: The Court recognized that a woman’s honor is a right as precious as her life. An attempt to rape constitutes unlawful aggression placing her in a state of legitimate defense. While the immediate act in the chapel was an offensive touching, it occurred in the context of Amado’s prior aggressive acts (the embrace and kiss on September 13 and the nocturnal intrusion on September 15) and his persistent, unwelcome advances. This pattern of conduct imperiled her honor. However, the killing was not deemed the only means available under the specific chapel circumstances to protect her honor at that moment, so complete exemption was not granted. The Court cited Viada and precedents (People vs. Luague, U.S. vs. Apego, U.S. vs. Rivera, People vs. Mercado) establishing the principle that a woman in danger of rape may justifiably kill her aggressor if she has no other means of defense.
2. On Penalty and Circumstances: The crime committed was homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Considering the circumstances—particularly the series of unjust provocations by the deceased leading to the final act—the penalty was reduced by two degrees to prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor (minimum) to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional (maximum). The claim regarding the aggravating circumstance of a sacred place was rendered moot by the penalty reduction.
3. Disposition: The appealed judgment was modified. Appellant Avelina Jaurigue was sentenced to the aforementioned indeterminate penalty, with accessory penalties, ordered to indemnify the heirs of Amado Capina in the sum of P2,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs. She was credited with one-half of her preventive imprisonment, and the knife (Exhibit B) was ordered confiscated.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Hilado concurred in the decision on the merits, noting his deference to the majority view on the validity of the judicial proceedings during the Japanese occupation, as no party had raised the issue.