GR 1047; (March, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1047 , March 24, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. JUAN DE CASTRO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Juan de Castro, was charged with the killing of Juan Palileo. Both prosecution and defense witnesses agreed that de Castro was the slayer. However, their accounts of the circumstances leading to the killing were contradictory. The prosecution’s witnesses testified that the deceased, who was unarmed, was stabbed twice by the accused when he attempted to separate the accused from another person with whom he was quarreling. In contrast, the defense’s witnesses testified that the deceased, armed with a piece of bamboo, struck the accused from behind without provocation, and the accused turned and inflicted the fatal stab wound in response. The court found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to be unreliable due to numerous and serious contradictions among their statements regarding who was present, the sequence of events, and their ability to witness the crime. The court thus gave credence to the defense’s version of events.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused is entitled to a complete or partial exemption from criminal liability on the ground of self-defense.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the accused is not entitled to a complete exemption from criminal liability. Applying the defense’s version of the facts, the Court found the presence of an unlawful aggression by the deceased. However, the accused exceeded the limits of necessary defense. The means employedusing a dagger to inflict a mortal woundwere not reasonably necessary to repel an attack made only with a piece of bamboo, which did not even bruise the accused and was insufficient to put his life in imminent peril. Therefore, one of the requisites for complete self-defense (reasonable necessity of the means employed) was absent. The circumstance was considered as incomplete self-defense, a mitigating circumstance under the Penal Code. Consequently, the penalty was reduced by one degree. The Court modified the judgment and sentenced the defendant to six years and one day of prision mayor and to pay an indemnity of 500 Mexican pesos to the heirs of the deceased.