G.R. No. 1149 : August 3, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. GREGORIO MABILANGAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
In January 1900, in the barrio of San Joaquin, Santo Tomas, Batangas, the defendant Gregorio Mabilangan and the deceased Victor Medalla were in the house of Lucia Manso. A dispute arose between them over a song they were singing, leading to harsh words. The owner of the house ordered them to leave. As Victor Medalla was about 20 brazas from the house, the defendant pursued him, overtook him, and stabbed him in the left breast with a dagger, causing his immediate death. The incident was witnessed by several individuals. The defendant was charged with and convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Batangas and sentenced to fourteen years of imprisonment with accessory penalties.

The defendant appealed, claiming self-defense. He testified that, as a member of the insurgent forces, he was ordered by his superior, Mauricio Sanchez, to arrest Medalla (alleged to be a thief and a spy) and to kill him if he resisted. He claimed that when he tried to arrest Medalla, the latter attacked him with a bolo, wounding him on the leg, forcing him to defend himself and unintentionally inflict the fatal wound. The defense also sought the application of amnesty, arguing the act was committed under orders as an insurgent.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the defendant is guilty of homicide.
2. Whether the justifying circumstance of self-defense is present.
3. Whether the defendant is entitled to amnesty.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

1. On the Guilt for Homicide: The Court found the defendant guilty as the principal of the crime of homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses established that the defendant pursued and stabbed the unarmed deceased without any unlawful aggression from the latter. The defendant’s unsupported allegations failed to overcome this conclusive evidence.

2. On the Claim of Self-Defense: The plea of self-defense was rejected. The essential requisite of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased was absent. The evidence did not prove that the scar on the defendant’s ankle (not the calf as he claimed) was inflicted by the deceased during the incident. The established facts showed a pursuit and attack by the defendant, not an attack by the deceased.

3. On the Claim for Amnesty: The defendant is not entitled to amnesty. The crime of homicide is not of a political character. Even assuming the defendant was an insurgent, the record lacked sufficient evidence to prove he received orders to arrest or kill the deceased. The motive for the killing arose from a personal quarrel over a song, not from political orders.

Penalty: No generic aggravating circumstance was present. Applying the special mitigating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code, considering the character of the crime and the personal conditions of the accused and the deceased, the penalty was imposed in its minimum degree. The Court affirmed the sentence and additionally ordered the defendant to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of 1,000 Mexican pesos and to pay the costs of the instance.