GR 12564; (September, 1917) (Digest)
G.R. No. 12564 ; September 6, 1917
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO CORTES Y MACASAIT, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Faustino Cortes had been living in concubinage with Marciana Bozmente but separated from her three days before the incident. He moved to a nearby house. On the night of August 21, 1916, Bozmente and her son, Pablo Montevirgen, appeared in front of Cortes’s new residence and insulted him. Montevirgen challenged Cortes to come down to the street. Cortes accepted the challenge, descended, and a struggle ensued. During the fight, Cortes overpowered Montevirgen and inflicted multiple wounds with a fan knife, including a deep neck wound that severed the right carotid artery and inner jugular vein, causing Montevirgen’s death. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Cortes of homicide, sentencing him to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with indemnity and costs. Cortes appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not considering the extenuating circumstances of immediate provocation and unlawful aggression.
ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the extenuating circumstance of immediate provocation under Article 9, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code, and whether the circumstance of unlawful aggression (self-defense) should be considered to mitigate criminal liability.
RULING:
The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. It held that the extenuating circumstance of immediate provocation was present. The insults and threats from Bozmente and Montevirgen, which prompted Cortes to come down and engage in the fight, constituted sufficient provocation. However, the Court rejected the claim of unlawful aggression justifying self-defense. By accepting the challenge and voluntarily engaging in a fight, Cortes placed himself in an unlawful situation where the initial act of force was merely an incident of the combat, not an unexpected aggression that could legalize self-defense. Citing Spanish jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that one who voluntarily enters a fight cannot invoke self-defense.
Consequently, with the extenuating circumstance of immediate provocation, the penalty should be imposed in its minimum degree. The Supreme Court modified the penalty to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, affirming the rest of the trial court’s judgment, including the indemnity and costs.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.