G.R. No. 126968 ; April 9, 2003
RICARDO BALUNUECO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo Balunueco was convicted of homicide for the death of Senando Iguico and frustrated homicide for injuries to Amelia Iguico. The prosecution, through eyewitness Amelia (the victim’s wife), testified that on May 2, 1982, Ricardo, along with his relatives and Armando Flores, chased Senando. Ricardo, armed with an ax, and his companions cornered Senando near a canal. Ricardo struck Senando repeatedly on the head, shoulder, and hand with the ax, and later with a bolo, causing fatal wounds. When Amelia embraced her husband to shield him, she was hit on the leg. The defense presented a contrary version, claiming Senando was the aggressor who hacked Ricardo’s brothers, prompting Ricardo to act in defense of his relatives.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved Ricardo’s guilt for homicide beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether he acted in lawful defense of relatives; and (3) the proper classification of the crime for wounding Amelia Iguico.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the homicide conviction but modified the conviction for Amelia’s injuries to slight physical injuries. On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court and the Court of Appeals in giving full credence to Amelia Iguico’s testimony, which was clear, positive, and consistent. Her proximity to the event and detailed account outweighed the denial and self-serving claims of the defense. The number, nature, and location of Senando’s wounds—multiple hack and stab wounds—were inconsistent with a scenario of mere defense and indicated a determined assault.
Regarding defense of relatives, the Court rejected the plea. For this justifying circumstance to apply, there must be unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation from the defender. The evidence did not establish that Senando was the unlawful aggressor. The defense’s narrative was uncorroborated and belied by the physical evidence and the credible prosecution witness. The injuries sustained by Ricardo and his brother, if any, did not conclusively prove Senando’s aggression, as they could have been inflicted during a struggle where Senando was defending himself.
Finally, for the injury to Amelia, the Court downgraded the crime from attempted homicide to slight physical injuries. The requisite intent to kill was not proven. Amelia’s single hack wound on the leg was not fatal, required only four days of medical attendance, and appeared incidental—possibly inflicted as she intervened or to deter her interference—rather than from a deliberate intent to kill. Thus, the elements of a more serious felony were absent.