G.R. No. 28538, August 4, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEON MONTEROSO, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: AVANCEÑA, J.

FACTS

The appellant, Leon Monteroso, was convicted of homicide for killing the deceased. The incident stemmed from a prior disagreement over the extraction of *tuba* from a coconut tree on their land boundary. Three weeks later, on June 19, 1927, the appellant, who was atop a coconut tree, invited the deceased and his wife to his house for a drink. Upon their arrival, the appellant, positioned at the top of the stairway, struck the deceased multiple times with a bolo, causing fatal wounds. The appellant admitted to the killing but claimed self-defense, alleging that the deceased first attacked him with a bolo. However, the defense witness testified that after being pursued, the appellant armed himself with a bolo and a pestle, turned to face the deceased, and said, “come on if you are brave,” before the fight ensued. The trial court found him guilty and imposed the maximum penalty, considering the use of a bolo as an aggravating circumstance under paragraph 24, Article 10 of the Penal Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether the appellant acted in self-defense.
2. Whether the use of a bolo constitutes an aggravating circumstance in this case.

RULING

1. No, self-defense is not applicable. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s actions were incompatible with self-defense. According to the defense witness’s testimony, after being pursued, the appellant armed himself and provoked the fight by challenging the deceased. The Court noted that the appellant could have avoided the confrontation by retreating into his house and securing himself. Instead, he chose to arm himself and invite the fight, thereby negating the plea of self-defense, which requires necessity and lack of provocation on the part of the defender.

2. No, the use of a bolo is not an aggravating circumstance in this instance. The Court agreed with the Attorney-General’s opinion that the bolo used by the appellant could not be considered a “prohibited weapon” under paragraph 24, Article 10 of the Penal Code. Therefore, the aggravating circumstance was improperly applied. Consequently, the penalty should be imposed in its medium degree.

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s judgment. The appellant was found guilty of homicide without any modifying circumstances. The penalty was reduced to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of *reclusion temporal*. The rest of the judgment, including the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased, was affirmed.