G.R. No. 29398, November 1, 1928
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HONORATO BERGANO, ET AL., defendants. HONORATO BERGANO, appellant.

FACTS

On the night of December 5, 1927, during a wake at the house of Hermenegildo Franco, the deceased Mariano Franco confronted the appellant Honorato Bergano, who was acting as cook. Mariano insulted Bergano, accusing him of serving leftover food, and then kicked him in the stomach without any provocation. After being knocked down, Bergano got up, grabbed a nearby bolo, and struck Mariano. The evidence shows Bergano inflicted at least one serious wound on Mariano’s cheek. Another defendant, Hermenegildo Franco, also attacked Mariano from behind. Mariano died the following day. Bergano surrendered to authorities and gave a sworn statement (Exhibit B) detailing the incident. The trial court convicted Bergano of homicide and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of *reclusion temporal*.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of homicide, considering the circumstances surrounding the incident.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It found that the appellant acted in self-defense but with excessive force. The Court held that the first and third requisites of self-defense under Article 8(4) of the Penal Code were present: (1) there was unlawful aggression by the deceased (the unprovoked insult and kick), and (2) the appellant did not provoke the attack. However, the means employed (using a bolo to repel an unarmed aggressor) were not reasonably necessary. Therefore, under Article 86 of the Penal Code, the penalty should be reduced by two degrees from that prescribed for homicide. The appellant was found guilty of homicide with the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. The penalty was reduced to two years of *prision correccional*, with the corresponding accessories. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.

DISSENTING OPINION:
Justices Malcolm and Ostrand dissented, believing the trial court’s judgment should have been affirmed in its entirety.