G.R. No. 31768 / December 27, 1929
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. NICOLAS PAYUMO Y PASION

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Nicolas Payumo y Pasion, admitted to killing Silverio Rendora but claimed he acted in self-defense. Both were employees at the Funeraria Nacional. The incident began when the deceased brushed against the defendant. The defendant then struck the deceased on the shoulder, after which the deceased grabbed the defendant by the waist. The defendant then struck the deceased again, this time inflicting a mortal wound that caused death shortly thereafter. The Court of First Instance of Manila convicted Payumo of homicide and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, indemnity, and costs.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense, complete or partial, or to any mitigating circumstances that would reduce his criminal liability.

RULING

No, the plea of self-defense is unavailing, but two mitigating circumstances are present, warranting a reduction of the penalty.

On Self-Defense: The Supreme Court rejected the claim of self-defense, complete or partial. The evidence did not prove that the deceased initiated an attack. The act of brushing against the defendant was not shown to be deliberate or aggressive. It was the defendant who commenced the aggression by striking the first blow.
On Mitigating Circumstances: The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding of the mitigating circumstance of lack of education. Furthermore, it agreed with the Solicitor-General that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (falta de intención de causar un mal tan grave) was also present. The Court cited United States vs. Rodriguez (23 Phil. 22), holding that when there is a discrepancy between the criminal intent and the actual consequencethe result being more serious than intendedthe offender’s responsibility is mitigated.
Penalty: With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty was reduced by one degree pursuant to Article 81, Rule 5 of the Penal Code, as amended. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, sentencing the appellant to six years and one day of prision mayor*, while affirming the indemnity and costs.