G.R. No. 33304 , December 13, 1930
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. CONSTANTE SOTELO, ET AL.

FACTS

Constante Sotelo, along with his brothers Dominador and Vicente, was charged with homicide for the death of Ignacio Cambaliza. The prosecution alleged that on the night of December 24, 1929, in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, the three brothers, armed respectively with a penknife, a stick, and an iron bar, acting together with treachery and evident premeditation, attacked and killed Cambaliza. The trial court convicted Constante of homicide and his brothers of slight physical injuries. Constante appealed, claiming self-defense.

The evidence showed that as Cambaliza and his companion Baltazar Capistrano passed by the Sotelo house, Constante shined a flashlight on them. Cambaliza approached and angrily confronted Constante, using vulgar language. A fight ensued. Cambaliza struck Constante’s arm with an iron crop (whip). Dominador then hit Cambaliza across the face with a stick, and Vicente stabbed him in the right shoulder with a penknife. Finally, Constante stabbed Cambaliza in the chest near the left nipple, inflicting a fatal wound that penetrated the heart. Capistrano’s testimony during the preliminary investigation (Exhibit 10) indicated that Constante was alone at the yard’s entrance when Cambaliza initiated the confrontation with insults, and that during the struggle, Constante was underneath Cambaliza when he stabbed him.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant, Constante Sotelo, acted in complete self-defense, or if his liability should be mitigated due to incomplete self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It did not accept the claim of complete self-defense but found the circumstances constituted incomplete self-defense under Article 86 of the Penal Code.

The Court gave credence to Capistrano’s earlier statement (Exhibit 10) given shortly after the incident, which was corroborated by defense witnesses. This version established that: (1) Cambaliza was the first to utter vulgar remarks and initiate the aggression; (2) he unlawfully attacked Constante by striking him with the iron crop; and (3) Constante employed reasonable means to defend himself when he stabbed Cambaliza during the struggle.

However, the Court also found that Constante and his brothers provoked the attack by using offensive language against Cambaliza, which led to the latter’s aggressive response. Therefore, while there was an unlawful aggression by the deceased, the appellant was not entitled to full exoneration because he provoked it.

Consequently, applying Article 86 for incomplete self-defense, the penalty was reduced to one degree lower than that for homicide under Article 404. The Court sentenced Constante Sotelo to prision mayor in its minimum period (6 years and 1 day), with accessories of law, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P500. The rest of the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.