G.R. No. 6738 , September 1, 1911
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN FEDERIZO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Juan Federizo, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of La Laguna for the death of Leon Pollo and sentenced to reclusion temporal. The prosecution evidence established that Federizo inflicted a fatal bolo wound on Pollo’s chest during a fight. The trial court rejected Federizo’s claim of self-defense, giving credence to a prosecution witness (Dionisio Emiliano) who testified that he passed by the two men, heard a blow, and turned to see Pollo already wounded, without witnessing any prior aggression.

ISSUE

Whether or not Juan Federizo acted in legitimate self-defense when he caused the death of Leon Pollo.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court did not affirm a finding of self-defense. Instead, it ACQUITTED Federizo on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence. Key undisputed facts created reasonable doubt: (1) Pollo was the aggressor, having angrily confronted Federizo at his home the morning after Federizo demanded payment of a debt and implied Pollo was a swindler; (2) Pollo was known to be violent and was armed with a bolo during the confrontation; (3) Disinterested defense witnesses positively testified that Pollo initiated the attack, striking multiple times with his bolo while Federizo only retreated and parried the blows; (4) The first person to intervene seized Pollo, not Federizo, suggesting Pollo was the perceived aggressor. The Court held that the single, inconclusive testimony of prosecution witness Emiliano could not outweigh the direct evidence supporting the claim that Federizo struck the fatal blow only while defending himself from Pollo’s unlawful aggression. Consequently, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, warranting acquittal.