GR L 1163; (October, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1163 : October 27, 1903
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. BARTOLOME MAGTIBAY and GREGORIO BAUAN, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On the night of November 3, 1902, municipal policemen Bartolome Magtibay and Gregorio Bauan were on patrol in Batangas. They heard gunshots and proceeded to investigate. On the road to the beach, they were hailed by a stranger (later identified as the American Sebastian Armitage) and, according to the defendants, were immediately fired upon with a revolver from a distance of about 10 brazas. The defendants returned fire with their shotguns. Armitage was killed, sustaining four gunshot wounds to the chest. When found, his body held a revolver with five empty shells. The defendants were charged with homicide. They pleaded not guilty, claiming they acted in self-defense. Witnesses testified to hearing two distinct sets of gunshots that night. Evidence also indicated that the deceased had prior altercations with local police and had threatened to punish them.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants, Bartolome Magtibay and Gregorio Bauan, are criminally liable for homicide, or if the killing of Sebastian Armitage was justified by the exempting circumstance of self-defense.
RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED the defendants Bartolome Magtibay and Gregorio Bauan on the ground of self-defense.
The Court found that the evidence, though circumstantial, established that the deceased, Armitage, was the unlawful aggressor. He fired the first shot at the defendants. The three essential requisites for self-defense under Article 8(4) of the Penal Code were present: (1) there was an unlawful assault by the deceased; (2) the means employed by the defendants to repel the attack (using their shotguns) were reasonably necessary given the distance and the weapon used by the aggressor; and (3) the defendants did not give any provocation to justify the attack. The Court noted that the nature and number of Armitage’s fatal wounds made it improbable that he could have fired his revolver multiple times after being shot, supporting the defendants’ account that he fired first. Consequently, the defendants incurred no criminal liability.