G.R. No. L-183; August 6, 1945
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. JOSE RAMOS, acusado y apelante.

FACTS

On September 25, 1945, in the Bowling Hall of Lucena, Tayabas, Fausto Atienza and Emilio Lelisa were playing a game of bowling. Constancio Afable, a spectator, told the accused, Jose Ramos, that he was betting P5 for Emilio. Domingo de Ramos also intervened, betting P1. The accused accepted the challenge and bet on the other player, Fausto, who won. Constancio and Domingo paid the accused the bet of six pesos. A spectator commented that “the game smells bad.” The accused exclaimed, “Ah! no; there was no combination.” Domingo de Ramos approached the accused, reproaching him: “are you still going to deny it if I saw you whisper something to Emilio before he threw?” The two, Domingo and the accused, were about to fight when the public intervened and separated them. The accused withdrew to his house, and Domingo continued playing. Sometime later, the accused returned, attempting to return the P6 to Domingo. Domingo refused to receive it, saying: “I do not receive that money; that is yours.” When Domingo was about to throw a ball, the accused approached his right side in a threatening manner. Domingo, putting himself on guard, threatened to throw the ball he had in his hand at him. Fausto intervened. Immediately, the accused pulled out his pocketknife to attack Domingo. Domingo, while retreating, stumbled over a bench and, losing his balance, fell sideways, and the accused gave him a stab with the pocketknife in the side. Emilio grabbed the accused by the right shoulder, causing him to turn to attack him. Domingo managed to get up and, while running, slipped and fell to his knees. At this moment, the accused gave him another stab with the pocketknife in the back. Pedro Rallos and Eladio Pelaez managed to snatch the pocketknife from the accused and handed it to the policeman who arrived at the scene, called by Catalino Sanchez. Upon arrest, the accused admitted to being the author of the wounds inflicted on Domingo de Ramos. Domingo was taken to the provincial hospital of Tayabas, where he died 34 hours after admission due to the two mortal wounds he had received: one in the epigastric region, left side, and the other in the back, left seventh intercostal space; the wound he received on the hand was of little importance.
As a defense, the accused declared the following: that when he said there was no combination in the game, Domingo de Ramos lunged at him to give him a punch, and the accused said: “Uncle Ingo, even if you pierced my flesh and bone, I would not attack you”; despite this humble attitude, Domingo directed insulting words at him; that he withdrew to his house; that to forget the offense, he dedicated himself to his ordinary work and managed to finish two pairs of shoes; that he returned to the bowling hall because he wanted to play and try his luck, and upon seeing him, Domingo insulted him, taking balls with the intention of throwing them at him; that the persons present there snatched the balls from Domingo; that Domingo took out a stool with which he hit him and, not content with this, tried to punch him. It was then that the accused took out his pocketknife and attacked him.

ISSUE

Whether the accused’s claim of self-defense is credible and sufficiently proven to exempt him from criminal liability for the homicide of Domingo de Ramos.

RULING

The Supreme Court rejected the accused’s claim of self-defense and affirmed his conviction for homicide. The Court found the accused’s testimony incredible and inconsistent with his prior sworn affidavit (Exhibit C) and the testimony of his own witness, Teodoro Dipusoy, who instead corroborated key points of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court held that self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven conclusively. In its absence, the accused, who admitted to being the author of the homicide, must be punished. No modifying circumstances were found to be present. Applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103), the Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. The accused is sentenced to suffer a penalty not less than six years and one day of prision mayor and not exceeding fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.