G.R. No. L-270; August 30, 1946
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante y apelado, vs. RESTITUTO BAUDEN, acusado y apelante.

FACTS

The accused, Restituto Bauden, admitted to killing Alejandro Piso in Manapla, Negros Occidental, on the afternoon of August 2, 1945, but claimed he acted in self-defense. According to his testimony, Piso found him in a field taking corn, insulted him, and chased him to his house. Piso then stoned the house, killed one of Bauden’s roosters, and challenged him to come down, threatening to kill him. Piso left to get a bolo, returned, cut two of Bauden’s banana plants, and again invited him to fight. When Piso approached the house intending to go up, Bauden exited through the kitchen door armed with a wooden club (tranca). He struck Piso’s right hand and right hip with the club, but Piso wrested it away and attacked him with it. Bauden, retreating, defended himself with Piso’s bolo and inflicted multiple wounds until Piso fell dead. Bauden then went to the police station, surrendered, and stated, “guardia, arrestame porque mate a un hombre.”

ISSUE

Whether the accused has successfully proven his claim of legitimate self-defense to exempt him from criminal liability for the homicide.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court, en banc, found the claim of self-defense unworthy of credit and not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court gave several reasons for disbelieving the accused’s version: (1) It was illogical for him to leave the safety of his house to confront the alleged aggressor on equal ground. (2) His claim that Piso tried to ascend the house was a new detail not mentioned in his affidavit or initial statement to the police, where he simply said he killed Piso because the latter killed his rooster; this inconsistency undermined his credibility. (3) The seven wounds on the cadaver were all on the left side, indicating the assailant was behind Piso, which contradicted Bauden’s story of a face-to-face fight while retreating, especially since Bauden is left-handed. (4) Bauden received no injuries from the club attacks, which was improbable if the struggle occurred as he described.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that by responding to Piso’s challenge and descending from his house armed with a club, Bauden voluntarily exposed himself to the risks of a fight. In such a mutual confrontation, the first attack is merely an incident of the agreed combat and does not constitute the unexpected and unlawful aggression required for legitimate self-defense.
The accused is guilty of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, with two mitigating circumstances: immediate provocation by the offended party and voluntary surrender to authorities. The indeterminate sentence imposed by the lower court (not less than 2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correccional to not more than 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor) is affirmed, with an order for indemnity and costs.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Perfecto dissented. He argued that the evidence, particularly the testimony of defense witness Evaristo Padilla, established that Piso was the unlawful aggressor who pursued Bauden with a stone, stoned his house and chicken, retrieved a bolo, and challenged him to fight. In this view, Bauden’s act of defending himself with the bolo was justified. The dissent criticized the majority for requiring a duty to retreat and argued that legitimate self-defense means asserting one’s rights through effective resistance, not submission. Justice Perfecto voted for acquittal on the grounds of legitimate self-defense.