G.R. No. L-27892. January 31, 1974.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINGO CALANTOC, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution evidence established that on October 31, 1964, Isidro Francisco, his son Melchor, and companions were walking to Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Appellant Domingo Calantoc, armed with a bolo, overtook the group and, without warning, stabbed Isidro Francisco on the head from behind. As the victim stooped from the initial blow, Calantoc repeatedly stabbed him, causing multiple fatal incised wounds on the head and neck. The victim’s son and companions fled. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death as profuse bleeding from these wounds.
Calantoc, who sustained a gunshot wound on his back, pleaded self-defense. He testified that while on his farm, he was waylaid by Isidro and Melchor Francisco. He claimed Melchor shot him first, and that when Isidro subsequently turned and put his hand in his pocket, Calantoc stabbed him preemptively. A medical certificate confirmed Calantoc’s gunshot wound, with the doctor opining the assailant was behind and to his right.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of self-defense and the conviction for murder. For self-defense to be valid, unlawful aggression by the victim must be proven as an indispensable element. The Court found no such aggression from Isidro Francisco. Even accepting Calantoc’s version, Isidro’s act of putting his hand in his pocket, without more, did not constitute an overt act of aggression that imperiled Calantoc’s life. It was, at most, a reflex action or a preparatory move for self-preservation, not an actual attack. This is consistent with the ruling in U.S. vs. Carrero, where a similar gesture was held insufficient to establish unlawful aggression.
Furthermore, the evidence, including Calantoc’s own testimony and the location of the victim’s wounds, revealed Calantoc as the aggressor. The first wound inflicted was on the victim’s right temple, after which the victim was staggering and helpless when struck repeatedly on the back of the head. Calantoc’s act of arming himself with a bolo, following, and suddenly attacking the victim from behind constituted treachery (alevosia), qualifying the killing to murder. The sudden assault deprived the victim of any chance to defend himself. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper. The Court modified the civil liability, increasing the indemnity to the heirs to twelve thousand pesos.