G.R. No. L-3; January 29, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ANSOYON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the morning of February 3, 1945, in Barrio Salong, Calapan, Mindoro, a quarrel ensued between Romana Agnas (wife of the appellant, Jose Ansoyon) and Cecilia Marasigan (sister of the deceased, Jesus Marasigan). The deceased, Jesus Marasigan, and his sister-in-law, Gregoria Escares, intervened to separate the women. According to the prosecution’s version, the appellant, Jose Ansoyon, arrived armed with a balisong (fan-knife) and immediately attacked Jesus Marasigan from behind. After a scuffle, Ansoyon subdued Marasigan, who fell face upward, and then plunged the knife into his left breast, inflicting a fatal wound. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that the deceased was unarmed and that the revolver (Exhibit 3) presented in evidence belonged to the appellant, who later took it to scare the deceased’s brothers.
The defense presented a different version. The appellant claimed that upon arriving at the scene, he asked the deceased why he was not stopping his sister, Cecilia. The deceased allegedly answered “You also” and threw a fist blow. Cecilia then struck the appellant with a piece of wood. As the appellant tried to snatch the wood, the deceased struck him again. The appellant then faced the deceased, who allegedly pulled out a revolver and aimed it at him. Believing himself in danger, the appellant pulled out his balisong, opened it, and stabbed the deceased in the left chest. A struggle ensued during which they grappled for their weapons, and the appellant eventually obtained the revolver. The defense claimed the revolver belonged to the deceased. The deceased sustained six stab wounds, one of which was mortal, cutting the lower part of his heart.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant, Jose Ansoyon, acted in legitimate self-defense when he stabbed and killed Jesus Marasigan.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Mindoro, finding the appellant guilty of homicide. The Court rejected the appellant’s claim of self-defense. It found the appellant’s version incredible, particularly the claim that the deceased, after receiving a mortal wound to the chest that cut part of his heart, could still engage in a prolonged struggle to wrest weapons. The Court also disbelieved that the deceased, allegedly armed with a revolver, would aim it but not fire or use it to parry the appellant’s attacks, especially given that the appellant had to retrieve and open his knife. The nature and location of the wounds on the deceased’s left hand and forearm were more consistent with parrying blows with his bare hand. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the revolver belonged to the appellant, not the deceased. Since the appellant admitted the killing, the burden was on him to prove self-defense by the strength of his own evidence, which he failed to do. His testimony and that of his witnesses were deemed not credible. Therefore, the appellant incurred criminal liability for homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed by the lower court was affirmed.