G.R. No. L-9247; October 15, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENARO PASCA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Genaro Pasca was convicted of homicide for killing the deceased, a neighbor, by striking him on the head with a large piece of bamboo. Pasca admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense, claiming the deceased had pushed him into a knee-deep pool of water on his land during a quarrel over a fence the deceased had built encroaching on Pasca’s property. The trial court initially convicted Pasca on February 19, 1912, but later set aside that judgment on March 12, 1912, and acquitted him. The Supreme Court, upon the Government’s petition for certiorari, ruled that the trial court had no jurisdiction to set aside its judgment after fifteen days, thereby reinstating the original conviction. This appeal reviews that conviction.

The evidence showed that the fatal blow was delivered with great force. The deceased’s son, a witness, testified he saw the blow but heard no prior altercation, which the court found incredible. The deceased was found with a sheathed bolo under his shirt. Pasca, a man of small stature, claimed he struck while half-rising from the water, fearing for his life.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused is entitled to a complete exemption from criminal liability based on self-defense, or if the circumstances warrant a mitigated penalty under Article 86 of the Penal Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court sustained the conviction for homicide but modified the penalty. The plea of complete self-defense is not meritorious because not all conditions for justification under Article 8(4) of the Penal Code were present. While there was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased (pushing Pasca into the water), the means employed by Pascastriking a fatal blow to the head with a heavy, long bamboo pole with “terrible force”was not reasonably necessary to repel the aggression. The deceased had not drawn his bolo, the water was shallow, and Pasca was at a distance when he struck, indicating no imminent peril to his life.

However, since a majority of the conditions for self-defense were present (specifically, unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation), though incomplete, Article 86 of the Penal Code applies. This article provides for a penalty lower by one or two degrees when a deed is not wholly excusable due to the lack of some conditions for exemption, provided the majority are present. Considering the circumstances and the accused’s low degree of intelligence (per Article 11), the penalty was reduced.

The Court modified the trial court’s sentence from twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal to six years and one day of presidio mayor. The judgment was affirmed as modified.