G.R. No. L-9842; March 18, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FAUSTINO CORONEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On the night of December 13, 1912, Demetrio Tumambing and his companion, Sotera Marquez, were in the barrio of Mataas-na-lupa, Bauan, Batangas. They encountered the defendant, Faustino Coronel. Tumambing and Coronel conversed separately while Marquez eventually went home. Later that same night, barrio officials responded to cries for help. The defendant and his father, Pedro Coronel, reported that a robber (Tumambing) had been killed while attempting to steal cattle. Faustino Coronel admitted to the police that he killed Tumambing. The deceased was found with multiple severe wounds, his intestines protruding, and his arms bound elbow-to-elbow with a rope connected to a cow. An autopsy revealed numerous wounds, including a fatal one severing the small intestine. A witness also saw the defendant and others carrying what appeared to be a body that night. At trial, the defendant pleaded not guilty, claiming he acted in self-defense after Tumambing attacked him with a bolo while stealing a bull.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant, Faustino Coronel, is guilty of homicide or if his claim of self-defense is valid.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction for the crime of homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code. The claim of self-defense was rejected. The Court found the defendant’s version of events incompatible with the physical evidence. The number, nature, and location of the wounds (including wounds inflicted while the victim was prone and bound), the circumstance of the bound body, and the lack of evidence of a struggle at the scene convincingly proved that the killing was not a justified act of self-defense. The Court held that the defendant’s admission of causing death, coupled with the absence of proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased that necessitated such a violent response, established his guilt as the direct perpetrator. No mitigating or aggravating circumstances were appreciated due to the lack of eyewitnesses to the actual commission of the crime. The penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessories, an indemnity to the heirs, and costs, was upheld.