G.R. No.

107801
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,
vs.
ROSARIA V. IGNACIO, accused-appellant.
March 26, 1997
Fac!" Rosaria Ignacio, then 44 years of age, lived with her husband, Juan Ignacio, 67 years
old, Residing with the was Rosaria!s daughter, "ilagros #. $abanilla, by a previous
arriage. %n the night of &' (ebruary )''*, Rosaria and Juan had a heated arguent.
"ilagros, entreated the to stop but the couple were in no ood to heed her. +he following
night ,)& (ebruary )''*-, at dinner, Juan and Rosaria had another .uarrel. "ilagros peeped
and saw by the gas lap that both were pulling a piece of lawanit and each tried to ta/e
possession of it. Juan ultiately released the lawanit and turned to go for his bolo when
Rosaria pic/ed up a palo-palo and hit Juan on the nape.

Rosaria left the straggling Juan and
surrendered to the police at the unicipal building. Rosaria voluntarily disclosed before
Rolando ,0on of Juan- and 1at. 0an 2iego that she hit Juan with a wooden club.

Juan died the
following day.

+estifying in her defense, Rosaria did not deny having in3icted the fatal
wounds on her husband. 4ccording to her, between 7 and in the evening of )& (ebruary
)''*, while she was resting on the wooden bed near the /itchen, her husband arrived drun/.
4red with a bolo, he went around the wooden bed and then faced her. 0he 5nally stood up,
pulled his hair, got hold of a palo-palo and hit hi once on the head. +he assault sent Juan
hovering down the 3oor. Rosaria went to the unicipal hall and surrendered to police o6cer
0an 2iego. Rosaria has interposed this appeal praying that she be ac.uitted on the basis of
self-defense or, in the alternative, that she be held guilty only of hoicide rather than of
parricide.
I!!#$" %h$h$r or No h$ acc#!$& '! (#')* o+ ,arr'c'&$
H$)&" -ES. 4n accused who interposes self-defense adits the coission of the act
coplained of. +he burden of proving self-defense would now be on the accused. 7nlawful
aggression is a condition sine qua non for the 8ustifying circustance of self-defense. 9y her
own adission, appellant only thought that her husband would stri/e her. In fact, appellant!s
clai of self-defense was belied by her own daughter, "ilagros, who declared that even
before the victim could get his bolo, appellant already pic/ed up her palo-palo and hit hi.
4ccused clai of self-defense cannot be sustained. +he bolo which was allegedly in victi!s
possession and with which the victi allegedly attepted to hit the accused, was never
found and its whereabouts un/nown to the accused. 4ppellant contends that, if at all, she
should be convicted only of hoicide, not parricide, because :there was no clear evidence of
arriage: between her and the victi. ;ere, appellant not only declared in court that the
victi was her fourth husband but she also swore that they were arried before a 8udge in
"ontalban, Ri<al. +he victi!s son testi5ed that his father and appellant were husband and
wife and appellant!s daughter, "ilagros, held the victi to be her other!s
husband. 4ppellant!s own adission that she was arried to the victi was a con5ration
of the semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presuption that a an and a woan so
deporting theselves as husband and wife had verily entered into a lawful contract of
arriage.