121. People vs.

Boholst-Caballero
Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal of
the judgment of the CFI of Ormoc City finding her
guilty of parricideshe allegedly killed her husband,
Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife. The couple
was married in 1956 and had a daughter. They had
frequent quarrels due to the husband's gambling and
drinking and there were times when he maltreated and
abused his wife. After more than a year, Francisco
abandoned his family. In 1958, Cunigunda went
caroling with her friends and when she was on her way
home she met her husband who suddenly held her by
the collar and accused her of going out for prostitution.
Then he said he would kill her, held her by the hair,
slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her
towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt on
her and proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda, having
earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt line while
holding unto his waist so she wouldn't fall to the
ground, grabbed the hunting knife and thrust it into
her husband's left side, near the belt line just above
the thigh. He died 2 days after the incident due to the
stab wound. Then she ran home and threw the knife
away. The next day, she surrendered herself to the
police along with the torn dress that she wore the
night before.

Ratio: 1. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the

accused. In this case, the location and nature of the
stab wound confirms that the said victim, the husband,
was the aggressor. With her husband kneeling over her
and choking her, accused had no other choice but to
pull the knife tucked in his belt line and thrust it into
his side. The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity
where the knife was drawn from is a strong indication
of the truth of the testimony of the accused. Based on
the re-enactment of the incident, it was natural for her
to use her right hand to lunge the knife into husband's
left side.

Issue: WON Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband,

acted in legitimate self-defense

2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are

present Unlawful aggression. The husband resorting to
pushing her to the ground then choking her just
because she was out caroling at night constitutes
unlawful aggression, There was imminent danger of
injury. Reasonable necessity of means employed. While
being choked, Cunigunda had no other recourse but to
take hold of the knife and plunge it into husband's side
in order to protect herself. Reasonable necessity does
not depend upon the harm done but on the imminent
danger of such injury. Lack of sufficient provocation.
provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the
aggression. In this case, there was no sufficient
provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to
warrant the attack of her husband. All that she did to
provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the
mind of her husband was to be out caroling at night.

Held: Yes, she did. Acquitted

122. People vs Alconga

Facts:
On the night of May 27, 1943, in Mauricio Jepes' house
in San
Dionisio, people were playing prohibited games. The
deceased
Silverio Barion, the banker of black jack, was loosing to
Maria de
Raposo because the accused Dioscoro Alconga was
helping her by
communicating the cards of the deceased. Upon
discovery of the
cheating, the deceased became angry and there was
an exchange of
words between him and the accused. They almost hit
each other if not
for the intervention of the maintainer. The deceased
left,
threatening the accused, "tomorrow morning I will give
you a
breakfast."
The deceased and the accused did not meet the next
day. When the
accused was performing his duties as "home guard",
the deceased came
along and, addressing the former, said, "Coroy, this is
your
breakfast," then he tried to hit him. The accused
avoided the blow
by crawling under the bench with the intention to

runaway. He was
also avoided the second blow. The accused then
managed to go out of
the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While the
deceased was in
the act delivering the third blow, the accused, while
still in a
crawling position, fired at him with his revolver,
causing him to
stagger and to fall to the ground. The deceased drew
his dagger and
directed a blow at the accused, however, was able to
dodge it with
his bolo. Then, there was a hand-to-hand fight. Having
sustained
several wounds, the deceased ran away but was
followed by the
accused. After running a distance of about 200 meters,
the deceased
was overtaken, and another fight took place, during
which the mortal
bolo blow caused the deceased to fall to the ground.
The other
accused, Adolfo Bracamonte, arrived and, being the
leader of
the "home guards" of San Dionisio, placed under his
custody the
accused Alconga with the contention of surrendering
him.
On their way to San Dionisio, the two accused were

stopped by Juan
Collado, a guerrilla soldier. Adolfo Bracamonte turned
over Alconga
to Collado who in turn took him to the headquarters. In
the
afternoon of the same day, Collado delivered Alconga
to Gregorio
Barredo, a municipal policeman of San Dionisio,
together with the
weapons used in the fight: a revolver, a bolo, and a
dagger.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused, Alconga, can invoke selfdefense.
Ruling:
Alconga was found guilty of the crime of HOMICIDE.
Reason:
There were two stages in the fight:
First - commenced when the deceased assaulted
appellant without
sufficient provocation on the part of the latter There
was
unlawful aggression because he was being attacked.
There was
employed reasonable necessity of means used to

prevent it because,
as a security guard, he has in hand a revolver. There
was no
sufficient provocation on his part.
Second stage when the deceased ran and was
pursued by the accused.
When the deceased ran, it meant that the unlawful
aggression
subsisted.

123.US vs Mack
Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet
back from the street in the town of Tacloban, Leyte, in
an open space some 3 or 4 feet in width between the
tienda of a woman named Olimpia and another
building. - The deceased, with another policeman,
approached the place and directed Olimpia to close
her tienda; ordered the accused and another soldier to
go to their quarters - The accused did not obey such
order. - Some words may have passed between them,
which angered the deceased. - The deceased dragged
himself free from his companion and attacked the
accused, at the same time drawing his bolo and
brandishing it in a threatening manner.
- Accused got up, drew his revolver, and the deceased
having then approached within a distance of from 3 to
6 feet, the accused fired three shots, one hit the left
breast the left breast of the deceased, another in the
back of his head. - Trial court held that the defendant

adopted a mode of defense which was not

reasonably necessary - accused was taller than the
deceased - deceased was perhaps under the influence
of liquor - shot a vital part

the couple which usually resulted in the cruel

treatment of Marivic by Ben. This went on for about 10
or 11 years, occurring around thrice a week when
everytime the latter got drunk.

Issue: Whether there was a reasonable necessity

for the use of the means employed by accused to
defend himself

On the evening of November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo

Basobas, his co-worker, after having collected their
salary, went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO where
they stayed for 3 hours and drank 2 bottles of beer,
each. They then went to the Genosa residence but
Marivic was not there because, as she explained, she
was out with her cousin looking for Ben, knowing that
it was a payday and that he was probably out to
gamble again. Upon arriving later at the Genosa
residence and finding Ben drunk because of his
staggering walking, Marivic asked Ecel to sleep in the
house because she was scared that Ben might again
beat her, but Ecel declined for fear of a repetition of an
incident a year ago.

Held: Yes; Mere physical superiority is no protection to

an unarmed man, as against assailant armed with a
large bolo If it be true that the deceased was under the
influence of liquor when he that attack, his intoxication
probably rendered him the more dangerous, unless he
was so drunk as to be physically helpless, which is not
suggested in the evidence. It was dark, the reasonable
and natural thing for the accused to do was to fire at
the body. The shots were fired in rapid succession in
order to repel the attack; it could not be said that
these were unnecessary. The judgment of the trial
court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the
crime.
124.

125. People vs. Genosa

FACTS: Marivic and Ben Genosa, who knew each other
since elementary and were 3rd cousins, were married
in November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. Their marriage,
save for the first year where, according to Marivic, she
lived happily with Ben, had been tumultuous and
unhappy because of the many and frequent quarrels of

Ben was in his usual unruly behavior, nagging and

yelling at Marivic, even cutting the antenna wire with a
bolo to keep her from watching TV. There were
basically 2 incidents of attack made by Ben: 1) he
whirled Marivic, causing her to fall on the bedside, and
two hours later when 2) he dragged her out of the
room towards the drawer, holding her neck. He tried
opening the drawer, failed, so reached for a blade
instead in his wallet. At this point, she was aware that
he was going to kill her so she smashed his arm,
causing the wallet and blade to fall. She also
subsequently smashed him with a metal pipe before

running to the childrens room, where she felt

overwhelming selfpity and felt nauseous.

incompleteon the part of the victim. Mitigating

circumstance 1: Par. 9 and 10 of Art. 13 of the RPC

Marivic admitted killing her husband, however, by

shooting him later on. She had distorted the drawer
where the gun was and shot him. The RTC charged
Genosa with parricide, giving her the death penalty.

126. People vs. Luague and Alcansare

ISSUES: 1) WON Marivic acted in self-defense and in

defense of her fetus (invoking BWS) 2) WON there was
treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa

November 7, 1935
62 SCRA 504

FACTS:

HELD: 1) No, but with 2 mitigating circumstances 2)

None
RATIO: 1) Crucial to the BWS defense is the state of
mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense
she must have actually feared imminent harm from
her batterer and honestly believed that killing him
would save her life. Here, there was a sufficient time
interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and
her fatal attack upon him. The reality or even
imminent danger he posed ended altogether the
moment he apparently ceased his attack and went to
bed, notwithstanding the Courts recognition of this
special case that requiring the battered person to
await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend
her life would amount to sentencing her to murder
by installment and that threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of
danger. Aggression, if not continuous, does not
warrant self-defense. In the absence of such
aggression, there can be no self-defense complete or

The wife of Wenceslao, Natividad was left in the house

with their 3 children. Wenceslao left to grind corn
several kilometers away. Paulino Disuadido, their
neighbor, came and began to make love to Natividad.
She cant dissuade Paulino and so he drew and opened
a knife and threatening her with death. In preparing to
lie with her, Paulino leave the knife to the floor and
Natividad and stabbed him in the abdomen. Paulino
ran away by jumping through the window.

ISSUE:

WON Natividad is exempted from criminal liability.

HELD:

Yes, The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an

aggression sufficient to put her in a state of self
defense inasmuch as a womans honor cannot be
esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, than her
very existence; and it is evident that a woman who,
thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should
be afforded exemption from criminal liability. Witness
devoid probability. ACQUITTED both accused.

127. People vs. Dela Cruz

March 30, 1935
61 SCRA 344

asked but he did not answer. She cried for help but no
one answered. She scarcely recognized the face
because of darkness. She desisted as soon as he
released her. (Illiterate barrio girl, unable to write her
name, 18 years old)

Issue: WON Remedios de la Cruz is exempted from

criminal liability.

Yes, Whether she did in fact cried for help, as claimed

by her, or failed to do so because of the suddenness
with which the deceased grabbed her and the fright
that which it naturally caused, taking into
consideration the circumstances of the case, she is
exempt from criminal liability in the defense of her
honor. ACQUITTED. There is also a mistake of fact in
the case.

Facts:
In a narrow part of a trail that was dark, after going to
a wake, a man suddenly threw his arms around her
from behind, caught hold of her breasts and kissed
her, and seized her in her private parts; she tried to
free herself, but he held her and tried to throw her
down; that when she felt weak and could do nothing
more against the strength of the man, she got a knife
from her pocket, opened it, and stabbed him in
defense of her honor. Man did not say anything, she

128. People vs. Jaurigue and Jaurigue

February 21, 1946
76 SCRA 174

Facts:

Avelina Jaurigue cannot endure anymore what the

deceased Amado Capina was doing to her. (Courting
her and stalking) One morning, inside a chapel, the
deceased Amado noticed Avelina and went to the
bench where Avelina was sitting, he placed his hand on
the upper right thigh of the defendant and Avelina
pulled with her right hand the fan knife she always
brought with her. Amado seized her right hand but she
quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and
stabbed Amado in the left side of his neck, 4 and a half
inches deep, which was necessarily mortal. He died a
few minutes later.

Issue:

WON Avelina Jaurigue is exempted from criminal

liability.
Held:
No, she is not exempted from criminal liability because
the said chapel was lighted with electric lights, her
father is inside and there were important people
accompanying her. Under the circumstances, there
was and there could be no possibility of her being
raped. The means employed by her in defense on her
honor is evidently excessive. She committed the crime
of HOMICIDE. Arresto Mayor minimm, Prision
correctional maximum.

129. People vs. Apolinar

Facts: Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant
and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias Atong was at
that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by
Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan,
Pangasinan. Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking
over said land when he observed that there was a man
carrying a bundle on his shoulder. Believing that he
was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his
attention but he ignored him. The defendant fired in
the air and then at the person. The man, identified as
Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and
consequently narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio
chief, that he had been wounded in the back by a
shotgun. He then showed the two wounds - one in
each side of the spinal column - which wounds were
circular in form and a little bigger than a quarter of an
inch, according to the medical report of Dr. Mananquil.
Petras died of the wounds he sustained. The
defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately
after the incident and gave a sworn statement
(Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on
December 23, 1936.
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by
defense of property
Held: No; the right to property is not of such
importance as right to life, and defense of property

can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when

it is coupled with an attack on the person of one
entrusted with said property.

130. People vs. Narvaez

Facts: In the afternoon of August 22, 1968, GRACIANO
JUAN, JESUS VERANO, CESAR VERANO, CESAR IBANEZ,
GEORGE FLEISCHER and FLAVIANO RUBIA were fencing
the land of George Fleischer, situated in MAITUM,
SOUTH COTABATO. At the place of fencing is the house
and rice drier of appellant MAMERTO NARVAEZ. At that
time appellant was sleeping and was awakened by the
sound of the chiseling of the walls of his house. He
then arose and saw the fencing. If the fencing
continued appellant would be prevented from entering
his house and rice mill bodega. So he addressed the
group, through Rubia to stop and talk things over. To
which Fleischer answered no and continued the
fencing. At this instance, appellant lost his equilibrium
and got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. Rubia
ran towards the jeep, and knowing that there is a gun
on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia likewise hitting
him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died
Issue: WON the aggression was unlawful

Held: YES, it was unlawful. The angry order of

Fleischer to continue the fencing would have resulted
in the further chiselling of the wall of appellants house
as well as the closure of the access to and from his
house and rice mill is an aggression against
appellants property rights. However, when the
appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his
two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the
attack. The third element is also present. There was no
provocation on the part of the appellant, since he was
asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise
produced by the victims and laborers. His plea for the
deceased and their men to stop and talk things over
with him was no provocation at all. Appellants act in
killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all
the elements for justification are present. The crime
committed is HOMICIDE on two counts mitigated by
the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete
self defense as well as by two generic mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation.
He was sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and
considering that appellant has been under detention
for 14 years since his voluntary surrender, his
immediate release was ordered.