THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SEGUNDO FIRMO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Luis Antonio is the name of the deceased. Leoncia Arana is the name of his
Widow (or former querida). Segundo Firmo is the name of the accused,
the son of Leoncia Arana. The husband and wife on the evening of December 26,
1915, went to the barrio of Julita, leaving: Segundo Firmo to attend to the
errands of the house. On the trip Antonio became intoxicated. In this condition,
on returning to his home, he found Segundo Firmo lying down without having made
any preparation for the evening meal. This so angered Antonio that he abused
Firmo by kicking and cursing him. A struggle ensued, during which, Firmo stabbed
Antonio with a penknife in the left side near the armpit, Luis Antonio died on
the 13th of January, 1916.

On behalf of the accused, there are presented three lines of defense. Thus,
it is contended that Luis Antonio died not as a result of the wound but from a
fever. The answer is that the sanitary inspector, the only medical expert called
as a witness, testified that Luis Antonio died as a result of the stab wound.
Again, it is contended that the accused is exempted from criminal responsibility
because of having acted in defense of his person. The answer is that at least
one essential prerequisite to this defense is lacking, namely, reasonable
necessity for the means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression. The
wound was inflicted not in self-defense, properly speaking, but rather in
retaliation of the abuses inflicted on the person of the accused.

“When an aggression is in retaliation for an insult, injury, or threat it can
not be considered as a defense but as a punishment inflicted on the author of
the provocation, and in such a case the most that courts could do would be to
consider the same as an extenuating circumstance, but never as a cause of
complete exemption from liability.” (U. S. vs. Carrero [1908], 9 Phil.,
544.)

Again it is contended that the wound was inflicted by the deceased upon
himself. The answer is that this is an improbable supposition and is not borne
out by the proof. Viewed from every standpoint, we reach the same conclusion
that the defendant is guilty as charged in the information.

No aggravating circumstances exist. One mitigating circumstance can properly
be considered, namely, that sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act. In accordance with the foregoing,
the defendant and appellant is sentenced to twelve years and one day of
reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Luis Antonio, in the amount of P1,000, and
to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, Araullo, and Street,
JJ., concur.