THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On the 26th day of June, 1928, the provincial fiscal of Batangas
filed an information against the above-named defendant, charging him
with the crime of homicide. The information alleged:

“Que en o hacia la noche del dia 2 de mayo de 1928,
en el Municipio de Bolbok, Provincia de Batangas, I. F., el referido
acusado, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente, acometio, agredio e h$ri6
con un bolo a Paulino Decillo, infiriendole, al efecto, una herida
cortante en el antebrazo derecho que causo la muerte de dicho Paulino
Decillo por la hemorragia a consecuencia de la rotura de los vasos de
dicho antebrazo derecho.

“Hecho cometido con infraction de la ley.”

Upon said information the defendant was arrested, arraigned, pleaded
not guilty, was tried, found guilty of the crime charged, without any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and sentenced by the Honorable
E. V. Filamor, judge, to suffer fourteen years, eight months and one
day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties of
the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of Pl,000
and to pay the costs. From that sentence the defendant appealed.

Counsel for appellant now makes the following assignments of error:

(1) The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused on the ground of legitimate self-defense; and

(2)
The lower court erred in not taking into consideration the mitigating
circumstances of unlawful aggression, lack of provocation, lack of
intent to cause so grave an injury as that produced by the act of the
defendant, and lack of education and instruction.

The evidence shows that on the second day of May, 1928, Roman Bautista was giving a fiesta
in his Ihouse in the barrio of Bataan, municipality of Bolbok, Province
of Batangas, on the occasion of the christening of his child. Among
those present were the accused Estanislao Peradilla, Cipriano Capompon,
Paulino Decillo and one Emilio Aguinaldo and his daughter, and many
others.

Late in the afternoon, while the people were engaged in conversation
in the house, Cipriano Capompon asked Emilio Aguinaldo to have his
daughter sing. Aguinaldo answered, saying that his daughter would sing
even during the whole night if she were properly requested. At
thatanswer Capompon, who was then under the influence of liquor, took
offense and immediately drew his bolo and challenged Aguinaldo to
fight. The threatening and menacing attitude of Capompon greatly
excited the people, and they rushed towards him. He immediately, in
order to escape the menacing attitude of the crowd, jumped to the
ground with his bolo in his hand. Once on the ground he repeatedly
invited Aguinaldo to come down and fight.

The accused, Estanislao Peradilla, with his bolo in hand also left
the house, following Capompon. At that moment practically all of the
men who were there had unsheathed their bolos. From the attitude of the
people present it looked as though a tumultuous affray might take place.

After Estanislao Peradilla had left the house with his bolo
unsheathed, the deceased Paulino Decillo, a friend and comrade of
Emilio Aguinaldo, being armed with a club, approached Peradilla and
ordered him to sheathe his bolo. Upon failure of Peradilla to sheathe
his bolo Decillo struck at him with his club. In order to parry the
stroke of Decillo, Peradilla raised his bolo and in so doing struck
Decillo on the right forearm. Sensing the menacing attitude of the
crowd and realizing that he had wounded Decillo, Peradilla ran away
followed by Decillo and some othermembers of the people present. A few
hours later Decillo died from the loss of blood resulting from the
wound.

We are of the opinion that all of the requisites of self-defense are present in the instant case. According to law

(art. 8, paragraph 4, Penal Code) the requisites of self-defense as
an exempting circumstance, are: (1) Unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable
necessity for the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The facts above stated clearly show that all of the requisites of self-defense are present.

(1) There was unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased Paulino Decillo. He was not justified in using his club upon
the accused when the latter refused to put his bolo in the scabbard.
The accused did not mean to make trouble nor to injure anybody, much
less the deceased. He had his bolo in hand for this personal safety,
because most of the men present had their bolos in hand. Capompon was
bent on having a fight with Aguinaldo and most of the men present were
likely to take sides should a fight actually take place. It was an
occasion for everybody to keep alert.

(2) There was
reasonable necessity for the means employed by the appellant in
repelling the blow directed against him by the deceased. The deceased
was armed with a wooden club, approximately the size of a man’s wrist.
When he attempted to strike the appellant with the club, the latter had
no other reasonable means for protecting himself, in view of the
suddenness of the attack, except his bolo, which he raised, to parry
the blow. The size, form, direction and other conditions of the wound
received by the deceased on his right forearm, show that the appellant
was on the defensive and the deceased on the offensive. (Exhibit A;
testimony of Doctor Cusi.) Furthermore, the circumstance that the
appellant ran away after parrying the blows shows conclusively that he
simply tried to defend himself,

(3) There was no provocation
on tihe part of the appellant. Paulino Decillo, armed with a club,
approached the appellant and ordered the latter to put his bolo in the
scabbard. The appellant refused. He was not then causing trouble,
neither did he intend to injure anybody. He was keeping his peace, but
he kept his bolo in hand because the situation was critical and most of
the men present had their bolos in hand. His refusal to sheathe his
bolo was not a provocation which would justify Paulino Decillo in
assaulting him with a club.

The Attorney-General, in a carefully prepared brief, containing a
concise statement of the facts, arrived at the conclusion that the
appellant acted in legitimate self-defense,and recommends that the
sentence appealed from be reversed.

The facts in the case of United States vs. Domen (37 Phil., 57) are very analogous to the facts in the presentcase: In that case the appellant was acquitted.

For all of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and in harmony
with the recommendation of the Attorney-General, the sentence appealed
from is hereby reversed, the defendant is acquitted, the complaint
dismissed, and he is hereby ordered released from the custody of the
law, with costs de oficio. It is so ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.