THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VEDASTO PANCHO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Occidental Misamis, finding the appellant, Vedasto
Pancho, guilty of the offense of homicide and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for fourteen years, eight months, and one day, rechision temporal,
and requiring him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Catalino Aurigue, in
the amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs of prosecution.

At about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of February 10, 1930, four individuals,
namely, Vedasto Pancho, the accused, Catalino Aurigue, the deceased, Romualdo
Solis, and Ambrosio Pacatang, were together in the kitchen at the home of
Romualdo Solis, resident of Jimenez, in Occidental Misamis. The four appear to
have been engaged in drinking tuba. In the course of the talk that ensued upon
this occasion, Catalino Aurigue told Pancho that he had adjusted the blade
loosely on a fighting cock belonging to Catalino. Vedasto replied that if he had
put the blade on loosely, Catalino’s rooster would not have won. Catalino
continued to express his dissatisfaction, asserting that Vedasto’s method of
adjusting the blade was objectionable. Vedasto thereupon told. Catalino to shut
up. Upon this Catalino flew into a rage and reached under the stove for his
bolo. With this he struck at Pancho, inflicting, it is claimed, a wound on the
calf of Pancho’s left leg. In the struggle that resulted Pancho succeeded in
snatching the bolo from Catalino’s hands. At the same time Pancho drew back.
Catalino, however, pressed the attack, attempting to get the bolo back,
whereupon Pancho, fearing that Catalino might recover the weapon, struck a blow
upon Catalino’s left arm; and as Catalino again threw himself upon Pancho, the
latter dodged and delivered another blow with the bolo upon Catalino’s forehead
inflicting a slight wound. Catalino then seized Pancho’s right hand, but with
great effort Pancho disengaged his hand and gave another cut with the bolo,
wounding Catalino on the face and forehead. This wound involved, but not deeply,
Catalino’s left eye. Catalino then fell to the floor and the contest ended,
while Pancho handed the bolo to Romualdo Solis. It appears that Catalino was the
larger and stronger of the two contestants, and also that the two were related
by marriage. The only wound that could be considered at all dangerous was the
one which involved the left eye. This wound was about 4 inches in length and li
decimeters deep. The left eyeball was injured and the cut extended into the left
side of the nose. Death resulted four days later from infection and
hemorrhage.

The sole witness for the prosecution in this case is Romualdo Solis, a
half-brother of the deceased, and also a brother-in-law of the appellant,
Vedasto Pancho. The witness Ambrosio Pacatang is an uncle of Pancho.

Although, as already stated, the four individuals above-mentioned had been
present together in the room before the quarrel broke out, nevertheless Solis
went downstairs on an errand immediately before the two came to blows, and he
did not return until he heard the noise caused by the struggle. On the other
hand, Ambrosio Pacatang was present when the fight began, but he got so
frightened that he ran away, leaving the room before or about the same time that
Romualdo Solis returned. There was therefore one eyewitness present in the room
during the whole affair, in addition to the principals, Pacatang seeing the
first half and Solis the second half of the struggle. The testimony of Pacatang
concerning the manner in which the altercation began, corroborates in every
respect the account given by Pancho, and the witness Solis likewise corroborates
Pancho on every material point with respect to what happened in the last half of
the altercation.

Upon these facts we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to an
acquittal. In the first place, it would have been proper no doubt to concede to
him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he had been, like his
companions, drinking tuba, and was therefore, to some extent, intoxicated. But
it is unnecessary to discuss the propriety of this mitigating circumstance, for
the reason that, in our opinion, the appellant acted in justifiable
self-defense. The quarrel was begun by” Catalino, and an unjustifiaMe assault
was made by him upon the appellant with a dangerous weapon. When, contrary to
what might have been expected, the appellant succeeded in getting possession of
the bolo, the deceased resolutely pressed the attack, attempting to recover the
weapon. Under these circumstances it is but natural that the appellant should
have used the same weapon to defend himself, and more properly so because his
antagonist was larger and stronger than himself. In dealing with situations of
this kind some allowance must be made for the excitement naturally incident to
the physical contest; and it cannot fairly be said that in using the bolo as he
did, the appellant passed beyond what was reasonably necessary for his own
defense. It might very well have happened that the deceased would have recovered
the bolo, and, enraged as he then was, the most probable thing is that he
himself would have struck the appellant with the weapon, inflicting perhaps a
fatal injury, or injuries, upon him. In the light of these considerations, we
are of the opinion that the appellant should be acquitted.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the defendant absolved from the
complaint, with costs of both instances de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, Villa-Real,
and Imperial, JJ., concur.

OSTRAND, J., dissents.