THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEONCIO ROXAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Mindoro, convicting the defendant-appellant of the crime of homicide
upon the following information:

“That on
or about the 22d day of February, 1933, at about 9 o’clock in the
evening, in the municipality of Puerto Galera, Province of Mindoro,
Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the said
accused, armed with an automatic pocket-knife, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and wound
Felicisimo Garcia with said weapon inflicting upon the latter two
wounds in different parts of the body, to wit: one incised wound 18½
centimeters long on the lower portion of the right chest, cutting the
6th and 7th ribs and exposing the 5th rib and lung, and another incised
wound, superficial, 1 1/3 centimeters long to the left of the vertebral
column; and as a result thereof, the aforesaid Felicisimo Garcia died
instantaneously.”

He was sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal
and required to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
P1,000. The appellant makes the following assignments of error:

“1. El Juzgado a quo
erro al no estimar en el caso de autos la existencia de la
circunstancia eximente de legitima defensa a favor del acusado, y al
condenarle a este a doce años y un dia de reclusion temporal con las
accesorias de la ley, al pago de las costas del juicio y a indemnizar a
los herederos del occiso en la suma de P1,000 en vez de absolverle
libremente.

“2. Que en todo caso el Juzgado a quo erro al no imponer al acusado en la causa de autos la pena de prision mayor, en lugar de la reclusion temporal impuesta.”

We have carefully considered the excellent brief for the appellant
filed by Antonio Fuentecilla who was appointed as attorney de oficio
on this appeal, in which a careful and thorough analysis of the
evidence was made in support of the first assignment of error. But we
have come to the conclusion that the findings of fact made by the court
below are amply supported by the evidence. Even though the deceased was
the aggressor, the defendant himself admits that the aggressor was not
armed. There being no rational necessity shown for the means which the
accused used to repel the attack of his aggressor, article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked here to exempt the defendant from
the responsibility.

Counsel for the appellant maintains
that the accused was a minor below eighteen when the offense was
committed and asks that this be considered as an additional mitigating
circumstance under the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, of the
Revised Penal Code. Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code
is as follows:

“That the offender is
under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the
minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions
of article 80.”

Exhibit A, offered by the
prosecution, states that the age of the accused at the time of the
commission of the offense was seventeen years and eight months. We
accept this as the best evidence in the record as to the true age of
the accused. It is necessary, therefore, to reform the judgment of the
court below and to enter one in conformity with article 80 of the
Revised Penal Code. We accept and affirm the findings of fact of the
court below as to the guilt of the defendant. We further find the
presence of the following extenuating circumstances and direct that
they be applied when final sentence may be pronounced, namely: First,
the age of the accused being under eighteen (article 13, paragraph 2);
second, provocation on the part of the deceased (article 13, paragraph
4); third, obfuscation (article 13, paragraph 6); fourth, voluntary
surrender (article 13, paragraph 7). That part of the judgment which
sentences the defendant to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 is
hereby revoked and it is ordered that the defendant-appellant be placed
in the Philippine Training School for Boys at Welfareville in the
custody and care of the Commissioner of Public Welfare until the said
defendant shall have attained his majority, subject, however, to the
provisions and conditions of said article 80 of the Revised: Penal
Code.

It is ordered that the case be remanded to the Court
of First Instance of Mindoro for further proceedings in accordance with
this decision. Costs de oficio.

Street, Abad Santos, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.