THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BONIFACIO BUNSALAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

United States versus Bunsalan

The Case

This is a criminal case from the early American period in the Philippines. The Government, through the public prosecutor, charged two men, Celestino Prado and Bonifacio Bunsalan, with the crime of serious physical injuries, each accusing the other of having inflicted wounds in a fight. The question at the heart of the case is simple and yet decisive in every affray: who was the aggressor, and who merely acted in lawful self-defense? The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court reviews a trial court's factual finding on aggression, and how the complete exemption of self-defense operates when the evidence shows that one party was unlawfully attacked and used rational means to repel that attack.

Procedural History

The provincial fiscal filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance on the thirtieth of March, nineteen hundred and six, accusing Celestino Prado and Bonifacio Bunsalan of the crime of serious physical injuries, mutually inflicted. After trial, the judge of the Court of First Instance rendered judgment on the tenth of July of the same year. The court sentenced Bonifacio Bunsalan to one year and one day of prision correccional and to pay one half of the costs. It acquitted and discharged Celestino Prado, and declared the other half of the costs de oficio, meaning at the expense of the government. Counsel for Bunsalan appealed from that judgment. The case then went up to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the record and the findings of the trial court.

Facts

At about seven in the evening of the first of February, nineteen hundred and six, Celestino Prado went to the house of Gregorio Sajo. Prado was in charge of a fish pond belonging to Sajo, and he had an interest in the proceeds of the sale of its fish. He went there to reproach Sajo for having sold the fish for twenty pesos, a price he considered far too low, and for having done so without his consent. Sajo took offense. He sent for some of his laborers, among them Bonifacio Bunsalan, intending that they detain Prado when he should leave the house.

When Prado left, the laborers detained him, and Bunsalan immediately assaulted him, wounding him with a bolo in the right forearm and the left shoulder. The other laborers of the hacienda joined the aggressor. Prado defended himself and in turn inflicted several wounds upon Bunsalan. Prado then fled, running more than a kilometer, until he fell face downward near a bamboo field. He was later found there with several wounds: one in the region of the left shoulder blade, one in the clavicular region, one in the humeral region higher up, one in the right forearm, and one upon the wrist. It took forty-five days for him to recover, and the wounds did not result in serious injury, incapacity, or deformity, according to his own statement.

Bunsalan was also wounded, in the right forearm, on the left ear, between the thumb and the forefinger of the left hand, and on the right side of the breast. Those wounds likewise required forty-five days to heal. The trial court found that the witnesses for Bunsalan did not state the whole truth, and that they were eager to throw all the blame on Prado. The court noted that Prado had left his bolo near the staircase outside the house before going up, which showed he had no intention to cause bodily harm. It concluded that the aggression came from Bunsalan, who had not been provoked by Prado.

Issues

• Whether or not Bonifacio Bunsalan was the aggressor in the fight, and therefore the only principal in the crime of serious physical injuries caused to Celestino Prado.
• Whether or not Celestino Prado acted in lawful self-defense, so as to be fully exempted from criminal liability.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed on Bunsalan should be affirmed, together with the accessory penalties and the costs.

Applicable Provisions

Article 416, Number 4, of the Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, defines the crime of serious physical injuries in the form charged here. The Court held that the proven facts constitute the double crime of serious physical injuries included in that article, because each of the two men inflicted wounds upon the other.

Article 416, Number 4, of the Penal Code.

Article 8, case 4, of the Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, sets out the requisites of self-defense as an exempting circumstance. The trial court found that all of its requisites were present in Prado's favor, and the Supreme Court agreed.

Article 8, case 4, of the Penal Code.

Article 61 of the Penal Code, as cited in the decision, governs the accessory penalties that follow the principal penalty. The Court applied it in sentencing Bunsalan.

Article 61 of the Penal Code.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the finding of the trial court that the aggression came from Bunsalan. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial judge's conclusions, especially because he had occasion to hear the statements of the two accused and of the witnesses, and to observe their conduct and manner. The Court noted that Prado had left his bolo outside the house before going up, which showed he had no intention to cause bodily harm. It also noted that Sajo sent for his laborers, among them Bunsalan, after being reproached by Prado, for the purpose of detaining him. Bunsalan himself acknowledged having been sent for. The Court held that Bunsalan's claim that he was attacked by Prado without any reason was inexplicable, since no quarrel or dispute took place between them before the affray. Bunsalan was therefore the only principal in the crime of serious physical injuries caused to Prado.

On the second issue, the Court held that Prado acted in lawful self-defense. Finding himself alone and attacked by Sajo's armed men, he made a lawful defense in order to avoid further injury to himself. The Court held that all the requisites of case 4 of article 8 of the Penal Code, constituting exempting circumstances, were present, and not merely mitigating as the fiscal had alleged. Prado was therefore fully exempted on the ground of self-defense.

On the third issue, the Court held that Bunsalan, as principal, incurred the penalty fixed by law, and that it must be imposed on him in the medium degree, since neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance was present in the commission of the crime. The Court further sentenced him to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by article 61 of the Penal Code, and to pay the costs of the instance.

Doctrine

First, in a fight where each party claims to have acted in self-defense, the decisive question is who was the aggressor. The one who unlawfully attacked is the principal in the crime of serious physical injuries, and the one who merely repelled the attack with rational means is entitled to the complete exemption of self-defense under article 8, case 4, of the Penal Code. Second, self-defense is an exempting circumstance, not a mitigating one, when all of its requisites are present. Third, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and on the question of aggression are entitled to great weight on appeal, because the trial judge had the opportunity to hear the accused and the witnesses and to observe their conduct and manner. Fourth, where neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance attends the commission of the crime, the penalty is imposed in the medium degree, together with the accessory penalties prescribed by article 61 of the Penal Code.

Disposition

The judgment appealed from was affirmed as to Bonifacio Bunsalan, who was further sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by article 61 of the Penal Code and to pay the costs of the instance, while Celestino Prado remained acquitted on the ground of self-defense.

Remember This

In a mutual affray, identify the aggressor: the attacker is the principal, and the one who repels the attack with rational means is fully exempt under self-defense, not merely mitigated. Examiners use this case to test the elements of self-defense under article 8, case 4, of the Penal Code, and the weight given to the trial court's factual findings on appeal.