THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANSELMO IGNACIO Y VELASCO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, finding the defendant guilty of the crime of homicide and
sentencing him to suffer fourteen years, eight months, and one day of
reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Jose Vizcarra in the sum of P1,000,
and to pay the costs.

From this judgment the defendant appealed to this court, and his attorney now makes the following assignments of error:

“1.
The trial court erred in not giving due weight and credit to the
evidence presented by the accused Anselmo Ignacio y Velasco, not
successfully contradicted by the prosecution, to the effect that he
acted in defense of his person or rights.

“2. The trial
court likewise erred in finding the accused Anselmo Ignacio y Velasco
guilty of the crime of homicide imputed to him in the information, and
sentencing him to suffer fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one
(1) day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Jose Vizcarra in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the costs,
notwithstanding the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.”

It appears from the
evidence that on the evening of April 25, 1933 Jose Vizcarra, the
deceased, was at the Paco railroad station attending to the unloading
of some boxes of fish belonging to his father which had arrived about
half past six that evening. Anselmo Ignacio, the accused, was one of
the two laborers that unloaded the boxes, one of which dropped to the
ground and was damaged. This provoked Jose Vizcarra, and he addressed
some injurious epithets to the accused. A fight ensued, but they were
separated after Jose Vizcarra had received a blow in the face. The
accused was then hired by a woman to take a box of fish to the Quinta
Market in Quiapo, and left with her in a carretela. Jose
Vizcarra sent a messenger to inform his father, Felix Vizcarra, in
Baclaran, Parañaque, as to what had occurred. Upon receiving the
message, Felix Vizcarra notified his brothers, Julian and Fernando, and
the three of them set out for the Paco station in an automobile of
Sebastian Vizcarra, driven by Sabino Morento. When they reached the
station the accused had not yet returned from the Quinta Market.

There is a sharp conflict in the evidence as to what subsequently took
place. The trial judge, accepting the prosecution’s version of the
incident, found that Julian Vizcarra asked a laborer named Totoy where
the accused was, while Felix Vizcarra went towards a carretela
where Jose Vizcarra was watching the boxes of fish; that Felix Vizcarra
took charge of the loading of the boxes, and while he was thus engaged
the accused arrived and began to wrangle with Julian Vizcarra; that a
fight ensued, but that after they had exchanged a few blows they were
separated; that Julian Vizcarra, who used only his fist, was wounded in
the left arm with a cutting instrument; that the accused then attacked
Felix Vizcarra and wounded him twice in the shoulder, causing him to
lose consciousness and fall to the ground; that when Jose Vizcarra saw
what had happened to his father he ran to help him, but before he could
reach his father, the accused attacked Jose Vizcarra and stabbed him in
the back with a knife, and that as a consequence thereof the injured
man died three days later; that when the accused saw that Jose Vizcarra
had also fallen to the ground he began to run, and meeting Fernando
Vizcarra coming out of a shop in the station where he had gone to buy
cigarettes the accused attacked him with a pocketknife, wounding him in
the left shoulder; that Julian Vizcarra, as well as Felix and Fernando
Vizcarra, struck the defendant in the face and on the head with their
fists.

The court further found that if it be granted that
the accused was provoked by Julian Vizcarra when he asked the accused
why he had assaulted Jose Vizcarra, and that if it be also conceded
that the first aggression in the form of blows with the fist came from
Julian Vizcarra, nevertheless the accused was not justified in making
use of his pocketknife, and still less in attacking the other
Vizcarras, because there was no reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the aggression.

The case for the
prosecution rests upon the testimony of the chauffeur, Sabino Morento,
and of Julian, Fernando, and Felix Vizcarra. This chauffeur, who was
employed by Sebastian Vizcarra, can scarcely be regarded as a
disinterested witness. The attorney for the appellant points out this
man’s name was not included in the prosecution’s list of witnesses, but
that he was the first witness called. The evidence shows that he had
been examined in the fiscal’s office. His name ought to have been
included in the list of witnesses furnished by the fiscal to the
attorney for the defendant.

The defendant and his witnesses,
Marcelino Baltazar and Jose Torno, testified on the other hand that the
Vizcarras were the aggressors; that Felix Vizcarra struck the accused,
and that when he ran, the Vizcarras pursued him; that the accused
retreated until he reached the iron railing of the station, where he
was cornered by the Vizcarras and struck by them with their fists and
with sticks; that believing his life to be in danger and remembering
his knife he snatched it out and struck at his assailants until he was
able to free himself.

Jose Torno, 49 years old, married, and
a watchman at the Paco station, who would appear to be the most
disinterested of the eyewitnesses, testified as follows:

“P.
En la tarde de ese dia 25 de abril de 1933 ¿recibio Ud. instrucciones
del Jefe de la Estacion de Paco, a eso de las seis de la tarde?—R. Si
señor.

“P. ¿Cuales fueron esas instrucciones?—R. El Jefe
de la Estacion me ordeno que yo fuese al sitio donde se estaban
descargando los cajones de pescados porque segun el Jefe de la Estacion
hubo una riña o pelea entre un cargador de la estacion y un tal Jose y
que estuviese alli para estar alerta por lo que pudiera ocurrir, en
vista de que el mencionado Jose mando llamar a algunos companeros suyos
desde Baclaran.

“P. ¿Y que hizo Ud. en relacion con esas
instrucciones?—R. Yo entonces me dirigi al sitio donde se estaban
descargando los pescados y antes de llegar alli, vi a Julian Vizcarra
que venia hacia mi. Yo entonces le dije que sea cual fuere el motivo de
la pelea que tuvo lugar entre Jose y el cargador Anselmo, que ellos no
causen ningun desorden y que si tenian alguna reclamacion que la
presenten al Jefe de la Estacion. Poco despues de decir yo esto, vi que
venia detras de mi Anselmo que iba perseguido por otros individuos y
cuando le dieron alcance unos le pegaban con palos y otros le
propinaron puñetazos.

“P. ¿Y vio Ud. a donde se dirigio
Anselmo?—R. Entonces vi que Anselmo corrio en direccion a Pandacan y
cuando vi que le salio al encuentro uno de aquellos individuos,
Fernando Vizcarra y vi a este sacar del cinto un pedazo de madera y
empezo a pegar a Anselmo. Este retrocedio hasta llegar a la reja que
alli habia entre los rieles y alli le acorralaron los hermanos. Yo me
puse muy nervioso cuando vi aquello y fui casi corriendo al telefono
para pedir socorro en la estacion de Bagumbayan.”

No specific reference to the testimony of this witness was made by the
trial judge in determining who was the aggressor. Defendant’s account
of what occurred is as follows:

“P. Diga
Vd. ¿que ocurrio entre Vd. y Felix Vizcarra?—R. Me llamo Felix Vizcarra
en cuanto me vio y al acercarme a e1 me pregunto si yo era el Emong que
le habia golpeado a su hijo, y yo conteste ‘si, señor’.

“P. ¿Y que paso?—R. Luego me pregunto ‘por que le habia yo golpeado con
el puño a su hijo’ y yo empece a dar una explicacion y apenas habia
explicado, enseguida me dio un puñetazo.

“P. ¿Le toco aquel puñetazo?—R. Si, señor, en la cara, cerca de mi ojo izquierdo.

“P. ¿Qui ocurrio a Vd.?—R. Yo me eche a correr en direccion a Pandacan.

“P. ¿Llego Vd. al sitio donde Vd. queria ir?—R. No, señor, porque uno de los Vizcarras me atajo el paso y me pego con un palo.

“P. ¿Quien era si Vd. recuerda?—R. Fernando Vizcarra.

“P. ¿Y le toco a Vd.?—R. Pude esquivar el golpe.

“P. ¿Donde ha ido Vd. despues de aquello?—R. Volvi al sitio donde habia
venido con la intencion de saltar la reja que habia entre los rieles.

“P. ¿Pudo Vd. saltar sobre aquellas verjas de hierro?—R. No, señor, porque muchos me acorralaron.

* * * * * * *

“P.
Antes de huir de aquel sitio, ¿puede Vd. informar al Juzgado si ha
hecho Vd. algo a aquellos que le acorralaban?—R. Cuando yo pense que yo
no saldria vivo de aquel trance, se me ocurrio que yo llevaba un
cortaplumas.

“P. ¿Uso Vd. ese cortaplumas?—R. Yo eche mano del cortaplumas para defenderme.”

In this connection it should be observed that the defendant told
substantially the same story when he was investigated by a policeman
two hours after the incident took place.

We find it
difficult to believe that the incident occurred as related by the
witnesses for the prosecution. It is an admitted fact, as already
stated, that after the fight between Jose Vizcarra and the accused, the
former sent word to his father, Felix Vizcarra, in Baclaran, as to what
had happened, and Felix Vizcarra and his brothers Julian and Fernando
immediately went to the railroad station to find out, according to
them, the cause of the fight between Jose Vizcarra and the accused. It
seems to us more likely that they went there for the purpose of
thrashing the accused in retaliation for what he had done to Jose
Vizcarra. If it had been the intention of Felix Vizcarra merely to
ascertain the cause of the fight between his son and the accused, it
would not have been necessary for him to take his two brothers with
him. Furthermore, it seems to us improbable that Felix Vizcarra should
go off to look after the loading of the boxes of fish and leave it to
Julian Vizcarra to ask the accused for an explanation. At any rate, if
the incident had begun with the fight between the accused and Julian
Vizcarra, it is unreasonable to believe that Felix Vizcarra, and Jose
Vizcarra would have refrained from participating therein and waited to
be stabbed one after the other by the accused. The very testimony of
the witnesses for the prosecution proves the falsity of their story.
They testified that the accused first stabbed Julian Vizcarra, and then
Felix, Jose, and Fernando Vizcarra one after the other with the same
knife; but they also testified that each one of the Vizcarras struck
the accused with his fists, and defendant’s bruises clearly prove that
he received several blows.

We are constrained to find, as
appears from the testimony of the watchman at the station, that the
Vizcarras were the aggressors, and that the accused made use of his
knife in self-defense after he had been attacked by the four Vizcarras
and was cornered and could not escape and had no other means of
protecting himself.

The lower court lays stress upon the
fact that although the witnesses for the defense testified that some of
the defendant’s assailants struck him with clubs and others with their
fists, no clubs were found by the policeman who investigated the
incident shortly after it had occurred. This fact does not necessarily
prove that none of the defendant’s assailants made use of clubs. The
watchman testified positively to seeing the clubs; but in any event the
accused was cornered, he had his back to the iron railing, and three or
four men, who were larger and stronger than he, were striking him with
their fists, if not with clubs. Although under ordinary conditions the
use of a knife in repelling an aggression when one has been assaulted
by another with his fists is not sanctioned by the law, nevertheless
under the special circumstances of this case we are convinced that
there was reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to
protect his life.

In the case of the People vs. Sumicad (G. R. No. 35524, promulgated March 18, 1932, 56 Phil., 643), this court said:

“It
is undoubtedly well established in jurisprudence that a man is not, as
a rule, justified in taking the life of one who assaults him with his
fist only, without the use of a dangerous weapon. The person assaulted
must, in such case, either resist with the arms that nature gave him or
with other means of defense at his disposal, short of taking life. But
that rule contemplates the situation where the contestants are in the
open and the person assaulted can exercise the option of running away.
It can have no binding force in the case where the person assaulted has
retreated to the wall, as the saying is, and uses in a defensive way
the only weapon at his disposal. One is not required, when hard
pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the extent of the injury which
a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him
(Brownell vs. People, 38 Mich., 732).”

“* * * it
is not true as a matter of law that in all cases an attack with the
fists alone or an attack by an unarmed man does not justify accused in
the use of a deadly weapon in such manner as to produce death; there
may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack or
a great disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which
give deceased [accused] reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death
or great bodily harm and justify him in employing a deadly weapon in
self-defense.” (30 C. J., 74.)

As we have
seen, the incident began when Jose Vizcarra insulted the accused and
struck him because the accused had dropped one of the boxes; and when
Jose Vizcarra was joined by his father and uncles at the railroad
station they attacked the accused because of the fight over the
dropping of the box of fish. All the essential elements of
self-defense, namely, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused, unlawful aggression, and reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel it, were present when the accused stabbed the
deceased.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from is reversed, and the appellant is acquitted, with the costs de oficio.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.