G.R. No. 66202. February 24, 1984
NOLI ESLABON, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,[] RESPONDENTS.
TEEHANKEE, J.:
on August 28, 1976 the deceased Elias Harder with treachery as the
alleged qualifying circumstance. After trial, the trial court in its
decision of March 27, 1981 found that petitioner acted in incomplete
defense of a relative on the ground that he failed to discharge the
burden of proving the element of reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the unlawful aggression of the deceased against the
petitioner’s first cousin, Francisco Gabutin, a barangay captain of
their barangay, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of not less
than 2 years and 1 month of prision correccional and not more than 6 years and 6 months of prision mayor,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P12,000.00, to pay
the costs and to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by
law. On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court in its decision of
June 17, 1983 found no reversible error and affirmed the appealed
judgment.
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari of respondent
appellate court’s decision. After receiving the required comment of the
Solicitor General on behalf of respondent People, the Court has found
the petition to be meritorious and, therefore, dispensing with briefs
and memoranda, resolved to proceed to render this judgment.
The facts as discussed in respondent appellate court’s decision are as follows:
“From the testimony of [lone eyewitness[1] ] Rolando Mucho, the theory of the prosecution is as follows:
“Noli Eslabon is the first cousin of Barangay Captain Francisco
Gabutin of Barangay San Roque, Buenavista, sub-province of Guimaras. On
the evening of August 28, 1976, a public dance was held in said
barangay. Fronting the dance hall was a rolling store run by Elias
Harder. To maintain peace and order, three police officers were
assigned in said public dance. At about 11:30 p.m. when the dance
ended, the barangay captain’s wife, Dominica Gabutin, told Elias Harder,
who was then standing near his rolling store, to go home. Harder
complained that the others should also be told to go home but he
grudgingly followed Dominica’s suggestion. On his way home, Harder
discovered that a box of his wares for sale was missing so he and his
companions Romeo Mucho and Rolando Mucho returned to the place where his
rolling store was and inquired from Francisco Gabutin about his missing
box. An argument ensued between Harder and Francisco. Angered by the
loss of his box of wares for following the order of Dominica Gabutin,
Harder during the argument thrust his scythe with a blunt end at
Francisco and it (went) stuck below Francisco’s right armpit. While
Harder and Francisco were grappling in a standing position, Noli Eslabon
approached them and stabbed Harder twice and Harder dropped to the
ground and lost consciousness. Immediately thereafter, Romeo Mucho
raised Harder and loaded him into a Ford Fiera. Harder and Francisco
were taken to the Holy Clinic and Hospital in Iloilo City where
Francisco was confined for a day and was treated by Dr. Catalino Nava
for a ‘stab wound right postero-anterior axillary line about 2-1/2
inches long and one centimeter depth’ (Exh. 2); and that barring any
complications, said wound would heal from 15 to 21 days.“On the other hand, Harder was found to have sustained the following injuries:
‘HEAD AND NECK
1) Abrasion, vertical, 2 in numbers, 3.7 cm. long, and 2 cm. long, right forehead.
THORAX:
1) Stab wound, slightly diagonal, sharp on the infero-lateral
end, 1.8 x 0.4 cm. long, 1.0 cm. medial and level from the left nipple,
11 cm. from the anterior median line, and 45.75 inches from the left
heel, level of the 3rd intercostal space, penetrating, perforating thru
and thru the mid-portion of the right ventricle 1.2 cm. long; about 400
cc of blood was extracted from the pericardial sac. The direction of
the wound is from left antero-osteriorly medially and slightly downward.
ABDOMEN:
No pertinent findings.
EXTREMITIES:
1) Stab wound, gaping, sharp on the lateral end, 2.5 x 0.9 cm.
in dia., antero-lateral aspect, lower 3rd, left arm, directed downward,
muscle deep.2) Stab wound, gaping, sharp on the lateral end, 1.2 cm. long,
lower 3rd, medial aspect, left arm, directed downward, muscle deep.3) Confluent abrasion, 2.5 x 1.2 cm. in dia., posterior middle
3rd, left forearm.’ (Exh. ‘A’, p. 1, Folio of Exhibits; pp. 2-4, tsn.,
Feb. 23, 1978)’He died due to ‘shock cardiac temponade, due to stab wound (Exh. A).’
“On the other hand, appellant Eslabon claimed that on the evening
of August 28, 1976, Dominica and Francisco Gabutin attended the dance at
the auditorium of Bo. San Roque, Francisco as barangay captain and
Dominica, because she was in charge of collecting the tickets at the
gate; that the dance ended at about 11:30 p.m. whereupon Dominica
approached Sgt. Rodillo Galve, Chief of Police, telling him that they
were going ahead; that on her way, Dominica passed by the rolling store
of Elias Harder and told him that they were going home as it was late;
that she then continued on her way to catch up with her husband
Francisco who was already ahead; that as she walked hurriedly, Dominica
heard someone running after her and as she turned around, she saw Elias
Harder who then slapped her; that Dominica asked Elias why he had done
so and the latter answered that he resented her remarks that he should
go home; that Dominica replied that her remarks were a courtesy to him
but before she could finish her statement, Harder ran after Francisco
who was some 15 arms length ahead; that as Harder approached Francisco,
the latter asked Harder what had happened regarding his (Harder’s)
comadre but the latter answered, ‘Ano haw?’ meaning, ‘What is it to
you?’, that at the same time, Harder struck Francisco with a scythe
hitting the latter in the body; that at this point, Francisco shouted
for help whereupon Harder pulled Francisco with a scythe which got stuck
in Francisco’s right armpit; that to protect himself, Francisco
embraced Harder and then Francisco fell to the ground with Harder on top
of him and continuing to slash him; that at this juncture, appellant
Noli Eslabon, a cousin of Francisco Gabutin, came to Francisco’s rescue
and stabbed Harder at the left arm which was holding the scythe; that as
the stab was made sideways, Eslabon’s knife penetrated the whole left
arm of Harder and reached his chest; that despite the stab wound, Harder
did not release his hold on Francisco so Eslabon struck Harder with his
hand; that at this point, Pat. Davies arrived and pulled Francisco from
the clutches of Harder; that the two, Francisco and Harder, were taken
to the hospital for treatment; and that Francisco was treated only for
one day in the hospital and was released but Harder died in said
hospital.”
The trial court and respondent appellate court found present the
elements for the petitioner’s actions in defense of his first cousin
Francisco in that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the
deceased nor was there sufficient provocation on the part of Francisco
who was the subject of the aggression and much less was there any
provocation on the part of petitioner, but ruled against the reasonable
necessity of the means employed by petitioner to repel the unlawful
aggression on the part of the deceased.
Respondent court upheld petitioner’s submittal that notwithstanding that
Francisco was treated for only one day in the hospital, he in fact
suffered less serious physical injuries that would take some 15 to 21
days to heal, barring any complications, as follows:
“Appellant insists that the court a quo erred in
concluding that the injury sustained by Francisco Gabutin was only
slight and in finding that Dr. Catalino Nava did not testify that said
injury would heal in 15 to 21 days. A careful review of the record
sustains the appellant’s claim. The medical certificate issued by Dr.
Nava on November 2, 1976 (Exh. 2) clearly shows that the stab wound
suffered by Francisco Gabutin would heal from 15 to 21 days barring any
complications. Dr. Nava indeed testified to and confirmed the
correctness of the recitals of Exhibit 2. Under Article 265 of the
Revised Penal Code, where the injuries sustained by the offended party
would incapacitate him from labor or require medical attendance for ten
days or more, the crime would be less serious and not slight physical
injuries. This fact, notwithstanding, Francisco Gabutin did not suffer
any fatal wounds that would have required the appellant’s act of
stabbing Elias Harder.”
Respondent court rejected petitioner’s claim of having delivered only
one thrust at the deceased while conceding that “two of Harder’s stab
wounds on the left chest and left forearm could have been caused by one
knife thrust according to Dr. Jose Rafio,” but “the third stab wound on
the left arm must have been caused by another knife thrust.”
But it ruled against the reasonable necessity of the means employed by the petitioner, as follows:
“x x x Appellant’s act of stabbing Elias Harder twice was clearly
unnecessary. The scythe used against Gabutin had a blunt end and was
merely stuck below Gabutin’s right armpit. Under such circumstance, the
wounding of Francisco was not sufficient to imperil his life.
Appellant himself admitted that he did not intend to seriously injure
Harder but merely wanted to release Harder’s hold on Francisco because
the scythe stuck on the latter’s armpit. Appellant likewise claimed
that the deceased Harder could not have possibly inflicted another
injury on Gabutin because the curve of the scythe’s blade rendered it
difficult for such weapon to be dislodged. Moreover, three police
officers had previously been assigned in the area to maintain peace and
order and, according to Dominica Gabutin, when the dance ended at about
11:30 p.m., said police officers were still around and, according to
witness Rolando Mucho, they were only a short distance from the scene of
the incident. If the appellant’s purpose was merely to release
Francisco Gabutin from the hold of Elias Harder, appellant should have
sought the aid of one of the police officers and should not have taken
the law into his hands by repeatedly stabbing the deceased. Indeed,
defense witness Francisco Gabutin testified that he and the deceased
were still grappling when Pat. Davies separated them by firing his gun
into the air and holding him at the back of his collar.”
The Court is not convinced and grants the petitioner the benefit of the
doubt on the ground of established jurisprudence that the gauge of
rational necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as
against one’s self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the
situation as it appears to the person repelling the aggression. It has
been held time and again that the reasonableness of the means adopted
is not one of mathematical calculation or ‘material commensurability
between the means of attack and defense’ but the imminent danger against
the subject of the attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct
more than reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. It has
further been stressed in such cases that to the imminent threat of the
moment, one could not be hoped to exercise such calm judgment as may be
expected of another not laboring under any urgency and who has
sufficient time to appraise the urgency of the situation.[2]
Tested by these standards, petitioner’s acts justified the knife
thrust(s) that he delivered at the deceased in order to stop the
latter’s attack against Francisco who had already suffered a
substantially serious wound with the scythe imbedded in his right armpit
which the deceased did not let go. Since there is evidence that the
deceased aggressor was bigger than Francisco, he could have inflicted
with a little more effort a much more serious, if not fatal, wound on
Francisco.[3] The stab wounds
inflicted by petitioner on the deceased were all directed at the left
forearm of the deceased, sustaining petitioner’s statement that he did
not intend to seriously injure. Harder but merely wanted to release the
latter’s hold on Francisco because the scythe was stuck under the
latter’s armpit. In view of the fact that Francisco and Harder were
grappling, it is entirely credible that the same knife thrust at
Harder’s left arm caused the wound on Harder’s left chest as testified
by the attending doctor, which wound unfortunately proved fatal. Under
the emergency situation confronting the petitioner, who feared for the
life of Francisco, it would have been rash and unnatural on his part, as
rationalized by respondent court, if he were yet to look for a police
officer instead of rushing to the defense of Francisco who was under
serious attack and in grave danger.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court sets aside the appealed judgment of respondent
appellate court and instead renders judgment acquitting the
petitioner-accused.
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
[*] Second Criminal Cases Division composed of Nocon, Sison, J.A., ponente, and Alfonso, Jr., JJ.
[1] Trial court’s decision. Rollo, p. 31.
[2] See Lacson vs. Court of
Appeals, 94 SCRA 561; Castañares vs. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 567; and
People Boholet Caballero, 61 SCRA 180.
[3] Record, p. 33.