THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DAMIAN SANTA ANA AND DOROTEA RAMOS, DEFENDANTS. DOROTEA RAMOS, APPELLANT.

United States versus Santa Ana and Ramos

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the Government of the United States, as plaintiff, prosecuted Damian Santa Ana and his wife Dorotea Ramos for the crime of lesiones menos graves, or less serious physical injuries, before the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal. The charge arose from wounds inflicted with a bolo upon one Antonio Santos. The husband was acquitted; the wife was convicted and appealed. The case matters because it is a classic illustration of the complete self-defense under the old Penal Code, and of the rule that a woman unlawfully attacked for purposes of lust may repel the aggression with a weapon, and need not first attempt to escape or call for help.

Procedural History

Damian Santa Ana and Dorotea Ramos, husband and wife, were charged in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal with the crime of lesiones menos graves. The trial court acquitted Damian but found Dorotea guilty as charged. It sentenced her to one month and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of 42 pesos, to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs of the cause. Dorotea appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the judgment and reversed it.

Facts

On the night in question, according to the prosecution, Antonio Santos was seated near a tienda when Dorotea Ramos approached him and said she wished to talk with him about certain matters. Santos refused, saying that Dorotea's husband might be jealous of him and that he did not want to be caught talking with her in the streets at night. On his refusal, Dorotea suddenly drew a bolo concealed under her apparel and inflicted the wounds. Santos was incapacitated from his ordinary duties as a laborer for twelve days.

The defense gave a very different account. Dorotea testified that, while going from her house to a tienda to make a small purchase, she was met by Santos in a dark and somewhat isolated place, and that Santos immediately caught her by the arm and began to drag her off the street into an uninhabited place for the purpose of forcibly having illicit relations with her. The two versions were irreconcilable.

The trial court, after a careful examination of the testimony, found the woman's version more acceptable. It found that Santos, upon seeing her near an isolated place, caught her by the arm and tried to drag her to an obscure spot to take advantage of her, and that in order to defend herself it was necessary to wound Santos with the bolo she carried. The trial court nevertheless convicted her, holding that although unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation were present, it was not reasonably necessary for her to use the bolo, since she was one of the most vigorous Filipinas and Santos was not physically one of the strongest of men, and she could have escaped by calling for help.

Issues

• Whether or not the appellant acted in complete self-defense under Article 8 of the Penal Code, so as to be exempt from criminal liability.
• Whether or not the reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the attack required the appellant to use only her physical strength, or to escape or call for help, instead of using the bolo she carried.

Applicable Provisions

Article 8 of the Penal Code provides:

The following are exempt from criminal liability: 4. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity for the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

This provision supplies the three requisites of self-defense, and the whole case turns on whether the second requisite, reasonable necessity for the means employed, was present.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to an absolute acquittal upon the ground of self-defense. The trial court had already found unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation in her favor, and the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's finding as to how the trouble occurred.

On the second issue, the Court disagreed with the trial court's application of the law. The Court stressed that both the appellant and the offended party were married; that the appellant was going along the street attending to her own business when she was attacked by Santos; that he caught her by the arm and was forcibly taking her to a dark place off the street for the purpose of having illicit relations with her; that she most seriously objected and sought, by means of her own physical strength, to release herself, but Santos persisted. It was then that she used her bolo, for the protection of her honor and to repel the brutal attack. Santos knew she was a married woman living happily with her husband, and knew that if he ever could have carnal relations with her it must be by force. So he deliberately planned to commit one of the most heinous crimes known to our criminal law, and when he received the blows he was then carrying out his fiendish design.

The Court held that such injuries were not by any means greater than he deserved, and that the appellant was perfectly justified, under the facts and circumstances, in using any kind of a weapon at her command which was necessary to repel the attack, and to continue using it until she was able to free herself from Santos' clutches. When a man becomes so debased as to lose every instinct of manhood and engages himself in the commission of so serious a crime, he stakes his life and liberty in his own hands, and if he loses the latter or receives serious personal injuries, his loss is no greater than he deserves.

Doctrine

Self-defense under Article 8 of the Penal Code exempts from criminal liability when three circumstances concur: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity for the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The first and third being present, the defense is complete.

Reasonable necessity for the means employed does not demand that the defender use only her bare hands, nor that she first attempt to escape or call for help. A woman unlawfully attacked for purposes of lust may use any weapon at her command which is necessary to repel the attack, and may continue using it until she is able to free herself from her assailant's clutches. The aggressor in so serious a crime stakes his life and liberty in his own hands, and injuries received in the course of his design are no greater than he deserves.

Disposition

The judgment appealed from was reversed, and the appellant Dorotea Ramos was ordered released from custody forthwith, with costs de oficio.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a woman attacked for purposes of lust is perfectly justified in using any kind of weapon at her command to repel the attack, and need not first escape or call for help. Examiners use this case to test the second requisite of self-defense, reasonable necessity for the means employed, and the rule that the defender's means are measured against the aggression, not against the relative physical strength of the parties.