People of the Philippines Islands vs. Epifiano Lucero

Incomplete self-defense, not justifiable self-defense, is established where the unlawful aggression comes from the deceased and the accused acts under a state of perturbation analogous to arrebato y obecacion caused by the deceased's sudden assault, especially when coupled with mitigating circumstances; the penalty for homicide may then be reduced by two degrees.

On August 9, 1925, Ciriaco Calaycay, a young man, was riding a carabao in the poblacion of Badoc, Ilocos Norte. His legs dangled below, and his feet attracted the attention of Epifiano Lucero and other companions, who in a spirit of youth teased him by pulling at his legs. The incident, though evidently intended merely as a boyish prank, irritated Ciriaco very much.

At about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, Ciriaco was sitting at or near a bridge on the provincial road leading into Badoc. He saw Epifiano Lucero passing on a bicycle. Prompted by the irritation surviving from the incident of the forenoon, Ciriaco picked up a small stone and threw it at Lucero just after the latter had passed. The stone struck Lucero on the right arm and caused him to swerve somewhat from his course on the wheel. At about the same time, a vehicle was seen approaching from the opposite direction; to avoid hitting it, Lucero was compelled to turn his bicycle more quickly than its momentum would permit, with the result that the wheels slipped and Lucero was thrown to the ground.

Upon seeing Lucero fall, Ciriaco immediately approached him with unfriendly intentions. The two grappled with each other and fell into a ditch by the roadside. In a moment, however, the contestants were on their feet, confronting each other in a hand-to-hand struggle. In the course of that struggle, Lucero struck Ciriaco in the abdomen with a small bolo, inflicting a wound from which Ciriaco died the following morning. Having struck this blow, Lucero mounted his bicycle and rode away, while bystanders came to the relief of Ciriaco and carried him away for treatment.

The defense admitted that Ciriaco died of a wound inflicted by Lucero, but insisted that the blow was delivered in self-defense. Lucero and his kinsman Bonifacio Tolentino claimed that when Lucero cut the deceased with the bolo, Lucero was lying in the ditch on his back and Ciriaco was then on him, squeezing his neck with his left hand while at the same time with his right attempting to pick up a stone with which to beat Lucero. The trial court found against this contention and believed that when the fatal blow was struck, the two combatants were confronting each other as already stated. A perusal of the evidence left no doubt in the Supreme Court's mind that the trial judge was correct on this point, and no error was committed in finding that the act which is the subject of prosecution was not done in justifiable self-defense. At the time of trial, Lucero was about 19 years of age.

• Self-Defense: Appellant admitted that Ciriaco Calaycay died from the wound he inflicted but insisted that the blow was delivered in self-defense; he and his kinsman Bonifacio Tolentino claimed that when the bolo blow was struck, appellant was lying on his back in the ditch while Ciriaco was on top of him, squeezing his neck with his left hand and attempting with his right to pick up a stone to beat him.

• Qualification of the Offense: The Attorney-General, for the appellee, was of the opinion that the facts would bear a somewhat milder interpretation than that placed upon the case by the trial court, a position the Supreme Court adopted in finding incomplete self-defense and reducing the penalty.

• Justifiable Self-Defense: Whether the killing of Ciriaco Calaycay was done in justifiable self-defense, as claimed by the appellant.
• Qualification and Penalty: Whether the facts warranted a milder interpretation, the benefit of incomplete self-defense, and mitigating circumstances, and whether the penalty imposed by the trial court should be reduced.

• Justifiable Self-Defense: No. The trial court correctly found that the fatal blow was not delivered in justifiable self-defense, the evidence showing the combatants were confronting each other rather than the appellant lying on his back as claimed.
• Qualification and Penalty: Yes. The appellant was entitled to incomplete self-defense and mitigating circumstances, so the penalty for homicide was reduced by two degrees to three years of prision correccional, with accessories, instead of ten years.

• Justifiable Self-Defense: The defense admitted the killing but claimed self-defense. Appellant and Bonifacio Tolentino testified that when appellant cut the deceased, appellant was lying in the ditch on his back and Ciriaco was on him, squeezing his neck with his left hand while attempting with his right to pick up a stone to beat him. The trial court found against this contention and believed that when the fatal blow was struck, the two combatants were confronting each other. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found no doubt that the trial judge was correct, so no error was committed in finding that the act was not done in justifiable self-defense.
• Qualification and Penalty: The Court concurred with the Attorney-General that the facts bore a somewhat milder interpretation than that placed by the trial court. The unlawful aggression came from the deceased, not the accused, without adequate provocation on the latter's part. The deceased suddenly assailed the accused at the precise moment when the accused must have been perturbed by falling from the bicycle, a fall caused by the deceased. This was calculated to excite the accused's mind in a high degree and to generate a state of mind analogous to arrebato y obecacion. The circumstance was more noteworthy because the accused was only about 19 years old at the time of trial. The accused was therefore entitled to the benefit of incomplete self-defense, and in view of the mitigating circumstances, the penalty fixed by law for homicide should be reduced by two degrees. Considering all the circumstances, the Court fixed the penalty at three years of prision correccional, with accessories, instead of ten years, with accessories.

• Incomplete Self-Defense — Incomplete self-defense is appreciated when the unlawful aggression comes from the deceased, not the accused, and the accused acts without adequate provocation, under a state of perturbation caused by the deceased's sudden assault. In this case, the accused was entitled to the benefit of incomplete self-defense because the deceased suddenly assailed him at the moment he was perturbed by falling from his bicycle, a fall caused by the deceased, and because the accused was only about 19 years old at trial. The penalty for homicide was reduced by two degrees.
• Arrebato y Obecacion (analogous state) — The Court considered that the deceased's act of suddenly assailing the accused at the precise moment when the accused must have been perturbed by falling from the bicycle was calculated to excite his mind in a high degree and to generate a state of mind analogous to arrebato y obecacion. This state, together with the other circumstances, supported the milder interpretation of the offense and the reduction of the penalty.
• Mitigating Circumstances in Homicide — The Court recognized mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused and, together with incomplete self-defense, reduced the penalty for homicide by two degrees. The youthfulness of the accused, about 19 years old at the time of trial, made the circumstance more noteworthy.

• "It is obvious that the unlawful aggression from the deceased, and not from the accused, without any adequate provocation on the part of the latter." — This passage identifies the basis for treating the case as one of incomplete self-defense rather than justifiable self-defense.
• "It should be also in mind that the act of the deceased in suddenly assailing the accused at the precise moment when he must have been perturbed by failing from the bicycle, a thing caused by the deceased, was calculated to excite the mind of the accused in a high degree and to generate a state of mind in him analogous to arrebato y obecacion." — This passage explains why the accused's mental state was analogous to arrebato y obecacion and why the offense was viewed more mildly.
• "The accused in our opinion is entitled to the benefit of the consideration of incomplete-self-defense, and in view of the mitigating circumstances, we think that the penalty fixed by law for the crime of homicide should be reduced by two degrees, and upon consideration of all the circumstances involved in the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be sufficiently served by fixing the penalty at three years, prision correccional, with the accessories prescribed by law, instead of the higher penalty of ten years, with accessories, prescribed by the lower court." — This is the ratio decidendi for the penalty reduction.
• "It being understood that the penalty is so modified, the judgment, is affirmed, with costs. So ordered." — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

Avanceña, C.J.; Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ.