People vs. Rabandan

Unlawful aggression is not deemed to have ceased where the aggressor, though momentarily disarmed, continues to struggle to regain possession of the weapon and shows determination to fight to the finish. The defender, particularly when already gravely wounded, is under no duty to expose himself to the contingency that the aggressor might succeed in recovering the weapon.

Fructuoso Rabandan and Florida Napala were husband and wife residing together in a barrio of Abuyog, Leyte. Rabandan worked a camote plantation. The events culminating in Napala's death transpired one night when Rabandan returned home from his plantation and discovered his wife in bed with another man.

• The Discovery: Appellant Fructuoso Rabandan and the deceased Florida Napala were husband and wife living together in a barrio of Abuyog, Leyte. Returning home one night from his camote plantation, appellant found his wife lying in bed with another man.

• The Immediate Aftermath: The man escaped through the window. Appellant severely scolded his wife and ordered her to leave the house. He did not, at that moment, attempt to kill her.

• The Bolo Attack: While gathering her clothes, Napala picked up a bolo from the kitchen. When appellant followed her there, she attacked him with the bolo, wounding him twice in the abdomen. According to the sanitary inspector who later examined him, one wound was "fatal" because the large intestine protruded from it.

• The Killing: Appellant wrestled the bolo from his wife. She, however, struggled to regain possession of it. While she persisted in that struggle, appellant stabbed her once in the breast. She died from the wound that same night. Appellant himself survived despite his serious injuries.

• Trial Court Findings: The trial court found that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code did not apply because appellant did not kill his wife upon discovering her infidelity — the killing occurred later, during a separate altercation. The trial court further rejected self-defense, opining that once appellant had disarmed his wife, he could have thrown the bolo away rather than stabbing her.

• Self-Defense: Whether the accused acted in complete self-defense, entitling him to acquittal, notwithstanding that he stabbed the victim after disarming her.

• Article 247 (Death under Exceptional Circumstances): Whether the accused could claim the benefit of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code for having killed his wife after discovering her in flagrante delicto with another man.

• Self-Defense: Self-defense was established by the evidence. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was proved by her bolo attack, which inflicted two serious abdominal wounds on appellant. The aggression was not preceded by sufficient provocation from appellant, who merely scolded her and ordered her to leave. As to the reasonable necessity of the means employed, the trial court's speculation — that appellant could have thrown the bolo away after wresting it — was erroneous. The victim continued to struggle for possession of the weapon, demonstrating that she was unsubdued and determined to fight to the finish. Appellant, already in a precarious condition from wounds described as "fatal" with protruding intestine, was justified in believing his wife intended to kill him. He was under no duty to throw away the bolo and thereby expose himself to the contingency that she would recover it and resume the assault. The situation was controlled by United States vs. Molina, 19 Phil. 227, where the Court held that as long as the struggle continues and the danger subsists, the accused has a perfect right to repel the danger by wounding the adversary, even to the point of disabling her completely.

• Article 247: The trial court correctly denied appellant the benefit of Article 247. Although appellant found his wife in bed with another man, he did not kill her on that account. His immediate response was limited to scolding her and ordering her out of the house. The killing occurred during a subsequent and separate encounter.

• Continuing Unlawful Aggression in Self-Defense — Unlawful aggression is not deemed terminated upon the aggressor's momentary dispossession of a weapon if the aggressor actively struggles to recover it and manifests a determination to continue fighting. The defender is not required to expose himself to the risk that the aggressor may succeed in rearming. As long as the struggle continues and the danger to life subsists, the defender retains the right to employ necessary force to repel the assault completely. The Court, citing United States vs. Molina, 19 Phil. 227, held that the defender is under no duty to gamble with his life by discarding the only available means of protection.

• Article 247, Revised Penal Code (Death under Exceptional Circumstances) — The privilege of Article 247 requires that the killing occur as a direct and proximate consequence of the discovery of the spouse in flagrante delicto. Where the accused, upon discovering the infidelity, does not immediately kill but instead scolds and banishes the spouse, and the killing occurs only later during a separate physical altercation, Article 247 does not apply.

• "With the aggressor still unsubdued and showing determination to fight to the finish, it would have been folly on the part of appellant, who must already have been losing strength due to loss of blood, to throw away the bolo and thus give his adversary a chance to pick it up and again use it against him. Having the right to protect his life, appellant was not in duty bound to expose himself to such contingency." — This passage encapsulates the ratio decidendi on the continuing nature of unlawful aggression and the defender's right to disable the aggressor completely without being required to assume the risk of a renewed attack.

• "If, through the various incidents of the struggle, or any favorable accident whatever, the deceased had succeeded in recovering the bolo or in possessing himself of the hatchet, as he attempted to do the last, the result of the combat would probably have been very different; perhaps the accused, instead of being a slayer, would himself have been killed." — Quoted from United States vs. Molina, this reasoning was adopted by the Court to reinforce the principle that the defender need not await a turn of fortune fatal to himself.

• United States vs. Molina, 19 Phil. 227 (1911) — Followed and applied. This case involved a struggle over a bolo where the deceased attempted alternately to recover the weapon and to arm himself with a hatchet. The Court there held that the danger did not cease for a single instant during the continuous struggle and that the accused had a perfect right to disable the aggressor completely. The factual parallel was treated as controlling in the present case.

• Article 11, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Governs self-defense as a justifying circumstance. The provision requires (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All three elements were found present: unlawful aggression in the victim's bolo attack and continued struggle; reasonable necessity because appellant was severely wounded and the aggressor remained unsubdued; and lack of sufficient provocation because appellant merely scolded and banished her for infidelity.

• Article 247, Revised Penal Code — Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Found inapplicable because the killing did not occur as an immediate consequence of the discovery of the spouse in flagrante delicto; a distinct interval and separate altercation intervened.

Chief Justice Moran and Justices Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Torres concurred.

N/A — The decision was unanimous.