People vs. Sotelo

Incomplete self-defense exists where the accused was unlawfully attacked and compelled to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but is responsible for provoking the attack, warranting the penalty next below that prescribed for the crime under Article 86 of the Penal Code.

The Sotelo brothers — Constante, Dominador, and Vicente — were charged in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur with homicide for the death of Ignacio Cambaliza on the night of December 24, 1929, in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. The information alleged that the brothers, armed with a penknife, a stick, and an iron bar respectively, acting together and helping one another, attacked Cambaliza with treachery and evident premeditation, with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. The case turns on the Penal Code provisions governing homicide and the mitigating effect of incomplete self-defense.

The Sotelo brothers — Constante, Dominador, and Vicente — were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur for the homicide of Ignacio Cambaliza, who died on the night of December 24, 1929, in the municipality of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. The information alleged that the three brothers, armed with a penknife, a stick, and an iron bar respectively, acting together and helping one another, attacked Cambaliza with treachery and evident premeditation, inflicting a mortal wound at the level of the left nipple that penetrated the left lung and left ventricle of the heart, as well as a wound on the right arm and bruises on the nose and upper lip.

At about 8 o'clock in the evening of December 24, 1929, Cambaliza, accompanied by Baltazar Capistrano, started for the barrio of Ravadabia. They took the provincial road and, as they approached the Sotelo house, they bid the time of day, asking whether they might pass by, according to the custom of the place. They were barely 20 meters away when Constante Sotelo, who had just finished his supper, descended from the house toward the road and, from the entrance of his yard, turned his flashlight on the passers-by. When Cambaliza saw this, he walked back to where Constante stood and inquired why he turned his flashlight on them, winding up with a vulgar remark. When Constante's brothers, who were in the yard on the side of the road, saw Cambaliza's attitude, they approached their brother to separate or defend him, whereupon Cambaliza commenced beating them with his iron crop, once striking Constante's arm. The brothers fell upon Cambaliza, Dominador striking him across the face with the stick he carried, and Vicente wounding him in the right shoulder with a penknife. Capistrano attempted to intervene but was warned by Vicente and probably by Dominador, for which reason he withdrew. The fight then continued between Cambaliza and Constante, and in the course of this fight, Constante thrust a penknife into Cambaliza at about the level of the left nipple, producing a wound that penetrated the left lung into the left ventricle of the heart, resulting in death a few minutes later.

Doctor Antonio Nolasco examined the body and found a knife wound at the level of the left nipple, 2½ centimeters long and 2½ inches deep; a knife wound on the outward surface of the right arm, 4 centimeters deep; and bruises at the base of the nose and on the upper lip, produced by a blunt instrument. The breast wound, which pierced the left lung and the left ventricle of the heart, was the cause of death.

The appellant admitted inflicting the injury that resulted in Cambaliza's death but maintained he did so in self-defense. He insisted that the fight took place in the yard of the defendants' house; that Vicente and Dominador went to help their brother when they saw Cambaliza attack him, but ran behind some sugar cane near by to conceal themselves when pursued by Cambaliza; that Cambaliza fought hand to hand with Constante, choked him, and threw himself upon him, and at that instant Constante thrust a penknife into his ribs below the left nipple; and that Capistrano answered Cambaliza's call, saying Constante had stabbed him, and with Capistrano's assistance Cambaliza left the Sotelo yard and after a few steps fell lifeless on the roadside.

The record showed that Capistrano made two statements before the justice of the peace of Narvacan — Exhibit 9, given in the investigation prior to the arrest of the defendants, and Exhibit 10, given in the course of the preliminary investigation. In Exhibit 10, Capistrano affirmed that Constante was standing at the entrance of his yard alone; that the deceased was the first to make vulgar remarks against Constante; and that during the fight Constante was under Cambaliza when he drew his penknife to stab him. At trial, however, Capistrano testified that he and the deceased saw the three brothers in the yard, that one of the brothers was the first to make insulting remarks to Cambaliza, and that while the two brothers were attacking Cambaliza, Constante stabbed him in the chest. The Court accepted Capistrano's Exhibit 10 testimony as to Constante's position when he wounded Cambaliza, not only because it was given two days after the incident, but because it was corroborated by the witnesses for the defense. As to who started the aggression, the Court, in the light of sound judgment, believed that the deceased started the aggression, provoked by the offensive language used by Constante and his brothers, and that the deceased naturally used his whip against those in front of him, striking Constante's arm.

• Prosecution's Theory: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in accepting the whole theory of the prosecution despite the incongruity between the information and the evidence adduced at trial, the proof that the iron bar belonged to the principal witness Baltazar Capistrano and not to any of the defendants, the fact that the incident took place in the yard of the defendants' house, Capistrano's deliberate concealment of the place where the deceased expired, and the chief of police's evident partiality toward Cambaliza and Capistrano.
• Factual Findings: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding that Dominador Sotelo hit the deceased across the mouth with the crop, that Vicente Sotelo stabbed him on the right shoulder with the penknife, and that Constante Sotelo stabbed him under the nipple.
• Self-Defense: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the plea of self-defense, notwithstanding that said defense was strongly corroborated by Exhibits O, 5, and 4, which form a part of the res gestae.
• Motion of February 1, 1930: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in refusing to consider the motion of February 1, 1930, which graphically showed that the appellant could not have touched the victim's left breast in stabbing him, or the wound would not have been in the direction described in Dr. Nolasco's certificate.
• Conviction: Appellant argued that the trial judge erred in convicting him.

• Admissibility of Prior Statements: The fiscal objected to the defense's examination of Capistrano on his two prior statements before the justice of the peace, and the court sustained the objection on the ground that the best evidence would be Capistrano's own statements taken down in writing.
• Identification of Documents: The fiscal objected to the admission of Exhibits 9 and 10 on the ground that the documents were not identified, but the record showed that they had been delivered by the fiscal himself to counsel for the defense, and he was therefore precluded from setting up the lack of identification.

• Admission of Prior Statements: Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the fiscal's objection to having witness Capistrano explain the contradiction between his prior statement in Exhibit 10 and his testimony at the hearing, and in initially excluding Exhibits 9 and 10.
• Self-Defense: Whether the appellant's plea of self-defense was established notwithstanding his admission that he inflicted the fatal wound.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: Whether the circumstances constituted incomplete self-defense warranting the penalty next below that prescribed for homicide.

• Admission of Prior Statements: Yes. The trial court erred in sustaining the fiscal's objection, but the documents Exhibits 9 and 10 were nonetheless duly introduced into the case as evidence for the defense and must be taken into consideration in rendering judgment.
• Self-Defense: No, not complete self-defense. The appellant was unlawfully attacked by the deceased and compelled to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but he was responsible for provoking the attack.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: Yes. The case constitutes incomplete self-defense, and under Article 86 of the Penal Code, the penalty next below that provided in Article 404 must be imposed — prision mayor in its minimum degree, or six years and one day, with the accessories of law, and indemnity of P500 to the family of the deceased.

• Admission of Prior Statements: The trial judge erred in sustaining the fiscal's objection to having Capistrano explain the contradiction between Exhibit 10 and his testimony before the trial court. Regardless, Exhibits 9 and 10 were duly introduced into the case as evidence for the defense and must be taken into consideration in rendering judgment. The fiscal was precluded from setting up the lack of identification because he himself had delivered the documents to counsel for the defense, and he failed to take exception from the court's ruling admitting them.
• Self-Defense: Capistrano's testimony in Exhibit 10 as to Constante's position when he wounded Cambaliza must be accepted, not only because it was given two days after the incident, but because it has been corroborated by the witnesses for the defense. In Exhibit 10, Capistrano affirmed that Constante was standing at the entrance of his yard alone, that the deceased was the first to make vulgar remarks, and that during the fight Constante was under Cambaliza when he drew his penknife. As to who started the aggression, the Court, in the light of sound judgment, believed that the deceased started the aggression, provoked by the offensive language used by Constante and his brothers imputing to him the utterance of vulgar language against them. In such a situation, the deceased naturally used his whip against those who were in front of him, striking Constante's arm.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: This is a case of incomplete self-defense, wherein the appellant was unlawfully attacked by the deceased and compelled to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but he is responsible for provoking the attack. Under Article 86 of the Penal Code, the penalty next below that provided in Article 404 of said Code must be imposed upon the appellant, that is, prision mayor in its minimum degree, or six years and one day, with the accessories of law, and to indemnify the family of the deceased in the amount of P500.

• Incomplete Self-Defense — Where the accused was unlawfully attacked and compelled to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but is responsible for provoking the attack, the penalty next below that prescribed for the crime must be imposed. The Court applied this doctrine to reduce the penalty from reclusion temporal to prision mayor in its minimum degree, the appellant having provoked the aggression through offensive language while nonetheless being unlawfully attacked by the deceased.

• "We therefore believe this is a case of incomplete self-defense, wherein the appellant was unlawfully attacked by the deceased and compelled to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but he is responsible for provoking the attack." — This states the ratio decidendi, defining the doctrine of incomplete self-defense as applied to the facts.
• "According to article 86 of the Penal Code the penalty next below that provided in article 404 of said Code must be imposed upon the appellant, that is, prision mayor in its minimum degree, or six years and one day, with the accessories of law, and to indemnify the family of the deceased in the amount of P500." — This states the penalty imposed under the doctrine of incomplete self-defense.
• "We believe Capistrano's testimony appearing in Exhibit 10 as to Constante's position when he wounded Cambaliza, must be accepted, not only because it was given two days after the incident, but because it has been corroborated by the witnesses for the defense." — This articulates the Court's basis for preferring the earlier statement over the trial testimony.

• U.S. vs. Capisonda, 1 Phil., 575 — Cited for the proposition that Capistrano's Exhibit 10 testimony as to Constante's position must be accepted.
• U.S. vs. Rafael, 23 Phil., 184 — Cited for the same proposition regarding acceptance of the earlier statement.
• U.S. vs. Ancheta, 1 Phil., 30 — Cited for the doctrine of incomplete self-defense.
• U.S. vs. McCray, 2 Phil., 545 — Cited for the doctrine of incomplete self-defense.

• Article 86, Penal Code — Provides that the penalty next below that provided for the crime must be imposed in cases of incomplete self-defense. The Court applied this provision to impose prision mayor in its minimum degree.
• Article 404, Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for homicide. The penalty next below that provided in this article was imposed upon the appellant.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred.