People vs. Sumicad

A person assaulted only with fists may justifiably use a deadly weapon in self-defense when retreat has been completely cut off and the assailant is of known violent disposition, larger and stronger, and is attempting to wrest the weapon away. The general rule against using lethal force against a unarmed assailant presupposes an open field where the person assaulted can flee; it has no application where the accused has been cornered and has no avenue of escape.

The accused, Julian Sumicad, was a 25-year-old resident of Buenavoluntad, Plaridel, Occidental Misamis, standing 5 feet 1½ inches tall and weighing 105 pounds. The deceased, Segundo Cubol, owed Sumicad wages for five and one-half days of labor. Cubol was taller, larger, and stronger than Sumicad, and had a reputation as a quarrelsome troublemaker, with prior convictions for assault and battery, minor physical injuries, and theft.

On February 23, 1931, Julian Sumicad was among a group of laborers engaged in the gratuitous hauling of logs for the construction of a chapel in the barrio of Buenavoluntad, municipality of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis. At about 5:30 in the afternoon, while the laborers were resting, Segundo Cubol passed by the place where Sumicad was sitting on a log. Sumicad had previously rendered five and one-half days of service to Cubol, and as Cubol passed, Sumicad asked him to pay for that labor. Cubol replied, "What debt!" followed by an insulting expression, and simultaneously struck Sumicad with his fist.

Sumicad rose and moved backward, attempting to escape, but Cubol pursued him and continued striking him with his fists. As Sumicad receded, he found himself cornered by a pile of logs, the wings of which extended on either side, effectively preventing any further retreat. As Cubol pressed upon him, Sumicad drew his bolo and delivered a blow to Cubol's right shoulder. Rather than desisting, Cubol lunged at Sumicad with the evident intention of wresting the bolo away. To prevent this, Sumicad struck two more blows, inflicting deep cuts on Cubol's forehead above the left eye — one breaking through the cranium, the other extending from the left eyebrow to the nose and upper lip. A knife was later found in one of the deceased's pockets, and Sumicad testified that when he struck Cubol, the latter was attempting to draw that knife.

A witness, Francisco Villegas, arrived shortly afterward and asked Cubol whether he had struck Sumicad with his fists; Cubol admitted that he had. Villegas then told Sumicad to put away his bolo and go to the poblacion. Sumicad immediately proceeded to the office of the justice of the peace and surrendered. Cubol lived only about an hour and died from the effects of his wounds. The sanitary officer who examined the body indicated that the shoulder wound alone could not have caused death; it was the two subsequent blows to the head that proved fatal.

The evidence further established that Cubol was taller, larger, and stronger than Sumicad, and had a reputation as a quarrelsome and dangerous man. He had been convicted and sentenced to jail for assault and battery in two separate cases, convicted of inflicting minor physical injuries with a sentence of one month and one day, and convicted of theft with the same sentence. The proof left no reason to doubt that Cubol was hot-tempered and regarded by his neighbors as a troublemaker.

• Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed: Whether the accused's use of a bolo — a deadly weapon — against an assailant armed only with fists was reasonably necessary for self-defense, given that the accused had been cornered and could no longer retreat.

• Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed: Yes. All three elements of justifiable self-defense were present, and the accused should have been acquitted. The general rule against using lethal force to repel a fist assault presupposes an open field where the person assaulted can flee; it has no binding force where the accused has retreated to the wall and uses the only weapon at his disposal in a defensive manner against a larger, stronger assailant of known violent disposition.

• Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed: The Court identified three elements of self-defense and found each satisfied. First, unlawful aggression was present: Cubol initiated the confrontation by striking Sumicad with his fists after the latter's lawful demand for unpaid wages, and Cubol himself admitted he was the aggressor. Second, there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused, who merely asked for payment of a debt and then retreated. Third, reasonable necessity of the means employed was established by the totality of circumstances: Sumicad had retreated until cornered by a pile of logs with no avenue of escape; Cubol was taller, larger, and stronger; Cubol had a known reputation for violence supported by multiple prior convictions; and after receiving the initial shoulder wound, Cubol did not desist but instead lunged forward to wrest the bolo from Sumicad. The Court reasoned that surrendering the weapon to an infuriated, larger assailant would have been tantamount to suicide. The general rule that a person is not justified in taking the life of one who assaults with fists only contemplates a situation where the contestants are in the open and the person assaulted can exercise the option of running away. That rule has no binding force where the person assaulted has retreated to the wall and uses the only weapon available in a defensive manner. The deceased's reputation for violence was deemed pertinent, as it tended to show that Sumicad had reasonable grounds for believing he was in grave peril to life or limb.

• Elements of Justifiable Self-Defense — The three requisites are: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All three must concur. In this case, the Court found each element present: Cubol was the aggressor, Sumicad provoked nothing beyond a lawful demand for wages, and the use of the bolo was reasonably necessary given the accused's cornered position, the disparity in size and strength, and the deceased's known violent disposition.

• Exception to the Rule Against Lethal Force Against an Unarmed Assailant — While it is well established that a person is not, as a rule, justified in taking the life of one who assaults him with fists only, that rule presupposes an open setting where the person assaulted can flee. Where the accused has retreated to the wall with no avenue of escape and uses the only weapon at his disposal defensively against a larger, stronger assailant of known violent character who continues to press the attack, the use of lethal force is justified. One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the extent of injury a reckless and infuriated assailant might inflict.

• "It is undoubtedly well established in jurisprudence that a man is not, as a rule, justified in taking the life of one who assaults him with his fist only, without the use of a dangerous weapon. ... But that rule contemplates the situation where the contestants are in the open and the person assaulted can exercise the option of running away. It can have no binding force in the case where the person assaulted has retreated to the wall, as the saying is, and uses in a defensive way the only weapon at his disposal." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the recognized exception to the general prohibition on lethal force against an unarmed assailant, keyed to the impossibility of further retreat.

• "One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him." — This formulation, drawn from Browell vs. People, encapsulates the Court's pragmatic standard for assessing reasonable necessity under pressure.

• "We are of the opinion that all the elements necessary to constitute justifiable self-defense were present in this case and the accused should have been acquitted." — The Court's conclusive finding that all three elements of self-defense concurred, warranting outright acquittal.

• Browell vs. People, 38 Mich. 732 — Cited approvingly for the proposition that a person hard pressed by an assailant is not required to draw fine distinctions as to the probable extent of injury the assailant might inflict. The Court adopted this reasoning to support its finding of reasonable necessity.

• Revised Penal Code provisions on self-defense (justifying circumstances) — Although the decision does not cite a specific article number, the Court applies the three-element test for justifying self-defense then governing Philippine criminal law (corresponding to what is now Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code). All three elements — unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation — were found to concur, resulting in complete exoneration.

Malcolm, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concurred. Johnson, J., reserved his vote.

• Avanceña, C.J. — Dissented on the ground that the self-defense was incomplete, arguing that the use of a bolo to repel a fist attack was not a reasonably necessary means of defense. The Chief Justice cited a line of Spanish Supreme Court decisions holding that lethal force was not justified where the assailant used only fists, choking, or an umbrella, and invoked Philippine precedents (U.S. vs. De Castro, 2 Phil. 67; People vs. Montalbo, G.R. No. 34750) to the same effect. Avanceña further argued that the deceased's attempt to wrench the bolo away was justified by the reasonable belief that Sumicad would continue the attack with that weapon, since Sumicad had already struck first.

• Ostrand, J. — Dissented without elaboration, stating only that he could not fully agree with the majority. Villamor, J., concurred in Avanceña's dissent.