The United States vs. Juan Salandanan

Self-defense under section 4, article 8 of the Penal Code wholly exempts an accused from criminal liability where there is unlawful aggression without provocation and the means employed to repel it are reasonably necessary under the circumstances of a continuing struggle. An accused who wrests the aggressor's bolo during a hand-to-hand struggle and uses it against him does not exceed the limits of a just defense where the struggle has not ceased and the danger has not ended.

Juan Salandanan was the accused in a homicide prosecution brought by the United States; Domingo Alba Clemente was the deceased. The prosecution was brought by the United States as complainant-appellee. The case was governed by the Penal Code then in force, specifically section 4 of article 8, which recognized self-defense as a complete defense exempting an accused from criminal liability.

On an afternoon while Juan Salandanan was absent from his house, Domingo Alba Clemente entered and proposed to Salandanan's wife that she have illicit intercourse with him. When she refused, Alba endeavored to rape her, seizing her and attempting to throw her to the ground. Salandanan returned at that moment and rushed in upon hearing his wife's screams for help.

Upon seeing Salandanan, Alba turned on the woman and inflicted a serious wound on her right forearm with the bolo he was carrying. He then immediately attacked Salandanan, wounding him in the breast. A hand-to-hand struggle followed between the two men.

In the course of that struggle, Salandanan succeeded in snatching the bolo from Alba's hands and, with it, inflicted a wound from which Alba died shortly after. The evidence in the record established these facts.

The court below found that Salandanan acted in self-defense and that there was unlawful aggression without provocation on his part; it nevertheless found the reasonable necessity of the means employed unproven because, after the deceased was deprived of the weapon, the defendant supposedly had no necessity to employ it to ward off the attack.

• Unlawful Aggression: Whether the deceased's attack on the accused and his wife constituted unlawful aggression without provocation on the part of the accused.
• Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed: Whether the accused exceeded the limits of a just defense when, after wresting the bolo from the deceased during a continuing hand-to-hand struggle, he wounded the deceased with it.
• Complete Defense: Whether the accused's act in defense of his person complied with all the conditions of section 4, article 8 of the Penal Code so as to wholly exempt him from criminal liability.

• Unlawful Aggression: Yes. The deceased attacked the accused and his wife with a bolo, wounded both, attempted to rape the wife, and continued his aggression, establishing unlawful aggression without provocation.
• Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed: Yes. The struggle had not ceased when the accused wrested the bolo and used it, so the danger had not ended and he did not exceed the limits of a just defense.
• Complete Defense: Yes. The act complied with all the conditions of section 4, article 8 of the Penal Code and wholly exempted him from criminal liability.

• Unlawful Aggression: The deceased entered the accused's house, proposed illicit intercourse to his wife, attempted to rape her, and when surprised, turned on the wife and inflicted a serious wound on her right forearm with a bolo. He then immediately attacked the accused and wounded him in the breast. These facts established unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased without provocation of any kind on the part of the accused.
• Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed: The lower court reasoned that once the deceased was deprived of the weapon, the accused no longer needed to employ it. The Supreme Court rejected this because it did not appear that the struggle ceased after the weapon was taken; consequently, it could not be asserted that the danger to the accused had ceased. If the struggle continued, the accused might in turn have been disarmed in the changing fortunes of the fight, leaving him at the mercy of his adversary. This contingency was reasonably feared, especially because the accused had received a serious wound in the breast, which under the circumstances might have appeared more serious than it was, placing him at a disadvantage in a prolonged hand-to-hand struggle. Fear, added to the natural instinct of self-defense excited by the fierce attack, impelled him to use the momentary advantage to put his aggressor hors de combat in the only way possible in the heat of the fight. The law cannot require a man so forcibly and persistently attacked to retain the presence of mind necessary to pick and choose a less violent means, especially given the natural rapidity with which defense must be made to repel the aggressor.
• Complete Defense: Because there was unlawful aggression by the deceased without provocation on the part of the accused, and the means employed in repelling it were reasonably necessary under the circumstances, the accused's act in defense of his person complied with all the conditions of section 4, article 8 of the Penal Code. That provision wholly exempted him from criminal liability. The judgment below was therefore reversed and the accused acquitted, with costs de oficio.

• Self-defense as a complete defense under the Penal Code — Under section 4, article 8 of the Penal Code, self-defense wholly exempts an accused from criminal liability when the act is done in defense of one's person and complies with all the conditions of that provision. In this case, the Court applied the complete defense because the deceased committed unlawful aggression without provocation and the accused used reasonably necessary means to repel it.
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed — The reasonableness of the means used in self-defense is measured by the circumstances of the attack and the accused's situation at the time, not by hindsight. The Court held that an accused who wrests the aggressor's bolo during a continuing hand-to-hand struggle and uses it against him does not exceed the limits of a just defense where the struggle has not ceased and the danger has not ended.
• No duty to choose less violent means under pressing attack — A person who is forcibly and persistently attacked cannot be required to retain the presence of mind necessary to pick and choose a less violent means of defense, especially given the natural rapidity with which defensive action must be taken to repel the aggressor. The Court applied this principle to excuse the accused's use of the bolo after taking it from the deceased.
• Unlawful aggression — Unlawful aggression exists where the aggressor attacks the person defending or his family with a weapon, wounds them, and continues the attack. The Court found unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased, who attacked the accused and his wife with a bolo, wounded both, and continued his aggression up to the hand-to-hand struggle.

• "We do not concur in this opinion of the court below." — The Court rejects the lower court's conclusion that the reasonable necessity of the means employed had not been proven.
• "It does not appear that the struggle ceased after the weapon was taken from the aggressor. Consequently it can not be asserted that the danger to the defendant had ceased." — This states the ratio on reasonable necessity: because the struggle continued, the danger had not ended when the accused used the bolo.
• "We can not require a man who finds himself so forcibly and persistently attacked as was the accused to retain the presence of mind necessary to pick and choose, and to employ some other less violent means more especially when we remember the natural rapidity with which the defense must necessarily be made if it is to produce the effect of repelling the aggressor." — This defines the standard for judging reasonable necessity in self-defense under pressing attack.
• "For these reasons, there having been an unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased without provocation of any kind on the part of the accused, we are of the opinion that his act in defense of his person complies with all the conditions which in accordance with section 4, article 8, of the Penal Code wholly exempt him from criminal liability." — This is the Court's ultimate holding applying the complete defense and acquitting the accused.

• Section 4, Article 8, Penal Code — Recognized self-defense as a complete defense that wholly exempts an accused from criminal liability. The Court applied it because the deceased committed unlawful aggression without provocation and the accused employed reasonably necessary means to repel the attack during a continuing struggle.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Smith, Willard, and Ladd, JJ., concur.