United States vs. Freeland McCray

The incomplete exemption from criminal liability under section 86 of the Penal Code applies when only two of the three requisites for complete self-defense are present. Where unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the attack are established, but the accused provoked the deceased, the accused is entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for the crime, imposed in its medium grade.

The case arose under the Penal Code in force during the early American colonial period in the Philippines. The defendant, Freeland McCray, and the deceased, John King, were friends who lived in the same house but had a falling out over a woman, causing McCray to move to another residence. The applicable law on self-defense required three requisites for complete exemption from criminal liability: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

On the night of December 17, 1902, at about 10 o'clock, in the town of Batangas, a quarrel occurred between Freeland McCray and John King in the house of a man named Harvey. During the altercation, McCray fired several shots at King with a revolver, inflicting three wounds, two of which were mortal. The Army physician who performed the autopsy testified that King received one bullet in the left side, penetrating the left lung, and another in the back near the liver, perforating the stomach, and sustained a third superficial wound on the left forearm. King expired shortly afterwards in the hospital to which he was taken.

According to two eyewitnesses, while McCray was in Harvey's house, King arrived, and after an altercation between them, McCray went out into the yard, challenging King to come out and engage in a fist fight. King remained in the house, held back by a witness named Holland, and did not answer. McCray then reentered the house, whereupon one Purple seized him by the arms and pushed him toward the kitchen to prevent his approaching King. King thereupon drew his revolver and fired at McCray, wounding him in the right side of the neck. McCray then drew his revolver and shot at King. The two continued firing at each other until King, who had made his way into the street, fell to the ground.

The witness William Scott, also present at the occurrence, testified to the same effect, although he stated that the first shot he heard was fired while he was standing with his back toward the combatants. He stated that the first shot was fired at King and therefore believed that McCray was the aggressor. This statement was contradicted by the testimony of the two other eyewitnesses.

The accused, in his sworn testimony, stated that he and the deceased were friends and lived in the same house, but that in consequence of some trouble between them concerning a woman, he had gone to live in another house. He admitted having an altercation with King and challenging him to a fist fight, which King did not accept. He testified that upon returning to the house, while he was prevented by Purple from approaching King, the latter, with the remark that he was going to kill him, fired two shots at him, and that on this account he in turn fired at King.

The evidence in the record was contradictory regarding who fired the first shot. Two witnesses testified that they heard King say in the hospital, before dying, that he had fired three times and that he was the one who fired the first shot. Other witnesses, however, testified that they heard King say, shortly before expiring, that McCray was the one who fired the first shot. The trial court convicted the defendant and condemned him to ten years of prision mayor, with accessory penalties and costs.

• Self-Defense: The defendant-appellant alleged that he killed the deceased in self-defense, claiming that King fired two shots at him first, one of which wounded him in the neck, and that he only then fired at King in return.

• Criminal Liability: The prosecution maintained that the defendant was the aggressor, relying on the testimony of witness William Scott, who believed the attack was commenced by McCray, and on the testimony of witnesses John L. Woodruffe and B. Harviner, who heard King say shortly before his death that McCray fired the first shot.

• Classification of the Crime: Whether the killing of John King constituted homicide or murder.
• Complete Self-Defense: Whether the accused was entitled to complete exemption from criminal liability on the ground of self-defense.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: Whether the accused could avail himself of the incomplete exemption from criminal liability under section 86 of the Penal Code.

• Classification of the Crime: Homicide. The evidence did not disclose any qualifying circumstance that would justify classification of the crime as murder, as the wound in the back of the deceased was due not to the first shot fired by the aggressor but to a subsequent shot fired in consequence of a similar assault on the part of the deceased.
• Complete Self-Defense: No. Only two of the three requisites prescribed by article 8, section 4, of the Penal Code were present: unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased and reasonable necessity of the means employed. The third requisite, lack of provocation on the part of the person assaulted, was not established.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: Yes. The accused could avail himself of the incomplete exemption granted by section 86 of the Penal Code, and the penalty to be imposed was that immediately inferior to the one prescribed for homicide, imposed in its medium grade.

• Classification of the Crime: The facts constituted the crime of homicide, John King having died as a result of the wounds inflicted upon him with a revolver in the course of the quarrel with the defendant. The evidence did not disclose the existence of any qualifying circumstances which would justify the classification of the crime as murder and the imposition of the corresponding penalty, as the wound in the back of the deceased was due not to the first shot fired by the aggressor but to a subsequent shot fired in consequence of a similar assault on the part of the deceased.

• Complete Self-Defense: On the three requisites prescribed by article 8, section 4, of the Penal Code, it was evident that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased, John King, who fired two shots at the defendant, McCray, one of which wounded him in the neck. This aggression was entirely unlawful, as there was no motive or reason which could possibly justify it. The Court resolved the conflicting testimony on who fired the first shot by crediting the witnesses Chapell and Haywood, who testified that they heard King say it was he who fired the first shot, corroborated by the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the affray. It was therefore considered proven that the assault was commenced by King. Upon this supposition, the accused had a right to defend himself against the unlawful attack, which put his life in imminent peril, particularly since he had already been wounded by one of the two shots fired at him by the deceased. There was reasonable necessity for the employment of a weapon similar to that used by the assailant for the purpose of impeding or repelling the attack.

• Incomplete Self-Defense: With respect to the third requisite of lack of provocation on the part of the person assaulted, the evidence disclosed that this circumstance in favor of the defendant did not exist. It was fully proven that McCray had repeatedly challenged the deceased to fight and that, the challenge not having been accepted, he again entered the house in an aggressive attitude and endeavored to approach King, but was prevented from doing so by the witness Holland, who seized him by the arms and pushed him toward the kitchen. Provocation was therefore given by the accused. Consequently, there being present only two of the three requisites established by the criminal law for complete exemption of criminal responsibility, the accused could avail himself of only the incomplete exemption granted by section 86 of the Penal Code. The penalty to be imposed was therefore the one immediately inferior to that prescribed for the crime of homicide, imposed in its medium grade.

• Self-Defense (Complete Exemption) — Under article 8, section 4, of the Penal Code, complete exemption from criminal liability for an act committed in self-defense requires three requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In this case, the first two requisites were established, but the third was not, because the accused had repeatedly challenged the deceased to a fight and reentered the house in an aggressive attitude.

• Incomplete Exemption from Criminal Liability — Under section 86 of the Penal Code, when only some of the requisites for complete exemption from criminal responsibility are present, the accused is entitled to the incomplete exemption, and the penalty to be imposed is that immediately inferior to the one prescribed for the crime, imposed in its medium grade. The Court applied this doctrine where unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed were present but provocation by the accused was established.

• "The facts stated constitute the crime of homicide, John King having died as result of the wounds inflicted upon him with a revolver in the course of the quarrel with the defendant, Freeland McCray. The evidence does not disclose the existence of any qualifying circumstances which would justify the classification of the crime as murder and the imposition of the corresponding penalty, as the wound in the back of the deceased was due not to the first shot fired by the aggressor but to a subsequent shot fired in consequence of a similar assault on the part of the deceased." — This passage establishes the classification of the crime as homicide rather than murder, defining the Court's reasoning on the absence of qualifying circumstances.

• "On the three requisites prescribed by article 8, section 4, of the Penal Code, it is evident in this case that there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased, John King, who fired two shots at the defendant, McCray, one of which wounded him in the neck. It can not be questioned that this aggression was entirely unlawful, as there was no motive or reason which could possibly justify it." — This passage articulates the Court's finding on the first requisite of self-defense, unlawful aggression, and its application to the facts.

• "It is evident, therefore, that provocation was given by the accused. Consequently, there being present only two of the three requisites established by the criminal law for complete exemption of criminal responsibility, the accused can avail himself of only the incomplete exemption granted by section 86 of the Penal Code." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the application of the incomplete exemption from criminal liability.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Article 8, Section 4, Penal Code — Prescribes the three requisites for self-defense as a complete exemption from criminal liability: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court applied this provision to determine that only two of the three requisites were present in this case.
• Section 86, Penal Code — Grants the incomplete exemption from criminal liability when not all the requisites for complete exemption are present. The Court applied this provision to reduce the penalty to that immediately inferior to the one prescribed for homicide, imposed in its medium grade.

Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Willard, Mapa and McDonough, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.