United States vs. Rivera

A person who would otherwise be exempt from criminal liability for killing in self-defense may still be held criminally liable if he provoked the quarrel that resulted in the death of his adversary, but the penalty shall be reduced by one degree pursuant to Article 86 of the Penal Code when the majority of the conditions required for exemption are present.

The case arose from a dispute between neighbors in the municipality of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur. The wives of the deceased Cayetano Peralta and of the accused Domingo Rivera quarreled over the loan of a pair of scissors and the failure to return them, with heated and insulting language passing between the women from the windows of their houses, which were located quite close together. The deceased was drawn into the wordy dispute, and an offensive remark he made to Rivera and his wife precipitated the fatal affray.

On the morning of December 27, 1912, a dispute arose between the wife of the deceased Cayetano Peralta and the wife of the defendant Domingo Rivera over the loan of a pair of scissors and the failure to return them. Heated and insulting language passed between the women from the windows of their houses, which were located quite close together. The deceased was drawn into the wordy dispute, and as a result of an offensive remark he made to Rivera and his wife, Rivera went down from his house into the street and, standing in front of the house of the deceased with two stones in his hands, challenged him to come down and prove which was the better man.

The deceased, upon hearing the challenge, became greatly enraged, picked up a large bolo, rushed out of his house, and advanced on Rivera, who, being a much smaller man and seeing his adversary approaching with a large bolo, took to flight. The deceased pursued him and inflicted upon him two wounds, one in the back and one in the side. Rivera ran into the lot of a neighbor and, finding himself stopped by a fence, turned and endeavored to defend himself from the onslaught of the deceased with a small knife or bolo. At that moment, the father of Rivera (his co-accused Antonio Rivera) and Canuto Batoon (the other co-accused) rushed to his assistance. The father, with a blow of a heavy piece of cane, succeeded in disarming the deceased, and at the same moment Batoon leaped upon him from behind and caught him around the waist. In the melee, which only lasted a second or two, Domingo Rivera inflicted three wounds upon the deceased, two in the arms and one in the abdomen. The parties were separated almost immediately, and the wounded man was carried to the municipal building, where he died four days thereafter.

Domingo Rivera, who inflicted the fatal wounds, gave himself up to the local authorities, claiming that what he had done had been done in self-defense. The deceased, in his ante-mortem statement, charged Domingo Rivera with having inflicted the fatal blow, and Antonio Rivera and Batoon with having joined in the assault by disarming and holding him while the fight was in progress. There was considerable conflict in the testimony of the witnesses called at the trial. The widow of the deceased claimed to have seen all that occurred from the window of her house and asserted that when her husband went downstairs with a bolo in his hand, Domingo Rivera met him in the street and with his bolo inflicted two wounds in his arms; that her husband then took to flight and ran away from Rivera until he was stopped by the fence in the neighbor's yard, where the fatal blow was struck, all three of the accused there joining in the attack.

The Supreme Court found that the window's story was deliberately inverted with the intention of increasing the criminal liability of the accused. It was fully and conclusively established that when Domingo Rivera stood in the street challenging the deceased, he had two stones in his hands, and it was fairly inferred that at that moment he was not armed with a bolo. The bolo with which the fatal wound was inflicted was a relatively small weapon, referred to indifferently by the witnesses as a knife or a bolo. The deceased was a much larger and more powerful man than his adversary, and the wounds in the back of Domingo Rivera almost conclusively corroborated his story that he was endeavoring to make his escape from the deceased. The accused themselves undertook at the trial to relieve themselves of all criminal responsibility: Domingo Rivera insisted that he struck the fatal blow in self-defense at the moment when the deceased had left himself open to attack by a slip as he approached the fenced place where Rivera turned to await him; the other two accused insisted that they did not come up to the party until a few moments after the fight took place and that they intervened only to help carry away the wounded man. Their account of the fight at the fence was completely disproven by the testimony of the witnesses called for both the prosecution and the defense.

• Self-Defense: Domingo Rivera insisted that he struck the fatal blow in self-defense at the moment when the deceased had left himself open to attack by a slip as he approached the fenced place where Rivera turned to await him.
• Non-Participation: Antonio Rivera and Canuto Batoon insisted that they did not come up to the party until a few moments after the fight took place and that they intervened only to help carry away the wounded man.

N/A — The decision does not recount the prosecution's arguments on appeal.

• Criminal Liability of the Intervening Accused: Whether Antonio Rivera and Canuto Batoon, who intervened to disarm the deceased and hold him while Domingo Rivera inflicted the fatal wounds, are criminally liable for homicide.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: Whether Domingo Rivera, who provoked the quarrel but struck the fatal blow in self-defense, is entitled to exemption from criminal liability or only to a reduction of the penalty.

• Criminal Liability of the Intervening Accused: No. Antonio Rivera and Canuto Batoon were clearly entitled to acquittal on the ground that their intervention in the affray was actuated solely by a desire to save their kinsman and friend from imminent danger of death at the hands of his much stronger and better-armed adversary, and they did no more than the manifest necessities of the occasion demanded.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: No, not entitled to absolute exemption, but entitled to a penalty lower by one degree. Domingo Rivera, having provoked the quarrel, could not establish complete self-defense, but because the majority of the conditions required for exemption were present, Article 86 of the Penal Code applied, and the penalty was reduced by one degree.

• Criminal Liability of the Intervening Accused: The Court found that the trial judge erroneously accepted the story of the widow of the deceased, which was deliberately inverted to increase the criminal liability of the accused. The evidence conclusively established that Domingo Rivera was unarmed or at most armed with a very short small bolo when he was attacked by the deceased, a much larger and more powerful man armed with a large and dangerous bolo. The wounds in Domingo Rivera's back corroborated his story that he was endeavoring to make his escape. Antonio Rivera and Canuto Batoon rushed to his assistance, with the father disarming the deceased with a blow of a heavy piece of cane and Batoon leaping upon him from behind and catching him around the waist. The Court held that in striking the bolo from the hands of the deceased and grasping him around the waist, they did no more than the manifest necessities of the occasion demanded. It was not contended that they took any part in the original dispute or that they were actuated by revenge, resentment, or any other evil motive. Under Article 8, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code, anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his ascendants, provided that unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed are present, and that the person defending had no part in the provocation, is exempt from criminal liability. Under paragraph 6, anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second circumstances are present and that the person defending is not actuated by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive, is likewise exempt. Both accused satisfied these conditions and were thus entitled to acquittal.
• Incomplete Self-Defense: The Court held that in view of the provocation given by Domingo Rivera to the deceased, he could not be said to have established his claim of absolute exemption from criminal liability on the ground that the killing was done in lawful self-defense. The evidence left no room for doubt that he provoked the quarrel which resulted in the death of his adversary. However, Article 86 of the Penal Code provides that a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed were not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required for exemption from criminal liability, provided that the majority thereof be present. Under all the circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that Domingo Rivera, although guilty of homicide, should be given the benefit of this article, it appearing that but for the fact that he himself provoked the fatal quarrel, he would be exempt from all criminal liability on the ground that he struck the fatal blow in self-defense. The penalty which should have been imposed upon him was, therefore, the penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed for the crime of homicide.

• Defense of Relatives (Justifying Circumstance) — Under Article 8, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code, anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, is exempt from criminal liability, provided that unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it are present, and further, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. The Court applied this to Antonio Rivera, who disarmed the deceased with a blow of a heavy piece of cane to save his son from imminent danger of death.
• Defense of a Stranger (Justifying Circumstance) — Under Article 8, paragraph 6 of the Penal Code, anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger is exempt from criminal liability, provided that unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed are present, and further that the person defending be not actuated by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. The Court applied this to Canuto Batoon, who leaped upon the deceased from behind and caught him around the waist, finding that he was not actuated by any evil motive and did no more than the manifest necessities of the occasion demanded.
• Incomplete Self-Defense (Article 86, Penal Code) — A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed were not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required for exemption from criminal liability, provided that the majority thereof be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the degree which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and weight of the conditions of exemption present or lacking. The Court applied this to Domingo Rivera, who would have been exempt from all criminal liability for striking the fatal blow in self-defense but for the fact that he himself provoked the fatal quarrel.

• "As to the accused Antonio Rivera (the father of Domingo, who inflicted the fatal wound) and Canuto Batoon, we think that they were clearly entitled to acquittal on the ground that their intervention if the affray was actuated solely by a desire to save their kinsman and friend from imminent danger of death at the hands of his much stronger and better-armed adversary." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for the acquittal of the two intervening accused, grounding their exemption in the justifying circumstances of defense of relatives and defense of a stranger.
• "It seems quite clear that in striking the bolo from the hands of the deceased and grasping him around the waist, they did no more than the manifest necessities of the occasion demanded, and that under all the circumstances they cannot be held criminally liable for their intervention on his behalf." — This passage defines the scope of permissible intervention in defense of another, limiting it to what the manifest necessities of the occasion demand.
• "As to the accused Domingo Rivera, we are of the opinion that in view of the provocation given by him to the deceased he cannot be said to have established his claim of absolute exemption from criminal liability on the ground that the killing of the deceased was done in lawful self-defense." — This passage establishes the rule that provocation of the quarrel defeats a claim of complete self-defense.
• "Under all the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the appellant Domingo Rivera, although guilty of the crime of homicide, should be given the benefit of the provisions of this article, it appearing that but for the fact that he himself provoked the fatal quarrel, he would be exempt from all criminal liability, on the ground that he struck the fatal blow in self-defense." — This passage articulates the application of Article 86 on incomplete self-defense, reducing the penalty by one degree.

N/A — The decision cites no prior jurisprudence.

• Article 8, paragraph 4, Penal Code — Exempts from criminal liability anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself concur. The Court considered this provision in relation to Domingo Rivera's claim of self-defense, which was defeated by his provocation of the quarrel.
• Article 8, paragraph 5, Penal Code — Exempts from criminal liability anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second circumstances (unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity) are present, and further, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. The Court applied this to Antonio Rivera's intervention on behalf of his son.
• Article 8, paragraph 6, Penal Code — Exempts from criminal liability anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second circumstances (unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity) are present, and further that the person defending be not actuated by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. The Court applied this to Canuto Batoon's intervention on behalf of Domingo Rivera.
• Article 86, Penal Code — Provides that a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed were not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required for exemption from criminal liability, provided that the majority thereof be present. The Court applied this to reduce Domingo Rivera's penalty by one degree.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concurred.

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