39 GR # L-23249 People v.
Boholst-Caballero (Angeles) so her right hand grasped the knife tucked inside the belt line on the left
November 25, 1974 | Makalintal | Lack of Sufficient Provocation
Petitioner:​ People (Francisco Caballero RIP)
Respondents: ​Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero
SUMMARY:
Cunigunda and Francisco got married in 1956, but separated the following year
and Cunigunda ended up raising their child on her own. One night, Cunigunda
came off a caroling racket around midnight when she encountered Francisco who
reacted angrily upon imaginary commissions of his mind as to where his wife
came from during the ungodly hours of the night. He then began to strangle her
and ended up getting stabbed by her as she grabbed the knife from his belt.
The issue of this case is whether or not Cunigunda’s plea of self-defense is valid.
The court ruled in the positive as all three requisites of self-defense, unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity and lack of sufficient provocation, are present in
this case.
DOCTRINE:
ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur…
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
FACTS:
1. Cunigunda and Francisco got married in 1956, but got separated in 1957.
Cunigunda and their child ended up living with her parents.
2. Cunigunda came off a caroling racket around midnight of January where
she saw Francisco where he confronted her saying, “where have you
been prostituting? You are a son of a bitch,” to which she replied, “what is
your business. Anyway you have already left us. You have nothing to do
with us.”
3. Francisco ​replied saying “what do you mean by saying I have nothing to
do with you. I will kill you all, I will kill you all"; Francisco then held her by
the hair, slapped her face until her nose bled, and pushed her towards the
ground; to keep herself from falling she held on to his waist and as she did
side of his body; because her husband continued to push her down she
fell on her back to the ground; her husband then knelt over her, held her
neck, and choked her saying: "Now is the time I can do whatever I want. I
will kill you"; because she had "no other recourse" as she was being
choked, she pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him hitting
the left side of his body near the "belt line" just above his left thigh.
4. The RTC found Cunigunda guilty of parricide with a penalty of prision
mayor and rejected her plea of self-defense. Hence, this appeal to the
Court of Appeals which was elevated to the Court on the ground that the
penalty for the crime should be reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON Cunigunda’s plea of self-defense is valid. YES.
RATIO:
For self-defense to become valid, the following elements must be
established: a) unlawful aggression; b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and c) lack of sufficient provocation.
In this case, ​unlawful aggression was clearly established as Francisco
slapped Cunigunda, pulled her hair and ​choked her​. As Cunigunda was being
choked, instinct of self-preservation in this case was what she acted on so her
stabbing of Francisco as the only means to escape from Francisco’s chokehold
merits ​reasonable necessity ​to repel the unlawful aggressor. Lastly, Cunigunda
did not give sufficient provocation to warrant the unlawful aggression of
Francisco as all that she did ​was to provoke an imaginary commission of a
wrong in his mind, which does is not sufficient provocation. Therefore, all
elements of self-defense are present in this case.
DISPOSITION:
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, We find that
accused-appellant acted in the legitimate defense of her person, and We
accordingly set aside the judgment of conviction and ACQUIT her with costs de
oficio.