Topic Self-defense (Incomplete)

Case No. No. 33304 December 31, 1930

Case Name People vs. Sotelo
Full Case Name THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff and appellee,
vs
CONSTANTE SOTELO ET AL., defendants,
CONSTANTE SOTELO, appellant.
Ponente VILLAMOR, J.
Doctrine When the accused provoked the attack, there is incomplete self-defense.
Nature Appeal from the judgement of the CFI of Ilocos Sur.
CASE PROPER
Setting December 24, 1929 (about 8:00 pm)
Navarcan, Ilocos Sur (Sotelo’s yard)
Parties/ Defendants Sotelo Brothers: Constante, Dominador, Vicente
Personalities Victim Ignacio Cambaliza (Cambaliza)
Witness Baltazar Capistrano (Capistrano)
Charge Homicide
 Constante, Dominador, and Vicente, armed with penknife, a stick, and an iron bar,
respectively, attacked Cambaliza inflicting a fatal wound on the level of the left nipple,
resulting to the latter’s eventual demise few minutes later; and
 With the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
RTC Ruling Guilty
 Constante of homicide (12yrs, 1dy; P1,000 indemnification);
 Dominador and Vicente of slight physical injuries (ordered release; imprisoned since
December 24, 1929).
Facts  Camabaliza and Capistrano on their way to Ravadabia were passing by the Sotelo
house;
 They bid permission to pass according to the customs of the place;
 Constante turned his flashlight on the two when about 20m away;
 Cambaliza approached Constante asking why he turned his flashlight on them, what
he wanted, and ended with a vulgar remark; [aggression]
 Dominador and Vicente came to defend Constante;
 Cambaliza started beating them with iron crop;
 The brothers inflicted the ff upon Cambaliza:
- Dominador strike him in the face with a stick;
- Vincete wounded him in the right shoulder with a penknife;
- Constante stabbed him at about the level of the left nipple with a penknife; [fatal;
cause of death as verified by the Dr. Antonio Nolasco]
 Camabaliza died;
 Capistrano sought help at the municipal building: the brothers were arrested the same
night, recovering weapons used;
 Constante admitted inflicting the fatal would, but only out of self-defense.
Circumstances mentioned to support his claim:
- fight took place in his yard;
- Dominador and Vicente came to his aid when they saw Cambaliza attack;
- he fought hand to hand with Cambaliza;
- Cambaliza choked and threw himself upon him, it is then that he inflicted the
fatal blow;
- With the help of Capistrano, they were able to leave the yard and eventually died
on the roadside.
Issue Can the self-defense claimed by Constante totally exempt him from criminal liability?
Held No. Under the circumstances, the self-defense cannot totally exempt Constante from all
criminal liability being responsible for provoking the attack.
Ratio  The court gave credence to Constante’s testimony
- it was supported by Capistrano’s testimony given before the justice of peace in
Navarcan, two days after the incident. Capistrano gave two statements to the
justice embodied in Exhibits 9 & 10;
- defense attempted to cross-examine Capistrano but denied on fiscal’s objection
and court’s holding that the best evidence would be the latter’s own statement in
writing;
- likewise despite fiscal’s objection that the exhibits above are not identified,
Exhibits 9 & 10 were accepted as evidence;
- notwithstanding Capistrano’s failure to explain the contradiction between his
statement in Exhibit 10 and his testimony in the hearing, the two exhibits, as
received were taken into consideration arriving at the decision.

 The following were the relevant facts established under Exhibit 10 are
accepted by the Court:
- Constante was alone when Cambaliza and Capistrano approached;
- Cambaliza was the first to make vulgar remarks;
- Constante was under Camabliza when he stabbed him [the defendant’s position in
relation to the victim is important to show self-defense]

 As to who started the aggression:

- According to the defense: Cambaliza is the one who started beating them with
his iron crop;
- According to Caspistrano’s testimony in Exhibit 10: Dominador is the one who
first struck Cambaliza (with a stick);
- With these contradiction, the Court is inclined to believe that the deceased
started the aggression, provoked by the offensive language used by
Constante and his brothers, imputing to him the utterance of vulgar language
against them. Third element is missing: lack of sufficient provocation.

 The court therefore believed that this is a case of incomplete self-defense,

wherein the appellant was unlawfully attacked by the deceased and compelled
to employ reasonable means to defend himself, but he is responsible for
provoking the attack.

Final Judgement Constante’s sentence is reduced from 12yrs, 1dy and P1,000 indemnification; to 6yrs, 1dy
and P500 indemnification. The rest affirmed.