SENOJA VS.

PEOPLE

Facts:

Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja (they were brothers),Jose Calica and Miguel Lumasac were drinking gin in the hut of
Crisanto Reguyal. Leon Lumasac suddenly barged in, holding a bolo and was looking for his brother Miguel whom he
suspected of drying up the rice field he was plowing. However, when Senoja (Exequiel) approached Leon, the latter
tried to hack him so he embraced Leon and Jose took Leon’s bolo. After the confrontation, Leon wanted to get his
bolo back because he wanted to go home. After getting it back, Leon walked out of the place followed by Senoja.
Suddenly, Senoja stabled Leon at the back. When Leon turned around, Senoja continued stabbing him until he fell to
the ground. Then petitioner ran towards the barangay road and threw away the knife he used to stab Leon.

Petitioner admitted killing the victim but invoked the affirmative defense of self-defense. His version said that after
the commotion inside the house, Leon left but with a threat that something will happen to Senoja. Senoja followed
Leon as the latter was making his way home. When Leon realized that Senoja was following him, Leon walked back
towards him and suddenly hacked Senoja at the left side of his head and right thigh. Unable to evade the
treacherous attack by Leon, Senoja drew his colonial knife and stabbed Leon in self-defense, inflicting upon him
multiple wounds which caused his death.

Issue:

Whether or Not Senoja merely acted in self-defense

Held:

No. Senoja is guilty of HOMICIDE.

In this case, there were two events concerned: 1) The arrival of Leon who was armed with a bolo and 2) When Leon
demanded for his bolo because he wanted to go home already after the commotion inside the house, and then
eventually left with a threat. Quoting the appellate court, the SC said that the victim had already left the hut. At that
point in time, the victim was simply walking toward his home; he had stopped being an aggressor. It was Senoja who
wanted a confrontation this time. It was Senoja who was now the unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their
confrontation.

The affirmative defense of self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is complete when all the three essential
requisites are present; it is incomplete if only unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and any of the two
essential requisites were present. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is a condition sine qua non to self-
defense, complete or incomplete. The right of self-defense proceeds from necessity and limited by it. The right
begins where necessity does, and ends where it ends.

There is however, a perceptible difference between necessity and self-defense.

Self-defense excuses the repulse of a wrong; necessity justifies the invasion of a right. Hence, it is essential to self-
defense that it should be a defense against a present unlawful attack. Self-defense is an act to save life; hence, it is
right and not a crime.

It is a settled rule that to constitute aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life
and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided in imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.

Hence, when an inceptual / unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the one making a defense has no right to kill or
injure the former aggressor. After the danger has passed, one is not justified in following up his adversary to take his
life.
 UNITED STATES VS. DOMEN

Facts:

Domen and the deceased Victoriano Gadlit quarrelled about a carabao of the defendant. Domen which Gadlit said
had gotten into his corn patch. The deceased attacked the defendant and struck him with a piece of wood called
“Japanese”, about a vary in length and about the size of one’s wrist.

The deceased struck at the accused four or five times and that the accused did not retreat but struck back wounding
the deceased at the forearm.

Issue:

Whether or not there was reasonable necessity for the means employed by the defendant to repel the attack?

Held:

Yes.

Defendant must be ACQUITTED.

In this case, the accused did not provoke the assault. The accused was where he had the right to be. The
law did not require him to retreat when his assailant was rapidly advancing upon him in a threatening
manner with a deadly weapon. The accused was entitled to do whatever he had reasonable grounds to
believe at the time was necessary to save his life or to protect himself from great bodily harm. The element
of practicability made it impossible for him to determine during the heat of a sudden attack whether he
would increase or diminish the risk to which exposed by standing his ground or stepping aside. His
resistance was not disproportionate to the assault. The wound was inflicted, not on what is usually vital
part of the body but on the arm as one would naturally strike to defend himself.
 PEOPLE VS. YUMAN

Facts:

Marciano Martin and accused Beatriz Yuman without being married, lived as husband and wife for about 3
or 4 years until Marciano decided to leave their common dwelling. Beatriz went to look for Marciano at the
cockpit of Mandaluyong. From there, they rode a vehicle wherein they Marciano intimated to Beatriz his
determination to end their relations. After Marciano rudely shunned away Beatriz’s suggestion that they go
home together, Beatriz pulled out a pen knife and stabbed Marciano on the right lumbar region which
damaged his kidney. Thereafter, Marciano ran away but Beatriz, with penknife in hand, pursued him.
Beatriz only stopped when Marciano came across a traffic policeman, Eduardo Dizon. Beatriz was then
arrested and eventually charged with homicide because Marciano died the day after. Beatriz claims self-
defense.

Issue:

Whether or not Beatriz has a legitimate claim for self-defense?

Held:

None .

There was no unlawful aggression on the part of f Marciano. Hence, there is no reason to consider the
other elements of self-defense – lack of sufficient provocation and reasonable necessity of the means
employed because these elements presuppose the existence of unlawful aggression.

Beatriz alleges that before she stabbed Marciano, he pushed her head on account of which she felt dizzy
and hit her leg against something. The court did not believe this argument on the ground that it was not
supported by evidence. Moreover, even if this was to be believed, the court said that a slight push of the
head with the hand does not constitute the unlawful aggression contemplated by the law.

Unlawful aggression as an element of self-defense is not necessarily implied in any act of aggression
against a particular person, when the author of the same does not persist in his purpose or when he desists
therefrom to the extent that the person attacked is no longer in peril. The court then gave certain
doctrines which illustrated certain acts which do not constitute unlawful aggression, such as: hard blow on
the head without specifying whether he used his hand or any instrument, this being the only act preceding
the stabbing of the victim; holding the accused by the necktie and giving him a blow on the neck with the
back of the hand without injuring him; a shove or an attempt to strike with a bench or chair, all of which
took place in a bar.

Court considered the following mitigating circumstances:

(1) obfuscation because she was abandoned by Marciano with whom she had been living with for years;

(2) lack of instruction she was an illiterate.