Facts:

The case involves Alfredo Neri as the accused-appellant and the People of the Philippines as the complainant-appellee. The events transpired on October 4, 1945, in the barrio of Jalangdon, Bacolod City. Neri was indebted to Eugenio Bojeris, the deceased, in the amount of P2.50. On the day of the incident, Enrica Soliman, Eugenio's wife, visited Neri's house to collect the debt. A heated argument ensued, during which Neri expressed his frustration and challenged Enrica to bring her husband to confront him. Eugenio, overhearing the confrontation, came to his wife's aid, armed with a one-foot-long stick. A physical altercation was narrowly avoided due to the intervention of Eugenio's grandson, Francisco Bojeris.

Later that night, after returning from work and having consumed alcohol, Neri went to Eugenio's residence and knocked loudly on the door, shouting threats. Eugenio emerged with a lamp in one hand and a stick in the other, leading to a physical confr...

Facts:

Background of the Dispute:

• Alfredo Neri, the accused-appellant, owed Eugenio Bojeris, the deceased, the amount of P2.50.
• Both individuals were neighbors in the barrio of Jalangdon, Bacolod City.

The Noon Incident:

• On October 4, 1945, at noon, Enrica Soliman, the wife of Eugenio Bojeris, went to Neri’s house to collect the debt.
• Neri stated he was unable to pay, leading to a heated argument. Enrica sarcastically offered to give the money as alms, which angered Neri.
• Neri, unable to control his anger, threatened Enrica, saying, “If you were not a woman, I would slap you. Call your husband.”
• Eugenio, hearing the commotion from his house (approximately 30 brazas away), went to his wife’s aid, carrying a one-foot-long stick.
• A violent confrontation was avoided due to the intervention of Francisco Bojeris, Eugenio’s grandson.

The Midnight Incident:

• Later that night, after returning from work at a wooden shoe factory and consuming two glasses of tuba (a local alcoholic drink), Neri went to Eugenio’s house.
• Neri loudly knocked on the door and challenged Eugenio, shouting, “Come out, your time has come.”
• Eugenio, awakened by the noise, came out carrying a lantern in his left hand and a stick in his right.
• A fight ensued in the street, during which Eugenio, a 71-year-old man of weak constitution, was overpowered by the 39-year-old, stronger Neri.
• Witnesses Felix Ibanez (Eugenio’s grandson) and Filomeno Cervantes (a neighbor) intervened to stop the fight, with Cervantes pleading, “Please, have mercy on the old man.”
• Eugenio was taken to the Bacolod Provincial Hospital, where he died that night from a hemorrhage caused by wounds inflicted by Neri’s bolo on his left arm.

Neri’s Defense:

• Neri claimed self-defense, stating that Eugenio attacked him with a lantern and stick, and he used his bolo to parry the blows.
• He presented medical evidence (Exhibit 1) showing he sustained contusions during the fight.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Self-Defense Not Proven:

   • The Court found Neri’s claim of self-defense implausible. It was unlikely that Eugenio, carrying a lantern and stick, would have ambushed Neri, as the lantern would have revealed his presence and hindered his ability to attack.
   • The testimonies of Enrica Soliman and Felix Ibanez corroborated that Neri was the provocateur, challenging Eugenio to a fight at midnight.

2. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances:

   • The Court considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity (the crime occurring at night) against Neri.
   • However, it also recognized two mitigating circumstances in Neri’s favor: (1) lack of intent to cause such grave harm, and (2) intoxication, which was not habitual or deliberate.

3. Penalty Modification:

   • Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed a penalty within the range of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) as a minimum, and reclusion temporal (12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months) as a maximum.

4. Dissenting Opinion:

   • Justice Bengzon dissented, arguing that Neri acted in self-defense. He found it more plausible that Eugenio, known for his violent temper, provoked the fight. Bengzon believed Neri should be acquitted, as he was defending himself against an unlawful attack.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed Neri’s conviction for homicide but modified the penalty based on the presence of mitigating circumstances. The dissenting opinion highlighted the plausibility of self-defense, but the majority found Neri’s actions unjustified under the circumstances.