G.R. No. 7929 - People vs. Apego

On the evening of December 24, 1911, in the barrio of Sampaga, pueblo of Balayan, Batangas, the married couple, Pio Bautista and Maria Apego, returned to their house coming from Nasugbu.
Before entering, they called for Genoveva Apego, the defendant and the unmarried sister of Maria, but received no reply.

The couple ascended the stairs in darkness; Pio Bautista led the way by opening a sliding door without sufficient light.
Due to the lack of light, Bautista inadvertently stumbled against Genoveva, who was asleep near the door, and touched her left arm.
Startled by the unexpected contact, Genoveva awoke and, under the impression that an unidentified intruder might be attempting an assault upon her honor, seized a pocketknife kept in a box at her side.
Without receiving any immediate explanation from the individuals present, she struck out with the knife at the person beside her, delivering a blow to Bautista’s chest.

The fatal wound was described as downward and penetrating in shape, resembling a T-formation, located in the intercostal space between the second and third ribs of the left side.
The injury reached vital organs, including one of the lungs and the heart, and was determined to be necessarily mortal.
Although promptly attended by a physician, the wound proved fatal and Bautista died shortly after the assault.
Genoveva, after delivering the blow, ran out of the house calling for help and was arrested by a policeman, Manuel Peinado, to whom she surrendered the pocketknife.

An information was filed on January 8, 1912, by the provincial fiscal charging Genoveva with murder.
The trial in the Court of First Instance of Batangas resulted in Judge Mariano Cui sentencing Genoveva Apego to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, alongside additional penalties such as the payment of indemnity and costs.
On appeal, the case was re-examined, focusing on the classification of homicide, the applicability of self-defense, and the propriety of the inflicted wound relative to the perceived threat.

Genoveva testified that she had been asleep and, upon being awakened by the unexpected touch on her left arm, immediately assumed that someone was trying to abuse her.
Maria Apego, unaware at first of the assault, had only come to light the dangerous situation when the small kerosene lamp was lit, revealing the injured Bautista.
Testimonies confirmed that Genoveva and Maria had lived harmoniously without prior conflict, and there was no evidence of previous provocation or animosity between Genoveva and Bautista.

Whether the killing of Pio Bautista should be classified as murder or homicide given the circumstances under which the fatal blow was inflicted.
Determination if any qualifying circumstances existed to aggravate the crime or if it was a case of homicide lacking such qualifications.

Whether Genoveva's act of inflicting a fatal wound, under her mistaken belief of imminent assault upon her honor, falls within the ambit of self-defense.
The point at issue being if her response—using a deadly weapon to strike in the center of the body—was a proportionate reaction to the perceived threat.

Whether the mistaken identification of the assailant (not recognizing him as her brother-in-law) and the presence of darkness justified her abrupt and violent response.
If her belief that an assault upon her virtue was imminent could mitigate or partially excuse her criminal liability.

Whether Genoveva’s conduct, though triggered by self-preservation, exceeded what is legally recognized as reasonable defensive measures.
The impact of her ignorance (lack of education) and the absence of previous provocation on the determination of an appropriate penalty.