Facts:
On the night of May 4, 1906, in Tacloban, Province of Leyte,
Anderson Mack, a negro soldier and the
defendant and appellant, shot and killed a municipal policeman,
Estanislao Indic, who approached the place where Mack was sitting in an open space a few feet back from the street between a tienda or canteen owned by Olimpia and another building. Indic, together with another policeman, directed Olimpia to close her tienda, and later ordered Mack and another soldier who were standing nearby to go to their quarters. Mack did not obey the order, and the evidence, though contradictory, indicated that words passed among the soldiers, Indic, and Olimpia, angering the policeman; Mack maintained that he did nothing to provoke Indic except, in effect, his failure to comply with the order to go to his quarters. Indic, standing about ten or twelve feet from Mack, cursing and abusing him for noncompliance, broke away from his companion who was trying to restrain him and take him away, and started toward Mack drawing and brandishing his bolo in a threatening manner. When Indic came within a distance of about three to six feet, Mack got up, drew his revolver, and fired three shots, one of which hit Indic in the left breast just above the nipple, and another in the back of his head. There was testimony suggesting that Indic was under the influence of liquor and that he had resentment toward Mack arising from a quarrel about a woman, but the Court found these points not satisfactorily sustained and not necessary to the determination. Mack was charged with
asesinato (assassination) and convicted of
homicidio (homicide) by the trial court; he appealed to obtain exemption from criminal liability based on
self-defense. The trial court ruled that the evidence showed only an
incomplete defense, reducing the penalty rather than acquitting him, because Mack had failed to establish, to the satisfaction of the court, the
reasonable necessity of the means employed.
Issues:
Did Mack’s act fall under
self-defense sufficient to exempt him from criminal liability, or at most constitute an
incomplete defense warranting only a reduction of penalty?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: