G.R. No. 10037 - People vs. Mallari

On September 25, 1913, in the barrio of Batasan, municipality of Macabebe, Province of Pampanga, defendant Maximo Mallari set out early in the morning.
Mallari, motivated by concern for his ill wife, went to a house where he believed help could be rendered, under the impression that witchcraft (or enchantment) was causing her sickness.

Mallari proceeded to the residence of the married couple, Vicente Sunga and Canuta Flores, seeking that Vicente cure his wife of the allegedly bewitched illness.
When Vicente Sunga refused—explaining that he was not a wizard and distancing himself from any involvement—Mallari grew enraged and began insulting the couple, escalating the situation with words and threats.

Mallari threatened to kill the Sunga spouses and, carrying a thin, sharp bolo, ascended the stairs of the house.
Prompted by his wife’s suggestion, Vicente Sunga attempted to leave the house to seek help from the barrio teniente; however, upon encountering Mallari on the stairway, he retreated back inside and then jumped out of a window.
As Vicente Sunga fled, Mallari pursued him, following closely in the direction of the teniente’s house.

At the moment of confrontation in front of the teniente’s house, Vicente Sunga turned to face Mallari in an attempt to defend himself using his hands.
Mallari, with a single slash of his bolo, inflicted a deep wound on Sunga’s abdomen, causing his intestines to protrude.
The wound proved critical; despite efforts by Sunga and those who later came to his aid, he succumbed to the injury three days later.

On arrival at the scene, the justice of the peace received, among other evidence, the dying declaration of the wounded Vicente Sunga who identified Mallari as his assailant.
An autopsy conducted by the municipal board of health revealed a severe incised wound in the epigastric region that penetrated significant abdominal structures, leading to peritonitis and gangrene of the intestines—conditions that rendered the wound necessarily fatal in view of limited antiseptic measures in provincial towns.
Multiple testimonies were presented:

Neighbors and the deceased’s kin (including Canuta Flores and her brother) testified that they witnessed Mallari pursuing Sunga and the ensuing attack.
The defense, however, introduced testimonies asserting that a group of armed men, including the deceased armed with a pocket-knife, had chased Mallari, suggesting that he acted in self-defense.

The testimony of the impartial neighbors, who responded to Canuta Flores’s cries for help, was considered more credible given their proximity and the circumstances of the incident.

Mallari contended that he was obeying his wife’s request and, upon encountering hostility and alleged physical aggression (including being injured by a pocket-knife), he acted in self-defense by striking Sunga.
The incident details, however, pointed to Mallari initiating an unprovoked attack by threatening and slashing Sunga, with the evidence indicating no substantial prior aggression warranting self-defense.
The investigation revealed discrepancies in the defense witnesses’ accounts, and the impartial evidence countered the notion of a self-defense situation.

Whether Mallari’s act of slashing Vicente Sunga with a bolo, which resulted in a fatal abdominal wound, constitutes homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code.
Whether the consequences of the attack, including Sunga’s death several days later due to the fatal nature of the wound, should fully attach criminal liability to the defendant.

Whether Mallari’s claim of self-defense is tenable given the evidence of his unprovoked approach and the absence of clear, prior unlawful aggression by the victim.
Whether the alleged injuries Mallari sustained (including the minor wound on his right rump) provide sufficient basis to justify his actions under the doctrine of self-defense.

Whether the dying declaration made by Vicente Sunga, despite the time lapse between the declaration and his death, retains credibility and evidentiary weight.
Whether the physical and mental state of the victim at the time of his statement supports its reliability as an ante mortem declaration in the context of the crime.