Case Digest (G.R. No. 6372)
Facts:
- Defendant: Pascual Molina
- Charged with the crime of homicide for causing the death of Francisco Gaspar
- Incident occurred when Molina, accompanied by his sister and brother-in-law, went to the house of Gaspar
- Prosecution's witnesses claimed that Molina approached Gaspar from behind and assaulted him with a bolo, causing fatal wounds
- Molina claimed self-defense, stating that there had been a dispute between his son and Gaspar and he was invited to settle the issue
- Molina testified that upon arriving, he greeted Gaspar, who responded with an insult and immediately attacked him with a bolo
- Molina fought back, disarmed Gaspar, but Gaspar continued to struggle and attempted to attack Molina with a hatchet
- Molina inflicted the wounds that led to Gaspar's death
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Court ruled in favor of Molina and acquitted him of the crime of homicide
- Court found that Molina had the right to use all reasonable means to defend himself when unlawfully attacked
- Court accepted Molina's testimony and the testimonies of his companions, which corroborated his version of events
- Court concluded that there was no rational necessity for Molina to have slain Gaspar once he had disarmed him
- However, the court disagreed with this reasoning and cited a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, stating that the fact that the assaulted party did not flee is not a sufficient reason to disregard the rational necessity for the means employed to repel ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Court's decision based on the principle of self-defense, allowing a person unlawfully attacked to use all reasonable means to repel the attack
- Emphasized that during an attack, the party being assaulted has the right to repel ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 6372)
Facts:
In the case of U.S. v. Molina, the defendant, Pascual Molina, was charged with homicide after fatally injuring Francisco Gaspar. The incident occurred on a specific date and place, where the defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense. The Court of First Instance convicted the defendant and imposed a sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as well as ordering him to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased.
Issue:
The main issue in this case is whether the defendant's use of force in self-defense was justified.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the defendant, acquitting him of criminal liability.
Ratio:
The court held that a person who is unlawfully attacked has the right to use all reasonable means to repel the attack. It is within the rights of the party being assaulted to wound or disable the attacker if necessary. The fact that the defendant did not flee from his assailant does not negate the rational necessity of the means...