Facts:

In the case of The United States vs. Jose R. Padilla, G.R. No. 2106, decided on December 8, 1905, the defendant, Jose R. Padilla, an enlisted man of the Constabulary, was charged with homicide in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The information was filed on July 8, 1904, alleging that on July 6, 1904, while on sentry duty at the barracks in Isabela de Basilan, Padilla shot and killed Emiliano de los Santos. The incident occurred at approximately 6:30 AM when Padilla was singing while on duty. Santos, in a playful manner, commented on Padilla's singing, which led to a series of exchanges where Padilla warned Santos to stop jesting. Despite the warning, Santos playfully grabbed Padilla by the throat, prompting Padilla to fire his rifle, resulting in Santos's death from a gunshot wound. The trial court found Padilla guilty of homicide and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of imprisonment at hard labor. The court noted that while the...

Facts:

1. Incident Details:

   • On July 6, 1904, Jose R. Padilla, an enlisted man of the Constabulary, was on sentry duty at the barracks in Isabela de Basilan.
   • While singing in front of the barracks, Padilla passed near Emiliano de los Santos, who jested that Padilla had no voice for singing.
   • Padilla warned Santos that he would not tolerate jesting while on duty.
   • When Santos repeated the jest, Padilla threatened to strike him with the butt of his rifle.
   • Santos, in a spirit of fun, grabbed Padilla by the throat. Padilla freed himself and fired a shot at Santos, killing him instantly.

2. Legal Proceedings:

   • Padilla was charged with homicide under Article 404 of the Penal Code.
   • The trial court sentenced him to twelve years and one day of imprisonment (reclusion temporal) at hard labor, along with costs and other penalties.

3. Evidence Presented:

   • It was proven that Padilla fired the fatal shot, which entered Santos' right cheek and exited near his left ear.
   • The court found that Santos provoked the incident through persistent jesting and physical contact, though done in a spirit of fun.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Self-Defense Not Applicable:

   • The Court ruled that self-defense could not be invoked because there was no prior illegal aggression, which is a necessary element under Article 8, paragraph 4 of the Penal Code.
   • Santos’ actions, though imprudent and persistent, were done in a spirit of fun and did not constitute illegal aggression.

2. Mitigating Circumstances:

   • The Court found that two mitigating circumstances under Article 9 of the Penal Code were present:
     a. The deceased provoked the incident through persistent jesting.
     b. The defendant acted in a sudden and blind burst of passion when Santos grabbed him by the throat.
   • These circumstances justified the imposition of a penalty one degree lower than the prescribed penalty for homicide.

3. Impropriety of the Trial Court’s Sentence:

   • The trial court’s sentence of twelve years and one day of imprisonment was deemed excessive given the mitigating circumstances.
   • The Supreme Court reduced the penalty to six years and one day of imprisonment, considering the nature of the crime and the defendant’s lack of intent to kill initially.

4. Duty of a Sentry:

   • The Court emphasized that while Padilla was on sentry duty, his duty did not justify the use of lethal force in response to non-threatening provocation.
   • Padilla should have reported the matter to his superior officer instead of resorting to violence.