G.R. No. 206224 - People vs. Asislo y Matio

The case involves the United States as Plaintiff and Appellee versus Damian Santa Ana and Dorotea Ramos, husband and wife, as defendants.
The defendants were charged in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal with the crime of lesiones menos graves.
While Damian Santa Ana was acquitted, Dorotea Ramos was found guilty and sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P42, to serve subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency, and to pay one-half of the costs of the cause.

On the night in question, the complaining party, Antonio Santos, was seated near a tienda (small store) when Dorotea Ramos approached him.
Ramos stated that she desired to talk with Santos about certain matters.
Santos declined her request, citing that he feared her husband might be jealous if seen conversing with her in the streets at night.
Upon his refusal, Ramos suddenly drew a bolo (a type of knife) from under her apparel and inflicted wounds on Santos.

Ramos testified that while she was heading from her house to a tienda to make a small purchase, she encountered Antonio Santos in a dark, isolated place.
Santos immediately grabbed her arm and began to drag her off the street into an uninhabited area.
His intent was to forcibly have illicit relations with her, an act she vehemently opposed.
In the struggle, Ramos used her bolo in an effort to free herself and repel the attack.

Testimonies from the prosecution, including that of the offended party, asserted that Ramos initiated the confrontation by drawing her weapon.
In contrast, Ramos and her witnesses provided a narrative of being forcibly attacked by Santos, thus justifying her use of the bolo in self-defense.
The trial court, after careful examination, accepted the version suggesting that Santos attacked Ramos.
The trial court’s findings stated that Santos, upon seeing Ramos near an isolated place, grabbed her arm and attempted to drag her to a dark, obscure spot, prompting her to defend herself by wounding him with the bolo.

Whether the use of force by Dorotea Ramos was justified under the doctrine of self-defense.

Did the incident involve unlawful aggression from Antonio Santos warranting a defensive response?
Was the use of the bolo a reasonably necessary means to repel the attack?
Was there sufficient evidence to establish that Ramos acted without provocation?

The proper application of Article 8 of the Penal Code in assessing the elements required for a self-defense claim.

Whether the conditions of unlawful aggression, necessity of the means employed, and absence of sufficient provocation were met under the circumstances.

The credibility and reconciliation of conflicting testimonies from the prosecution and defense.

Which version of the events is more consistent with the established facts of the case?
How should the court weigh the differing accounts provided by Ramos and Antonio Santos?