G.R. No. 208738-39 - Citigroup Business Process Solutions Pte. Ltd. vs. Raymundo B. Corpuz

On the morning of June 23, 1919, Mariano Singson, the appellant, led a group of three or more armed men armed with bolos to a thicket adjacent to the residence of Jose Solla.
Singson asserted that his actions were under the direction of his brother-in-law, Roman Bermudez, who was purportedly the owner of the bamboo; however, conflicting claims existed because Solla also maintained exclusive ownership and the right to cut the bamboo bordering his house.

As the workmen commenced cutting bamboo, Solla appeared on the scene, ordering them to cease and demanding an explanation regarding both the right to cut and the orders under which the work was carried out.
An exchange of words between Singson and Solla ensued. Shortly after this verbal confrontation, Solla was found lying on the ground—approximately 70 to 80 meters away—fatally wounded, as discovered by his wife.

It was contended that Singson, upon Solla’s attempt to stop the bamboo cutting, drew a revolver and fired at him.
Simultaneously, Singson’s party attacked with bolos, leading to Solla being overtaken and brutally hacked to pieces, as indicated by the recovery of seven distinctive bolo wounds.
Key testimonial support came from Solla’s dying declaration made before the justice of the peace, and subsequent corroboration by Solla’s widow.

Singson and his witnesses maintained that there was no firearm involved during the incident—Singson claimed not to have possessed a revolver at that time.
According to the defense, Solla himself initiated the physical confrontation by rushing at Singson with a drawn bolo, causing the latter to respond in self-defense after sustaining a wound to his left foot.
They argued that Singson’s actions were a reaction to an aggressive assault and that his companions neither joined in the melee nor contributed to the lethal attack.

Physical evidence, particularly a blood-stained hat exhibiting a bolo cut across the crown, was discovered near the site of the altercation and linked to Solla.
Discrepancies arose regarding the presence of a firearm—while the prosecution introduced evidence supporting a revolver shot (supported by the dying declaration and eyewitness accounts), the defense maintained that no bullet wounds were discernible and that the wounds were consistent with bolo strikes.
The trial judge, weighing the conflicting testimonies, gave greater credence to Singson’s narrative, ultimately acquitting his co-accused but finding Singson guilty of homicide on the basis that he exceeded the limits of rational self-defense by inflicting multiple, unnecessary wounds.
Under Article 86 of the Penal Code, Singson was sentenced to eight years and one day of prision mayor.

Whether the dying declaration of Solla and the reinforcing testimony of his widow (which alleged that Singson fired a revolver at him) should be given more probative value than the defense testimony asserting a purely self-defensive use of a bolo.
Examination of whether the circumstantial physical evidence (such as the blood-stained, bolo-slashed hat) conclusively supports the prosecution’s version of events.

Whether Singson’s response to the alleged assault by Solla, particularly the multiple strikes resulting in fatal wounds, went beyond the bounds of permissible self-defense.
The extent to which the use of a revolver—if indeed drawn and fired—compromised Singson’s claim of acting in self-defense.

Whether the evidence reveals the presence of superior force and premeditation by Singson in his assault on Solla.
Consideration of Singson’s awareness of Solla’s dangerous reputation and whether this knowledge influenced his decision to use excessive force.