G.R. No. L-12963 - People vs Domen

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12963)

Parties

Petitioner/Plaintiff and Appellee: The United States. Respondent/Defendant and Appellant: Urbano Domen.

Key Dates

Decision date: October 9, 1917.

Applicable Law and Precedents

The Court decided the case by applying criminal-law principles on legitimate self-defense as articulated in prior Philippine jurisprudence (notably United States v. Molina and cited cases U.S. v. Laurel and U.S. v. Patoto) and by reference to controlling United States Supreme Court authorities (Beard v. United States and Rowe v. United States). The opinion discusses the traditional common-law “retreat to the wall” rule contrasted with the “stand your ground” doctrine developed in U.S. authorities, and applies those principles to determine whether the force used was reasonably necessary to repel an unlawful attack.

Facts

The defendant admitted inflicting a wound with a tuba knife on the deceased’s right arm that caused death. The parties had quarreled over the defendant’s carabao, which the deceased alleged had entered his corn patch. Testimony for the defense (including two witnesses and the defendant) described the deceased attacking the defendant with a wooden stick called a “Japanese” approximately a vara in length, striking the accused four or five times. The defendant did not retreat and struck back, wounding the deceased on the forearm. Prosecution testimony included the widow’s account of an unprovoked attack (which the Court found mistaken), Filomeno Antipuesto’s testimony of an admission by the accused, and Angel Pocong’s testimony that the deceased was dead while being carried in a hammock; Pocong later said he had been absent and only knew of the fight from the widow.

Procedural History and Evidentiary Assessment

The trial court convicted the defendant of homicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidentiary record and found the prosecution’s case weak once the widow’s testimony was discounted. The Court therefore relied substantially on the defense testimony describing an assault upon the defendant and the circumstances in which he used force. The Attorney-General recommended acquittal on the ground of legitimate defense.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether, under the evidence and applicable legal principles, the defendant was criminally liable for homicide or was exempt from liability because he acted in legitimate defense of his person, and whether he was obliged to retreat before employing deadly force.

Court’s Legal Analysis

The Court framed the analysis in light of the Molina doctrine that (1) during an unlawful attack a person has the right to repel danger by wounding or disabling an adversary if necessary while the danger continues, and (2) failure to flee does not, by itself, bar a finding of reasonable necessity for the means employed. The opinion reviews the historical common-law retreat doctrine (“retreat to the wall”) and contrasts it with the evolving U.S. rule permitting a person who is lawfully present and not the aggressor to “stand his ground.” The Court quoted and paraphrased Beard v. United States and Rowe v. United States to the effect that a person who is without fault and who reasonably and in good faith believes his life or great bodily harm is threatened is not required to retreat and may meet the attack with such force as he honestly and reasonably believes necessary at that moment. The Court emphasized the element of practicability in a sudden attack—an accused cannot be expected to determine delicately whether retreat would increase or diminish risk

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-12963)

Citation and Procedural Data

Reported in 37 Phil. 57, G.R. No. 12963, decided October 9, 1917.
Trial court convicted the defendant of homicide; the judgment on appeal is reversed by the Supreme Court and the defendant is acquitted.
Decision delivered by Justice Malcolm; concurrence by Chief Justice Arellano, and Justices Carson, Araullo, and Street.
Attorney-General recommended acquittal; the Court followed that recommendation in reversing the conviction.

Parties and Nature of Action

Plaintiff and appellee: The United States.
Defendant and appellant: Urbano Domen.
Charge on trial: Homicide (death resulting from a wound inflicted by the accused).
Primary legal question: Whether the defendant is criminally liable for the death of Victoriano Gadlit or is exempt from liability by reason of legitimate defense of his person.

Material Facts (as found in the record)

The defendant admittedly inflicted a wound with a tuba knife on the right arm of Victoriano Gadlit, which caused Gadlit’s death.
The defendant contends he acted in defense of his person.
The widow of the deceased testified for the prosecution that the accused made an unprovoked attack upon her husband at the foot of the stairway leading up into their house; she said a neighbor, Angel Pocong, witnessed the attack.
Angel Pocong testified that he was absent from home at the time and that his knowledge of the fight was based only on what the widow told him.
The trial court found the widow mistaken in her testimony, and thus her testimony was not considered as reliable evidence by the Court of Appeals.
Prosecution’s remaining evidence consisted primarily of:
- Testimony of Filomeno Antipuesto that the accused admitted having wounded the deceased.
- Testimony of Angel Pocong as to the death of the deceased while being carried in a hammock.
Defense evidence consisted of the testimony of two witnesses who claimed to have seen the incident and the testimony of the defendant himself, which together established:
- A quarrel between the defendant and the deceased over the defendant’s carabao, which the deceased said had gotten into his cornpatch.
- The deceased attacked the defendant and struck him with a piece of wood called a “Japanese,” about a vara in length and about the size of a person’s wrist.
- The deceased struck at the accused four or five times.
- The accused did not retreat but struck back, wounding the deceased on the forearm.

Issues Presented

Whether, on the facts as found and the evidence presented, the defendant is exempt from criminal liability because he acted in legitimate defense of his person.
Subsidiary issue: Whether the accused was obliged to retreat when assaulted, or whether he could lawfully stand his ground and use force reasonably believed necessary to save his life or prevent great bodily harm.

Trial Court Findings and Effect on Record

The trial court found the widow’s testimony to be mistaken and thus discredited her account of an unprovoked attack.
With the widow’s testimony set aside, the prosecution’s direct evidence of the substantive facts of the confrontation is limited, shifting the evidentiary balance toward the defense version of events as supplied by two eyewitnesses and the accused.
The appellate review therefore necessarily relies more heavily on the defense testimony in determining justification.

Controlling Legal Principles and Precedent Applied

The Court applies established jurisprudence on legitimate defense as articulated in prior Philippine decisions and relevant foreign authorities.
Key principles quoted and applied from United States vs. Molina (19 Phil. 227) as articulated by Justice Mapa:
- During an unlawful attack and while the struggle and danger continue, the assaulted party may repel the danger by wounding his adversary and, if necessary, disable him.
- The mere fact that a