Case Summary (G.R. No. 6372)
Right to Self-Defense
- A person has the right to use all reasonable means to defend themselves against unlawful attacks.
- During an ongoing attack, the assaulted party may repel the danger by wounding the aggressor, if necessary, to disable them.
- The failure to flee from an assailant does not negate the rational necessity of the means employed in self-defense.
Case Background and Admission of Guilt
- The case involves an appeal from a conviction of homicide against Pascual Molina for the death of Francisco Gaspar.
- The accused admitted to inflicting the wounds that led to the victim's death, but the circumstances of the act were disputed.
- Eyewitnesses for the prosecution claimed Molina attacked Gaspar from behind without provocation.
Defense Testimony and Circumstances
- Molina testified that he was invited to the victim's house to resolve a family dispute regarding their children.
- He claimed that upon arrival, Gaspar insulted him and then attacked him with a bolo, prompting a struggle.
- Molina stated he was unarmed and only used the bolo after disarming Gaspar, who attempted to attack him again with a hatchet.
Contradictory Evidence and Trial Court Findings
- The trial court noted significant contradictions between the prosecution's and defense's accounts of the incident.
- The court found the defense's narrative more credible, suggesting that Gaspar was the initial aggressor.
- The presence of Molina's sister during the incident was interpreted as evidence that he did not intend to harm Gaspar.
Assessment of Aggression and Necessity of Force
- The trial court concluded that Molina had no rational necessity to kill Gaspar after disarming him.
- However, the Attorney-General argued that the failure to flee does not invalidate the necessity of the means used in self-defense.
- The court acknowledged that Gaspar continued to pose a threat even after losing the bolo, as he attempted to reach for a hatchet. ...continue reading