Title
People vs Padilla
Case
G.R. No. 11597
Decision Date
Aug 1, 1916
Dario Padilla attacked Severino Mateo upon finding him attempting to abuse his wife. The Supreme Court ruled Padilla acted in lawful defense, exempting him from criminal liability under the Penal Code.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4205)

Facts of the Case

On April 5, 1915, Dario Padilla left his home with the intention of gathering bejuco. He was approached by Severino Mateo, who invited him to go fishing, which Padilla declined. Upon remembering he had left a box of matches at home, Padilla returned to find Mateo holding his wife, Tomasa Barot, by the hands with seemingly inappropriate intentions. In defense of his wife's honor, Padilla attacked Mateo with a bolo, inflicting significant injuries. Mateo sustained two wounds, the serious one rendered his left hand useless.

Testimonies

Mateo, accompanied by witnesses, claimed he entered Padilla's house under the pretext of lighting a cigar and was unexpectedly attacked upon leaving. Padilla, however, admitted to the attack, asserting it was in lawful defense of his wife. Agcaoili testified that he saw Mateo after the attack and did not observe any disturbance from inside the house prior to the incident. Agtang also confirmed that he saw Mateo injured but did not see Padilla enter the house.

Legal Defense

The court recognized Padilla's actions as a legitimate exercise of his right to defend his wife against an unprovoked attack when he discovered Mateo in a compromising situation. It was determined that neither Padilla nor his wife had provoked Mateo's entry into the home, nor did they provide any justification for his inappropriate conduct.

Conclusion of the Court

The court concluded that Padilla's actions fell under Article 8, paragraph 5 of the Penal Code, which exempts hi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.