Title
People vs. Pasca
Case
G.R. No. 9247
Decision Date
Oct 15, 1914
Defendant convicted of homicide after fatal bamboo strike during land dispute; claimed self-defense, but means deemed excessive. Trial court’s jurisdiction lapsed; penalty reduced due to mitigating circumstances.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 9247)

Background of the Case

The appellant was initially convicted on February 19, 1912, and sentenced to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. However, the trial court later acquitted him on ground of self-defense. The government then sought a review through a writ of certiorari, which led the higher court to re-evaluate the trial court's jurisdiction in nullifying its own judgment over the initial conviction.

Facts Surrounding the Incident

On the day of the incident, both parties were engaged in work. A dispute arose when the deceased allegedly constructed a fence on the appellant's land. The appellant testified that the deceased attacked him first, leading him to strike back in self-defense with a bamboo pole after being pushed into a pool of water during the altercation. The deceased died shortly after the confrontation due to a blow inflicted on his head.

Testimonies and Evidence

The key evidence presented included the appellant's assertion of self-defense against the deceased's aggression. The deceased's son, however, contested this claim, stating that he witnessed the assault without seeing any preceding quarrel. His testimony initially indicated ignorance about the altercation, but he later revised this assertion to suggest that the appellant acted without provocation. A witness's testimony supported the assertion that the appellant struck only one blow.

Evaluation of Self-defense

The court assessed whether the appellant could claim self-defense as a complete justification or if the circumstances warranted mitigation. The requirements for self-defense under the law necessitate unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, and the absence of provocation by the defender. While the court acknowledged unlawful aggression from the deceased, it found that the appellant's response was excessive given the situation, particularly noting that the deceased had not drawn a weapon but merely attempted to push the appellant back into the water.

Concl

...continue reading

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