Title
People vs Ramos
Case
G.R. No. 7020
Decision Date
Mar 15, 1912
Dorotea Ramos, accused of *lesiones menos graves*, claimed self-defense after attacking Antonio Santos with a bolo. The Supreme Court acquitted her, ruling her actions were justified against Santos's unlawful aggression.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110265)

Case Background

Dorotea Ramos and Damian Santa Ana were charged with the crime of lesiones menos graves (less serious injuries) against Antonio Santos. The trial court acquitted Damian Santa Ana but found Dorotea Ramos guilty, sentencing her to one month and one day of arresto mayor (imprisonment) and ordering her to pay damages to Santos. Ramos appealed the conviction.

Incident Description

The incident occurred when Santos, seated near a tienda (store), refused to engage in a conversation with Ramos, fearing that her husband might be jealous. Following his refusal, Ramos approached Santos and allegedly wounded him with a bolo (a type of knife). In contrast, Ramos claimed that Santos attacked her, attempting to drag her to a secluded area for illicit purposes, which prompted her to defend herself using the bolo.

Testimonies and Evidence

The prosecution presented witnesses, including Santos, who testified that Ramos attacked him unprovoked. On the other hand, Ramos and her witnesses asserted that Santos had attempted to sexually assault her, thereby justifying her actions as self-defense. The court acknowledged the conflicting testimonies presented by both parties.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court supported Ramos’s narrative regarding the aggravating circumstances leading to her use of the bolo, finding that Santos had aggressively sought to overpower her. However, it ruled that the physical danger did not warrant the use of deadly force, concluding that Ramos could have avoided the situation by calling for help instead of using her weapon.

Legal Principles Applied

The decision hinged on Article 8 of the Penal Code, which outlines the conditions under which a person is exempt from criminal liability if acting in self-defense. The trial court identified that two of the three necessary circumstances for claiming self-defense were present: unlawful aggression from Santos and lack of provocation on the part of Ramos. However, it found that the means employed were not reasonable given the circumstances.

Court's Reversal and Acquittal

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court's interpretation of what constituted reasonable means of defense. It emphasized that Ramos faced a significant threat to her bodily integrity and honor, given the circumstances of Santos's

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.