Retaliation or unlawful aggression?

Self defense is a justifying circumstance that exonerates an accused from the crime charge. Here the accused admits the crime, like killing the victim, but under circumstances that enable her to escape criminal liability. However, he or she has the burden to prove that there is: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on his/her part. The most important requisite to prove in this case is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, or when he/she puts the life and limb of the accused in actual or imminent danger. This is illustrated in this case of Tina.

Tina has been married to Dan for more than eight years and blessed with two children, Karen and Vicky. They lived in their own house which is adjacent to the house of Tina’s family. Their marriage however had been quite stormy because of their frequent marital quarrels.

One evening while Tina and her daughters were watching TV in their house, Dan arrived already drunk. He asked Tina if she had already cooked food but Tina said not yet because she had no money to buy food. So Dan scolded and uttered words against her and then slapped her. They had an altercation for about 10 minutes when Tina’s father arrived and pacified them.

After they were pacified, Dan left. But 30 minutes later, he returned and pointed a knife at Tina’s neck. Tina begged Dan not to hurt her and to pity their children if something happens to her. But Dan continued pointing the knife at her and told her to stop talking otherwise he will put a hole in her neck. Then Dan slapped Tina twice on her face.

When Dan put down the knife although still holding it, Tina was able to push him and he fell on the floor. She then took the knife and held it near her chest pointed at Dan as she begged Dan not to come near her. But Dan suddenly grabbed her, put his arms around her and so the knife pierced his chest. When she saw her husband bloodied Tina shouted for help. Her father and brother came and brought Dan to the hospital where he died. When Tina learned about it, she ran out of the house, went to her father, asked for money and left. That was the last time they saw her until she was arrested four years after the case of parricide has been filed against her.

At the trial, Tina pleaded not guilty and invoked self defense. She narrated the above events leading to the death of Dan. But the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) still found her guilty of parricide and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. Both courts believed the version narrated by her daughter Karen who witnessed the fight and perceived it differently. According to Karen, as the fight escalated, her mother was able to get hold of the knife which was inserted in the roof and used it in stabbing her father. The RTC and the CA ruled that, although there was unlawful aggression at the start when Dan repeatedly slapped Tina and held    a knife at her throat, the imminence of danger disappeared when she was able to push Dan as he put down the knife and she gained control of it. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said that the RTC and the CA are not correct. The SC ruled that Dan’s aggression still continued even as Tina was able to take hold of the knife because he did not just walked away and leave but instead continued to move towards her despite her plea that she should not come nearer. According to the SC, this move of Dan could have precipitated Tina’s well grounded belief that her life was still in danger if Dan would be able to wrest the weapon from her considering that before she was able to get hold of the knife, her husband pointed it at her throat. So when Dan, who is taller and stronger, approached her again and grabbed her arms, it was instinctive for her to take extreme precautionary measure by stabbing him before he could get back the knife and make good his earlier threat to put a hole in her throat.

It would have been a different story if after dropping the knife, Dan just walked away and Tina still went after him. If that were the case, Tina was no longer acting in self defense but in retaliation for the earlier aggression. Retaliation is inconsistent with self defense and in fact belies it.

Considering that the second and third requisites of self defense are also present based on the factual happenings on record, the decisions of the RTC and the CA should be set aside and Tina should be acquitted of the crime charged (People vs. Samson, G.R. 214883, September 2, 2015).

Email: [email protected]