People v Sumicad (G.R. No.

L-35524; March 18, 1932)

FACTS:
 Accused Julian Sumicad was resting from hauling logs for the construction of a
chapel. Segundo Cubol passed by where he was resting.
 Since Sumicad had rendered five and a half days of service to Cubol. He asked
Cubol for the payment that Cubol owed him. Cubol answered arrogantly and
struck him with his fist
 Sumicad immediately got up and moved backward, trying to escape, but Cubol
pursued him. Sumicad found himself cornered by a pile of logs. As Cubol pressed
upon him, Sumicad drew his bolo and delivered a blow to the right shoulder.
Cubol lunged at Sumicad, trying to wrestle the bolo from him. Sumicad struck
two other blows. One blow broke through the cranium, the other made a cut
extending from the left eyebrow to the nose and upper lip.
 Cubol gave down and crawled away, sat on a nearby log.
 Witness Francisco Villegas asked Cubol if he had struck Sumicad with his fists,
he said yes. Villegas told Sumicad to surrender himself to the authorities, to
which he did.
 Cubol died in about an hour. A knife was found in his pocket. Sumicad testified
that when he inflicted the blow, Cubol was trying to draw the knife from his
pocket.

ISSUE: WON Sumicad acted in self-defense?

RULING:
1. Yes
 Deceased was aggressor – Cubol admitted that he hit Sumicad with his fists
 There was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused – quarrel
which resulted to Cubol’s death was of his own doing; accused was not
materially to blame in bringing about trouble
 When the aggression begun, the accused retreated until he was cornered in the
angle of a pile of logs.
 Accused first delivered a cut on the left shoulder, Sanitary officer reported
that this could not have resulted in death. Instead of desisting assault,
deceased pressed forward and tried to get the bolo. Given this, accused was
justified in using the bolo as a weapon, for it would have been an act of
suicide to permit that weapon to pass into the hands of his assailant.
 The reputation of the deceased for violence is pertinent, for it shows that when
the fatal blows were struck, the accused had reasonable grounds for believing
that he was in grave peril to life or limb. Deceased was known to his
neighbors to be a dangerous man.
 Under the circumstances, Sumicad had the right to resist the aggression with
the bolo.