Ladislao Espinosa vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No 181071 � March 15, 2010

Perez, J

Facts:
On August 6, 2010, private com[plainant Andy metro went to the house of Ladeslao
Espinosa in Sta. Cruz, Zambales. While standing outside, Merto shouted violent
threats, challenging petitioner to face him outside.

Fearing for the safety of his family, Espinosa went out of his house and confronted
Merto. However, as soon as he drew closer to the private complainant, the latter
drew and hurled a stone at Espinosa. Espinosa was able to duck to avoid getting hit
and instinctively retaliated by hitting the leg of Merto with a bolo scabbard.
Merto fell to the ground. Espinosa continued to maul the victim with the bolo
scabbard until he was restrained.
The victim sustained two bone fractures which took six months to completely heal.

Espinosa was charged with frustrated homicide but was found guilty for the crime of
serious physical injuries noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the
element of �intent to kill� which is necessary to a conviction for Frustrated
Homicide.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the judgement of conviction with modification that the
penalty imposed be lowered by one degree in accordance with the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.

Issue:
Should the justifying circumstance of self-defense be appreciated in favour of the
petitioner?

Held:
No. While the existence of the first (unlawful aggression) and third (lack of
sufficient provocation) are without question, the argumentation is on the existence
of the second element which is the reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the attack.
The continuous hacking by petitioner constitutes force beyond what is reasonably
required to repel the private complainant�s attack- and is therefore unjustified.
Nowithstanding the fact that the petitioner merely used a bolo scabbard in fending
off the unlawful aggression � the circumstances show that after the aggressor was
taken down to the ground, the petitioner ceased to be motivated with the lawful
desire of defending himself. He was then acting with intent to harm the private
complainant shoes aggression had already ceased.