PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee v.

CRISTINA SAMSON, Accused-

Appellants.

G.R. No. 214883, September 02,

2015

FACTS

1. Cristina Samson and Gerry Delmar were married and had two daughters, namely,
Christine and Cherry Lou Delmar.
2. According to the appellant, she was watching television together with their children
when her husband arrived drunk.
3. He then scolded and slapped her upon her reply that she had not cooked their food yet.
Her father arrived and pacified them.
4. Gerry left but returned 30 minutes after, pointed a knife at Cristina’s neck, and slapped
her twice. She pushed him to the ground, took the knife he was holding, and begged for
him not come near her.
5. DITO NASAKSAK SI HUBBY -> But he grabbed her, and so the knife went in contact
with his chest.
6. TULONG DAW After seeing her husband covered in blood, she shouted for help. Her
father and brother came to bring him to the hospital.

7. Eventually, Gerry died at the hospital.

IBA ANG SABI NG MGA BATA, However, there appears to be a conflict between the
testimony of Cristina and her daughter, Christine. The latter narrated that as the fight
escalated, her mother was able to get hold of the knife which was inserted in the roof
and stabbed her father. He fell to the ground and crawled until he reached the door.
People arrive to help bring his father to the hospital, while her mother then ran out and
went to ask money from her father before leaving. That was the last time Christine and
Cherry Lou saw their mother. Hence, this present appeal to review the decision of the
CA.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and invoked the justifying circumstances of self-
defense. Though the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) believed
the version of Cristina, they still found her guilty of parricide because though there could
 have been an unlawful aggression at the start, it already ceased when the victim put
down the knife. Hence, this present appeal to review the decision of the CA.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused may invoke self-defense as a justifying circumstance to escape
criminal liability

RULING

In order to invoke self-defense to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to
prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under Article
11 of the Revised Penal Code:

(1) unlawful aggression;

(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and

(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The Supreme Court viewed that there was unlawful aggression when Cristina killed her
husband, and the said aggression continued even when he was disarmed.

After Cristina was able to take hold of the knife, Gerry still continued to move towards her
despite of her plea.

He grabbed her which could have precipitated her well-grounded belief that her life was still in
danger.

Cristina did not have the time or sufficient mind to choose a weapon so she grabbed the knife
after finding no other available means or any less deadly weapon to repel the threat. In addition,
Cristina’s act of shoving Gerry cannot be considered a sufficient provocation for she merely
acted on an opportunity to save herself from what she had perceived to be a danger in her life.

SC - Considering that Cristina was justified in killing her husband under Article 11, paragraph 1
of the RPC, she should be exonerated of the crime charged. For the same reason, the Court
finds no act or omission from which a civil liability may arise.

The accused-appellant, Cristina Samson, is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

OTHERS:
Requisites of Self-Defense.—To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is
incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the
following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC, viz.: (1) unlawful
 aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Unlawful Aggression; Among the requisites of self-defense, the most important that needs to be
proved by the accused, for it to prosper, is the element of unlawful aggression.

Unlawful aggression
- When the Court speaks of unlawful aggression, it is an actual physical assault, or at least a
threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.
- There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts the life, limb, or right of
the person invoking self-defense in actual or imminent danger.
- There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. It is present only when the
one attacked faces real and immediate threat to his life
Retaliation self-defense
the aggression that was begun by the injured party the aggression still existed when the aggressor
already ceased when the accused attacked him. was injured by the accused.
Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed
The reasonable necessity of the self-defense utilized by an accused is to defend himself
“depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size
and other circumstances of the aggressor;
as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense;
and also the place and the occasion of the assault.”

The requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed is met if the person invoking self-
defense used a weapon or a manner equivalent to the means of attack used by the aggressor.

The reasonable necessity of the self-defense utilized by an accused is to defend himself

“depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size
and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-
defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault.”

TIP:
Moreover, the nature and location of wounds are considered important indicators whether
or not to disprove a plea of self-defense.

Lack of Sufficient Provocation

Her shoving him cannot be considered a sufficient provocation proportionate to the act of
aggression.
 The Court cannot sustain the trial court’s observation that it was Cristina who provoked her
husband when she suddenly pushed him. BECAUSE
 Her shoving him cannot be considered a sufficient provocation proportionate to the act of
aggression. She merely capitalized on a window of opportunity, when her husband removed
the knife away from her throat, to save herself from what she had perceived to be a danger to
her life.
 The SC said that, Anybody, in her situation would have acted in the same reasonable way.