Senoja v. People, G.R. No.

160341, 19 October 2004 (inaanak kolonyal homicide)

Facts:
While accused Exequiel Senoja together Miguel Lumasac, Jose Calica and Fidel Senoja
were drinking gin inside a hut in Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora, Leon suddenly
arrived holding a bolo and looking for his brother Miguel. Senoja and Jose tried to pacify
him but when they approached Leon, the latter tried to hack Senoja. Senoja then was able
to embrace Leon which gave an opportunity for Jose to get the bolo from Leon.
Afterwards, they were able to pacify Leon, and so Leon left but he returned and angrily
demanded for his bolo. Jose gave his own bolo. Leon then threatened Senoja “May
mangyayari sayo, kung hindi ngayon, bukas”, afterwards, he left. About 10 meters away
from the hut, Senoja followed Leon. When Leon turned around and saw Senoja, he told
the Senoja “kung hindi lang kita, inaanak”. Then Leon hacked him, hitting the latter on
the left side of his head and thigh. Thinking that Leon will attack him again, Senoja used
his kolonial knife and stabbed Leon on the left buttock and then frontally several times.
Leon died. Petitioner admitted killing the victim but invoked the affirmative defense of
self-defense. Accused injuries were confirmed by a Doctor in an open court. Senoja was
charged with Homicide. Despite his claim for Self-defense, he was convicted by the trial
court of homicide. On Appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable to the case

Held/Ratio:
No. The affirmative defense of self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is
complete when all the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete if only
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and any of the two essential requisites were
present. In fine, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is a condition sine qua non
to self-defense, complete or incomplete.

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent

danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Hence, when an
inceptual/unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the one making a defense has no right to
kill or injure the former aggressor. After the danger has passed, one is not justified in
following up his adversary to take his life. When the danger is over, the right of self-
defense ceases.
In this case, there were two separate but interrelated incidents leading to the stabbing and
death of the victim. The first episode inside the hut had been completed when the victim
and the petitioner reconciled. The second episode commenced inside the hut and
continued outside and ended with the petitioner stabbing the victim several times.

The trial and the appellate courts gave no credence to the testimony of the petitioner. And
SC does not as well. First, trial court has unique of having been able to observe, at close
range, the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses as they testify. Their findings of fact
are accorded by this Court high respect especially when affirmed by CA. Second, the
victim sustained nine wounds, five stab wounds on the chest wounds were fatal.
Considering the number, nature and location of the wounds sustained by the victim, the
petitioner's plea of self-defense is incredible. Third, petitioner threw away his kolonial
knife and failed to surrender it to the policemen; neither did he inform the policemen that
he killed the victim in self-defense. Fourth, as gleaned from the victim’s statement,
"Kung hindi lang kita inaanak," victim was not disposed, much less determined to assault
the petitioner. Fifth, petitioner was aware that there was peril in his life, the victim
warned him three times before leaving the hut, "May mangyayari sa iyo, kung hindi
ngayon, bukas” but petitioner still followed the victim and left the hut after the victim had
gone barely ten meters. Sixth, petitioner’s own witness, his brother-in-law Ruben Dulay,
contradicted the testimony of the petitioner that he was stabbed by the victim which
impelled him to stab back. Witness only saw embracing each other. Seventh, petitioner’s
wounds in the temporal region and right thigh were slight and does not buttress his plea
of self-defense. He failed to inform the doctor that he sustained the wounds to defend
himself, and if as claimed by the petitioner, victim stabbed him frontally, it is incredible
that the victim was able to hack the anterior part of his thigh. Eighth, testimony of the
petitioner that the victim stabbed him outside the hut on the left side of his head and the
anterior portion of his right thigh is belied by his testimony on direct examination that the
victim stabbed him while still inside the hut of Reguyal.

The victim had ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to go home; accused then
followed him, making him then the unlawful aggressor in the second phase of their
confrontation. As for appellant's injuries, it is clear that they were sustained in the course
of the victim's attempt to defend himself as shown by the lacerated wound on the victim's
left palm, a defensive wound.