People vs Alconga

Facts: On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack against Maria De Raposo. De Raposo
and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one money. Alconga was seated behind Barion and he gave signs to De Raposo.
Barion, who was suffering losses in the game, found this out and he expressed his anger at Alconga. The two almost fought outright
this was stopped.

The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as ahome guard. While the said accused was seated on a bench in
the guardhouse, Barion came along and said “Coroy, this is your breakfast” followed by a swing of his “pingahan”, a bamboo stick.
Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the bench with the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow
was given by Barion but failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to go out of the guardhouse by
crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to
stagger and hit the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and directed a blow to the accused who was able to parry
the attack using his bolo. A hand to handfight ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and having sustained several wounds
ran away. He was followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters.

A second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slasehde the cranium. The deceased fell face
downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

Issue: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga

Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide

The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand, having been
wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon him has ceased absolutely/
Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could have only attacked if there was reason to believe that he is still not
safe. In the case at bar, it is apparent that it is Alconga who is the superior fighter and his safety was already secured after the first
fight ended. There was no more reason for him to further chase Barion. The second fight will be treated differently and
independently. Under the first fight, self-defense would have been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight. In the second
fight, there was illegal aggression on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no mitigating
circumstance (MC) of Provocation

Note – Provocation in order to be an MC must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. “It should be proportionate to the
act committed and adequate to stir one to its commission”

ADDITION: After the flight of the deceased there was clearly neither an assault nor a threatened assault of the remotest kind It has
been suggested that when pursuing his fleeing, opponent, appellant might have thought or believed that said opponent was going to
his house to fetch some other weapon. But whether we consider this as a part or continuation of the self-defense alleged by
appellant, or as a separate circumstance, the burden of proof to establish such a defense was, of course, upon appellant, and he has
not so much as attempted to introduce evidence for this purpose. If he really thought so, or believed so, he should have positively
proven it, as any other defense. We cannot now gratuitously assume it in his behalf.
1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; SELF-DEFENSE; FLIGHT OF ADVERSARY. — An accused was no longer
acting in self-defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary, though originally the unlawful
aggressor, there being then no more aggression to defend against, the same having deceased from
the moment deceased took to his heels.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROVOCATION, AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. — Provocation given by an

adversary at the commencement an during the first stage of a fight, cannot be considered as
mitigating circumstance, where the appellant pursued an killed the former while fleeing and the
deceased, as in the case at bar, from the moment he fled after the first stage of the fight to the
moment he died, did not give any provocation for appellant to pursue, much less further to attack
him.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient
and immediately preceding tact. "It should be proportionate to the act committed a d adequate to
stir one to its commission."
cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NEED OF PROOF. — Sufficient provocation, being a matter of defense,
should, like any other, be affirmatively proven by the accused.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ILLEGAL AGGRESSION, DEFINED. — "Illegal aggression" is equivalent to
assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.