People v. Mallari
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Maximo Mallari, went to the house of Vicente Sunga and Canuta Flores demanding that Vicente cure his wife, whom he believed was bewitched by Vicente. When Vicente refused, Mallari became enraged, insulted the couple, threatened to kill them, and ascended their stairs with a bolo. Vicente fled through a window, pursued by Mallari. Upon being cornered, Vicente attempted to defend himself, but Mallari slashed him in the abdomen with the bolo, causing his intestines to protrude. Vicente died three days later as a result of the wound. Procedural History: The justice of the peace of Macabebe arrived shortly after the incident and took a statement from the wounded Vicente Sunga, identifying Mallari as his assailant. An autopsy confirmed a fatal incised wound in the epigastric region, leading to severe peritonitis and gangrene. The Petition: The defendant appealed his conviction for homicide, arguing self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused acted in self-defense. Whether the deceased's declaration to the justice of the peace constituted a valid dying declaration. Whether the classification of the crime as homicide was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, sentencing the defendant to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessories, an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and costs. The Court found that the elements of self-defense were not sufficiently proven and upheld the admissibility and weight of the deceased's dying declaration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently prove that the defendant was attacked and wounded by the deceased with a pocket-knife, nor that there was any prior unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. The defense's witnesses were contradicted by impartial neighbors and the brother-in-law of the deceased, who witnessed the assault and rendered aid without seeing any prior aggression. Furthermore, the defendant's own statements regarding his wound were inconsistent and uncorroborated. The Court emphasized that the plea of self-defense must be fully proven, just like the principal fact of the crime. On the admissibility of the dying declaration: The Court held that the deceased's declaration to the justice of the peace was a valid dying declaration. Although the deceased died three days after the incident, the wound was of a serious nature, causing his intestines to protrude and leading to a depressed mental state where he was convinced his life was slipping away. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that the admissibility of a dying declaration is not affected by the time elapsed between the declaration and death, as long as the wound remains the cause of death and the declarant believed death was imminent. The Court noted that the wound's gravity did not diminish from the time of the declaration until death. On the classification of the crime: The Court found the classification of the crime as homicide, as provided for and penalized in Article 404 of the Penal Code, to be correct. Despite the health officer's statement that the deceased might have been saved with aseptic treatment, the person inflicting the wound is responsible for all its consequences, including the death that ensued. The seriousness of the wound, leading to peritonitis and gangrene, was the direct cause of death, regardless of the availability of medical resources.
Main Doctrine
The plea of self-defense must be fully proven. A wound, even if not immediately fatal, can be considered serious if it results in complications like peritonitis and gangrene, and the victim's dying declaration is admissible if made under the conviction of impending death.