People v. Bergano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the night of December 5, 1927, during a wake in the barrio of Burias, Province of Capiz, the deceased, Mariano Franco, confronted Honorato Bergano, who was acting as cook, in the kitchen. The deceased accused Bergano of serving them "filth" and "leavings on the plates." Bergano denied this, stating there was plenty of meat. The deceased then kicked Bergano in the stomach. When Bergano got up, he grabbed a nearby bolo and struck the deceased three times, hitting him on the cheek. As the deceased fell, Hermenegildo Franco, father-in-law of Bergano, attacked the deceased from behind with a dagger. The deceased died the following day from the wounds sustained. Procedural History: The court below found Honorato Bergano guilty of homicide and sentenced him to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, with indemnity and costs. The other defendants, Hermenegildo Franco, Lucio Ulit, and Claro Delgado, were acquitted. Bergano appealed the decision. The Appeal: The appellant, Honorato Bergano, assigned as errors the trial court's findings that he inflicted more than one wound, that the wound inflicted caused the death, and that he was guilty of homicide. He contended that he acted in self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellant, Honorato Bergano, acted in self-defense when he inflicted wounds upon the deceased, Mariano Franco. Whether the wounds inflicted by the appellant caused the death of the deceased. Whether the appellant is guilty of homicide.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the lower court. It found that while unlawful aggression was present, the means employed by the appellant were not reasonably necessary to repel the aggression. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to two years of prision correccional, with the accessories of the law. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the appellant, Honorato Bergano, acted in self-defense when he inflicted wounds upon the deceased, Mariano Franco: The Court found that the first and third requisites of self-defense, namely unlawful aggression and absence of provocation, were present. The deceased initiated the physical confrontation by kicking Bergano in the stomach after uttering insulting words. However, the Court determined that the second requisite, the reasonable necessity of the means employed, was not met. The appellant, upon being kicked, immediately grabbed a bolo and struck the deceased multiple times. The Court reasoned that while the deceased's aggression was unlawful, the use of a bolo to inflict three blows was not reasonably necessary to repel the attack, especially since the deceased did not appear to be armed and the aggression was a kick. Therefore, complete self-defense could not be sustained. On Whether the wounds inflicted by the appellant caused the death of the deceased: The Court acknowledged conflicting expert testimonies regarding the cause of death. The sanitary inspector initially stated the wound in the back (inflicted by Hermenegildo Franco) caused death, while the provincial physician opined that the wound on the face (inflicted by Bergano), due to its depth and proximity to a principal artery, could have been mortal and caused fatal hemorrhage. However, the Court ultimately proceeded on the premise, supported by the appellant's own statement and the prosecution's evidence, that the appellant inflicted the injury that caused the death of the deceased, thereby establishing the causal link for homicide. On Whether the appellant is guilty of homicide: Given that the Court found the requisites for complete self-defense were not fully met, the appellant was not acquitted. However, recognizing the presence of unlawful aggression and absence of provocation, the Court applied Article 86 of the Penal Code, which allows for the imposition of a penalty two degrees lower than that prescribed for homicide. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, and reducing it by two degrees results in prision correccional in its minimum degree. Thus, the appellant was found guilty of homicide but with a mitigated penalty.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed that for self-defense to be considered, there must be unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it, and no provocation on the part of the person defending himself. While unlawful aggression was present, the Court found that the means employed by the accused, specifically the use of a bolo, were not reasonably necessary to repel the aggression, thus negating the claim of complete self-defense and leading to a conviction for homicide with penalty reduction.