People v. Hitosis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Apolonio Hitosis and Espiridion Losada had a dispute over a dam Losada was constructing, which Hitosis believed would injure his property. Hitosis stopped the work, leading to a quarrel where Losada brandished a bolo, but Hitosis retreated home. A few days later, on December 20, 1929, they renewed their quarrel, resulting in a physical altercation where Losada hit Hitosis, knocking out several teeth, and Hitosis struck Losada's wrist. Hitosis then sought medical attention and a certificate for his wounds. The following morning, Hitosis returned to the barrio with a shotgun. Upon encountering Losada, accompanied by two workmen (Janaban and Escopete), who were armed with bolos, Hitosis warned them to stop and fired a shot in the air. Losada then lunged at Hitosis, who then fired the shotgun at Losada, hitting him in the left thigh. Procedural History: Hitosis was prosecuted for murder. The Court of First Instance of Sorsogon found him guilty of homicide and sentenced him to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with indemnity and costs. The Petition: Hitosis appealed the judgment, assigning errors related to the trial court's findings on the sequence of events, the distance of the shots, the location of the wound, the presence of bolos, and the claim of self-defense.
Issue(s)
Whether Apolonio Hitosis shot Espiridion Losada in the legitimate exercise of self-defense under Article 8, number 4 of the Penal Code, thereby exempting him from criminal liability.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the defendant Apolonio Hitosis is acquitted, with costs de officio.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that all elements of self-defense were present. First, the Court found 'unlawful aggression' existed because Hitosis' testimony—that Losada rushed him with a bolo—was corroborated by defense witnesses and the forensic evidence of the shotgun wound. Specifically, the Court noted that the five pellet wounds forming a small circle of only 5 centimeters in diameter indicated that the shot was fired at very close range, supporting the claim that Losada was lunging at Hitosis when the gun was discharged. Second, the Court determined there was a 'reasonable necessity of the means employed' to repel the attack. Hitosis first fired a warning shot into the air to prevent the three men from advancing, and only when Losada continued to rush him did he fire the second shot aimed at the feet to disable the aggressor. Applying the precedent in United States v. Batungbacak, the Court emphasized that a person is justified in believing their life is in imminent peril when an infuriated individual pursues them with a raised bolo. The Court also discredited the prosecution's claim that Losada was unarmed, noting that barrio folks, especially after a prior violent altercation, would likely carry weapons against contingencies. Consequently, because the aggression was attempted and the response was proportionate to the perceived threat, Hitosis was entitled to exemption from criminal liability under Article 8, number 4 of the Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that the accused acted in self-defense when he shot the deceased, reversing the conviction for homicide. The evidence showed that the deceased initiated the confrontation with a bolo, and the accused's actions, including firing a warning shot and then discharging the firearm at close range, were deemed necessary to repel the unlawful aggression.