PEOPLE v.

SAMSON
G.R. No. 214883 | September 2, 2015| Mendoza
Justifying Circumstances – Self Defense/Defense of Rights

DOCTRINE: Even if the victim was no longer armed, unlawful aggression may still persist such that the victim still
posed a threat to the life of the accused.

FACTS:

 Cristina Samson was charged with the crime of Parricide for stabbing her husband, Gerry Delmar, which
resulted to his death. She invoked self defense as a justifying circumstance.
 According to Cristina, she and her two children were watching television in their home when the victim
arrived drunk. Victim asked for his dinner but she was not able to cook food which led to a fight. After they
were pacified, Gerry left. When he returned, he pointed a knife at Cristina's neck. Despite her plea not to hurt
her, he still continued pointing the knife and told Cristina to stop talking or otherwise, he will put a hole in her
neck. Then, Gerry slapped Cristina's face twice. While Gerry was still holding the knife, Cristina pushed him
and he fell on the ground. She took the knife which Gerry was holding and begged him not to come near her.
She was holding the knife near her chest pointed at Gerry when he suddenly grabbed her and that was the
time that the knife went in contact with his chest. When she saw her husband bloodied, she shouted for help
and her father and brother came and brought Gerry to the hospital. Her relatives told her that Gerry died in
the hospital.
 On the contrary, Christine, their youngest daughter who witnessed the fight, narrated that as the fight
escalated, her mother was able to get hold of a knife, which was inserted in the roof, and used it in stabbing
her father. The victim fell on the ground and crawled until he reached the door. When the victim was being
brought to the hospital, Cristina left. That was the last night that they saw their mother.
 RTC: guilty of Parricide; the proffered self-defense of Cristina is untenable. There was no longer any threat to
her life before she stabbed her husband Gerry. Though there was an existent danger as there was an
altercation before the stabbing incident, the imminence of such danger ceased when, as admitted by her,
Gerry already put down the knife. It was Cristina who provoked him when she suddenly pushed him to the
ground. She then took the knife and told him not to come near her. When he grabbed her, she stabbed him.
After she took hold of the knife, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would
necessitate the need to kill Gerry.
 CA: affirmed; although there could have been an unlawful aggression at the start when Gerry repeatedly
slapped Cristina and held a knife at her throat, it already disappeared when he put down the knife. It was this
precise act that gave Cristina the opportunity to push her husband and gain control of the knife. Moreover,
the fact that she fled and evaded arrest for 4 years contradicted her claim of innocence.
 Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense in favor of Cristina.

HELD: YES. Appeal is GRANTED. CA reversed. Cristina is ACQUITTED.

 To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by
clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of
Article 11 of the RPC, viz: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
 Unlawful Aggression
o Among the requisites of self-defense, the most important that needs to be proved by the accused, for it to
prosper, is the element of unlawful aggression.
o When the Court speaks of unlawful aggression, it is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict
real imminent injury, upon a person. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. It is
 present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to his life. It must be continuous,
otherwise, it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense.
o Contrary to the conclusion of the CA that Gerry's aggression had already ceased when he was disarmed, it
is the Court's view that the aggression still continued. Her perceived peril to her life continued and
persisted until she put an end to it.
o It must be noted that after she was able to take hold of the knife from her husband, he did not stand
down but, instead, continued to move towards her despite her plea that he should not come nearer. He
grabbed her by the arm which could have precipitated her well-grounded belief that her life was still in
danger if he would be able to wrest the weapon from her. It was not farfetched to presume that, being
stronger, he could have easily overpowered her and eventually killed her.
o It would have been a different story if Gerry, after dropping the knife, walked away and Cristina still went
after him. If that were the case, she could not assert self-defense. She was no longer acting in self-defense
but in retaliation for the earlier aggression. Retaliation is inconsistent with self-defense and in fact belies
it. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused
attacked him; while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the
accused.
o She did not show aggression towards her husband when she pushed him after he pointed the knife away
from her. She was, in fact, manifesting a passive attitude towards him when she just stood her ground,
with the knife in hand, asking him not to come near her.
 Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed
o The requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed is met if the person invoking self-
defense used a weapon or a manner equivalent to the means of attack used by the aggressor. It
depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and
other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also
the place and the occasion of the assault. Moreover, the nature and location of wounds are considered
important indicators whether or not to disprove a plea of self-defense.
o In the case at bench, the lone stab wound located on the victim's chest supports the argument that
Cristina feared for her life and this fear impelled her to defend it by stabbing him. It was a reasonable
means chosen by her in view of the attending circumstances, to wit: that her stronger husband, who had
earlier pointed the said knife to her throat, approached her and grabbed her arm, despite her plea that
he refrain from coming near her; and that she had no other available means or any less deadly weapon
to repel the threat other than the knife in her hand. She did not have the time or sufficient tranquillity of
mind to think, calculate and choose the weapon to be used. In predicaments like this, human nature
does not act upon the processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation.
When it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to
sanction that act or to mitigate his liability.
o Moreover, the fact that Gerry was no longer armed does not negate the reasonableness of the means
employed by Cristina.
o Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is
not required. What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter
as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the accused is exposed, and the
instinct more than reason, that moves or impels his defense; and the proportionateness thereof does
not depend upon the harm done, but upon the imminent danger of such injury.
 Lack of Sufficient Provocation
o Her shoving him cannot be considered a sufficient provocation proportionate to the act of aggression.
She merely capitalized on a window of opportunity, when her husband removed the knife away from
her throat, to save herself from what she had perceived to be a danger to her life. Anybody, in her
situation would have acted in the same reasonable way.