SENOJA vs. PEOPLE (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. 160341             October 19, 2004

EXEQUIEL SENOJA, petitioner,

vs. 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

An Information was filed charging petitioner Exequiel Senoja with homicide, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on April 16, 1997 at around 11 o’clock in the morning in Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault, and use personal violence upon the person of one Leon Lumasac by then and there stabbing him with a bladed weapon locally known as "kolonyal" at the different parts of his body thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal stab wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death thereafter.

The petitioner admitted killing the victim but invoked the affirmative defense of self-defense. His version of the fatal incident is that according to him Leon Lumasac walked back to meet him and upon reaching him, the former suddenly and treacherously hacked the left side of his head and right thigh; because of unable to evade the treacherous attack by Leon Lumasac who persisted in his criminal design, Exequiel Senoja drew his "colonial" knife and stabbed Leon Lumasac in self-defense, inflicting upon him multiple wounds which caused his death.

Trial court rendered judgment against the petitioner, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 

In due course, the petitioner appealed the decision to the CA which rendered judgment affirming, with modification, the decision of the RTC. The petitioner now seeks relief from this Court, contending that:

The Honorable Court of Appeals failed to appreciate vital facts which, if considered, would probably alter the result of this case on appeal finding appellant’s plea of self-defense credible.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused acted in self defense.

RULING:

No, The petition is denied.

Paragraph 1, Article 11, of the Revised Penal Code provides:

ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

Considering the number, nature and location of the wounds sustained by the victim, the petitioner’s plea of self-defense is incredible.

The question that must be resolved is whether or not the victim was the unlawful aggressor as the appellant’s testimony pictures him to be. The Court rules in the negative. The victim had already left the hut and was ten (10) meters away from it. There is no showing that the victim, who was drunk, was aware that appellant was following him, or that the appellant called out to him so that he (the victim) had to turn around and notice him. It is clear that at that point in time, the victim was simply walking toward his home; he had stopped being an aggressor. It was the appellant who, smarting from the earlier incident in the hut where Leon told him "hindi ka tatagal, sa loob ng tatlong araw mayroong mangyayari sa iyo, kung hindi ngayon, bukas" repeated three times, wanted a confrontation. Appellant stabbed or poked the victim in the left buttock resulting in the non-fatal wound, and when the latter turned around, successively stabbed and hacked the victim in the armpit and chest until he fell. In all, the victim suffered nine (9) wounds.

It is the well-considered finding of this Court that while Leon Lumasac had ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to go home, accused Exequiel Senoja was now the unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their confrontation. It bears mentioning that appellant contradicted himself with respect for (sic) the reason why he left the hut. First, it was to pacify Leon and the second reason was that he was going home.

As for appellant’s injuries, it is clear that they were sustained in the course of the victim’s attempt to defend himself as shown by the lacerated wound on the victim’s left palm, a defensive wound.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.