23. CANO vs.

PEOPLE
G.R. No. 155258 October 7, 2003

Facts: The petitioner Conrado Cano y Sampang and his deceased brother Orlando
Cano were rivals in the Rush ID Photo business and had booths along the
sidewalk of Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila. The fateful altercation which
culminated in the fatal stabbing of Orlando Cano stemmed out of this rivalry,
particularly the incident where Conrado took the business permit from the booth
of Orlando without his permission thus incurring the latter’s ire.The victim tried to
stab petitioner with a balisong but the latter was able to run and lock himself
inside the dark room inside his booth. The victim followed him and tried to open
the door of the dark room and shouted, "Lumabas ka diyan! Putang ina mo,
papatayin kita!" Petitioner did not come out. The victim tried to force the door
open by kicking it and stabbed the door with his balisong. The door of the dark
room suddenly opened and petitioner emerged carrying a pair of scissors. The
victim and petitioner struck at each other. During the scuffle, the scissors fell from
petitioner’s hand. He then grabbed the knife of the victim who, in turn, picked up
the scissors. They again attacked each other.The victim fell and his wife rushed to
his side. Petitioner fled from the scene. The victim’s wife asked for assistance from
the people in the vicinity. The victim was then loaded on a jeep and was rushed to
a hospital, but he was dead on arrival. The autopsy report submitted by the
medico-legal officer of the Western Police District, Dr. Manuel Lagonera, shows
that the victim sustained at least thirty (30) stab wounds, six (6) of which were
fatal. On the other hand, petitioner suffered only an incised wound on the right
hand measuring six (6) cm., which required less than nine (9) days of treatment.
Petitioner had a different account of what transpired. He testified that on May 31,
1993 at around 9:30 a.m. he went to his Rush ID booth in front of the Philtrust
Bank to deliver supplies to his photographer, David Olivario.7 After handing over
said supplies to Olivario, petitioner intended to go to the Manila City Hall to apply
for a business permit.
As petitioner was combing his hair and preparing to leave for the Manila City Hall,
the victim, Orlando, suddenly appeared from behind, grabbed him by the left
shoulder and jerked him around so that they were face to face.13 As they stood
face to face, Orlando menacingly said, "Anong gusto mong mangyari?"14 Petitioner
noticed Orlando holding a balisong, and he ran to the dark room of his stall.15
The victim pursued him and tried to force open the locked dark room door by
kicking it and stabbing it with the fan knife.16 He kept shouting, "Get out of there!
Pakialamero ka! Get out of there and I will kill you!"17 The door suddenly gave
way and, as it opened, the victim charged at petitioner, but he was able to evade
the attack. Snatching a pair of scissors nearby, petitioner retaliated but the
scissors fell from his grasp because it was parried by the victim.18Petitioner then
grabbed the hand of the victim holding the balisong and they grappled to gain
possession thereof. He eventually wrested control of the knife and as he stood
momentarily, the victim picked up the scissors and again lunged at him.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to invoke the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, considering that what is at stake is not merely his liberty, but also
the distinct possibility that he will bear the stigma of a convicted felon and be
consigned to the fate of being a social pariah for the rest of his life.
Ruling: YES. petitioner acted in lawful self-defense. Hence, his act of killing the
victim was attended by a justifying circumstance, for which no criminal and civil
liability can attach.Article 11 (1) of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that
anyone who acts in lawful self-defense does not incur any criminal liability.
Likewise, petitioner is not civilly liable for his lawful act. The only instance when a
person who commits a crime with the attendance of a justifying circumstance
incurs civil liability is when he, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act
which causes damage to another, pursuant to subdivision 4 of Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code. Otherwise stated, if a person charged with homicide
successfully pleads self-defense, his acquittal by reason thereof will extinguish his
civil liability.
First, contrary to the findings of both the appellate and trial courts, there are facts
extant on record which clearly shows that it was an armed victim who initially
attacked the petitioner with a balisong. Second, the physical evidence is more in
accord with petitioner’s version of what transpired, specifically his assertion that it
was the victim who was armed and persisted in his attack on the petitioner even
though the latter locked himself inside the dark room of his stall to protect
himself. Third, circumstances prior to the fatal incident shows that it was the
victim who purposely sought to confront the petitioner because the latter had his
business permit machine copied without his permission. Maria Cano, an aunt of
the victim and petitioner. Fourth, the record reveals that while indeed numerous
wounds were sustained by the victim, the Medico-Legal Officer who conducted the
autopsy admitted that of the thirty-five (35) wounds supposedly inflicted, thirty-
three (33) were scratches and contusions while only six (6) were penetrating or
stab wounds. As regards the finding that petitioner suffered only one hand wound,
it should be stressed that the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted
on the accused does not, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove self-defense,
the actual wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the aggression be attempted so as to give rise to the right to prevent
it. The act of a person armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another constitutes
unlawful aggression because it signifies the pursuer’s intent to commit an assault
with this weapon. Fifth, there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
petitioner. When the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating circumstance
or as an essential element of self-defense, it requires that the same be sufficient or
proportionate to the act committed and that it be adequate to arouse one to its
commission. It is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or
annoying. This third requisite of self-defense is present: (1) when no provocation at
all was given to the aggressor; (2) when, even if provocation was given, it was not
sufficient; (3) when even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself; or (4) when even if a provocation was given by the
person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression. Sixth, two other notable circumstances on record tend to show that
petitioner was impelled by the instinct of self-preservation rather than the
murderous urge of one bent on killing. Seventh, while the general policy is for the
courts not to attach any persuasive evidentiary value to the affidavit of retraction
of the victim’s widow, such sworn statement acquires a weightier and more
decisive evidentiary consideration when taken in conjunction with the other
prevailing facts in this case. All told, evidence shows that petitioner acted in lawful
self-defense.
For self-defense to prosper, petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence
the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (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.37 Although all
the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no
self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.38 In
other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. It
presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the
life and limb of a person – not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude – but
most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the
aggressor.
Comment: