This case involved People v. Boholst-Caballero, where Boholst stabbed and killed her husband Caballero. Boholst claimed self-defense, saying that Caballero attacked her by choking and slapping her. When he choked her on the ground, she pulled a knife from his belt and stabbed him to escape. The trial court convicted Boholst, but the appellate court acquitted her, finding that the location of Caballero's wound supported Boholst's version of events. The appellate court also found Boholst lacked motive and surrendered immediately, establishing the elements of self-defense. Boholst was acquitted.
This case involved People v. Boholst-Caballero, where Boholst stabbed and killed her husband Caballero. Boholst claimed self-defense, saying that Caballero attacked her by choking and slapping her. When he choked her on the ground, she pulled a knife from his belt and stabbed him to escape. The trial court convicted Boholst, but the appellate court acquitted her, finding that the location of Caballero's wound supported Boholst's version of events. The appellate court also found Boholst lacked motive and surrendered immediately, establishing the elements of self-defense. Boholst was acquitted.
This case involved People v. Boholst-Caballero, where Boholst stabbed and killed her husband Caballero. Boholst claimed self-defense, saying that Caballero attacked her by choking and slapping her. When he choked her on the ground, she pulled a knife from his belt and stabbed him to escape. The trial court convicted Boholst, but the appellate court acquitted her, finding that the location of Caballero's wound supported Boholst's version of events. The appellate court also found Boholst lacked motive and surrendered immediately, establishing the elements of self-defense. Boholst was acquitted.
Boholst-Caballero (1974) Facts: (According to Boholst)
The couple had a rough marriage. Soon after,
Caballero left, and Boholst and her daughter was left to the support of her parents.
One night, after carolling, Boholst met Caballero who
upon seeing her, manhandled her. There were an exchange of words and later on, Caballero was already holding her by the hair and slapping her face until her nose bled.
Caballero pushed her to the grounds, and to stop
herself from falling, she held on to his waist. As she did so, she grasped the knife tucked by the left side of his body.
She fell to the ground then Caballero knelt over her
and chocked her saying that he will kill her. Because she had no other recourse, she pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him, hitting the left side of his body near the belt line.
When she was finally free, she ran home and on the way, she threw the knife.
In the morning, she surrendered to the police and
presented the torn and blood-stained dress she wore that night. The police officer accompanied her to look for the weapon but when it can no longer be found, she was advised to just give any knife and she did (now marked Exhibit C).
(According to the Prosecutions witness, Caballeros friend)
On the night of the incident, Boholst was already
waiting for Caballero, and when he approached her, she suddenly stabbed Francisco her with the knife marked by the prosecution as Exhibit C.
His friends brought him to the hospital where he was
later interviewed by the police officer confirming that his wife stabbed him. But because he needs blood transfusion, he needs to be transferred to another hospital. He died on the way.
Issue: Did Boholst act in legitimate defense of her person?
Held: Yes. Ratio decidendi:
The RTC held that Boholsts evidence was not clear
and convincing:
Testimony improbable as brought out by her
demonstration during the trial
No wound or injury on her body treated by the
physician
That the knife used was a Moro knife and not
exhibit C is incredible
Contradictory statements
Has motive: husbands abandonment
The court departs from the general rule that appellate
court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on facts testified by the witnesses
The trial court judge overlooked an important piece of
evidence that could confirm the narration of the appellant: location of the wound inflicted on the victim.
As she was flat on her back and and her husband
choking her, she had no other recourse but to pull out the knife inserted at the left side of her husbands belt and stabbed him hitting the left back portion just below the waist, as also described by the attending physician as the left lumbar region.
The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from
where the knife was drawn is a strong indication of the truth of her testimony, for as she lay on the ground with her husband bent over her it was quite natural for her right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the mans belt and thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand at the moment.
This particular location of the wound negates the
credibility of the prosecution witness that is if it was true, then the wound should have been directed towards the front of the body of the victim rather than at his back.
The Court finds the location of the wound as a valuable
circumstance which confirms the plea of self-defense.
Appellant also lacks motive. She declared that she still
loved her husband and for several months prior to the incident, she appeared resigned to her fate.
She also surrendered herself immediately the morning
after.
The court also believed that the knife must be a blade
of six inches as stated by Boholst for it to penetrate through the left lumbar region to the victims large intestine and cause the discharge of fecal matter. >.<
All the elements of self-defense are present:
unlawful aggression as pointed out above
reasonable necessity for means employed:
woman strangled and chocked by a furious aggressor, rendered almost unconcious by the strong pressure on her throat. What is vital is the imminent peril to Boholsts life. The knife afforded appellant the only reasonable means with which she could free and save herself. Necessity knows no law.
Lack of sufficient provocation: Boholst did not
provoke Caballero. She gave a valid excuse that she went carolling to earn money for their child.
Boholst acted in the legitimate defense of her person.