US

v.

Esmedia

Defense

of

Relative

Facts: Ciriaco Abando, his wife, and son, Santiago, lived in Antique. Gregorio Esmedia,
father of Ponciano and Mena, lived in the same barrio. These two families lived very
near to each other and owned adjoining rice lands. There has been a dispute between
the 2 families regarding ownership of the rice land then occupied by Ciriaco. Ciriaco
instructed Santiago, to go to the rice field to let out the water so they could plant rice.
Gregorio appeared and started a quarrel with Santiago. Gregorio stabbed Santiago with
a dagger in the back. Santiago fell but was able to attack Gregorio with his bolo,
inflicting several wounds, which caused his death 4 hours later. Before this trouble
finally ended, Ponciano and Mena, and Ciriaco appeared. Ciriaco died instantly.
Santiago received fatal wounds (died 5 days later). The CFI of Antique ruled that
Ponciano and Mena are guilty of the crime of double homicide.
Issue: WON Ponciano & Mena can invoke defense of relative in killing Santiago? YES.
WON Ponciano & Mena can invoke defense of relative in killing Ciriaco? NO.
Held: Ponciano and Mena arrived on the scene about the time the fight between
Santiago and Gregorio was terminating, and on seeing their father, Gregorio, lying in the
mud and water, fatally wounded and dying, and honestly believing that Santiago, who
was standing at the time, would inflict other wounds upon their father, they, in his
defense, immediately killed Santiago. Ciriaco was near the scene and Ponciano and
Mena proceeded to attack him causing his immediate death.
Ponciano & Mena are exempt from criminal responsibility for killing Santiago, in defense
of their father. They honestly believed, and had good grounds upon which to found their
belief, that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father, which is why the
accused can invoke defense of relative.
They are guilty of killing an old man, Ciriaco. When they attacked and killed him, the
other trouble had already terminated and they were not in danger of bodily harm from
him because Ciriaco, a man 80 years of age and used a cane to assist him in walking,
did not arrive on the scene until after the trouble between the two accused and Santiago
had terminated, which is why th e accused cannot invoke defense of relative.
In the case at bar, the provocation was made by Santiago and not Ciriaco, as Ciriaco
arrived after the fight had terminated, thus no provocation came from Ciriaco accused.
He was entirely unarmed, made no demonstration and said no word prior to the assault
upon him by the two accused.