Self-defense

United States v Mack, 8 Phil. 701 (1907)

FACTS:
May 4, 1906: The accused, a negro soldier, shot and killed a municipal policeman named
Estanislao Indic. The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street in the
town of Tacloban, in an open space 3 - 4 feet away from a woman named Olimpia.
The deceased approached the accused and the woman ordering Olimpia to close her tienda
and ordered the soldier to go back to his quarters. It is probable that some words passed
between the soldiers, policemen and the woman, which angered the deceased. The deceased
who was standing some 10 or 12 feet from the accused started cursing and abusing him for his
failure to obey the order. He started walking towards the accused, at the same time drawing
his bolo and brandishing it in a threatening manner. The accused drew his revolver and fired
the deceased three shots, one of which too effect in the left breast of the deceased, just above
the nipple, and another in the back of his head.
There was some testimony saying that the deceased was under the influence of liquor. Upon
the foregoing statement of facts the defendant's contention that he shot the deceased in self-
defense and is therefore exempt from punishment, must be sustained.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused should be acquitted of the crime on the grounds that he shot the
deceased in self-defense?

HELD: YES. Elements of self-defense are as follows (Article 8, Subdivision 4 of the Penal Code):
1. Unlawful aggression
2. That there was reasonable necessity for the employment of the means taken to prevent or
resist such unlawful aggression
3. That there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.

According to the Supreme Court, all the elements of self-defense were present in the case at bar as
the defendant adopted a mode of defense which was necessary for him as it was a matter if life and
death. Although the accused has not established to the satisfaction of the court... reasonable
necessity for killing the deceased in order to save himself, he has made what the courts call an
'incomplete defense' under article 86 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, the court ruled that based from
the evidence of record, there was an unprovoked, illegal aggression on the part of the deceased and
after a careful analysis of the testimony, and further that there was reasonable necessity for the use
of the means employed by the accused to defend himself from this unlawful aggression.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime with which he was
charged, with the costs of both instances de o cio; and if in custody, he will be discharged forthwith,
or if a liberty under his bond will be cancelled and his sureties exonerated. ordered.