G.R. No.

214883 September 02, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CRISTINA SAMSON
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: Appellant Cristina Samson and victim Jerry Delmar were married and begot two daughters. Throughout their
marriage, they were in constant fighting, and this was always witnessed by their children and other nearby relatives.
On June 27, 2002, while appellant was in their house watching television with her children, her husband came in
drunk. Because appellant was not able to cook dinner, they had a fight which later on led to the victim pointing a knife
at appellant’s neck. Appellant begged her husband not to hurt her, but the latter continued threatening her with the
knife and even told her to stop talking or else he will put a hole in her neck. He even slapped her face twice. When
the fight escalated, appellant was able to get hold of the knife and begged her husband not to come near her.
However, the victim still continued to move towards her. That was when appellant stabbed the victim, who then fell on
the ground and crawled until he reached the door. Upon hearing the commotion at their daughter’s house, appellant’s
father and brother came to help and bring the victim to the hospital. The victim eventually died in the hospital.
Appellant was charged with Parricide. She pleaded not guilty and invoked the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
However, the RTC found that there was no more unlawful aggression against appellant when she stabbed the victim,
thereby invalidating her claim of self-defense. On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Hence, this present
appeal.
ISSSUE:
1. Whether or not there still exists an unlawful aggression against appellant even if the victim was already disarmed,
in order that self-defense may be properly invoked.
2. Whether or not there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed by Cristina in order for her to be justified in
killing her husband.
HELD:
1. AFFIRMATIVE. It seems that the victim’s aggression had already ceased when he was disarmed, but the
perceived peril to Cristina’s life persisted as the victim continued to move towards her. It was only until she stabbed
the victim that the danger to her life ended. Despite having been disarmed, the victim still posed a threat and peril to
the life of the appellant, leaving her with no choice but to defend herself or else she would be the one to die.
Unlawful aggression does not strictly require that there be an actual physical force or actual use of weapon against
the offender that poses a threat and imminent danger on his life. It is sufficient that the offender be in reasonable
perception or belief that his life is still in danger. Such reasonable belief of a perceived peril or threat to one’s life
would justify the offender’s action of taking defense and eventually killing the victim.
2. AFFIRMATIVE. There was reasonable necessity for Cristina to stab the victim in the attendant circumstance, as
her husband is much stronger than her, and there are no other available means or any less deadly weapon to prevent
or repel the threat other than the knife she holds. There is no more time for her to think and calculate how she would
save herself from the imminent danger posed against her life, so she can only follow her instinct to use the readily
available means of defense, which, in this case, is the knife on hand.
Also, it does not mean that just because the victim was no longer armed, the means employed by Cristina is already
unreasonable. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is
not required. What the law requires is a rational equivalence.
There is obviously no showing that there was sufficient provocation on the part of Cristina for her husband to hurt her.
Moreover, her flight and evasion of arrest for four years does not automatically mean guilt, but could be justified by her fear of
possible retaliation from her husband’s relatives. Therefore, herein appeal is granted and Cristina is acquitted and ordered
immediately released.