PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

CRISTINA SAMSON MENDOZA

G.R. No. 214883 September 02, 2015

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, there by 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: YES

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
justifies the offender’s action of taking defense and eventually killing the victim.

2. HELD: YES
There was reasonable necessity for Cristina to stab the victim in the attendant circumstance,
asher husband is much stronger than her, and there are no other available means or any less
deadly weapon to preventor repel the threat other than the knife she holds. There is no more time
for her to think and calculate how she wouldsave herself from the imminent danger posed against
her life, so she can only follow her instinct to use the readilyavailable 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 alreadyunreasonable. Perfect equality between
the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor isnot 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.