Você está na página 1de 2

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GENOVEVA APEGO, defendants-appellant.

FACTS: The defendant was charged of Murder and was sentenced by CFI Batangas on February 15, 1912, by Honorable Mariano Cui, the penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories, to pay an indemnity of P1,000 to the heirs of the deceased, and the costs. At about 8 o'clock in the evening of December 24, 1911, the spouses, Pio Bautista and Maria Apego, coming from the municipality of Nasugbu, returned to their house, situated in the barrio of Sampaga, pueblo of Balayan, Batangas, and before entering the same called to Genoveva Apego, the woman's sister, who they knew was therein, and as they received no reply, went up into the house; the husband led the way and opened the door; the house was so dark, Maria went directly to look for a match and lit a kerosene, while Pio stumbled on the defendant and accidentally touched her left arm. Defendant was awaken and immediately reached for her pocketknife thinking that someone entered the house and is going to rape her, before she striking Pio with her pocketknife, she first inquired of his identity, when there was no answer, she immediately struck him to the chest. The wound inflicted by the defendant to the victim was so deep and fatal that it injured both the heart and left lung. A few moments later Pio died. ISSUE: WON the defendant is criminally liable for killing her brother-in-law? HELD: Defense: Defendant is only defending herself, upon awakening, defendant was startled and thought someone is going to rape her, the house was pitch black so before striking her knife, she first inquired of the intruders identity, receiving no answer she immediately struck him to his chest. Defendant, 25 years of age, single and uneducated, lived with Pio and Maria for two years, and they never developed any conflict. Prosecution: The defendant exceeded her right of defense, since there was no real need of wounding the man whohad merely caught by her arm. From the foregoing considerations it is concluded that in the commission of the crime there was present the circumstance of incomplete exemption from responsibility, as all the three requisites specified in subarticle 4 of article of the Penal Code are not applicable; wherefore the criminal act is not altogether excusable, on account of the lack of the second of the said requisites, although a majority of them were present, that is, the first and the third requisites; and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 86 of the code, a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by article 404 of the code, in the discretion of the court, must be imposed upon the defendant. In view of the fact that the accused is an ignorant woman, wholly uneducated, and that it was not shown that, at the time when she assaulted the deceased, she knew that he was her brother-in-law, account must be taken of the circumstance prescribed by article 11 of the code, in connection with

Act No. 2142, as no aggravating circumstance whatever was present to counteract the effects of the said extenuating circumstance; therefore, the penalty applicable to the defendant is the one lower by two degrees and in the minimum period. For the foregoing reasons it is our opinion that, with a reversal of the judgment appealed from, the defendant, Genoveva Apego, should be, as she is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of two years of prision correccional, to the accessories of article 61, to pay an indemnity of five hundred pesos to the heirs of the deceased, and, in case of insolvency, to subsidiary imprisonment which shall not exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to the payment of the costs of both instances. In computing the time of the sentence, credit shall be allowed for one-half of the time of imprisonment suffered by the defendant while awaiting trial. So ordered. ***please take note of the articles mentioned