PEOPLE v.

APOLINAR
19 July 1938 | Hontiveros | Appeal from CFI Pangasinan | Defense of property

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines

RESPONDENT: Anastacio Apolinar, alias Atong
SUMMARY: Apolinar shot someone he thought to be a thief of palay and was convicted. The SC affirmed this.
DOCTRINE: Upon getting wounded, Petras was carrying the sack of palay from the land tilled by Apolinar. However, this is not
sufficient to justify the shooting of Petras. The right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can
be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when couplied with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.

FACTS:
1. At midnight on December 22, 1936, Apolinar as occupant of land in Papallasen, La Paz belonging to Joaquin Gonzales was
looking over the land. Seeing a man with a bundle on his shoulder (later found out to be a Domingo Petras), Apolinar called to
him, then fired his shotgun into the air and then at the person thinking he was a thief of palay.
2. Petras was able to get back to his house and narrated to barrio chief Natividad that he was shot twice, one on each side of the
spinal column.
3. Apolinar surrendered immediately after the incident and gave sworn statement before the Justice of the Peace of Umingan,
stating that he saw a man coming from the water who refused to respond despite gunfire.

ISSUE: Whether the defense of property is an adequate defense to the shooting of Domingo Petras—YES.

RULING: Considering the facts of the case, we decide that judgment must be modified by imposing an indeterminate penalty with 2y
prision correccional min and 8y 1d prision mayor max.

RATIO:
1. Apolinar now claims the man exhibited aggression towards barrio chief Bonifacio Mendones which is not the basis of his
defense before the CFI Pangasinan. Moreover, Apolinar claims the aggression against Mendones was carried out by said Petras
with a bolo. In this case, no bolo was presented which would have supported the defense.
2. Upon getting wounded, Petras was carrying the sack of palay from the land tilled by Apolinar. However, this is not sufficient
to justify the shooting of Petras. The right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be
invoked as a justifying circumstance only when couplied with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.
3. The extenuating circumstances of obfuscation can be considered in his favor, and that of voluntary surrender to the authorities.
The presence of these two circumstances without any aggravating circumstance reduces the sentence to the next lower openalty
for the sentenced crime, prision mayor under Art . 63(5) RPC.