People of the Philippines vs. Cristina Samson

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CRISTINA SAMSON, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. №214883, September 02, 2015

FACTS

Cristina Samson, the appellant, and Gerry Delmar, the victim, are married and have two daughters. However, the two were constantly fighting even in front of their children and other relatives. In the defense of the appellant, Cristina Samson was in their house watching television together with their children on June 27, 2002. Her husband, Gerry Delmar, arrived drunk, then scolded and slapped her upon her reply that she had not cooked their food yet. The two had an altercation for about 10 minutes when Cristina’s father arrived and pacified them. Gerry left, but returned 30 minutes after, and pointed a knife at Cristina’s neck. Cristina begged him not to hurt her, but Gerry slapped her twice. While he was holding the knife, she pushed him, took the knife and begged him not to come near her. But he grabbed her, and the knife went in contact with his chest. Cristina shouted for help upon seeing her husband bloodied, then her father and brought Gerry to the hospital. Her relatives told her that her husband died in the hospital.

However, Christine who is the youngest child of Cristina and Gerry, narrated that as the fight escalated, her mother was able to get hold of the knife which was inserted in the roof and stabbed her father. He fell to the ground and crawled until he reached the door. People then arrived to bring him to the hospital. On the other hand, her mother ran out and went to her father, Rodolfo Samson, asked for money then left. That was the last time Christine and Cherry Lou saw their mother.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and invoked the justifying circumstances of self-defense. Though the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) believed the version of Cristina, they still found her guilty of parricide because though there could have been an unlawful aggression at the start, it already ceased when the victim put down the knife. Hence, this present appeal to review the decision of the CA.

ISSUES

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 for the means employed by Cristina in order for her to be justified in killing her husband.

3. Whether or not there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused in defending herself.

4. Whether or not flight is a circumstance from which inference of guilt may be established.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant.

To invoke self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

1. Contrary to the conclusion of the CA that Gerry’s aggression had already ceased when he was disarmed, the Supreme Court viewed that the aggression continued. It must be noted that the after Cristina was able to take hold of the knife, he still continued to move towards her despite of her plea that he should not come nearer. He grabbed her which could have precipitated her well-grounded belief that her life was still in danger is he would be able to wrest the weapon from her. It was not farfetched to presume that, being stronger, Gerry could have easily overpowered Cristina and killed her eventually.

2. The Court believes that Cristina’s means were reasonable because she had no other available means or any less deadly weapon to repel the threat other than the knife in her hand, and she did not have the time or sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate, and choose the weapon to be used. In predicaments like this, human nature acts in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation. And when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction that act or to mitigate the liability of the accused. Moreover, the fact that Gerry was no longer armed does not negate the reasonableness of the means employed by Cristina. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required.

3. The Court cannot sustain the trial court’s observation that it was Cristina who provoked her husband when she suddenly pushed him. Her shoving him cannot be considered a sufficient provocation to the act of aggression. Instead, Cristina acted on an opportunity to save herself from what she had perceived to be a danger in her life.

4. Though the CA took the fact of Cristina’s flight and evasion of arrest for four (4) years against her, the Supreme Court ruled that non-flight may not be construed as an indication of innocence either. There is no law or dictum holding that staying put is proof of innocence. Cristina explained that she took flight for fear of her safety because of possible retaliation from her husband’s siblings. The Court finds her explanation acceptable, as she did not hide from the law, but from those who would possibly do her harm.

Wherefore, the appeal was granted and Cristina Samson was acquitted of the crime charged.