G.R. No.

107801
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROSARIA V. IGNACIO, accused-appellant.
March 26, 1997

Facts: Rosaria Ignacio, then 44 years of age, lived with her husband, Juan Ignacio, 67 years
old, Residing with them was Rosaria's daughter, Milagros V. Cabanilla, by a previous
marriage. On the night of 09 February 1992, Rosaria and Juan had a heated argument.
Milagros, entreated them to stop but the couple were in no mood to heed her. The following
night (10 February 1992), at dinner, Juan and Rosaria had another quarrel. Milagros peeped
and saw by the gas lamp that both were pulling a piece of lawanit and each tried to take
possession of it. Juan ultimately released the lawanit and turned to go for his bolo when
Rosaria picked up a palo-palo and hit Juan on the nape. Rosaria left the straggling Juan and
surrendered to the police at the municipal building. Rosaria voluntarily disclosed before
Rolando (Son of Juan) and Pat. San Diego that she hit Juan with a wooden club. Juan died the
following day. Testifying in her defense, Rosaria did not deny having inflicted the fatal
wounds on her husband. According to her, between 7 and in the evening of 10 February
1992, while she was resting on the wooden bed near the kitchen, her husband arrived drunk.
Armed with a bolo, he went around the wooden bed and then faced her. She finally stood up,
pulled his hair, got hold of a palo-palo and hit him once on the head. The assault sent Juan
hovering down the floor. Rosaria went to the municipal hall and surrendered to police officer
San Diego. Rosaria has interposed this appeal praying that she be acquitted on the basis of
self-defense or, in the alternative, that she be held guilty only of homicide rather than of
parricide.
Issue: Whether or Not the accused is guilty of parricide
Held: YES. An accused who interposes self-defense admits the commission of the act
complained of. The burden of proving self-defense would now be on the accused. Unlawful
aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. By her
own admission, appellant only thought that her husband would strike her. In fact, appellant's
claim of self-defense was belied by her own daughter, Milagros, who declared that even
before the victim could get his bolo, appellant already picked up her palo-palo and hit him.
Accused claim of self-defense cannot be sustained. The bolo which was allegedly in victim's
possession and with which the victim allegedly attempted to hit the accused, was never
found and its whereabouts unknown to the accused. Appellant contends that, if at all, she
should be convicted only of homicide, not parricide, because "there was no clear evidence of
marriage" between her and the victim. Here, appellant not only declared in court that the
victim was her fourth husband but she also swore that they were married before a judge in
Montalban, Rizal. The victim's son testified that his father and appellant were husband and
wife and
appellant's daughter, Milagros, held the victim to be her mother's
husband. Appellant's own admission that she was married to the victim was a confirmation
of the semper praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman so
deporting themselves as husband and wife had verily entered into a lawful contract of
marriage.