PP VS.

BOHOLST-CABALLERO

Facts: (According to Boholst)

 The couple had a rough marriage. Soon after, Caballero left, and Boholst and her daughter was left to the support of
her parents.
 One night, after carolling, Boholst met Caballero who upon seeing her, manhandled her. There were an exchange of
words and later on, Caballero was already holding her by the hair and slapping her face until her nose bled.
 Caballero pushed her to the grounds, and to stop herself from falling, she held on to his waist. As she did so, she
grasped the knife tucked by the left side of his body.
 She fell to the ground then Caballero knelt over her and chocked her saying that he will kill her. Because she had no
other recourse, she pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him, hitting the left side of his body near the
belt line.
 When she was finally free, she ran home and on the way, she threw the knife.
 In the morning, she surrendered to the police and presented the torn and blood-stained dress she wore that night.
The police officer accompanied her to look for the weapon but when it can no longer be found, she was advised to
just give any knife and she did (now marked Exhibit C).

(According to the Prosecution’s witness, Caballero’s friend)

 On the night of the incident, Boholst was already waiting for Caballero, and when he approached her, she suddenly
stabbed Francisco her with the knife marked by the prosecution as Exhibit C.
 His friends brought him to the hospital where he was later interviewed by the police officer confirming that his wife
stabbed him. But because he needs blood transfusion, he needs to be transferred to another hospital. He died on the
way.

Issue: Did Boholst act in legitimate defense of her person?

Held: Yes.

Ratio decidendi:

 The RTC held that Boholst’s evidence was not clear and convincing:
o Testimony improbable as brought out by her demonstration during the trial
o No wound or injury on her body treated by the physician
o That the knife used was a Moro knife and not exhibit C is incredible
o Contradictory statements
o Has motive: husband’s abandonment
 The court departs from the general rule that appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court on facts
testified by the witnesses
 The trial court judge overlooked an important piece of evidence that could confirm the narration of the appellant:
location of the wound inflicted on the victim.
 As she was flat on her back and and her husband choking her, she had no other recourse but to pull out the knife
inserted at the left side of her husband’s belt and stabbed him hitting the left back portion just below the waist, as
also described by the attending physician as the left lumbar region.
 The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong indication of the truth of her
testimony, for as she lay on the ground with her husband bent over her it was quite natural for her right hand to get
hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s belt and thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand
at the moment.
 This particular location of the wound negates the credibility of the prosecution witness that is if it was true, then the
wound should have been directed towards the front of the body of the victim rather than at his back.
 The Court finds the location of the wound as a valuable circumstance which confirms the plea of self-defense.
 Appellant also lacks motive. She declared that she still loved her husband and for several months prior to the incident,
she appeared resigned to her fate.
 She also surrendered herself immediately the morning after.
 The court also believed that the knife must be a blade of six inches as stated by Boholst for it to penetrate through
the left lumbar region to the victim’s large intestine and cause the discharge of fecal matter. >.<
 All the elements of self-defense are present:
o unlawful aggression as pointed out above
o reasonable necessity for means employed: woman strangled and chocked by a furious aggressor, rendered
almost unconcious by the strong pressure on her throat. What is vital is the imminent peril to Boholst’s life.
The knife afforded appellant the only reasonable means with which she could free and save herself.
Necessity knows no law.
o Lack of sufficient provocation: Boholst did not provoke Caballero. She gave a valid excuse that she went
carolling to earn money for their child