Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    People VS Samson

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Paril
    Cristina Samson Mendoza stabbed and killed her husband during a drunken fight in their home. She claimed self-defense, saying her husband was threatening her with a knife and continued moving toward her after being disarmed. The court found that despite being disarmed, her husband still posed a threat given his continued movement toward her, leaving her with no choice but to defend herself with the knife. The court also found it was reasonably necessary for her to use the knife given the threat and that she had no time to consider alternative means of defense against her stronger husband. Therefore, the court ruled Cristina was justified in killing her husband in self-defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People VS Samson

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Paril
    77 views2 pages
    Cristina Samson Mendoza stabbed and killed her husband during a drunken fight in their home. She claimed self-defense, saying her husband was threatening her with a knife and continued moving toward her after being disarmed. The court found that despite being disarmed, her husband still posed a threat given his continued movement toward her, leaving her with no choice but to defend herself with the knife. The court also found it was reasonably necessary for her to use the knife given the threat and that she had no time to consider alternative means of defense against her stronger husband. Therefore, the court ruled Cristina was justified in killing her husband in self-defense.

    Original Title

    31. PEOPLE VS SAMSON.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cristina Samson Mendoza stabbed and killed her husband during a drunken fight in their home. She claimed self-defense, saying her husband was threatening her with a knife and continued moving toward her after being disarmed. The court found that despite being disarmed, her husband still posed a threat given his continued movement toward her, leaving her with no choice but to defend herself with the knife. The court also found it was reasonably necessary for her to use the knife given the threat and that she had no time to consider alternative means of defense against her stronger husband. Therefore, the court ruled Cristina was justified in killing her husband in self-defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    People VS Samson

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Paril
    Cristina Samson Mendoza stabbed and killed her husband during a drunken fight in their home. She claimed self-defense, saying her husband was threatening her with a knife and continued moving toward her after being disarmed. The court found that despite being disarmed, her husband still posed a threat given his continued movement toward her, leaving her with no choice but to defend herself with the knife. The court also found it was reasonably necessary for her to use the knife given the threat and that she had no time to consider alternative means of defense against her stronger husband. Therefore, the court ruled Cristina was justified in killing her husband in self-defense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

    CRISTINA SAMSON MENDOZA


    G.R. No. 214883 September 02, 2015

    FACTS:

    Appellant Cristina Samson and victim Jerry Delmar were married and begot two
    daughters. Throughout their marriage, they were in constant fighting, and this was always
    witnessed by their children and other nearby relatives. On June 27, 2002, while appellant was in
    their house watching television with her children, her husband came in drunk. Because appellant
    was not able to cook dinner, they had a fight which later on led to the victim pointing a knife at
    appellant’s neck. Appellant begged her husband not to hurt her, but the latter continued
    threatening her with the knife and even told her to stop talking or else he will put a hole in her
    neck. He even slapped her face twice. When the fight escalated, appellant was able to get hold of
    the knife and begged her husband not to come near her. However, the victim still continued to
    move towards her. That was when appellant stabbed the victim, who then fell on the ground and
    crawled until he reached the door. Upon hearing the commotion at their daughter’s house,
    appellant’s father and brother came to help and bring the victim to the hospital. The victim
    eventually died in the hospital. Appellant was charged with Parricide. She pleaded not guilty and
    invoked the justifying circumstance of self-defense. However, the RTC found that there was no
    more unlawful aggression against appellant when she stabbed the victim, there by invalidating
    her claim of self-defense. On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Hence, this present
    appeal.

    ISSSUE:

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

    HELD: YES

    It seems that the victim’s aggression had already ceased when he was disarmed, but the
    perceived peril to Cristina’s life persisted as the victim continued to move towards her. It
    was only until she stabbed the victim that the danger to her life ended. Despite having been
    disarmed, the victim still posed a threat and peril to the life of the appellant, leaving her with no
    choice but to defend herself or else she would be the one to die. Unlawful aggression does not
    strictly require that there be an actual physical force or actual use of weapon against the offender
    that poses a threat and imminent danger on his life. It is sufficient that the offender be in
    reasonable perception or belief that his
    life is still in danger. Such reasonable belief of a perceived peril or threat to one’s life would
    justifies the offender’s action of taking defense and eventually killing the victim.

    2. HELD: YES
    There was reasonable necessity for Cristina to stab the victim in the attendant circumstance,
    asher husband is much stronger than her, and there are no other available means or any less
    deadly weapon to preventor repel the threat other than the knife she holds. There is no more time
    for her to think and calculate how she wouldsave herself from the imminent danger posed against
    her life, so she can only follow her instinct to use the readilyavailable means of defense, which,
    in this case, is the knife on hand. Also, it does not mean that just because the victim was no
    longer armed, the means employed by Cristina is alreadyunreasonable. Perfect equality between
    the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor isnot required. What
    the law requires is a rational equivalence.
    There is obviously no showing that there was sufficient provocation on the part of Cristina for
    her husband to hurt her.

    You might also like