Dear PAO,

Our distant relative was charged with parricide for killing her husband, who first threatened her with a knife. However, she claimed that she only acted in self-defense because, had she not stabbed her husband in the heat of their altercation, it would have been the reverse and she would have been the one killed since her husband was still attacking her. The husband's party, on the other hand, asserted that what the wife did was an act of retaliation since she was able to wrest the weapon from the husband, so she should have stopped at that instance. Can the claim of self-defense still be appreciated in favor of the accused even if the weapon was already in her possession if the aggression, or her perceived danger to her life, still continued?

Milet

Dear Milet,

Let us first define retaliation before answering your query, through a reading of the Supreme Court's decision entitled People of the Philippines vs Cristina Samson (G.R. No. 214883, Sept. 2, 2015), penned by former Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza which stated that: