The Supreme Court has upheld the homicide conviction of a man who fatally stabbed his live-in partner, rejecting his self-defense claim that the incident stemmed from an argument over where her clothes were hung.

In a decision dated 30 October 2024, the SC Second Division denied the petition of Kenneth Karl Aspiras to overturn his conviction. He was sentenced to seven to 14 years in prison and ordered to pay P150,000 in civil indemnity and damages to the heirs of Jet Lee Reyes.

Aspiras claimed he was awakened by Reyes, who was furious because her school uniform had been hung in the bathroom instead of outside the house. He alleged that she was holding a knife and attempted to stab him in the stomach, but he managed to parry the attack, leading to a struggle that resulted in the stabbing.

However, in the ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the Supreme Court found that Aspiras failed to establish unlawful aggression and cast doubt on his version of events.

“His narration that he awoke to Jet Lee being very angry about her hung school uniform, so much that she wanted to kill him, is impossible, illogical, and unconvincing,” the court stated.

The decision further pointed out that if Reyes had intended to stab Aspiras, she would have done so while he was still asleep. Even if they had been arguing before the stabbing, the court found no sufficient reason for Reyes to initiate an attack.

"On the contrary, evidence suggests that it was the petitioner who would hurt Jet Lee, both verbally and physically, whenever he had bouts of jealousy," the ruling said.

The court also cited the findings of lower courts that even if there had been aggression from Reyes, Aspiras' response was disproportionate and unreasonable. The two stab wounds and a bruise on her left eye contradicted his claim of self-defense.

The Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, stating that none of the elements of self-defense were present. It concluded that Aspiras failed to present any overlooked fact or circumstance that would have changed the verdict.