G.R. No. L-15130 - MAY 1960 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-15130May 31, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Climaco Demiar G.R. No. L-15122May 31, 1960 Paquito Salabsalo, et al. vs. Francisco Angkoy, et al. G.R. No. L-15074May 31, 1960 Carmen Fuentes and Go Tek vs. Cecilia Muñoz-Palma G.R. No. L-14907May 31, 1960 Pura M. de la Torre vs. Venancio Trinidad, et al. G.R. No. L-14885May 31, 1960 MAPUA Institute of Tchnology vs. Marcelino S. Manalo G.R. No. L-14749May 31, 1960 Silvestre Pingol, et al. vs. Amado C. Tigno, et al. G.R. No. L-14595May 31, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Montejo, et al. G.R. No. L-14201May 31, 1960 Olegario Brito vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-14020May 31, 1960 Manila Letter Carriers' Association vs. Auditor General G.R. No. L-14015May 31, 1960 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Azucarera Don Pedro G.R. No. L-13946May 31, 1960 Marsman and Company, Inc. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-13858May 31, 1960 Canuto Pagdañganan vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-13578May 31, 1960 Heirs of Marciano A. Roxas, et al. vs. Florencio Galindo, et al. G.R. No. L-13523May 31, 1960 Aniceto Madrid vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. L-13295May 31, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Mario, et al. G.R. No. L-13033 and L-13701May 31, 1960 Lu Do and Lu Ym Corp. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-12068May 31, 1960 Eufrocina Tamisin vs. Ambrocio Odejar, et al. G.R. No. L-11805May 31, 1960 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Pio Barretto Sons, Inc. G.R. No. L-11555May 31, 1960 Delfin Cueto, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-10843May 31, 1960 Evangeline Wenzel, etc., et al. vs. Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-16837-40May 30, 1960 Eustaquio R. Cawa, et al. vs. Vicente del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-15792May 30, 1960 Elena Peralta Vda. de Caina vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-15696May 30, 1960 Elpidio LLarena vs. Arsenio H. Lacson G.R. No. L-15614May 30, 1960 Government Service Insurance System Employees Assoc., et al. vs. Carmelino Alvendia, et al. G.R. No. L-15550May 30, 1960 Amado Tagulao vs. Fortunata Padlan-Mundok, et al. G.R. No. L-15344May 30, 1960 Jose R. Villanueva vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-15198May 30, 1960 Eduardo J. Jalandoni vs. National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration, et al. G.R. No. L-15044May 30, 1960 Belman Compañia Incorporada vs. Central Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. L-14991-94May 30, 1960 Jaime T. Buenaflor vs. Camarines Sur Industry Corp. G.R. No. L-14949May 30, 1960 Compañia Maritima vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-14800May 30, 1960 Abelardo Subido vs. City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-14700May 30, 1960 Benito R. Guinto, et al. vs. Arsenio H. Lacson G.R. No. L-14776May 30, 1960 Guillermo N. Teves vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-14691May 30, 1960 Josefino Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-14681May 30, 1960 Rosario Po vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.R. No. L-14459May 30, 1960 Agrinelda N. Miclat vs. Elvira Ganaden, et al. G.R. No. L-14392May 30, 1960 Alberto Fernandez, et al. vs. Pablo Cuneta, et al. G.R. No. L-14391May 30, 1960 Genaro Senen vs. Maxima A. de Pichay G.R. No. L-14342May 30, 1960 Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-14280May 30, 1960 Juan Ysmael & Company, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-14069 and L-14149May 30, 1960 Uy Ha vs. City Mayor of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-13910May 30, 1960 Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab, Inc. vs. Edmundo L. Castelo G.R. No. L-13845May 30, 1960 National Labor Union vs. International Oil Factory G.R. No. L-13793May 30, 1960 Pacific Lines Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-13662May 30, 1960 Ceferino Esteban, et al. vs. City of Cabanatuan G.R. No. L-13419May 30, 1960 Casiano Saladas vs. Franklin Baker Company G.R. No. L-13412May 30, 1960 Destilleria Lim Tuaco & Company, Inc. vs. Gustavo Victoriano, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-13223May 30, 1960 Oscar Mendoza Espuelas vs. Provincial Warden of Bohol G.R. No. L-13153May 30, 1960 Glicerio Romulo, et al. vs. Esteban Dasalla, et al. G.R. No. L-13034May 30, 1960 Gregorio Arong, et al. vs. Victor Wajing, et al. G.R. No. L-12963May 30, 1960 Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Alfonso Yuchengco, etc. G.R. No. L-12958May 30, 1960 Faustino Ignacio vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. L-12907May 30, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Moro Ambahang, et al. G.R. No. L-12798May 30, 1960 Visayan Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-12627May 30, 1960 Alfonso Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-12260May 30, 1960 Commissioner of Customs vs. Farm Implement and Machinery Company G.R. No. L-11551May 30, 1960 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Alfonso Favis, et al. G.R. No. L-10371 and L-10409May 30, 1960 A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Daniel Rayala, et al. G.R. No. L-14254 and L-14255May 27, 1960 Sta. Cecilia Sawmills Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-15777May 26, 1960 Antonio Nipay, et al. vs. Jose M. Manguiat, etc. G.R. No. L-15144May 26, 1960 Alfredo A. Azuelo vs. Ramon Arnaldo, et al. G.R. No. L-15073May 26, 1960 Operator's, Inc. vs. National Labor Union G.R. No. L-14319May 26, 1960 Eduardo G. Bautista vs. Susano R. Negado, et al. G.R. No. L-13847May 26, 1960 Dominador Borda vs. Enrique Tabalon G.R. No. L-12876May 26, 1960 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Bohol United Workers, Inc. G.R. No. L-12150May 26, 1960 Benjamin Co vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16341 and L-16470May 25, 1960 Adriano Rabe vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-15132May 25, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Rufo B. Cruz G.R. No. L-14722May 25, 1960 Ignacio Mesina vs. Eulalia Pineda Vda. de Sonza, et al. G.R. No. L-14619May 25, 1960 Miguel Yuviengco, etc., et al. vs. Primitivo Gonzales, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-14590May 25, 1960 Fernando Datu, et al. vs. Domingo M. Cabañgon, et al. G.R. No. L-14515May 25, 1960 Enrique Zobel vs. Guillermo Mercado G.R. No. L-14500May 25, 1960 Quirina Pachoco vs. Agripina Tumangday, et al. G.R. No. L-14214May 25, 1960 Richard Velasco vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-14134May 25, 1960 Bishop of Legaspi vs. Manuel Calleja, et al. G.R. No. L-14115May 25, 1960 Commissioner of Customs vs. Superior Gas and Equipment Co., et al. G.R. No. L-13933May 25, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Perfecto Palacio, et al. G.R. No. L-13819May 25, 1960 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Blas Gutierrez, et al. G.R. No. L-13711May 25, 1960 Gregorio Salazar vs. Justiniana de Torres, et al. G.R. No. L-13651May 25, 1960 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Jaro vs. Higino Militar, et al. G.R. No. L-13464May 25, 1960 Philippine Sugar Institute vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-13391May 25, 1960 Aurea Matias vs. Primitivo L. Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-13296May 25, 1960 Sofronio T. Untalan vs. Vicente G. Gella, et al. G.R. No. L-12916May 25, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Melecio Aquidado, et al. G.R. No. L-12766May 25, 1960 Philippines Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. S. Jacala, et al. G.R. No. L-12690May 25, 1960 Arcadio M. Quiambao vs. Aniceto Mora G.R. No. L-12624May 25, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Gantang Kasim, et al. G.R. No. L-16445May 23, 1960 Vicente Acain, et al. vs. Board of Canvassers of Carmen, et al. G.R. No. L-15485May 23, 1960 Board of Liquidators, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-15339May 23, 1960 Luzon Surety Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-14981May 23, 1960 Abelardo Subido vs. Marcelino Sarmiento, et al. G.R. No. L-13965May 23, 1960 Constantino Leduna, et al. vs. Eduardo D. Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-13806May 23, 1960 Price Stabilization Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-13803 and L-13400May 23, 1960 Jose de la Paz vs. MD Transit and Taxi Cab Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-10046-47May xd, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-9651May 23, 1960 Policarpio Mendez vs. Seng Kiam, et al. G.R. No. L-14426May 20, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Froilan Bayona, et al. G.R. No. L-14388May 20, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Emiliano Dayrit G.R. No. L-14355May 20, 1960 Jose D. Dacudao vs. Agustin D. Dueñas, et al. G.R. No. L-14332May 20, 1960 Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Manila Railroad Company vs. Credit Union Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Manila Railroad Company G.R. No. L-13846May 20, 1960 Pangasinan Employee Laborers and Tenants Association, et al. vs. Arsenio I. Martinez G.R. No. L-13836May 20, 1960 Government of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-13484May 20, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Camerino, et al. G.R. No. L-13372May 20, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Sabuero, et al. G.R. No. L-13046May 20, 1960 Egmidio T. Pascua vs. Pedro Tuason, etc. G.R. No. L-12726May 20, 1960 Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Visitacion Consunto, et al. G.R. No. L-12546May 20, 1960 Republic of the Philippines vs. Lucas P. Paredes, et al. G.R. No. L-12446May 20, 1960 Eliseo Silva vs. Belen Cabrera G.R. No. L-11795 - 96May 20, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Recarido Jardenil, et al. G.R. No. L-10948May 20, 1960 People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Mortero, et al. G.R. No. L-15300May 18, 1960 Manuel Regalado, et al. vs. Philippine Constabulary Commander of Negros Occidental, et al. G.R. No. L-13783May 18, 1960 Francisco Capalungan vs. Fulgencio Medrano G.R. No. L-13208May 18, 1960 Oren Igo (Bagobo), et al. vs. National Abaca & Other Fibres Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-13092May 18, 1960 Emilia Mendoza vs. Camilo Bulanadi G.R. No. L-13831May 16, 1960 Diosdado Chavez, et al. vs. Buenaventura Ganzon, et al. G.R. No. L-12007May 16, 1960 Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree Investment Co. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Climaco Demiar Paquito Salabsalo, et al. vs. Francisco Angkoy, et al. Carmen Fuentes and Go Tek vs. Cecilia Muñoz-Palma Pura M. de la Torre vs. Venancio Trinidad, et al. MAPUA Institute of Tchnology vs. Marcelino S. Manalo Silvestre Pingol, et al. vs. Amado C. Tigno, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Montejo, et al. Olegario Brito vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Manila Letter Carriers' Association vs. Auditor General Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Azucarera Don Pedro Marsman and Company, Inc. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. Canuto Pagdañganan vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Heirs of Marciano A. Roxas, et al. vs. Florencio Galindo, et al. Aniceto Madrid vs. Auditor General, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Marcelino Mario, et al. Lu Do and Lu Ym Corp. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, et al. Eufrocina Tamisin vs. Ambrocio Odejar, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Pio Barretto Sons, Inc. Delfin Cueto, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. Evangeline Wenzel, etc., et al. vs. Surigao Consolidated Mining Company, Inc., et al. Eustaquio R. Cawa, et al. vs. Vicente del Rosario, et al. Elena Peralta Vda. de Caina vs. Andres Reyes, et al. Elpidio LLarena vs. Arsenio H. Lacson Government Service Insurance System Employees Assoc., et al. vs. Carmelino Alvendia, et al. Amado Tagulao vs. Fortunata Padlan-Mundok, et al. Jose R. Villanueva vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. Eduardo J. Jalandoni vs. National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration, et al. Belman Compañia Incorporada vs. Central Bank of the Philippines Jaime T. Buenaflor vs. Camarines Sur Industry Corp. Compañia Maritima vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Abelardo Subido vs. City of Manila, et al. Benito R. Guinto, et al. vs. Arsenio H. Lacson Guillermo N. Teves vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Josefino Velasco vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Rosario Po vs. Commissioner of Immigration Agrinelda N. Miclat vs. Elvira Ganaden, et al. Alberto Fernandez, et al. vs. Pablo Cuneta, et al. Genaro Senen vs. Maxima A. de Pichay Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Juan Ysmael & Company, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Uy Ha vs. City Mayor of Manila, et al. Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab, Inc. vs. Edmundo L. Castelo National Labor Union vs. International Oil Factory Pacific Lines Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Ceferino Esteban, et al. vs. City of Cabanatuan Casiano Saladas vs. Franklin Baker Company Destilleria Lim Tuaco & Company, Inc. vs. Gustavo Victoriano, etc., et al. Oscar Mendoza Espuelas vs. Provincial Warden of Bohol Glicerio Romulo, et al. vs. Esteban Dasalla, et al. Gregorio Arong, et al. vs. Victor Wajing, et al. Magdalena Estate, Inc. vs. Alfonso Yuchengco, etc. Faustino Ignacio vs. Director of Lands, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Moro Ambahang, et al. Visayan Cebu Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Alfonso Tian vs. Republic of the Philippines Commissioner of Customs vs. Farm Implement and Machinery Company Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Alfonso Favis, et al. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Daniel Rayala, et al. Sta. Cecilia Sawmills Co., Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Antonio Nipay, et al. vs. Jose M. Manguiat, etc. Alfredo A. Azuelo vs. Ramon Arnaldo, et al. Operator's, Inc. vs. National Labor Union Eduardo G. Bautista vs. Susano R. Negado, et al. Dominador Borda vs. Enrique Tabalon Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Bohol United Workers, Inc. Benjamin Co vs. Republic of the Philippines Adriano Rabe vs. Commission on Elections, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rufo B. Cruz Ignacio Mesina vs. Eulalia Pineda Vda. de Sonza, et al. Miguel Yuviengco, etc., et al. vs. Primitivo Gonzales, etc., et al. Fernando Datu, et al. vs. Domingo M. Cabañgon, et al. Enrique Zobel vs. Guillermo Mercado Quirina Pachoco vs. Agripina Tumangday, et al. Richard Velasco vs. Republic of the Philippines Bishop of Legaspi vs. Manuel Calleja, et al. Commissioner of Customs vs. Superior Gas and Equipment Co., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Perfecto Palacio, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Blas Gutierrez, et al. Gregorio Salazar vs. Justiniana de Torres, et al. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Jaro vs. Higino Militar, et al. Philippine Sugar Institute vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Aurea Matias vs. Primitivo L. Gonzales, et al. Sofronio T. Untalan vs. Vicente G. Gella, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Melecio Aquidado, et al. Philippines Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. vs. S. Jacala, et al. Arcadio M. Quiambao vs. Aniceto Mora People of the Philippines vs. Gantang Kasim, et al. Vicente Acain, et al. vs. Board of Canvassers of Carmen, et al. Board of Liquidators, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Luzon Surety Company, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Abelardo Subido vs. Marcelino Sarmiento, et al. Constantino Leduna, et al. vs. Eduardo D. Enriquez, et al. Price Stabilization Corp. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Jose de la Paz vs. MD Transit and Taxi Cab Co., Inc., et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Rodriguez, et al. Policarpio Mendez vs. Seng Kiam, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Froilan Bayona, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Emiliano Dayrit Jose D. Dacudao vs. Agustin D. Dueñas, et al. Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Manila Railroad Company vs. Credit Union Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Manila Railroad Company Pangasinan Employee Laborers and Tenants Association, et al. vs. Arsenio I. Martinez Government of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Camerino, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Sabuero, et al. Egmidio T. Pascua vs. Pedro Tuason, etc. Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Visitacion Consunto, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Lucas P. Paredes, et al. Eliseo Silva vs. Belen Cabrera People of the Philippines vs. Recarido Jardenil, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Mortero, et al. Manuel Regalado, et al. vs. Philippine Constabulary Commander of Negros Occidental, et al. Francisco Capalungan vs. Fulgencio Medrano Oren Igo (Bagobo), et al. vs. National Abaca & Other Fibres Corporation, et al. Emilia Mendoza vs. Camilo Bulanadi Diosdado Chavez, et al. vs. Buenaventura Ganzon, et al. Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree Investment Co. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-15130 May 31, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CLIMACO DEMIAR,defendant-appellant.
Teofilo Mendoza, Jr. for appellant.
Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Crispin V. Bautista for appellee.
BARRERA,J.:
Appeal1from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu(in Crim. Case No. V-4961), convicting appellant Climaco Demiar of the crime of parricide and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty from 10 years and 1 day ofprision mayor,as minimum to 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day ofreclusion temporal, as maximum, to pay indemnity in the sum of P4,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased Pilar Edaño, and to pay the costs.
It appears that appellant Climaco Demiar and his wife lived in the same house with his mother Pilar Edaño in the sitio of Lacaron, barrio Tambongon, San Remigio, Cebu. At about noontime on Friday, August 5, 1955, appellant who was a gambler, accompanied by his wife, went to the market place at barrio Tambongon, Cebu. At about 1:30 p.m., after spouses left, Pacita Catanda, 12-year old daughter of Trifona Demiar, Pilar Edaño's daughter, went to the house of her grandmother (Pilar Edaño), as she used to do, with a brother and a sister. Appellant returned shortly before sunset and, finding that his mother, Pilar Edaño, had not prepared any food, reprimanded her. The latter explained that she was notable to cook their food, because she had been very busy grinding corn. Appellant thereupon became angry and began to choke his mother, making her and Pacita Catanda scream. The screams and shouts attracted the attention of Trifona Demiar who has living in a house nearby, about 30 yards away. Trifona immediately went to the house of her mother, whereupon she saw her brother, appellant herein, choking their mother Pilar Edaño, near the stove in the kitchen. Trifona Demiar then and there told appellant to release their mother. Appellant did as he was told and went upstairs.
Like Trifona, Meliton Magdadaro, barrio lieutenant of Tambongon, whose house was only about 15 yards from that Pilar Edaño, was also attracted by the shouts for help and the commotion in the house of the latter. He immediately went to said house, and inquired what the commotion was all about. Pilar Edaño, who was then sitting near a stove, speaking in a guttural voice which could hardly be understood, told Magdadaro that she had been choked by her son, herein appellant, who did not pity her.
Pacita Catanda, Trifona Demiar, and Meliton Magdadaro, noticed that the face of Pilar Edaño, who had always been in good health and doing a lot of household chores previously, became bluish.
After choking by appellant, Pilar Edaño could no longer swallow any food, nor drink water, due to her swollen neck. Her physical condition deteriorated, until she died 3 days after the incident.
It appears, likewise that after Pilar Edaño was choked by appellant prevented her from doing so, threatening her with death, if she ever called a doctor.
After Pilar Edaño's death, a daughter of hers, named Santas Demiar, arrived from Tabuelan, Cebu, and learned of the cause of her mother's death. On August 10, 1955, accompanied by Trifona Demiar, Meliton Magdadaro, and Ciano Bacare, Santas Demiar reported the incident to the chief of police of San Remigio, Cebu. Acting upon the report, said chief of the police cited appellant to appear before him. During the investigation conducted by the chief of police, appellant denied having choked his mother Pilar Edaño. He claimed that he only held her shoulder, and she fell to the floor; that on that occasion, he tried to tell his mother to keep quiet, as he was then quarrelling with his wife. Appellant's wife, however, when questioned by the chief of police in the presence of appellant, admitted that her husband (appellant) choked his mother. Likewise, during the investigation, when the chief of police and the Justice of the Peace of San Remigio asked questions, appellant cried and asked for forgiveness from his sister and begged them to discontinue the case against him. While he was under detention in the municipal building at San Remigio, after the corresponding complaint for parricide was filed against him by the chief of police on August 11, 1955, he sent a letter (Exhs. A and A-3-A) to his brother-in-law, Lope Mayol, husband of Santas Demiar, asking him, among other things, for forgiveness and pity, and requesting his sister to withdraw the complaint against him.
On the witness stand, appellant denied that he choked his mother, Pilar Edaño, the deceased, and stated that she died of ill-health and high-blood pressure. His version, corroborated by his brother, Bernardino Demiar, and sisters, Priscila Demiar and Dominga Demiar, is as follows:
That he is the youngest son of the deceased Pilar Edaño, who, during her lifetime, lived with him at Lacaron, barrio Tambongon, San Remigio, Cebu; that his deceased mother was sickly, and suffered from high blood pressure; that she went to Masbate, sometime in May, 1955, to visit her sons and daughters residing there; that while his deceased mother was in Masbate in the house of her daughter Dominga Demiar, she fainted 5 times due to high blood pressure; that she was sickly when she returned to appellant's place at Lacaron, Tambongon, San Remigio, Cebu; that sometime in the afternoon of August 5, 1955, she had an attack of her high blood pressure, lost consciousness, and remained Demiar, Trifona Demiar, Meliton Magdadaro, and some neighbors came and tried to revive her; that she regained consciousness in the morning of August 8, 1955, and remained conscious for about half an hour; that after bequeathing her rings, earrings, necklaces, and other pieces of jewelry to appellant, she again lost consciousness and never regained it; that the accusation against him is false, malicious, and fabricated by his sister Santas Demiar and her husband Lope Mayol, who bore a grudge against him, because he opposed the mortgage of a land belonging to their mother; that after appellant was detained, Santas Demiar and her husband mortgaged the land to Juanito Pepito for P250.00; and that later, the spouses had the house of appellant demolished and appropriated the materials thereof.
Appellant's claim that his mother's death was due to natural sickness and that she died of high blood pressure cannot be sustained in the face of the direct and positive testimonies of Pacita Catanda, the 12-years old grandchild of the deceased Pilar Edaño and niece of appellant and Trifona Demiar, appellant's sister, which are corroborated by those of Meliton Magdadaro, appellant's cousin, and Telesforo Pestaño, chief of police of San Remigio, who investigated appellant. An examination of the testimony of Pacita Catanda, who actually saw the choking of her grandmother, the deceased Pilar Edaño, by appellant, disclosed that said witness, although a child of tender age at the time she took the witness stand, was intelligent enough to convey what she perceived on the date in question. We are in entire accord with the following observations of the trial court on the point.
The Court finds no reason to doubt the credibility of Pacita Catanda. She has been examined with reference to her ability to understand the nature of an oath and the Court has observed that she is possessed of sufficient intelligence and discernment to justify it in accepting to the questions propounded to her were prompt, straightforward, responsible to interrogatories, and devoid of evasion or any semblance of shuffling. Pacita Catanda is a niece of the accused and there is nothing in the record to show that she has been induced or in any manner impelled by any ulterior motive to testify falsely against the accused. The Court, therefore, believes that her testimony is admissible in evidence against the accused. Needless to say, an intelligent child is as a rule the best witness in the world. (People vs. Bustos, 45 Phil., 9; People vs. Alembra, 55 Phil., 578.)
But apart from Pacita Catanda's testimony, there is the testimony of Trifona Demiar, appellant's sister, who also saw appellant choke their mother.
The defense, however, contends that the trial court in relying upon the allegedly unreliable testimony of Pacita Catanda, and the supposedly improbable testimony of Trifona Demiar. Appellant points to an apparent contradiction in Pacita Catanda's testimony, who, on cross-examination, stated that she did not see appellant in her grandmother's house, while on direct examination she said that she saw appellant choke her grandmother in the latter's house. Suffice it to say, that the trial court, which observed and sized up said witness, gave credence to her testimony, not only because it is rational, but also because it is intelligible as well. In respect of appellant's contention that his sister Trifona Demiar could not have heard the screams and shouts as her mother at a distance of 60 yards, suffice it also to state that said witness heard, not only her mother's screams, but also the shouts of her daughter Pacita Catanda. Besides, it is a matter of common knowledge that barrios are free from the noises that obtain in large and busy communities, so much so that a light noise is easily heard at far distances.
The testimony of Meliton Magdadaro corroborates those of Pacita Catanda and Trifona Demiar, and leaves no room for doubt that appellant did, in fact, choke the deceased Pilar Edaño. This witness stated that his attention was attracted by the shouts and screams coming from Pilar Edaño's house. He went there to investigate, and was told by Pilar Edaño that she was choked by her son, appellant herein, who did not pity her. Added to this, is the behavior or appellant who, during the investigation and in the presence of the chief of police and the justice of the peace, cried and asked for forgiveness from his sister. Too, while under detention, appellant wrote a letter (Exhs. A and A-3-A)to his brother-in-law, Lope Mayol, seeking forgiveness from his sister and asking them to testify that their mother (the deceased Pilar Edaño) died a natural death. Appellant's behavior, is evidently incompatible with his protestations of innocence. As correctly observed by the trial court:
If it is true the accused did not choke his mother, there was certainly no necessity for him to induce his sister Santas Demiar to just declare that their mother died of illness. This letter, in effect, bolsters the testimony of the witness for the prosecution that the accused, in truth and in fact, choked his mother on the afternoon in question.
Appellant's claim that the charge against him is false, malicious, and concocted by his sister Santas and her husband Lope Mayol, who allegedly bore a grudge against him, because of his opposition to his proposal to mortgage the land of their mother Pilar Edaño, does not deserve any serious consideration. It appears that the land in question was sold by the deceased to the spouses Lope Mayol and Santas Demiar on September 4, 1954 (Exh. B), and appellant himself was one of the witness to the sale. The money realized from the sale was used to defray the marriage expenses of appellant and his wife. Granting for the sake of argument, that Lope Mayol and his wife were actuated by ulterior motives, there is no showing that the other witnesses, like Pacita Catanda, appellant's niece; Trifona Demiar, appellant's sister; Meliton Magdadaro appellant's cousin; and Telesforo Pestaño, chief of police, had any motive to falsely impute so grave a crime as parricide to appellant. On this point, the trial court said:
The witness of the prosecution, Pacita Catanda, Trifona Demiar Meliton Magdadaro, and the Chief of Police Telesforo Pestaño, appear to be disinterested witnesses in this case. No evidence whatsoever has been presented to show any reason or motive why these witnesses should have testified falsely against the accused. In the absence of such evidence, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimony is worthy of faith and credit. (People vs. Macalindong, 76, Phil., 719; 43 Off. Gaz., 490.) Between the positive testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the mere denials of the accused, greater weight must necessarily be given to that of the former. (People vs. Barbano, 76 Phil., 702, 43 Off. Gaz., 478.)
It is also contended for appellant that the trial court erred in admitting appellant's letter to his brother-in-law Lope Mayol (Exh. A) and that there is nothing in the letter which would show that appellant admitted his guilt. Appellant argues that, instead of considering said letter as evidence indicative of his guilt, the trial court should have considered it in his favor, because he disclaimed therein asked forgiveness from his sisters and begged them to testify that their mother died of natural illness and not of strangulation, we fail to see why said statements could not be taken as an admission of appellant's guilt. As to the argument that said letter should have been considered in appellant's favor, it may stated that self-serving statements made extra-judicially cannot be admitted as evidence in favor of the person making them, although the incriminating statement is evidence against him. (People vs. Piring, 63 Phil., 564.)
It is finally contended that the trial court erred in convicting appellant of the crime of parricide, in the absence of evidence that the cause of the deceased's death was the result of strangulation; that no expert witness was presented to testify on the cause of her death; and that possibly the deceased had died of another cause and not due to the act of appellant. It is argued that the trial court should have given credence to the defense version that the deceased was a sick woman, suffering from high blood pressure, which may have cause her death. But, as already stated, there is direct and positive, fully-corroborated testimony, that before the choking incident, the deceased Pilar Edaño was enjoying normal health, and did the daily household chores such as fetching water, grinding corn, cooking food, and splitting firewood; that after appellant choked her, she became seriously ill; that from the time she was strangled, she could not swallow food or drink water; and that she died 3 days later, without recovering from the effects of the strangulation. From these facts, it is to conclude, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the deceased's death was the direct and natural consequence of the injuries inflicted on her by appellant. (People vs. Reyes, 61 Phil., 341.) Considering that appellant had choked the deceased, thereby inflicting injuries upon her, he is responsible for all the consequences of his criminal act, the death of said deceased, which resulted as consequences of such injuries. Well-settled is the rule that a person is responsible for the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his criminal or unlawful acts. (U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil., 310; People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil., 524; People vs. Martin, 98 Phil., 18 and other cases.)
The crime committed by appellant is parricide (Art. 246, Revised Penal Code),the deceased victim of the criminal act being his legitimate mother, which crime is punishable withreclusion perpetuato death. As correctly held by the trial court, appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong (Art. 13 [3], id.). We do not agree, however, that the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation, or a circumstance of analogous nature should be considered in his favor. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the failure of appellant's deceased mother to prepare food for him while he was away gambling, leaving her at home to do the household chores for him, gave him no justification to lose his temper and strangle her to death. The penalty imposed by the trial court is, therefore, modified to that ofreclusion perpetua, which we hereby impose on appellant.
Modified as above indicated, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed, in all respects, with costs against the defendant appellant Climaco Demiar. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Gutierrez David, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Originally appealed to the Court of Appeals, but certified to us on January 28, 1959 by said court, on the ground that the imposable penalty isreclusion perpetua.