G.R. No. L-24884 - AUGUST 1968 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-24884August 31, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Consorcio B. Pelago G.R. No. L-24606August 31, 1968 Jose T. Jamandre vs. Court of Appeals , et al. G.R. No. L-23023August 31, 1968 Jose P. Sta. Ana vs. Florentino Maliwat, et al. G.R. No. L-20831August 31, 1968 Caltex(Philippines), Inc., et al. vs. Luis U. Go G.R. No. L-20495August 31, 1968 Belen Cruz vs. Luiz M. Simon Domingo Mossesgeld, et al. G.R. No. L-29223August 30, 1968 Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Jose R. Querubin, et al. G.R. No. L-28891August 30, 1968 Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Estanislao D. Sarto, et al. G.R. No. L-28751August 30, 1968 Jose Tuburan vs. Frank Ballener, et al. G.R. No. L-28223August 30, 1968 Mechanical Department Labor Union sa Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-26197August 30, 1968 Adelo C. Rivera vs. San Miguel Brewery Corporation G.R. No. L-25059August 30, 1968 Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera Y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas vs. Angel Mojica, et al. G.R. No. L-25049August 30, 1968 Filemon Ramirez, et al. vs. Artemio Baltazar, et al. G.R. No. L-24471August 30, 1968 Silverio Marchan, et al. vs. Arsenio Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-24394August 30, 1968 Juanito Carlos vs. Antonio J. Villegas, et al. G.R. No. L-24259August 30, 1968 Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson G.R. No. L-24189August 30, 1968 Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. vs. Sangilo-Itogon Workers' Union, et al. G.R. No. L-24165August 30, 1968 Juan M. Serrano vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-23979August 30, 1968 Homeowners' Ass'n. of the Phil., Inc., et al. vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-23767August 30, 1968 Carmen San Jose-Lacson vs. Alfonso Lacson G.R. No. L-23541August 30, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Angelito Guardo, et al. G.R. No. L-23482August 30, 1968 Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson, et al. G.R. No. L-22822August 30, 1968 Gregoria Palanca vs. American Food Manufacturing Company, et al. G.R. No. L-22769August 30, 1968 Juan Isberto vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-22766August 30, 1968 Surigao Electric Co., Inc., et al. vs. Municipality of Surigao, et al. G.R. Nos. L-22359 and L-22524-25August 30, 1968 Mateo Coronel, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-22212August 30, 1968 Farm Implement & Machinery Co. vs. Commission of Customs G.R. No. L-22183August 30, 1968 Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. vs. Pedro V. Ybañez, et al. G.R. No. L-21965August 30, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Simplicio S. Gervacio, et al. G.R. No. L-19491August 30, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-10222August 29, 1968 Cirilo Dizon, et al. vs. Isabel Banues G.R. No. L-25029August 28, 1968 Proceso Vinluan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22814August 28, 1968 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Butuan, et al. G.R. No. L-28613August 27, 1968 Ambrocio Lacuna vs. Benjamin H. Abes G.R. No. L-28188August 27, 1968 J. M. Javier Logging Corp. vs. Atanacio A. Mardo, et al. G.R. No. L-24405August 27, 1968 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Dingalan Forest Product Corporation, et al. A.C. No. 549August 26, 1968 Maxima C. Lopez vs. Manuel B. Casaclang G.R. No. L-19737August 26, 1968 Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-19490August 26, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Gorgonio Ubaldo, et al. G.R. No. L-23768August 23, 1968 Jose Garrido vs. Pilar G. Tuason G.R. No. L-28903August 22, 1968 Marinduque Mining Industrial Corp. vs. Santiago Yap, et al. G.R. No. L-28511August 22, 1968 Arturo Seriña vs. Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, et al. G.R. No. L-24845August 22, 1968 Adela Ongsiaco vda. de Clemeña vs. Agustin Engracio Clemeña, et al. G.R. No. L-24116-17August 22, 1968 Cebu Portland Cement Company vs. Municipality of Naga, et al. G.R. No. L-24774August 21, 1968 Raul Cipriano vs. San Miguel Corporation G.R. No. L-19150August 16, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Pascual Bartolome G.R. No. L-19149August 16, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Ben Paredes, et al. G.R. No. L-29169August 19, 1968 Roger Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-29044August 15, 1968 Workmen's Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-27205August 15, 1968 Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Juan Griño G.R. No. L-19880August 15, 1968 Republic of the Philippines vs. La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-25729August 14, 1968 Perfecto Cordero, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-25295August 14, 1968 Concordia T. Arong vs. Conrada Seno , et al. G.R. No. L-24954August 14, 1968 City of Naga vs. Court of Appeal, et al. G.R. No. L-24493August 14, 1968 Adolfo C. Navarro vs. City of Zamboanga G.R. No. L-19791August 14, 1968 Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company vs. Rafael Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-20872August 10, 1968 Digna Baldevarona vda. de Gomez vs. Ambrosio Fortaleza, et al. G.R. No. L-27260August 8, 1968 National Marketing Corporation, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel G.R. No. L-23129August 2, 1968 Isidrra Faraon, et al. vs. Tomas Priela The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Consorcio B. Pelago Jose T. Jamandre vs. Court of Appeals , et al. Jose P. Sta. Ana vs. Florentino Maliwat, et al. Caltex(Philippines), Inc., et al. vs. Luis U. Go Belen Cruz vs. Luiz M. Simon Domingo Mossesgeld, et al. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc. vs. Jose R. Querubin, et al. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Estanislao D. Sarto, et al. Jose Tuburan vs. Frank Ballener, et al. Mechanical Department Labor Union sa Philippine National Railways vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Adelo C. Rivera vs. San Miguel Brewery Corporation Federacion Obrera de la Industria Tabaquera Y Otros Trabajadores de Filipinas vs. Angel Mojica, et al. Filemon Ramirez, et al. vs. Artemio Baltazar, et al. Silverio Marchan, et al. vs. Arsenio Mendoza, et al. Juanito Carlos vs. Antonio J. Villegas, et al. Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. vs. Sangilo-Itogon Workers' Union, et al. Juan M. Serrano vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Homeowners' Ass'n. of the Phil., Inc., et al. vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila, et al. Carmen San Jose-Lacson vs. Alfonso Lacson People of the Philippines vs. Angelito Guardo, et al. Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson, et al. Gregoria Palanca vs. American Food Manufacturing Company, et al. Juan Isberto vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Surigao Electric Co., Inc., et al. vs. Municipality of Surigao, et al. Mateo Coronel, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Farm Implement & Machinery Co. vs. Commission of Customs Receiver for North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. vs. Pedro V. Ybañez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Simplicio S. Gervacio, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., et al. Cirilo Dizon, et al. vs. Isabel Banues Proceso Vinluan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of the Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Butuan, et al. Ambrocio Lacuna vs. Benjamin H. Abes J. M. Javier Logging Corp. vs. Atanacio A. Mardo, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Dingalan Forest Product Corporation, et al. Maxima C. Lopez vs. Manuel B. Casaclang Heng Tong Textiles Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gorgonio Ubaldo, et al. Jose Garrido vs. Pilar G. Tuason Marinduque Mining Industrial Corp. vs. Santiago Yap, et al. Arturo Seriña vs. Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, et al. Adela Ongsiaco vda. de Clemeña vs. Agustin Engracio Clemeña, et al. Cebu Portland Cement Company vs. Municipality of Naga, et al. Raul Cipriano vs. San Miguel Corporation People of the Philippines vs. Pascual Bartolome People of the Philippines vs. Ben Paredes, et al. Roger Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Workmen's Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Juan Griño Republic of the Philippines vs. La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc., et al. Perfecto Cordero, et al. vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Concordia T. Arong vs. Conrada Seno , et al. City of Naga vs. Court of Appeal, et al. Adolfo C. Navarro vs. City of Zamboanga Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Manila Railroad Company vs. Rafael Hernandez, et al. Digna Baldevarona vda. de Gomez vs. Ambrosio Fortaleza, et al. National Marketing Corporation, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel Isidrra Faraon, et al. vs. Tomas Priela The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24884           August 31, 1968

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CONSORCIO PELAGO Y BEKILLA,defendant-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Jovito O. Vitanzo for defendant-appellant.

FERNANDO,J.:

The deceased, Braulio Torres, met his death from "cardiac trouble and hemorrhage secondary to the stab wound in the abdomen"¹inflicted by the accused, now appellant, Consorcio Pelago. He was tried, found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentenced toreclusion perpetua. The case is now before us on appeal.

The prosecution presented only one eyewitness, Alfredo Metillo. He testified that in the afternoon of December 20, 1964, he went to the cockpit of Calabayan, Ozamiz City.²He was present when the accused killed Braulio Torres.³The deceased asked him whether he could spend the night in his house as it was already evening and he could not go back to his residence located at Trigos.⁴The witness answered that the deceased should wait for him while he looked for his wife, the sister of Braulio Torres.⁵Then came the continuation of his testimony: "While I was looking around, the accused suddenly stabbed Braulio Torres, while [he] was with his arms crossed in front of him. Braulio Torres received two wounds, on the left arm and on the abdomen."⁶The above testimony was interpreted by the court thus: "The accused had stabbed Torres while Torres was with his arms crossed in front of him. Braulio Torres received the injuries on his left arm which penetrated to the abdomen."⁷

When asked what he did after such a stabbing incident, the witness, Metillo, replied: "After that I caught Braulio Torres with my hand and then pressed my hand against the wound of Braulio and that time there was a truck, so I let him board it. I brought him to the hospital through that truck."⁸In the meanwhile, according to him, "Consorcio Pelago already ran away."⁹He was able to bring the deceased to the hospital owned by a certain Dr. Medina.¹⁰Braulio Torres died about 7 o'clock the same evening.¹¹

On cross-examination, it was shown that the wife of the witness is a sister of the deceased.¹²He likewise admitted that while he and the appellant and the deceased were facing each other, they were conversing.¹³It was during that time that he looked at the crowd to search for his wife, the sister of the deceased.¹⁴When the court asked him as to what they were talking about, he answered "Ordinary conversation."¹⁵When pressed further as to whether there was any altercation, he simply said, "No."¹⁶

As to how far he was when the stabbing took place: "I was just . . . I mean, we were in the form of a triangle at a distance of one meter and a half. I was looking around and I saw Pelago stabbed."¹⁷He clarified further: "About one meter and we were in the form of a triangle because Pelago was in front of me while Torres was on my right side."¹⁸The lower court asked how he could know the position of the deceased at the time he was stabbed by appellant; he replied: "I know, sir, because I [was] really there and we were facing each other. Maybe he crossed his arms because maybe he was feeling cold because it was late in the afternoon."¹⁹When his attention was once again directed to the conversation between the deceased and appellant, the witness admitted he "did not know what they were talking about."²⁰He added: "It was just an ordinary conversation. There were no bad words uttered."²¹He answered in the negative the question of the court as to whether they were shouting at each other during such conversation.²²He reiterated there was no altercation.²³

The defense, on its part, relied on its witness, a certain Honorato Capa. He testified that he knew appellant as well as the deceased and the witness, Metillo, and that in the afternoon of December 20, 1964 he saw the three of them conversing in the market place in Calabayan, Ozamiz City. After which, Metillo left the group, and they separated. Then the deceased went to him while he "was drinking tuba inside a small store and asked [a] glass of tuba, and after drinking the tuba, he went out and asked for a cigarette from Consorcio Pelago."²⁴He testified further that appellant answered that he had no cigarettes.²⁵When the deceased asked appellant for tuba, the latter replied that he had no money for tuba.²⁶He continued: "After that Braulio Torres encircled his arms around the neck of Pelago and said, "What are we going to drink, blood?" And at this instance Torres pulled out his dagger."²⁷It was then that Consorcio Pelago also pulled out his hunting [knife] and stabbed."²⁸

He was asked to explain how the stabbing occurred. This was the reply: "Consorcio Pelago pulled out his dagger while he was putting or holding on the right arm of Torres, then Pelago pushed his dagger at the arm of Torres."²⁹As to why he knew that the arm of the deceased was the target of the appellant, he admitted that after such incident, he had a conversation with the latter who told him that it was his purpose to stab the arm "so that the weapon of Torres would fall down."³⁰He stated that while the deceased and the appellant were about of the same height, the former was bigger.³¹The witness was asked what happened further after the dagger hit the arm of the deceased. According to him, he "heard Torres shout "agoy" and thereafter, Torres turned around."³²He likewise testified: "The thrust penetrated into the body. The dagger penetrated into the body of Torres because the hunting [knife] that Pelago used was 6 to 8 inches long excluding the handle."³³

He reiterated though that while the dagger of the appellant penetrated the body of the deceased, it was the arm that was hit. He answered in the affirmative the question of the lower court as to whether the hunting knife hit the right arm of Torres "and from the right arm it penetrated to his abdomen."³⁴All the while, he implied that the right arm of the deceased was still encircled around the neck of the appellant who was struggling to free himself while the stabbing occurred. It was his testimony that appellant's "struggle to free himself was simultaneous with the stabbing."³⁵To the question of the lower court as to whether the stabbing took place when they were still face to face, he answered: "Yes, Your Honor. "³⁶To another question of the lower court as to whether appellant and the deceased were so near each other, "that their bodies were almost touching one another," came the reply: "The distance between their bodies is (as indicated by the witness) about one and a half feet."³⁷

In its decision of July 7, 1965, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, the lower court characterized the version of the defense as untenable. It explained why: "If at the time Braulio Torres was stabbed, his left arm was encircled around the neck of the accused, then the injury on the left arm would not have pierced the abdomen. It would have penetrated the neck. On the other hand, the theory of the prosecution is more in harmony with the location of the injuries. Braulio Torres was standing with his arms crossed at his abdomen as if he was feeling cold. It was while in this position that Pelago stabbed him. The injury on the left arm pierced the abdomen."³⁸

Another circumstance that casts doubt on such an allegation of self-defense was noted in the decision: "After the stabbing, the accused did not surrender to the authorities. On the contrary, he escaped to his house and threw away the weapon used in the commission of the crime. This is not the behaviour of one who killed another in self-defense."³⁹

Appellant would assail the above appreciation of evidence on the part of the lower court, reiterating in his second assignment of error his plea of self-defense. Such a plea is not persuasive. The analysis made by the lower court of the manner in which the stabbing took place cannot be impugned as lacking in basis or characterized by arbitrariness. It suffices to refer to a rule, now firmly established "to the point of becoming elementary in this jurisdiction . . . that where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed from."⁴⁰

While the decision, however, could be sustained insofar as the killing of Braulio Torres cannot be justified as an act of self-defense, its finding as to the existence of treachery raises doubt not altogether fanciful. All that was testified to at this point by the lone eyewitness, the brother-in-law of the deceased, follows: "While I was looking around, the accused suddenly stabbed Braulio Torres, while Braulio Torres was with his arms crossed in front of him."⁴¹

A citation from an opinion ofJustice Tuason in People v. Tumaob,⁴²is instructive: "The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot logically be appreciated because the accused did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the commission of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. This circumstance can only be applied, according to the tenor of article 13, sub-section 16 of the Revised Penal Code, when the culprit employs means, methods or forms of execution whichtend directly and speciallyto insure the commission of the crime and at the same time to eliminate or diminish the risk to his own person from a defense which the other party might offer. In United States v. Namit, 38 Phil. 926, it was held that the circumstance that an attack was sudden and unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute the element ofalevosianecessary to raise a homicide to murder, where it did not appear that the aggressor had consciously adopted a mode of attack intended to facilitate the perpetration of the homicide without risk to himself. In the present case, the circumstances negative the hypothesis that the defendant reflected on the means, method and form of killing the offended party."

Whatever may be said of the testimony, both on direct and cross-examination of the lone eyewitness presented by the prosecution, it does not go as far as positively asserting that the appellant did employ means, methods, or forms of execution tending directly and specially to insure its success without risk to himself arising from any defense the offended party might make. Moreover, it would not be in consonance with the ordinary course of human events, the eyewitness being insistent that there was no altercation of any kind and that the three of them were engaged in an ordinary conversation, to assume without more that such a sudden unprovoked attack would take place as above intimated. The doubt that arises as to the existence of treachery cannot be considered fully erased under the circumstances.

As this Court held inPeople v. Calacala,⁴³speaking through Justice Makalintal, where the prosecution tried to prove treachery through the testimony of a first cousin: "Full credence cannot be given . . . . It is strange that of the many people present he alone — a close relative of the deceased — should be presented as eyewitness to the stabbing." Appellant's criminal liability therefore should be for the crime of homicide rather than of murder.1äwphï1.ñët

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is modified, so as to sentence the accused, Consorcio Pelago, to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day ofprision mayorto 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal with the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of P6,000.00. With costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Footnotes