THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 133382. March 9, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFREN
MENDO! y S!L"!DOR, accused-appellant.
D E # I S I O N
P!NG!NI$!N, J.%
True, a father and husband has the duty and the right to defend himself, his family and
his home. However, in order to suessfully invo!e self"defense and defense of relative,
he must #rove, by lear and onvining evidene, the onurrene of three elements,
the most im#ortant of whih is unlawful aggression on the #art of the vitim. $bsent
unlawful aggression, these defenses olla#se and the aused must be onvited. sl%& mis
Th& #a'&
'fren (endo)a y Salvador was harged with murder for the *uly +,, +--. !illing of
$nhito $. Nano. /efore the Regional Trial 0ourt of Daet, 0amarines Norte, an
Information
1+2
was filed against him on Se#tember -, +--., alleging as follows3
4That on or about 53.6 o7 lo! 1o2n the evening of *uly +,, +--., at /rgy.
(anluugan, 1(2unii#ality of Vin)ons, 182rovine of 0amarines Norte, and
within the 9urisdition of this Honorable 0ourt, the above"named aused
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with deliberate intent
to !ill, with treahery and evident #remeditation, assault, atta! and ha!
with a bolo one $N0HITO $. N$NO, thereby infliting u#on the latter
multi#le ha!ing wounds, whih were the #ro%imate ause of his
instantaneous death, to the damage and #re9udie of the heirs of the
vitim.
40ONTR$R: TO ;$<.4
1=2
During his arraignment on Otober ==, +--., a##ellant, with the assistane of $tty. ;eo
Intia, entered a #lea of not guilty.
1.2
On November >, +--5, after trial in due ourse, the
ourt a quo rendered its assailed nine"#age Deision,
1,2
the dis#ositive #ortion of whih
reads3
4<H'R'?OR', #remises onsidered, this ourt hereby finds the aused,
'fren (endo)a @AI;T: beyond reasonable doubt of the rime of
(ARD'R defined and #enali)ed under $rtile =,B of the Revised 8enal
0ode. The mitigating irumstane of voluntary surrender will not affet
the #enalty im#osed sine it is offset by the aggravating irumstane of
treahery. <herefore, he is hereby ordered to suffer the #enalty of
R'0;ASION 8'R8'TA$, and to #ay the heirs of the deeased the
following3
aC 8 D6,666.66 as death indemnityE and
bC 8 .6,666.66 as moral damages.
4The bond #osted for the #rovisional liberty of said aused is hereby
0$N0';;'D.
4SO ORD'R'D.4
1D2
Hene, this a##eal.
1>2
Th& Fac('
Th& "&r')o* o+ (h& Pro'&c,()o*
In the 8eo#le7s /rief,
152
the Offie of the Soliitor @eneral #resented the following
statement of fats3
4$t around 5366 #.m. of *uly +,, +--., in /arangay (anluugan, Vin)ons,
0amarines Norte, $nhito Nano and (arianito Rafael #assed by
a##ellant7s house and as!ed for a drin! from a##ellant7s wife, 'mily
(endo)a. $nhito began tal!ing with 'mily and they were about four
arms"length from (arianito when a##ellant suddenly a##eared. $##ellant
ha!ed $nhito on the na#e, whih #rom#ted (arianito to flee out of fear
for his life. FTSN, (arh -, +--., ##.+6"+,C.
4/rgy. Gagawad 8edro Saman, together with 'rnesto 0ribe and Trinidad
delos Santos, arrived later at the sene of the rime. Gagawad Saman
disovered $nhito in a !neeling #osition already dead. He also found F.C
three ha! wounds on the na#e and two F=C ha! wounds at the ba! of
$nhito7s body FTSN, (arh +6, +--5, ##. 5 and +BC.
4$t around -366 #.m. of that day, Trinidad delos Santos re#orted the
ha!ing inident to the sub"station of $guit"it, Vin)ons. S8O= Silverio
Rafael #roeeded to the rime sene and saw $nhito7s body still in a
!neeling #osition with ha! wounds at the ba! of the ne! and body
FTSN, (ay .+, +--,, #. DC. SdaH ads
4S8O, Rafael as!ed the #eo#le #resent who was the #er#etrator of the
rime. The /arangay offiials led by Ggwd. Saman and Ggwd. 0ribe
informed Rafael that the #er#etrator was a##ellant 'fren (endo)a. S8O,
Rafael later observed that the a##ellant7s house was in total disarray and
he surmised that things might have been ta!en in a hurry. He also noted
that there was no wea#on anywhere near the vitim7s body FIbid., ##. +="
+, and +5C.
4;ater that night, a##ellant surrendered to Senior 8olie Offier ;eonardo
$lmadrones who #rom#tly turned him over to 0hief Investigator *oel
@uinto for the reIuisite investigation. During investigation, a##ellant
laimed that $nhito ransa!ed his house and ha!ed his seven F5C year
old son 'rnie (endo)a FTSN, *uly +, +--,, #. DC.
4Two days later, a##ellant7s wife and son went to the Vin)on7s #olie
station to blotter 'rnie (endo)a7s wound. Investigator @uinto interviewed
'rnie (endo)a and onluded that 'rnie7s wound was made by
somebody other than the vitim sine the said wound was not dee#
enough. $lso, when he Iuestioned the hild about the wound, the latter
answered that when he wo!e u#, he already had a wound. Investigator
@uinto later filed the #resent harge against a##ellant after the vitim7s
ommon"law wife brought several witnesses who eah e%euted their
orres#onding sworn affidavits.4 FIbid., ##. 5 J ++C.4
1B2
Th& "&r')o* o+ (h& D&+&*'&
The defense #resented si% witnesses3 $##ellant 'fren (endo)a, his wife 'mily and his
son 'rnieE /ayani $guilarE Dr. @audenio $lbano and 0armen Herio. In his /rief,
1-2
a##ellant summari)ed the defense witnesses7 testimonies as follows3
4'(I;: ('NDOK$, wife of a##ellant, testified that at around 5366 o7 lo!
in the evening, the vitim $nhito Nano and his om#anion (arianito
Rafael arrived at their house and u#on arrival, $nhito Nano destroyed the
two F=C windows of their house. She saw afterwards that her son, 'rnie
(endo)a, was ha!ed by $nhito Nano while the former was #ee#ing thru
the destroyed window. She shouted for hel# and a##ellant, her husband,
res#onded to her all and saw $nhito Nano who was about to atta! her
husband, but was ha!ed first by the latter. (arianito Rafael who was 9ust
wathing subseIuently fled from the #lae of the inident. She brought her
son first to the faith healer for immediate treatment and the following
morning to the 8rovinial Hos#ital for medial treatment. She learned later
that her husband went to Vin)ons (unii#al Hall and surrendered
voluntarily to the #olie authority on the same day of *uly +,, +--.. FTSN,
Deember B, +--,, ##. ."++C.
4'?R'N ('NDOK$, aused"a##ellant, testified that on *uly +,, +--., at
around 53.6 in 1the2 evening, he was at the omfort room =6 about meters
away from their house when he heard his wife shouting for hel#. He ran
immediately towards the diretion of their house and saw $nhito Nano
destroying the lo! of their window1E2 hene he loo!ed for a #iee of wood
but found a bolo instead. He later heard his son shout, 4$ma, tinaga a!o.4
He a##roahed $nhito Nano to #revent him from entering their house but
the latter tried to ha! him. He was able to deliver a ha!ing blow ahead of
the vitim on the right side of the ne!. Thereafter, he immediately went to
the (unii#al Hall of Vin)ons and surrendered voluntarily to the #olie
authority FTSN, (arh =5, +--D, ##. ."BC. RtH s##ed
4'RNI' ('NDOK$, a##ellant7s son, testified that on *uly +,, +--., at
around 53.6 in the evening, he notied that somebody was ha!ing their
house, hene, he #ee#ed through the window and saw $nhito Nano who
ha!ed him on the head, thereby resulting 1in2 los1s2 of onsiousness
while his mother 1!e#t2 on shouting for hel#. He was brought first to a
Iua! dotor for immediate treatment and the following morning, to the
#rovinial hos#ital where he was treated by Dr. $lbano for the head in9ury
he sustained.
4/$:$NI $@AI;$R, #olie hief of Vin)ons 8N8 testified that he issued a
ertifiation on $ugust ., +--. about the voluntary surrender of a##ellant
'fren (endo)a and another ertifiation regarding one in the re#ort made
by 'mily (endo)a relative to the ha!ing of his son by $nhito Nano
whih ha##ened on *uly +,, +--. at about 53.6 in the evening at their
house FTSN, November 5, +--D, ##. =",C.
4DR. @$AD'N0IO $;/$NO, the attending dotor who treated a##ellant7s
son testified that he treated 'rnie (endo)a who suffered a wound
laeration four F,C m. long at the middle of the head whih ould have
been aused by a blunt ob9et. FTSN, *uly .+, +-->, ##. ,">C.
40$R('N H'RI0O testified that on *uly +,, +--., at around 53.6 in the
evening, she heard her daughter, 'mily (endo)a shouting for hel#, hene
she ran towards her daughter7s house and they met halfway along the
road. They #roeeded ba! to her daughter7s house and she saw the
fallen window. She and her daughter, subseIuently #roeeded to the
house of 8edro Saman, a barangay !agawad and informed the latter
about the inident. FTSN, Otober ==, +-->, ##. ., D">C.4
1+62
Tr)a- #o,r(.' R,-)*/
The ourt a quo re9eted a##ellantLs #lea of self"defense, ratioinating as follows3
4To bolster his laim of self"defense, aused 'fren (endo)a delared3
when he heard the shouts for hel# of his wife, immediately he ran towards
their house and saw the vitim destroying their house. There, he heard his
son 1shout2, 4$ma, tinaga a!o.4 He immediately a##roahed the vitim in
order to #revent him from entering the house. He delivered the first blow
by ha!ing the vitim, hitting the vitim at the right side of the ne!,
alleging that the vitim, when they were faing eah other, ha!ed the
aused first.
4Indeed, a man7s house is his astle. He has the right to #rotet it. He may
re#el fore by fore in defense of #erson, habitation or #ro#erty against
anyone who manifestly intends or endeavors by violene or sur#rise to
ommit a felony. /ut these irumstanes surrounding the inident
negates the allegations of the aused7s self"defense. ?irst, there is an
eyewitness on the #art of the #roseution, that the aused suddenly
atta!ed and ha!ed the vitim outside the house Ftsn., (arh -, +--,,
##. +="+.C. Seondly, the #hysial evidene of the number, loation and
severity of the 1ha!2 and inised wounds found on the body of the vitim
affirmed by the medial findings ontained in the auto#sy re#ort that all the
ha! wounds 1ame2 from the ba! of the vitim7s body Ftsn., ?eb. ,, +--,,
#. 5C, and the #itures #resented in ourt F'%hibits 404 to 40",4C all indiate
that the vitim was ha!ed from behind. 0learly, aused7s at was no
longer one of self"#reservation, but a determined effort to !ill his vitim.4
1++2
Holding that a##ellant7s laim was debun!ed by the #roseution witnesses7 testimonies
whih were more redible, the trial ourt e%#lained3 Gorte&
4Gagawad 8edro Saman was among the first #ersons who saw the viinity
of the inident. He notied that the vitim was not arrying any wea#on or
!nife or a #iee of wood and the house was in good ondition Ftsn, (arh
+6, +--,, #. +,C. It was orroborated by S8O, Silverio Rafael that there
was indeed no wea#on within the viinity where the or#se of the vitim
was found Ftsn, (ay .+, +--,, #. +5C The allegations of the aused that
the vitim was the aggressor who ha!ed him first is ontrary to human
nature. There was no alteration, warning or even a hallenge that 1would2
enable the vitim to be aggressor. The aggression must be real, or at
least, imminent and not merely imaginary. The aggressor7s intent must be
ostensibly revealed by his hostile attitude and other e%ternal ats
onstituting a real, material, unlawful aggression. $ threat, even if made
with a wea#on or the belief that a #erson was about to be atta!ed, is not
suffiient. It is neessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an at of
aggression or by some e%ternal ats showing the ommenement of
atual, material, unlawful aggression. This ourt finds that 1sine2 the
aused was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, an
attem#t to defend himself by means whih a##eared unreasonable by
using a long bolo is un9ustifiable. Hene, the self"defense foisted by the
aused is not well"founded, but an alibi to e%onerate him from the offense
he ommitted.4
1+=2
Th& !--&/&0 Error'
In his /rief, a##ellant assails F+C the trial ourt7s re9etion of his #lea of defense of
relative and F=C its harateri)ation of the rime ommitted. Thus, he submits3
4I
TH' TRI$; 0OART 'RR'D IN NOT A8HO;DIN@ TH' TH'OR: O?
D'?'NS' O? R';$TIV' 'S8OAS'D /: TH' $00AS'D"$88';;$NT
D'S8IT' 0ORRO/OR$TIV' 'VID'N0' SA88ORTIN@ TH' S$('.
II
TH' TRI$; 0OART 'RR'D IN 0ONVI0TIN@ $00AS'D"$88';;$NT
O? TH' 0RI(' O? (ARD'R D'S8IT' TH' $/S'N0' O?
MA$;I?:IN@ 0IR0A(ST$N0'S O? TR'$0H'R: $ND 'VID'NT
8R'('DIT$TION $S $;;'@'D IN TH' IN?OR($TION.4
1+.2
Th& #o,r(.' R,-)*/
The a##eal is #artly meritorious. The mitigating irumstane of voluntary surrender
should be a##reiated in a##ellant7s favor. Slaw&
F)r'( I'',&% Self-Defense and Defense of a Relative
The a##ellant admits to having ha!ed $nhito Nano, but vigorously insists that he did
so to defend himself, his family and his home.
(endo)a reounts that on that fateful night, he was relieving himself in their omfort
room situated about twenty meters outside their house, when he heard his wife7s franti
#leas for hel#. He immediately rushed to their house and saw Nano destroying their
windows. The former loo!ed for something with whih to arm himself and found a bolo.
He realls that at this #oint, he heard his son shout, "Ama, tinaga ako!" Thereafter, he
a##roahed Nano to #revent him from entering the house. The latter allegedly faed
him and was about to stri!e him with a bolo, but the former was able to #arry the blow,
Iui!ly retaliate and hit him on the ne!.
1+,2
R&1,)')(&' o+ S&-+-D&+&*'& a*0 D&+&*'& o+ R&-a()2&
/eause the aused raises self"defense and defense of a relative, it is inumbent u#on
him to #rove the #resene of the following reIuisites3 unlawful aggression on the #art of
the vitim, la! of suffiient #rovoation on his #art, and reasonable neessity of the
means he used to re#el the aggression.
1+D2
It is settled that the aused who invo!es self"
defense or defense of a relative must #resent lear and onvining evidene. Suh
#erson annot rely on the wea!ness of the #roseution, for even if it is wea!, it annot
be disbelieved beause the former has admitted the !illing.
1+>2
SH le%
3*-a4+,- !//r&'')o* No( Pro2&*
<e find that the a##ellant was not able to #rove the all"im#ortant first reIuisite ""
unlawful aggression on the #art of $nhito Nano. (endo)a ontends that it was the
latter who started the aggression by ating in a manner that was threatening and
dangerous to the former and his family, wrea!ing havo on his house and in the
#roess, in9uring his seven"year"old son. $##ellant li!ewise avers that Nano was about
to stri!e him when the former, ating instintively, delivered the fatal blows to the latter.
'mily and 'rnie (endo)a, a##ellant7s wife and son, orroborated this assertion. They
testified that the deeased had started the fraas and aused the wound on 'rnie7s
head. To further #rove this laim, the defense #resented Dr. @audenio $lbano, 'rnie7s
attending #hysiian, who testified that the boy had suffered a laeration, four
entimeters long at the middle of the head, whih ould have been aused by a blunt
ob9et.
1+52
Des#ite this orroboration, however, several irumstanes belie a##ellant7s laim of
self"defense and defense of a relative. First, investigators found the deeased in a
!neeling #osition with five wounds " three on the na#e, and two at the ba!. Thus, the
nature and the loation of suh wounds debun!ed a##ellant7s laim that Nano was
about to atta! him.
Second, the bolo whih Nano had allegedly used in his atta! was not found within the
viinity of the rime sene and was not #resented in ourt. This #oint was established
by S8O, Silverio Rafael7s testimony
1+B2
and the #hotogra#hs
1+-2
de#iting the atual rime
sene.
Third, granting that 'rnie (endo)a was in9ured, the a##ellant and his witnesses were
not able to #rove adeIuately that suh in9ury was aused by Nano, beause there were
inonsistenies and im#robabilities in their testimonies. 'rnie laimed that he had lost
consciousness after being stru! with a bolo by Nano.
1=62
However, a##ellant asserts that
he heard his hild ry, "Ama, tinaga ako!" while the former was about to subdue the
assailant. (oreover, a##ellant admits that he did not see Nano hit his son.
;i!ewise, the testimonies of 0armen Herio F'mily7s motherC and 8edro Saman
regarding the irumstanes after the ha!ing inident negated 'mily7s laim that she
had rushed her wounded son to the faith healer. Herio went to her daughter7s house
after hearing the latter7s ries for hel#, but the former did not see anything e%e#t a
fallen window.
1=+2
Surely, she would have notied if her grandhild was in9ured. 8edro
Saman, the baranggay !agawad summoned by Herio, also testified that a##ellant7s
hildren were in the house when he arrived at the rime sene,
1==2
but he did not mention
anything about an in9ured hild.
In any event, the trial ourt disbelieved the testimonies of the defense witnesses. The
well"settled rule is that the trial ourtLs findings on the redibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are aorded great weight and res#et, in the absene of any lear showing
that some fats or irumstanes of weight or substane whih ould have affeted the
result of the ase have been overloo!ed, misunderstood or misa##lied.
1=.2
$##ellant
failed to #resent any reason why this 0ourt should reverse or modify the ourt a quo7s
ruling.
In all, the totality of the evidene #resented by the a##ellant was not suffiient to #rove
that it was Nano who had started the fraas, and that the former was 9ust ating to
defend himself, his family and his home. %& law
S&co*0 I'',&% Crime and Punishment
<e agree with the trial ourt that the !illing of $nhito Nano was Iualified by treahery,
as alleged in the Information. The essene of treahery is the sudden and une%#eted
atta!, without the slightest #rovoation on the #art of the #erson atta!ed.
1=,2
Treahery
e%ists when the offender ommits any of the rimes against #ersons, em#loying means,
methods or forms in the e%eution thereof whih tend diretly and es#eially to insure its
e%eution, without ris! arising from the defense whih the offended #arty might ma!e.
1=D2
In the #resent ase, the vitimLs la! of awareness of the atta! an be gleaned from
the nature, the number and the loation of his wounds. ?urthermore, the testimony of
(arianito Rafael, against whom no ill motive was im#uted by the a##ellant, li!ewise
established this fat. The former testified3
4M......:ou mean to say that you were #resent when he was ha!edN
$......:es, sir.
M......In what #lae was he ha!edN
% % %......% % %......% % %
$......Near the house of 'fren (endo)a.
M......<hy were you thereN % % %
$....../eause I as!ed for water from 'mily (endo)a.
M......$nd $nhito Nano was also thereN
% % %......% % %......% % %
$......<e were together.
% % %......% % %......% % %
M......:ou mean to say that after you had a drin!, 'fren (endo)a ameN
$......He ame out suddenly.
M......% % % 1<2here did he ome fromN
$......He ame from outside of the house.
M......<hat did 1he2 do u#on arriving, if any, this 'fren (endo)aN
$......He suddenly ha!ed.
M.......<hoN
$......$nhito Nano.
% % %......% % %......% % %
M......How many times was $nhito Nano ha!ed by 'fren (endo)a, if you
!nowN
$......I only saw one, I ran away after seeing the first ha!.4
1=>2
Voluntary Surrender
$##ellant argues that the mitigating irumstane of voluntary surrender should be
a##reiated in his favor, beause he immediately went to the (unii#al Hall and
surrendered to the #olie on the night of the inident. S&
<e agree. To establish this mitigating irumstane, the following three reIuisites must
be shown3 FaC the offender has not been atually arrestedE F=C the offender surrenders
himself to a #erson in authority or the latterLs agentE and FC the surrender is voluntary.
1=52
The defense must show intent to surrender unonditionally to the
authorities, either beause of an a!nowledgement of guilt orbeause of a wish to s#are
them the trouble and the e%#ense onomitant to the searh and the a#ture of the
aused.
1=B2
In this ase, all these reIuisites were #roven. $##ellant7s assertion that he surrendered
was orroborated by 0hief Ins#etor /ayani $guilar, Vin)ons hief of #olie, who issued
a 0ertifiation that 4one 'fren (endo)a % % % voluntarily surrendered 1to2 this station,
inluding his bolo % % % whih was used to ha! . times a ertain :oyoy Nano % %
%.4
1=-2
0ontrary to the submission of the soliitor general,
1.62
the surrender of a##ellant was
unonditional. He readily admitted that he had ha!ed the vitim and subseIuently #ut
himself under #olie ustody.
?urthermore, we hold that the trial ourt erred in ruling that voluntary surrender was
4offset by the aggravating irumstane of treahery.4
1.+2
The ourt a quo failed to
a##reiate the distintion between a generi aggravating irumstane and a Iualifying
one.
$ Iualifying irumstane hanges the nature of the rime. $ generi aggravating
irumstane, on the other hand, does not affet the designation of the rimeE it merely
#rovides for the im#osition of the #resribed #enalty in its ma%imum #eriod. Thus, while
a generi aggravating irumstane may be offset by a mitigating irumstane, a
Iualifying irumstane may not.
1.=2
Treahery in the #resent ase is a Iualifying, not a generi aggravating irumstane.
Its #resene served to harateri)e the !illing as murderE it annot at the same time be
onsidered as a generi aggravating irumstane to warrant the im#osition of the
ma%imum #enalty. Thus, it annot offset voluntary surrender. SmisH
Th& Pro5&r P&*a-(6
<hen the rime was ommitted on *uly +,, +--., the #enalty for murder was reclusion
temporal, in its ma%imum #eriod, to death.
1..2
$t the time, however, R$ 5>D- whih
reim#osed the death #enalty was not yet in effet. In any event, the #resene of the
mitigating irumstane of voluntary surrender im#els the im#osition of the minimum
#eriod of the a##liable #enalty,
1.,2
reclusion temporal Fma%imumC. $##lying the
Indeterminate Sentene ;aw,
1.D2
a##ellant should be sentened to prision mayor in its
ma%imum #eriod to reclusion temporal also in its ma%imum #eriod.
#)2)- I*0&7*)(6
0iting 8eo#le v. Vitor,
1.>2
the soliitor general argues that the ivil indemnity should be
raised from 8D6,666 to 85D,666. This is erroneous. In the said ase, the 0ourt held that
4starting with the ase at bar, if the rime of ra#e is ommitted or effetively Iualified by
any of the irumstanes under whih the death #enalty is authori)ed by the #resent
amended law, the indemnity for the vitim shall be in the inreased amount of not less
than 85D,666.66.4 Obviously, that ruling, whih involved ra#e and im#osed the death
#enalty, annot a##ly to the #resent ase. Hene, onsistent with urrent 9uris#rudene,
1.52
we affirm the award of 8D6,666 as indemnity ex delicto.
;i!ewise, we affirm the award of moral damages in the sum of 8.6,666 for the anguish
and the wounded feelings suffered by the vitim7s heirs, whih were duly #roven.
8HEREFORE, the assailed Deision of the Regional Trial 0ourt is AFFI!"# with the
modifiation that a##ellant is hereby sentened to an indeterminate #enalty of +6 years
and + day ofprision mayor Fma%imumC to +5 years, , months and + day of reclusion
temporal Fma%imumC. $ll other awards are AFFI!"#. No #ronounement as to osts.
SO ORDERED. (isH s
!elo, $%hairman&, 'itug, (urisima, and )on*aga+eyes, ,,-, onur-
[1]
The Information, dated September 6, 1993, was signed by Provincia Prosec!tor Pasc!aita "!ran#$ereno%
[&]
Rollo, p% 6' records, p% 1%
[3]
(ecords, pp% 1)#11%
[*]
Penned by +!dge Sancho "ames II%
[,]
Rollo, p% &-%
[6]
The case was deemed s!bmitted for decision !pon receipt by this $o!rt of the .ppeee/s 0rief on 1ay 31, 1999%
The fiing of a repy brief was deemed waived, as none was s!bmitted within the regementary period%
[2]
Signed by .ssistant Soicitor 3enera $aros 4% 5rtega, .ssistant Soicitor 3enera 1agdanga 1% de 6eon and
Soicitor (onado 0% 1artin%
[-]
.ppeee/s 0rief, pp% 3#,%
[9]
.ppeant/s 0rief was signed by .ttys% .rcei .% (!bin, 0artoome P% (e!s and (oge 7% 8!i9ano of the P!bic
.ttorney/s 5ffice%
[1)]
.ppeant/s 0rief, pp% *#6' rollo, pp% *2#*9%
[11]
(T$ "ecision, pp% 2#-' rollo, pp% &6#&2%
[1&]
Ibid%, p% -' rollo, p% &2%
[13]
.ppeant/s 0rief, p% 1' rollo, p% **%
[1*]
TS4, 1arch &2, 199,, pp% *#-%
[1,]
.rt% 11 :1 and &;, (evised Pena $ode, which reads<
=.rt% 11% Justifying circumstances% The foowing do not inc!r any crimina iabiity%
1% .nyone who acts in defense of his person or rights provided that the foowing circ!mstances conc!r<
7irst% >nawf! aggression'
Second% (easonabe necessity of the means empoyed to prevent or repe it'
Third% 6ac? of s!fficient provocation on the part of the person defending himsef%
&% .nyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spo!se, ascendants, descendants, or egitimate, nat!ra
or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his reatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consang!inity within
the fo!rth civi degree, provided that the first and second re@!isites prescribed in the neAt preceding circ!mstance
are present and the f!rther re@!isite, in case the provocation was given by the person attac?ed, that the one ma?ing
the defense had no part therein%=
[16]
Peope v% $awaing, &93 S$(. &62, +!y &-, 199-' Peope v% $ayabyab, &2* S$(. 3-2, +!ne 19, 1992' Peope v%
$amahaan, &*1 S$(. ,,-, 7ebr!ary &&, 199,' People v. Peones, &)) S$(. 6&,, .!g!st 16, 1991' Peope v%
0a!sing, 199 S$(. 3,,, +!y 1-, 1991%
[12]
TS4, +!y 31, 1996, pp% *#6%
[1-]
TS4, 1ay 31, 199*, p% 12% Siverio (afae testified<
=8......Bhat did yo! observe immediatey within the s!rro!nding of the body of the victimC
.......There was none% There was no sign of commotion or tro!be whatsoever%
8......"id yo! aso find any weapon within the vicinity where the corpse of the victim was fo!ndC
.......There was none."
[19]
DAhibits =$,= =$#1,= =$#&,= =$#3= and =$#*%= (ecords, pp% --#., 0, $, " and D%
[&)]
TS4, +!ne &-, 199,, p% ,% Ddwin 1endoEa decared<
=8.......nd what happened to yo! after yo! were hac?ed by .nchito 4anoC
.......I ost conscio!sness, sir%=
[&1]
TS4, 5ctober &&, 1996, p% 6%
[&&]
TS4, 1arch 1), 199*, p% 19%
[&3]
Peope v% 7errer, &,, S$(. 19, 1arch 1*, 1996' Peope v% 6!a, &,6 S$(. ,39, .pri &6, 1996%
[&*]
Peope v% (ebamontan, 3), S$(. 6)9, .pri 13, 1999' Peope v% $awaing, &93 S$(. &62, +!y &-, 199-'
Peope v% So, &2& S$(. 39&, 1ay 2, 1992%
[&,]
.rtice 1*, par% 16, (evised Pena $ode%
[&6]
TS4, 1arch 9, 199*, pp% 9#13%
[&2]
Peope v% "eopante, &63 S$(. 691, 5ctober 3), 1996%
[&-]
Peope v% (amos, &96 S$(. ,,9, September &,, 199-' Peope v% >madhay, &93 S$(. ,*,, .!g!st 3, 199-%
[&9]
(ecords, p% 19)%
[3)]
0rief for the .ppeee, p% 1)%
[31]
"ecision, p% 9' rollo, p% &-%
[3&]
(eyes, The Revised Penal ode, 0oo? 5ne, 1&th ed%, pp% 316#312%
[33]
>nder (. 26,9, which too? effect on "ecember 31, 1993, the penaty for m!rder is now reclusion perpetua to
death%
[3*]
.rtice 6* :&;, (evised Pena $ode%
[3,]
Section & of the Indeterminate Sentence 6aw provides that it does not appy =to persons convicted of
offenses p!nished with death penaty or ife imprisonment' A A A%= :emphasis s!ppied; 0eca!se the aw !sed the
word =p!nished= instead of =p!nishabe,= what sho!d be considered is the penaty act!ay imposed, not the
imposabe penaty% :(eyes, s!pra, p% 22-' see aso People v. !oises, 66 S$(. 1,1, .!g!st 13, 192,%; .ccordingy,
the aw sho!d be appied in this case, beca!se the maAim!m penaty act!ay imposed is reclusion temporal in its
maAim!m period%
[36]
3( 4o% 1&29)3, pp% 1,#16, +!y 9, 199-, per c!riam%
[32]
Peope v% 8!itong, 3( 4o% 1&1,6&, +!y 1), 199-' Peope v% 6agarte9a, 3( 4o% 1&2)9,, +!ne &&, 199-' Peope v%
1aroano, 3( 4o% 1),))*, +!y &*, 1992' and Peope v% $abaes, 3( 4o% 1)&2&3#&*, +!ne 19, 1992%