337 Phil. 173
VITUG, J.:
"That on or about the 10th day of February 1992 in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to kill and while armed with the wooden club (palo-palo) did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hit her lawfully wedded husband Juan Ignacio, whereby inflicting upon the latter serious injuries which directly caused his death.Rosaria pleaded not guilty to the charge.[3]
"Contrary to law."[2]
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding herein accused Rosaria V. Ignacio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Parricide as defined and penalized under Art. 246 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of Juan Ignacio in the amount of P30,000.00."[10]Rosaria has interposed this appeal praying that she be acquitted on the basis of self-defense or, in the alternative, that she be held guilty only of homicide rather than of parricide.
"x x x. We did repeatedly say before that, whether complete or incomplete, self-defense, by its very nature and essence, always would require the attendance of unlawful aggression initiated by the victim which must clearly be shown. When unlawful aggression on the victim's part is alone established, incomplete self-defense is so appreciated merely as an ordinary mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Code. When such unlawful aggression is coupled with still another element of self-defense, incomplete self-defense becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance, referred to in Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, that entitles the accused to a reduction of the penalty imposed by law for the felony by one or two degrees depending on the conditions and circumstances therein obtaining."[15]The presence of the requisite of unlawful aggression is pivotal. In the case at bench, appellant has sought to prove unlawful aggression by her testimony; thus -
Q. Please tell the court what was that unusual incident?In People vs. Pletado[17] the Court, quoting from People vs. Bausing,[18] has reiterated the acceptable test in determining the presence of unlawful aggression; viz:
"A. That night, as I was taking a rest, my husband arrived and he was drunk. When I was on top of our wooden bed, I saw him armed with a bolo going around me, I lost my patience (nagdilim ang aking paningin), I got hold of a palo-palo and hit him on his head, sir.
"Q. And what was your relative position as compared to the position of the victim when you hit him with a palo-palo?
"A. He was facing me and I was on top of the wooden bed and as I was on top of it, I hit him, sir.
"x x x x x x x x x.
"Q. You also testified that prior to that incident, before you hit your husband with a palo-palo, he was armed with a bolo, is that correct?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Where did he get that bolo, if you know?
"A. At the post, near the wooden bed, sir.
"Q. Are you aware as to the whereabouts of that bolo now?
"A. I do not know, sir."[16]
"x x x. (F)or unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude (People vs. Pasco, Jr., supra; People vs. Rey, 172 SCRA 149 [1989]) and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression (Pacificar vs. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 716 [1983]; People vs. Aquiatan, 123 SCRA 501 [1983]; People vs. Aquino, 124 SCRA 835 [1983]). Unlawful aggression must be such as to put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself or of a relative sought to be defended and not an imagined threat."[19]By her own admission, appellant only thought that her husband would strike her. Answering questions from the trial court, she testified:
COURT:Self-defense, being essentially a factual matter furthermore, is best addressed by the trial court.[22] Here, the trial court has also observed:
"Q. Was he really about to strike you?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. What made you say that?
"A. Because even before, he was doing that to me, sir.
"Q. But at that very precise moment, were you really certain that he was going to hit you?
"A. I am sure that he will hit me, sir.
"Q. Was it necessary to hit him with this palo-palo?
"A. I hit him because I defended myself, sir." (Italics supplied.)[20]
In fact, appellant's claim of self-defense was belied by her own daughter, Milagros, who declared that even before the victim could get his bolo, appellant already picked up her palo-palo and hit him.
"Q. You also made mention in your statement, particularly in question No. 6 to which you answered `nakarinig po ako ng kalabugan' what is that noise all about?
"A. Both of them were pulling the lawanit and as they were pulling the lawanit, Juan Ignacio then freed the lawanit and was about to get his bolo but my mother was able to get at once the palo-palo and hit Juan Ignacio, sir.
"x x x x x x x x x.
"Q. Mrs. Witness, you said during the cross-examination that the deceased tried to get a bolo, is that correct?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And do you know where the deceased was keeping his bolo?
"A. Just opposite the place where they were sleeping, sir.
"Q. What was the position of Juan Ignacio when you saw him, as you said, he was getting a bolo?
"A. He stood up to get his bolo but he felt so weak because he was drunk, sir." (Italics supplied.)[21]
"Accused's claim of self-defense cannot be sustained. The bolo which was allegedly in victim's possession and with which the victim allegedly attempted to hit the accused, was never found, as in fact, admittedly, its whereabouts [was] unknown to the accused (TSN, p. 4, July 29, 1992 hearing) who naturally would have preserved the same and utilized it in evidence to corroborate her claim. Under the circumstances, the existence of the bolo particularly on the occasion alleged, is even doubtful."[23]Appellant contends that, if at all, she should be convicted only of homicide, not parricide, because "there was no clear evidence of marriage" between her and the victim.[24] Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code defining and penalizing the crime of parricide provides:
"Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death."Indeed, the phrase "whether legitimate or illegitimate" characterizes the relationship between the accused and his victim who might be his father, mother, or child, but not the "spouse" who obviously refers to either the legitimate husband or the lawful wife.[25]
"Persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in constant violation of decency and law (Son Cui vs. Guepangco, 22 Phil. 216). The presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known in law. The law presumes morality, and not immorality; marriage, and not concubinage; legitimacy, and not bastardy. There is the presumption that persons living together as husband and wife are married to each other."[32]In view of the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the trial court correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[33]