339 Phil. 484
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Abrasions: Forehead, supra-orbital region, right side, 5.5 x 2.0 cm.; face, molar region, right side, 3.0 x 2.0 cm.; face, oral region, along upper lip, 4.5 x 3.0 cm.; back, supra-scapular regions, left and right, 6.0 x 4.0 cm. and 5.0 x 4.0 cm. respectively.In evaluating the defense of Ernesto Austria, the trial court found no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and brushed aside the claim of self-defense after it considered the nature, number and location of the victim’s injuries. Moreover, the trial court was convinced of the role accused Antonio Dato played in the perpetration of the crime, relying on the eyewitness account of de los Reyes.
Contusion: wrist, posterior aspect, right, 14.0 x 2.5 cm.
Lacerations: Scalp, fronto-parietal, right side, 8.0 cm., parieto-occipital, left side, 6.0 cm.; occipital, left side, 2.5 cm.; occipital, posterior aspect, mid-portion, two in number, 1.5 cm. and 1.0 cm.
Wounds, stab: (1) Elliptical, 3.0 cm. long, oriented anteriorly and medially, edges, clean-cut, posterior extremity, contused, anterior extremity, sharp, chin, submandibular region, right side, 3.5 cm. from anterior median line, directed backward, upward and laterally, penetrating skin and underlying soft tissues, sub-mandibular blood vessels, taking an intramuscular course to the angle of mandible, left side and medially, with an approximate depth of 9.0 cm.; (2) Elliptical, 5.2 cm. long, oriented downward and medially, edges, clean-cut, upper extremity, contused, lower extremity, sharp, neck, anterior aspect, left side, level of Adam's apple, 5.0 cm. from anterior median line, directed backward, upward and laterally, penetrating skin and underlying soft tissues, cutting common carotid artery and jugular blood vessels, then communicating with another wound posteriorly, same side, 2.5 cm. long, 8.0 cm. from posterior median line.
Hemorrhage, meningeal, sub-arachnoidal, bi-temporal; brain and other visceral organs, pale; stomach, full of undigested rice and other food particles.
Cause of death: Hemorrhage, profuse, secondary to stab wounds of the neck.[2]
Since the Court is more convinced that the group could not have gathered to plot the killing of Emilio Narral, otherwise they could have chosen a more secluded place than a store where buyers would come and go, the element of evident premeditation in murder would be absent. Since there was a quarrel between the victim and the accused's group, there would not have been treachery because Emilio Narral could have had the opportunity to act in his defense. Considering, however, that the accused was alone, and as he was stabbed by Ernesto Austria, hit on the head as his arm was held by Antonio Dato, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength against the victim was clearly present. There was likewise a clear conspiracy between the two accused and their companion (who is not included in the charge) as they helped each other in causing the injuries of Emilio Narral that led to his death.[3]The trial court also appreciated the mitigating circumstance of provocation by the victim as he could have expressed vocal inquisitiveness, resentment and dissatisfaction against both accused during their confrontation.
x x x x (Flora's) version is in accordance with the ordinary run of events than the version of the defense that Emilio Narral suddenly appeared and without any previous conversation started challenging anyone who is man enough to fight him, with a bladed weapon. It must be noted that there were others in the group against whom he had no grudge. Even on the particular words which Emilio Narral allegedly uttered, the defense witnesses differed in their quotations. The version of the defense that Emilio Narral first made a sudden thrust at Antonio Dato after pulling out his knife and then faced Ernesto Austria also with a thrust at him is not credible. The group consisting of all males would not have enabled Emilio Narral to make a thrust at Antonio Dato after he was seen pulling out the bladed weapon from his waist because he could have been totally stopped by the all male group before reaching Ernesto Austria.[7]Assuming the existence of unlawful aggression, we likewise uphold the finding that Austria exceeded the limit of what was necessary to prevent or repel it based on the nature, number and location of the injuries suffered by the victim.
Q : What was that?This testimony of de los Reyes could not be shaken and in fact withstood rigorous cross-examination.
A: While reading komiks, I heard a remark saying, “You have betrayed me.”
Q: From what direction did this remark come?
A: From the store of Tony Dato, sir.
Q: After you heard the remark “Tinraydor mo ako,” what did you do?
A: I looked out of our window, sir.
Q: What did you see, if you saw anything?
A: I saw Emilio Narral running, being chased by Antonio Dato, Tino Codapas, and Ernesto Austria.
x x x x
Q: x x x x From what direction and to what direction were they running?
A: x x x x going towards our place and going outside.
x x x x
Q: What happened while Emilio Narral was being chased by Ernesto Austria, Tino Codapas and Antonio Dato?
A: I saw that Antonio Dato was able to catch up with Emilio Narral and he held Emilio Narral on the right arm.
Q: With what hand did Antonio Dato hold Emilio Narral?
A: His both hands were the ones that held the right arm of Emilio Narral, sir.
x x x x
Q: What happened after Antonio Dato was able to overtake Emilio Narral and held the right arm of Emilio Narral?
A: I saw Emilio Narral trying to free himself from the hands of Antonio Dato, sir.
Q: What else happened?
A: I saw Tino Codapas carrying a bamboo one arm's length long, and he hit with this the head of Emilio Narral.
x x x x
Q: How about Antonio Dato, what was he doing at this very moment when Tino Codapas was hitting Emilio Narral?
A: He was holding tightly the right arm of Emilio Narral, sir.
Q: Was Emilio Narral hit?
x x x x
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: What portion of the body of Emilio Narral was hit by the strike or “palo,” because the witness used the word “palo, “ of Tino Codapas?
A: At the back of the head, sir.
x x x x
Q: What happened to Emilio Narral after he was hit at the back of his head by Tino Codapas?
A: He fell face down, sir.
Q: And then what happened after he fell face down?
A: Antonio Dato held the right arm of Emilio Narral, trying to raise him to standing position (pataas).
x x x x
Q: What else happened after Emilio Narral was raised by Antonio Dato to standing position again?
A: I saw Ernesto Austria approaching, holding a knife (kutsilyo).
x x x x
Q: What happened when you saw Ernesto Austria approaching Emilio Narral with a knife in his hand?
A: I saw Emilio Narral stabbed by Ernesto Austria, sir.
Q: With what hand or hands did Ernesto Austria stab Emilio Narral?
A: Right hand, sir.
Q: How many times did he stab Emilio Narral?
A: Two times, sir.
Q: x x x what portion of Emilio Narral's body was hit by the stab of Ernesto Austria?
COURT
Witness indicating his neck and a little bit below the neck, saying “malapit sa batok,” left side.
ATTY. ALEGRE
Q: And what happened after Emilio Narral was hit by the two stabs of Ernesto Austria?
A: He fell face down (padapa). Sorry, sir, he fell pala face up.
Q: After Emilio Narral fell face up, what else happened?
A: I saw Nestor (Ernesto?) Austria, Tino Codapas, and Antonio Dato leave.
Q: How about Emilio Narral, what happened to him after this Ernesto Austria, Antonio Dato, and Tino Codapas left?
A: I saw Emilio Narral stand up and stagger (pasuray-suray) and fall again at the side of the house of Efren Viray.
Q: What else happened thereafter?
A: I again saw Emilio Narral stand up again, stagger, and fall again in front of the house of Efren Viray.[8]
COURT:Respondent court elucidated on the aforementioned observation -
x x x x You make another measurement from the second spot where I am standing the distance to the wall 3 1/2 meters, make another measurement, 4 meters and 30 centimeters. Put on record that when a person stands over or even sits at the spot where the first measurement was taken a person at the window of the house of Alberto cannot see. But if a person stands on the second spot where the second measurement was taken a person at the window of the house of Alberto de los Reyes can see the upper portion of (the) face of the person standing in front of the store of Antonio Dato and the same observation with respect to the spot no. 3 in front of the store of Antonio Dato if we consider that as per testimony of Mr. Perez that extension was not there at the time this incident happened.[9]
In other words, if, by the lower court's observations during the ocular inspection the person in front of appellant Dato's store could be seen from the window where the said witness was sitting, a fortiori can he see the incident that happened in a much nearer location from his place as per illustration shown during the hearing (Exh. E, p. 9, Exhibits). This is bolstered by the fact that even if there were no fluorescent lighting in the house of a certain Perez, the place where the stabbing incident occurred could not have been so dark considering the lights coming from the store of appellant Dato and the house of the witness de los Reyes which would more or less illuminate the said place.[10]Petitioner attempted to discredit de los Reyes by ascribing ill motive, i.e., that earlier he had accused de los Reyes of stealing his fighting cocks and stoning houses in the neighborhood. As a consequence, de los Reyes was castigated and reported by petitioner and Antonio Dato to the police authorities.