461 Phil. 36
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
That on or about the 15th day of May, 1990, in the municipality of Paombong, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a jungle bolo and with intent to kill one Roy de Borja did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack with the said jungle bolo he was then provided the said Roy de Borja, inflicting upon him physical injuries which ordinarily would have caused his death, thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, by the timely medical assistance rendered to said Roy de Borja which prevented his death.[3]The accusatory portion of the second Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1930-M-90 reads:
That on or about the 15th day of May, 1990, in the municipality of Paombong, province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a jungle bolo and with intent to kill one Loreto Hernandez did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack with the said jungle bolo he was then provided the said Loreto Hernandez, inflicting upon him physical injuries which ordinarily would have caused his death, thus performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, by the timely medical assistance rendered to said Loreto Hernandez which prevented his death.[4]At his arraignment, the petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. A joint trial of the cases ensued.
Wound hacked 9 cm. temporo-parietal left suturedBecause of the eventual onset of massive infection of the injury inflicted on his right forearm, Hernandez underwent a second surgical operation of the affected area on December 20, 1990[6] which necessitated his confinement once more at the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center from December 19 to 26 of that year.[7]
S/P open reduction and internal fixation (K-wire pinning and circlage wiring)
Open fracture complete proximal third ulna right
Abscess proximal third forearm right
Wound lacerated 3 cm. dorsal aspect wrist right
SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Open reduction and K-wire pinning and circlage
wiring ulna right.[5]
Testifying on his behalf, the accused declared that having been off-duty on May 15, 1990, he invited his fellow security guard Primo Oria and the latter's wife to his hometown of Paombong to attend a barrio fiesta. Travelling all the way from Pasay City, the group arrived in Paombong at about noon of that day. In the evening, the accused, his wife and children and Mr. and Mrs. Oria attended mass at a chapel in Brgy. San Isidro where the fiesta was being celebrated, after which they returned to his house at Brgy. Sto. Rosario.The petitioner's testimony was corroborated by his first degree cousin Restituto Cardenas, his uncle Rufino Panganiban, the latter's daughter-in-law Carmelita Panganiban, Julian Salamat, Primo Oria, as well as other witnesses whose respective testimonies were synthesized by the trial court, thus:
Because his TV set was out of order at the time, the accused and the Oria spouses repaired [sic] to the nearby house of Pedro Santos, Jr. in order to view the championship game between "Añejo Rum 65" and "Shell" in connection with the then on-going phase of the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) competitions. That basketball game was marred by a walk-out staged by "Añejo Rum 65" even before the match was over, which led to the proclamation of the "Shell" team as champion. Thus, the accused and his guests went back to his house for dinner.
As the wife of the accused was preparing supper at around 8:30 o'clock that night, a group of men were heard shouting from outside the house. Curious, the accused peeped thru a window of the house to see for himself who the persons shouting were. With the light emanating from the terrace of the house, he was able to see the persons of Loreto Hernandez, Roy de Borja, Antonio Bonton and Aurelio Dionisio who were already inside the frontyard of his house; three (3) other males whom he was not able to identify were seen near the river beyond the yard. When he was seen peeping thru that window, the accused heard Aurelio Dionisio remark: "Ayan si Oscar, barilin mo na." That utterance prompted the accused and Oria to turn off the lights inside the house in order that the interior would be completely dark as a precautionary measure.
While the commotion outside the house was taking place, the accused heard Dionisio in particular utter the following statements: "Putang ina mo. Lumabas ka riyan. Papatayin ka namin. Iisa-isahin ko ang mga kasama mong ipinagmamalaki. Huwag kang magtayo [sic] sa saya ng asawa mo. Magpakalalake ka. Putang ina mo." Apparently irked by the refusal of the accused to confront them, the group of Hernandez and De Borja started pelting the house with stones, causing some window panes to break and the plaster finish of the walls to chip off as depicted by colored photographs (Exhs. 12, 20-A, 21-A & 22-A).
Rather than be taunted into a likely violent encounter, the accused sneaked out of his house thru a backdoor to seek outside help. Under cover of the darkness of night, the accused went to the house of ex-barangay captain Rey Salamat, but did not find him there. The accused proceeded to the house of Juanito Salamat, a policeman brother of the ex-barangay captain, but also failed to see him. The accused next knocked at the door of the house of Julian (one of the Salamat brothers) to whom he reported the presence of the group of troublemakers at his yard. After expressing the assurance that he will immediately and personally summon his brother Juanito (who was then on duty at the municipal building), Julian advised the accused to return to his house inasmuch as something untoward might have already befallen the members of his family. Taking heed of Julian's advice, the accused decided to go back home by taking that pathway in front of the house of his uncle, Rufino Panganiban.
On his way home, the accused met Carmelita Panganiban who, after having been apprised of the trouble taking place within the yard of his house, directed the accused to hurry home. However, when the accused was about a meter away from the gate of Rufino Panganiban's house, he met the group of Loreto Hernandez, Antonio Bonton, Roy de Borja, Aurelio Dionisio and several others, who lurked beyond a bend of the pathway. As he came face to face with the accused, Hernandez blurted out: "Eto pala ang hinahanap natin." Already apprehensive, the accused took a step backward but, at that instant, Hernandez drew a gun from his waist and from a distance of some 2 meters aimed the weapon at the head of the accused. Almost simultaneously, the accused heard someone (whom he suspected to be Aurelio Dionisio) exclaim: "Sige, barilin mo na ang putang inang yan." Realizing that his life was in imminent danger and because it was all but impossible for him to run away by then, the accused, with the use of the bolo with which he armed himself when he stepped out of his house to seek assistance from his neighbors, hacked Hernandez's outstretched arm gripping the gun. Because of the hacking blow, the firearm which Hernandez pointed at the accused was flung somewhere; Hernandez himself fell to the ground by the seat of his pants [sic].
At the time, Bonton and Dionisio were each armed with a piece of 2"x 2" wood, while De Borja was holding a fanknife [sic]. Seeing Hernandez subdued, the trio menacingly rushed towards the accused who kept flailing his bolo aimlessly in order to keep his attackers at bay. Even as the accused cannot determine whether he struck anyone in the process, his attackers "moved backward". Given such opportunity, the accused ran away and proceeded directly to the municipal hall to report the incident. He did not surrender his bolo to the police authorities because, in his confusion, he must have thrown the weapon away somewhere along his route.[11]
The trial court rendered a decision convicting the petitioner of two counts of the crime of frustrated homicide. It gave scant consideration to the petitioner's plea of self-defense, but appreciated in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The decretal portion of the trial court's decision reads:. . .
2) Mario Robles, chief barangay tanod of Sto. Rosario and one of his barangay tanods, Pedro Santos, Jr. (a brother of the accused), panting and visibly frightened, arrived at his house between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. on May 15, 1990 to seek his help because the group of Aurelio Dionisio alias "Boy Kano" attacked the residence of the accused challenging him to a fight-to- death. Responding to the call for assistance, he sought out barangay councilman Oscar Salamat and both went to the scene of the reported incident, but found no one in the place anymore. They investigated the premises of the house of the accused and saw for themselves the stones thrown at the house, the broken window panes and marks of damages on a wall of the house.
3) Marcelo Salamat, a barangay councilman of Sto. Rosario, who testified that on May 16, 1990, he and barangay tanod chief Mario Robles allegedly recovered near a creek beside the footpath where the hacking incident transpired) the plastic toy gun which the defense represented as the same weapon which Hernandez aimed at the accused, thus, precipitating the said hacking incident.. . .
8) SP01 Reynaldo D. Cruz, a 55-year old policeman of Paombong, who presented in Court the black plastic toy gun (Exh. 5) that resembles a .45 calibre automatic pistol together with a foot-long 2"x 2" wooden club (Exh.6) which were turned over to him as desk officer on May 16, 1990 by Pablo Santos Senior and Junior, Ramon Salamat and Marcelo Salamat; the foregoing items were represented by the defense as the weapons which Hernandez and Bonton were armed with during the incident complained of. [12]
Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). The appellate court, finding no reversible error in the findings and conclusions of the trial court, affirmed the petitioner's conviction.[14] Like the trial court, the CA found the prosecution's version of the incident more credible, characterizing the petitioner's claim of self-defense as unsubstantiated by evidence. The assailed decision of the CA stated in part, thus:in Crim. Case No. 1929-M-90
finding accused OSCAR SANTOS y PANGANIBAN of Sto. Rosario, Paombong, Bulacan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide as charged in the Information and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, plus the accessory penalties provided by law and to indemnify complainant Roy de Borja for actual damages in the amount of P20,000.00 representing medical expenses incurred by the latter for the injuries sustained by him.in Crim. Case No. 1930-M-90
finding accused OSCAR SANTOS y PANGANIBAN of Sto. Rosario, Paombong, Bulacan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide as charged in the Information and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to six (6) years of prision correccional, as maximum, plus the accessory penalties provided by law and to indemnify the complainant Loreto Hernandez for actual damages in the amounts of P16,237.71 representing medical expenses incurred by the latter for the injuries sustained by him and P21,000.00 representing his lost earnings covering the period May 16, 1990 to December 17, 1990 at the rate of P3,000.00 per month.
SO ORDERED.[13]
In view of the foregoing, we are fully in accord with the trial court that appellant's story to establish self-defense is incongruent with the ordinary observations and experience of man and discordant with the nature and ways of things. It is for that reason doubtful and unconvincing and should be rejected.The petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the assailed decision but the CA, in the Resolution[16] of October 1, 1996, denied the same.
That appellant intended to kill Hernandez and De Borja was evidenced by his use of a jungle bolo - a lethal weapon - and the parts of the victim's bodies which he hit. According to undisputed evidence, the wound of Hernandez on his right forearm and wound of De Borja in his back waist are both life threatening. Therefore, the elements of frustrated homicide were fully proven in both cases.[15]
For more reasons than one, the Court finds for the prosecution.Like alibi, self-defense is inherently a weak defense which, as experience has demonstrated, can easily be fabricated.[18] To merit approbation, the accused is burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence the confluence of the following essential requisites for self-defense: (a) there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) that the means employed to prove or repel such aggression was reasonable; and (c) there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. [19] Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent anger thereof; and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[20] There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, where there is no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[21]
Firstly, having been privileged with the singular opportunity of having observed the deportment of all the witnesses presented in the instant cases, the Court finds no reason to doubt the testimonies of the complainants and their eyewitnesses whom the Court keenly noted to have testified in a straightforward and unrehearsed fashion. On the other hand, if for his cockiness alone, herein accused was rated by the Court as a witness who hardly inspires belief. With respect to the purported eyewitnesses for the defense, the Court considers their testimonies impaired by bias which motivated them, as their interests so persuaded, to testify as they did. Briefly said, the Court found the complainants and their eyewitnesses relatively more credible than the accused and his own eyewitnesses.
Secondly, the testimonies of the accused and his eye-witnesses, regarding the manner by which the accused adroitly defended himself and the use by Hernandez of a toy gun are too good to be true. This dimension of the case for the defense must have been inspired by the current crop of inane action- movies which have bred entertainment celebrities of the likes of Fernando Poe, Jr., Lito Lapid and Robin Padilla. Such derring-do to be sure, pertains to the theater of the absurd! The Court simply cannot bring itself to believe the pretense of the defense that Hernandez, in carrying out his alleged desire to cause the accused bodily harm, would have armed himself for that end with a mere toy gun; after all, if the version of the defense is to be believed, Hernandez was acting for real and not in accordance with a movie script. To this extent, the theory of the defense is flawed in no small measure.
Thirdly and of transcendent significance, as between the protagonists, it is the accused who had an axe to grind, so to speak. Both the prosecution and the defense revealed that sometime in 1981 at Pasay City, Hernandez stabbed the accused somewhere at the back. Even as such prior incident had already been amicably settled, it is not difficult to imagine that herein accused, as the victim of that previous assault, would harbor ill-will against Hernandez and nurture the hope of eventually getting even. That obsession is but a manifestation of the known machismo of the Filipino. This sour note in his relationship with Hernandez is wholly inconsistent with the avowed self- defense of his person invoked by the accused. Stated differently, Hernandez could not have been the aggressor in the hacking incident involved in the cases at bar; the accused was.
Finally, and let alone the foregoing pronouncements, the Court holds the view that the evidence adduced is insufficient to sustain the contention that the accused validly acted in self-defense when he inflicted the injuries upon complainants Hernandez and De Borja. Not even "incomplete self-defense" obtains.[17]
Q | Another thing, Mr. Witness, you said that de Borja was also a participant in that incident where [B]onton and Hernandez were injured. Now, my question to you is, do you know if in that same incident Borja was also injured? | |
A | I do not know, sir. On that particular night I did not come to know that he sustained any injury. I only know that injury from rumors eventually. | |
| | |
| COURT | |
| | |
| Q | By the way, during the entire incident were you the only one armed with a bolo? |
| A | Yes, sir. |
| | |
| ATTY. SIPIN | |
| | |
| Q | Now, why is it that you know Borja claimed that you hacked him? Do you know of any reason? |
| A | I do not know of any reason, sir. |
| | |
| Q | During that incident, you wielded your bolo, is it not? |
| A | Yes, sir. |
| | |
| Q | How? |
| A | When I saw that they are going to rush towards me I swung my bolo and my eyes were closed and I do not know how I rotated the same. (witness demonstrating with his right hand and wielded the bolo horizontally. [27] |
Hacking wound 15 cm. posterior lumber right, penetrating right hemidiaphragm by 3 cm. incising right lobe of liver by 2 cm. Hemoperitoneum 1,500 cc.Considering the location of the wound sustained by De Borja, his back was clearly against the petitioner when the latter hacked him.
Surgical Procedure: Closed Tube Theracostomy right,
Phrenicarrhaphy, Hepatorrhaphy. [29]
| Q | After the second and the other injury that you received, what happened to you? |
| A | I fell to the ground, sir. |
| | |
| Q | You fell to the ground? |
| A | Yes, sir. |
| | |
| Q | Did you lose consciousness? |
| A | I sort of felt dizzy because of the blood oozing from my wounds on my head. |
| | |
| Q | After that dizziness was gone, what did you do, if you did anything? |
| A | I heard words "Utol, Jr. alis na tayo patay na ang mga iyon." |
| | |
| ATTY. SIPIN | |
| | |
| | We move for the striking out of the answer on the ground of immateriality. |
| | |
| COURT | |
| | |
| | Let it remain on record. This is an indictment for frustrated homicide. |
| | |
| PROSECUTOR | |
| | |
| Q | So, after hearing that remarks, "utol, etc.," |
| | |
| COURT | |
| | |
| Q | Do you know who uttered the remarks? |
| A | Yes, sir. |
| | |
| Q | Who uttered that remarks? |
| A | Oscar Santos, sir. |
| | |
| COURT | |
| | |
| | Alright, proceed. |
| | |
| PROSECUTOR | |
| | |
| Q | After that... After hearing that remarks, what did you do, if you did anything? |
| A | I did not do anything except that I felt Roy de Borja tried to help me stand up, sir.[32] |