THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CECILIO DE LEON Y BUENAVENTURA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Tried for murder (Crim. Case No. 85262)
and for frustrated murder (Crim. Case No. 85263), Cecilio
de Leon was found
by the Court of First Instance of Manila guilty as charged, and sentenced in
the first case to reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000.00, and in the second
case to an indeterminate
penalty of from 6 years,
1 month and 11 days of prision
mayor to 12 years, 5 months and 11 days of reclusion temporal and to
indemnify the victim in the sum of P1,000.00; and to pay the costs in both
cases.  In this appeal, the accused asks
for a verdict of acquittal in both cases on a plea of self-defense.

On the evening of November
26, 1966, at about 8:00 o’clock, while Flora Dizon
was inside her beauty parlor at 2047 Rizal Avenue, Manila,
the accused, Cecilio de Leon, who lived a few meters
away on an alley
at 2053 Anacleto St., came in.  Being only in an undershirt (sando), he was requested by
Flora to leave the parlor.  Cecilio resented this and started to create trouble by
pushing and kicking Flora’s manicure table.

At this juncture, Guillermo Dizon, a
brother of Flora, arrived.  Upon learning
from his sister what was going on, Guillermo told Cecilio
to go home and not to make trouble.  Cecilio refused to leave. 
This prompted Guillermo to hold him by the shoulder and push him out of
the parlor.  Before leaving the premises,
Cecilio told Flora and Guillermo to wait for him as
he would return.

In order to avert further trouble, Flora started to call up the
Manila Police Department by telephone. 
While she was doing so, her other brother, Simeon Dizon,
arrived.  Simeon was a friend of Cecilio; and upon being informed of the incident, he told
his sister that he would talk with Cecilio.

Simeon then left the beauty parlor and proceeded towards Anacleto Street.  He was followed closely by Flora, Guillermo
and Zenaida, Simeon’s wife.  Simeon had no sooner left the parlor than he
met Cecilio, who had just come from the alley.  Simeon asked Cecilio
why he was making trouble at the beauty parlor. 
Cecilio replied that he had no grudge against
Simeon, but that he was mad at Flora.

After this point, the true sequence of events is not all too
clear.  The court below, giving full
credence to the testimony of Flora and Zenaida,
states in its decision that “all of a sudden and without any warning to Simeon,
he took from his pocket the kitchen knife and stabbed Simeon on the
abdomen,” and that “without warning, the accused also stabbed
Guillermo Dizon who approached with intention of
giving aid to his brother x x x.”  On the other hand, the appellant and his
witnesses were one in declaring that a boxing bout ensued between Simeon and
the appellant, started by Simeon; that Simeon drew his pistol, and the
appellant, to avoid being hit, tried to wrest the gun from Simeon; that the gun
fired without hitting the appellant who, remembering that he had in his pocket
implements for butchering pigs (consisting of 3 butcher knives, a small iron
bar and a whetstone), pulled out a knife and stabbed Simeon who fell and again
fired, missing for the second time; that Guillermo held the appellant by his
pants; that the appellant made a back swing with his knife, hitting Guillermo;
and that the appellant, now released from Guillermo’s hold, ran away.

Simeon and Guillermo were
taken to a hospital, where Simeon died the same evening due to shock and
hemorrhage.  Guillermo was released from
the hospital after being confined for one month.

We cannot go along with
the appellant that self-defense has been proved.  While it is true that Simeon was armed
with a pistol, it gas been established that he drew the same and fired two
shots only after he had been stabbed and the appellant had run away.  Even assuming, therefore, that Simeon was
then boxing the appellant, the use of a knife by the latter may not be
considered as a reasonably necessary means for repelling the attack.  The same holds true in connection with the
attack against Guillermo, who was not even shown to have been armed.  The other elements of self-defense, namely,
unlawful aggression on the part of the Dizon brothers
and lack of sufficient provocation on the appellant’s part, have, likewise, not
been established.

In convicting the accused for murder and frustrated murder, the
trial court considered that the killing of Simeon
and the wounding of Guillermo were qualified by evident premeditation and
treachery.  The Solicitor General,
however, is of the opinion that the said qualifying circumstances have not been
satisfactorily established, and, consequently, that the appellant should be
convicted only for homicide and frustrated homicide.  This Court agrees.

Prosecution witness Flora Dizon herself
testified that the appellant and the deceased met each other that evening only
some 7 or 8 minutes after the
appellant had been forced out of the beauty parlor.  The stabbings occurred within 30 minutes
after the appellant’s forcible ejectment.  In the circumstances there was no
sufficient time for meditation and reflection.

On the question of treachery, there is, as already stated, great
variance between the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and those of the
defense witnesses, the former declaring that the appellant’s attacks came all
of a sudden while the deceased and the appellant were talking with each other,
and the latter contending that the attacks came during a fistfight.  This Court is inclined to believe that the
stabbings were preceded by a fistfight between the appellant and the
deceased.  Why the appellant would
suddenly stab the deceased, as declared by Flora, Zenaida
and Guillermo, is difficult to believe, not only because it is an admitted fact
that the two were good friends, but also because the deceased was not a party
to the verbal altercation between his sister and the appellant, or to the
appellant’s forcible ejectment from the beauty
parlor.  It is, on the other hand,
reasonable to believe that the deceased, angered by the appellant’s conduct in
the parlor as narrated to him by his sister Flora, boxed the appellant after a
brief exchange of words; and that the appellant, equally angered, exchanged
blows with the deceased, drew out his knife, stabbed the deceased, and,
immediately thereafter, likewise stabbed Guillermo, who stood nearby attempting
to help his brother.  This ratiocination
finds support in the medical certificate (Exh. 2)
attesting to the presence of multiple abrasions on the appellant’s body.  Altogether, there is no convincing evidence
to support the conclusion that treachery attended the killing of Simeon Dizon and the wounding of Guillermo Dizon.

The appellant should, accordingly, be held liable for homicide
and frustrated homicide.  Homicide is punishable
with reclusion temporal.  Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant may, in the homicide case, be
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which should not be less
than 6 years and 1 day nor more
than 12 years of prision mayor, and the
maximum of which should not be less than 12 years and 1 day nor more than 20
years of reclusion temporal.  The indemnity to the heirs of the
deceased should be raised to P12,000.00 (People vs. Pantoja,
L-18793, October 11, 1968). 
In the frustrated homicide case, the penalty should be lower by
one degree, or 6 years and 1 day
to 12 years of prision mayor.  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
appellant may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which
should not be less than 6 months and 1 day but not more than 6 years of prision
correccional, and the maximum of which should not
be less than 6 years
and 1 day but not more than 12 years of prision
mayor.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, and,
accordingly, the appellant is declared guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No.
85262, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from eight (8) years
and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased
Simeon Dizon in the sum of P12,000.00; the
appellant is likewise declared guilty of frustrated homicide in Criminal Case No.
85263, without any modifying circumstance, and sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty ranging from two (2) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and
to indemnify
Guillermo Dizon in the sum of P1,000.00.  Costs against the appellant in both
cases.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., no part.