THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO TALABOC, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The charge is murder.  The qualifying circumstance averred is
treachery.  The Court of First Instance
of Leyte found defendant Teofilo
Talaboc, Jr. guilty as charged, sentenced him to life
imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of the victim Vivencio
Labarda in the sum of P6,000.00
with the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs.^[1]
Defendant appealed.

It was about 10:00 o’clock
in the night of July 17, 1962, when appellant Teofilo
Talaboc, Jr.,
and four other companions, namely: 
Francisco Quiroz, Gregorio Porcadilla, Lito Mercadal and Ruperto Sidney, were at the store of the sisters Virginia
and Rosenda Batulan in
barrio Linao, Ormoc City.  They were drink­ing.  Francisco Bugtai, a
laborer of the Ormoc Sugar Central, who at times
worked under the supervision of appellant Teofilo Talaboc, Jr., a capataz, passed
by.  Appellant called Bugtai.  The latter approached
appellant who asked him where he was going followed by an invitation to take
beer.  Bugtai
refused.  Instead, he told appellant,
“I have here twenty centavos, you please give me
another twenty centavos so that we can buy Coca-cola.” Appellant who was
already a little bit tipsy took this for an insult and threatened to harm Bugtai.  Appellant
accompanied this threat by placing his hand at his waist where a bladed six
inch long weapon akin to a Japanese saber was tucked.

Vivencio Labarda,
sergeant of the rural police, was then on patrol in barrio Linao.  With him were Potito
Sotto, Nicolas Medroso and Roberto Abaño, all also of the rural police.  Upon hearing the threat aired by appellant
against Bugtai, Labarda
approached the two.  He tried to persuade
appellant into foregoing with his intention to assault Bugtai.  He identified himself as a rural policeman, showed his badge
to appellant, and asked appellant to turn over his weapon with a promise to
return the same as soon as appellant
was ready to go home.  Appellant stabbed Labarda,
the thrust finding its mark on the upper left clavicle.  Bugtai took to his
heels.  Appellant with the same weapon in
his hand then went after and tried to stab Roberto Abaño
and Nicolas Medroso. 
In retaliation Abaño gave appellant a fist
blow, hitting him on the left face.  Potito Sotto saw Labarda run
towards the street.  The latter was then calling to him:  “Potito, I am
wounded.” Potito went to his aid and later
brought Labarda to the hospital with the help of Medroso and Abaño.  Labarda however was
already dead on arrival.

Dr. Eutiquiano Fiel performed the
autopsy.  He found a punctured wound on
the left supraclavicular region, with an entrance of
about 1 cm., directed internally downwards, pene­trating the thoracic cavity
injuring the large vessels (aorta) on the anterior portion of the heart.  The doctor opined that Labarda
died of shock and internal hemorrhage consequent to the wound.

1.  Appellant pleads
self-defense.  His evidence is this:  While in the store heretofore mentioned, an
unknown person touched his shoulder.  He
turned around, received a fistic blow on his mouth.  He fell to the ground.  The assailant ran towards the street.  Lito Mercadal, one of appellant’s companions, suggested that
they go home.  Appellant was about to
leave on his bicycle when several persons approached him, grabbed the bicycle
from him.  One of them gave him a fistic blow on the right
cheek.  He tried to run away.  Instead, he received several blows on the
back.  He staggered to the ground face
downwards.  He turned around, felt that
there was something hitting his buttocks
and back.  About 15 persons were ganging
up on him.  One of them was on top of
him, and with the use of a sharp-bladed weapon stabbed him.  He parried the blow with his two hands.  He was able to twist the hand of the
assailant and succeeded in getting hold of the weapon.  The assailant tried to recover the weapon,
whereupon he gave a thrust on the left shoulder near the base of the neck.  The assailant’s companions scam­pered
away.  He afterwards learned that his
assailant was Vivencio Labarda.

The foregoing version deserves no credence.  In an effort to dramatize his plight,
defendant overshot his mark.  If, as he
claims, he never threatened Francisco Bugtai who was
his friend, there is no reason why Bugtai should
testify against him.  As improbable is his version that while 15 persons were ganging up on him as he was
lying on the ground face down­wards still he was able to perform the feat
of wresting the weapon from one of his 15 assailants, some of whom were armed
with wooden clubs.  He did not even dare
present as evidence the sharp-pointed and bladed weapon with which he killed his supposed
assailant, Vivencio Labarda.

Long familiar is the rule that in self-defense the burden of
proof rests upon the accused.  His duty
it is to establish self-defense by evidence clear and convincing.^[2]
He must rely on the strength of his own evidence.  It matters not that the People’s evidence is
weak.  For, as well
expressed by this Court in the leading case of People vs. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772, 777, such evidence
“could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the
killing.” Since the evidence in exculpation is notches below the
level of that which is clear and convincing, conviction is in order.

2.  But for what
crime?  There is the People’s evidence
itself.  Assailant and victim were face
to face.  Prior to this attack Labarda first identified himself, asked appellant to desist
from harming Bugtai and to turn over his weapon with
the assurance that it would be returned as soon as the appellant was ready to
go home.  The bladed weapon was still
tucked at the waist of the accused.  He
had to draw that weapon before he could stab the deceased.  In the posture thus presented, we find
ourselves unable to say that treachery attended the commission of the offense.^[3]
With the result that the crime is reduced to simple homicide.

For the reasons given, the judgment under review is hereby
modified.  We find defendant-appellant Teofilo Talaboc, Jr. guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentence him to
imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from 8 years and one day of prision, mayor, to 14 years, 8 months and one
day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Vivencio Labarda in the sum
of P12, 000, without subsidiary imprisonment but with the accessories of the
law and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

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

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Criminal Case 1362-0, entitled “People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff, versus Teofilo Talaboc,
Jr., Accused.”

^[2]
See:  U.S. vs. Capisonda,
1 Phil. 575, 578; People vs. Salahuddin, 51
Phil. 840, 842; People vs. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609, 610; People vs.
Embalido, 58 Phil. 152, 154; People vs. Ramos, 59
Phil. 7, 10; People vs. Berio, 59 Phil. 533,
536; People vs. Borbano, 76 Phil. 702, 708;
People vs. Ramos, 77 Phil. 4, 6; People vs. Bauden,
77 Phil. 105, 108; People vs. Pares, 80 Phil. 149, 152; People vs.
Tandag, 83 Phil. 683, 685; People vs. Vista,
86 Phil. 140, 144; People vs. Clemente (1967),
21 SCRA 261, 268.

^[3]
U.S. vs. Highfill, 4 Phil. 384, 387; People vs.
Ilano, 54 Phil. 96, 99-100; People vs. Luna,
76 Phil. 101, 104, citing U.S. vs. Idica,
3 Phil. 321 and People vs. Mercado, 51 Phil. 107; People vs.
Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 479; People vs. Tumaob,
83 Phil. 738, 742.  See also:  People vs. Concha,
49 Phil. 212, 214.