PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONSTANTE ROSAL Y SERRANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Defendant Constante Rosal is appealing from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Manila finding him guilty of parricide and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties
provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Fortunata Diaz
in the amount of P2,000.00 and to pay the costs. Because of the nature
of the penalty imposed, the appeal came directly to this Tribunal.

Appellant Constante Rosal and Fortunata Diaz were married in
1949. In November, 1951, they were living in a small house in Sampaloc,
Manila. It seems that this house was of two stories because Filemon
Diaz, brother of Fortunata, was occupying a room on the ground floor.
On November 5, 1951, at about 5:00 o’clock in the morning, Rosal with a
knife commonly known as balisong, stabbed his wife in the front base of
the neck producing a fatal wound which caused her death – a wound which a
medical officer of the Police Department describes as follows:

“Wound, stab, anterior base, neck, upper right chest cavity,
severing completely innominate artery, and alomos completely lower
portion, trachea.” (Exhibit A-1.)

That Rosal inflicted the above-described wound which caused the
death of his wife, there is no question, because upon arraignment on the
charge of parricide, he pleaded guilty but reserved the right to prove
mitigating circumstances including that of incomplete self-defense.

The story told by appellant is as follows: that at about
midnight of the day in question he and his wife were lying down side by
side in the sala of their house; that as a precaution against robbers
and burglars, his wife provided herself with an iron bar which she
placed near her, while he had a knife – balisong – which he placed under
his pillow; that his attention was called to the noise or sound of
seeds or small stones falling on the floor as though thrown thru the
window by someone from outside and that the house was shaking as if
someone were rocking it; that four hours later he was awakened by the
same noise and the same shaking of the house and he again asked his wife
what it all meant, but instead of giving him an answer and apparently
annoyed by his query she seized the iron bar and assaulted him with it;
that he was able to parry the blow and was even able to wrest the iron
bar from her and in a moment of obfuscation he stabbed her with his
balisong; that thereafter he asked for the police and when the policeman
arrived he surrendered to said peace officer. Under this theory, he
now claims incomplete self-defense.

His story was rejected by the lower court and upon a review of
the evidence we readily agree with the lower court. We also agree with
said court that the testimony of the prosecution witness, Emiliana
Garcia, of what happened that early morning is the unvarnished truth.
She testified that she was asked by the deceased Fortunata Diaz to come
and stay in the house to help in the household chores; that on the night
in question she slept in the same sala close to the couple, her mat
only about one foot from that of the spouses; that all through the night
she did not notice any extraordinary noise or sound or the shaking of
the house; that before going to bed appellant provided his wife with an
iron bar while he kept a balisong ostensibly as a precaution against
robbers; that he even offered Emiliana another iron bar with which to
battle any night intruder; that a five o’clock the following morning,
she got up and went to the kitchen to prepare breakfast leaving the
couple still in bed and presumably still asleep; that not long
thereafter she heard a cry “Ah! Ah! Ah!” as by one in pain coming from
the sala; that she ran to the sala lifted the mosquito net and found
Fortunata Diaz lying down with arms extended and blood gushing from her
neck; that she instinctively shouted for help and rushed to the door
calling out to Filemon Garcia who was renting a room downstairs but
appellant who at the time was standing outside the mosquito net near the
head of his wife, still holding the balisong, pursued her to the door,
grabbed her and forcing her down to the floor and pointing the blade of
his balisong at her chest, demanded that she tell him the secret affair
which Fortunata had. From all this and from the very story of Rosal,
the inference is that appellant was jealous of his wife and that any
noise or unusual happening real or imagined, he took as a signal made to
his wife by a lover.

We find that there was no aggression or assault upon appellant
by his wife; there was absolutely no sign or sound of any struggle or of
any outcry to support appellant’s story that his wife attacked him with
an iron bar, that he struggled with her and could take possession of
the iron bar; and that we have reason to conclude that appellant
prompted by jealousy stabbed his wife as she was lying down, perhaps,
even asleep, and that was why before she died she was not able to emit
any shout or outcry outside of one single agonizing exclamation of
“Ah!”. If we consider the stabbing as done with treachery, said
aggravating circumstance may be compensated by any of the two mitigating
circumstances, namely: his plea of guilty and his voluntary surrender.

Finding the appealed decision in accordance with the evidence
and the law, with the exception of the amount of indemnity which is
hereby increased to P6,000.00, the same is hereby affirmed with costs
against the appellant.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, Jugo,
Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.