THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG, PABLO NACUSPAG, ERNESTO SARADOLLA AND ARISTEDES SALAZAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Originally an appeal by all four accused,
Virgilio Nacuspag, Pablo Nacuspag,
Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar, three of them, namely, Virgilio

Nacuspag;^[1]Ernesto Saradolla;^[2] and Aristedes Salazar;^[3] withdrew their appeal, thus leaving
Pablo
Nacuspag, who had been found guilty as the “principal” of murder under
an
information which alleged:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses VIRGILIO NACUSPAG,
PABLO NACUSPAG,
ERNESTO SARADOLLA and ARISTEDES SALAZAR of the crime of MURDER committed
as
follows:

“That on or about the 7th day of September, 1966, in the
Municipality of
Madalag, Province of Aklan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Virgilio
Nacuspag,
Pablo Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar, armed with
knives, with
intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with evident
premeditation and treachery, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually
helping with each other, did then and there wilfully, intentionally,
criminally,
unlawfully and feloniously attack and stab one INIEGO NALA, thereby
inflicting
injuries on the body or person of said Iniego Nala, to wit:

‘wound, punctured, transverse, two inches in length, one inch
in width, 5.3
inches in depth through and through at the level of the 4th and 5th rib,
3
inches from mid-sternal line to the lateral side to the left, traversing
the
pleura, left lung and apex of the heart.’

as per Autopsy Report by Dr. Eugenio I. Rondario, Rural Health
Physician of
Madalag, Aklan, attached hereto and considered integral part hereof,
which
injuries caused the death of said Iniego Nala;

“That in the commission of the offense, the following
aggravating
circumstances were present:

QUALIFYING – treachery and taking advantage of superior
strength

“CONTRARY TO LAW.

Kalibo, Aklan, February 22, 1967.” (Pp. 5-6, Record.)

After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment, dispositive
portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the accused PABLO NACUSPAG is found guilty as
principal of the
crime of Murder and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, together
with the
accessory penalties provided lay law; the other accused, namely:
Virgilio
Nacuspag, Aristedes Salazar and Ernesto Saradolla are found guilty as
accomplices to the crime of Murder and each of said accomplices is
sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years and 1 day of
prision mayor
as minimum and not more than seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of

reclusion temporal as maximum, together with the accessory penalties
provided by
law. All the said four accused shall indemnify jointly and severally the
heirs
of the deceased Iniego Nala in the amount of P12,000.00, without
subsidiary
imprisonment, in case of insolvency, and pay the costs. Being detention
prisoners, they shall be credited with one-half (1/2) of the preventive
imprisonment undergone by them.” (Page 18, Record)

Appellant has opted not to make any specific assignment of
errors in his
brief. He has simply discussed what he claims is sufficient proof of his
claim
of self-defense, assailing at the same time alleged weakness of the
state’s
evidence.

After a careful review of the record, however, We are convinced
of the
participation of the appellant in the offense charged. As summarized in
the
People’s brief, the circumstances of the commission of the offense were
as
follows:

“In the night of September 7, 1966, there was a reunion and
celebration in
the house of Teodoro Nala at barrio Cabangahan, Madalag, Aklan, wherein
his son
and the latter’s bride were brought to his house (p. 10, t.s.n.,
Isberto). In
that reunion, many people attended, both invited and uninvited and among
the
persons invited were Dioscoro Nala, cousin of Teodoro Nala, and
Dioscoro’s son,
Iniego Nala, who helped in the kitchen in the preparation of the food
for the
guests (pp. 19-21, t.s.n., id.). Also present at the celebration were
the
accused Virgilio Nacuspag, Ernesto Saradolla, Aristedes Salazar and
their two
companions, Deo and Lydio Saradolla, brothers of the accused Ernesto
Saradolla,
and cousins of the accused Virgilio and Pablo Nacuspag, who were not
invited by
Teodoro Nala (pp. 14-15, t.s.n., id.). Once the guests were assembled, a
dance
took place with the music being furnished by a banjo player and after
some time,
supper was served at which, the accused with the Saradolla brothers, ate
with
the bride and other guests in the room (pp. 13-15, t.s.n.). When the
accused,
including the Saradolla brothers, arrived in the house of Teodoro Nala,
all had
knives (siyaw) whose handles protruded from their respective pockets (p.
13,
t.s.n., Fadullon).

“After the first group had taken supper, the dancing stopped
because somebody
took the banjo and they had to look for it. After a little while, Iniego
Nala
went up the house holding the banjo, with a bolo in its scabbard tucked
in the
waist of his trousers at the back (p. 16, t.s.n., id.). Scarcely had
Iniego Nala
taken two steps from the end of the stairs when without any warning or
provocation, Virgilio Nacuspag gave Iniego Nala a fist blow on the right
jaw,
followed by the accused Pablo Nacuspag who gave Iniego another fist blow
on the
left side (p. 16, t.s.n., id.). Then, the accused, Aristedes Salazar,
approached
Iniego Nala and with his arm, squeezed the neck of Nala from the back
(pp.
12-13, t.s.n., Isberto). Thereafter, Pablo Nacuspag stabbed Iniego on
the left
side, somewhere below the left nipple (pp. 13-29, t.s.n., id.). Iniego,
thereupon, fell on the floor and died. (p. 12, t.s.n., id.)

“In the meanwhile, Dioscoro Nala stood up and asked, ‘Why do
you box a person
who has no fault?’ (p. 15, t.s.n., id.) But Lydio Saradolla put his arm
around
the neck of Dioscoro Nala and Deo Saradolla pushed them both outside of
the
house, causing them to fall to the ground (pp. 5-6, t.s.n., Fadullon).
Once
downstairs, Lydio Saradolla and Deo Saradolla struck Dioscoro Nala who
was
beaten from behind with the back of a bolo (p. 6, t.s.n., id.). At this
juncture, Dioscoro heard the voice of Teodoro saying, ‘Manong Caroy,
Iniego Nala
is dead because he was stabbed by Pablo Nacuspag.’ (p. 6, t.s.n., id.).
And,
upon hearing that, Dioscoro Nala went up the house of Teodoro Nala and
saw his
son, Iniego, lying on the floor dead with a wound on his left chest (pp.
12-13,
t.s.n., id.). Later on, Dioscoro Nala reported the stabbing incident to
the
chief of police at the municipal building (pp. 13-14, t.s.n., id.).”

On September 8, 1966, the day following the stabbing incident,
the Madalag
Rural Health Physician, Dr. Eugenio I. Rondario, conducted an autopsy on
the
body of the victim, Iniego Nala. His autopsy report showed:

“1. Wound, punctured, transverse, two inches in length, one
inch in width,
5.3 inches in depth through and through at the level of the 4th and 5th
rib, 3
inches from mid-sternal line to the lateral side of the left,
transversing the
pleura, left lung and apex of the heart.

Cause of death:

Hemorrhage secondary to cutting wound.” (Exhibit “A”)

On the witness stand, Dr. Rondario declared that a
sharp-pointed instrument,
locally known as “siyaw”, could have caused the wound described in his
autopsy
report (p. 4, t.s.n., id.)

The trial court accepted the veracity of the prosecution’s
version although
it rejected the presence of conspiracy. It adjudged accused Pablo
Nacuspag to be
principal and the other accused as mere accomplices of the crime of
murder and
sentenced them in the manner already stated above.

Appellant Pablo Nacuspag does not deny that he stabbed Iniego
Nala and that
the wound he inflicted was so fatal that it caused the victim’s death.
As
already stated earlier, he claims the exempting circumstance of
self-defense.

It is at once obvious from the facts as related above that
appellant has
failed to show unlawful aggression, the first requisite of self-defense.

His testimony runs thus: On the night of September 7, 1966, he
and the other
accused were invited to the party held at the house of Teodoro Nala in
honor of
the latter’s new daughter-in-law; the bride was the first cousin of the
accused
Pablo and Virgilio Nacuspag (pp. 48-50, t.s.n., Regalado); he saw the
guests
dancing to the strains of a banjo and later on he played the instrument
(p. 51,
t.s.n., id.); later on, he returned the instrument to the person playing
it
since he was invited by the host to take supper and he went to the
dining room,
being joined thereat by Virgilio Nacuspag, Ireneo Saradolla, Aristedes
Salazar
and Edita Nacuspag (p. 52, t.s.n., id.); after eating he retired to the
old sala
while Ireneo Saradolla went down, since it was warm upstairs (p. 55,
t.s.n.,
id.); he was again invited Susan Nam-ay to take supper and he
accompanied her to
the dining room but did not eat (p. 55, t.s.n., id.); after three
minutes, he
heard shouts for help and he went back to the old sala where he tried to
pacify
Filoteo Nacional and Lydio Saradolla who were fighting but was unable to
do so,
since he saw Virgilio Nacuspag being held at bay on the other side of
the room
by Dioscoro Nala who was holding a knife (p. 56, t.s.n.); he immediately
rushed
to the rescue of Virgilio and wrested the knife from Dioscoro Nala (pp.
56-57,
t.s.n. id.); then he started retreating towards the kitchen but his path
was
blocked by Iniego Nala who was armed with a bolo (p. 57, t.s.n., id.);
he
therefore retreated to a corner with Iniego Nala pursuing him; when he
reached
the corner, Iniego Nala tried to hit him with the bolo but he managed to
escape
the blow by ducking behind a post and “when his bolo passed over me I
thrust the
knife to (sic) him and hit him on his left side of the stomach” (p. 58
t.s.n.,
id.); he and Iniego Nala then grappled for possession of the bolo and he
was
able to wrest it from Nala (p. 59, t.s.n., id.); and, thereafter, he
went down
the house and went home (p. 59, t.s.n., id.).

Such version does not inspire credence. In the first place, it
is difficult
to believe that Dioscoro Nala collared appellant’s brother Virgilio
Nacuspag
with a knife and that appellant rushed to his rescue and wrested the
knife from
said Dioscoro. Both appellant Pablo and his brother Virgilio admitted
that
Dioscoro Nala was much older than they are, Dioscoro being past 60 years
old,
(63 to be exact) while they were in their prime age of 30. They also
admitted
that Dioscoro is much weaker than they are. (Pp. 61-62, t.s.n.; pp.
79-80,
Isberto) So, how could such an old and weak man corner and attack a much
younger
man? And then, as declared by appellant Pablo Nacuspag, he was able to
wrest
possession of the knife from the old man Dioscoro Nala and then
retreated to the
kitchen. But why would appellant retreat to the kitchen when he and his
brother
were already free of the supposed aggression of the old man?
Furthermore, his
claim that he retreated because he also saw the deceased approaching
cannot be
given any iota of credit because when he retreated, the deceased
(according to
him) was still far from them. At any rate, what need was there for him
to
retreat when he has on his side his brother Virgilio and he was also
armed. All
these circumstances taken together render weak appellant’s claim that
the victim
attacked him first thus rendering it necessary for him to use a knife in

self-defense.

Appellant declared also that he was unable to retreat towards
the kitchen
because the deceased Iniego Nala blocked his path and he was forced to
retreat
towards another part of the house behind a post. But instead of
retreating
towards another corner, why did he not go back to where his brother
Virgilio was
then standing? And, if it were true that the deceased Iniego Nala tried
to hit
him with a bolo after he went behind a post, it is incredible that he
could have
thrust the knife he was holding at the deceased, Iniego Nala, and hit
the latter
on the left side of his stomach. Because if appellant Pablo Nacuspag had
sought
cover behind a post, he would have been out of balance and could not
have been
in a position to make a swift knife thrust at the deceased and be able
to
mortally wound the latter.

In any event, when the deceased Iniego Nala was supposedly
attacking
appellant P ablo Nacuspag, where was his brother Virgilio? Why did he
not come
to his aid? We have tried to search for an explanation in the record,
specially
in the testimonies, but none appeared. Both Pablo and Virgilio Nacuspag
cannot
account for Virgilio’s actuations at the time of the supposed unlawful
aggression by the deceased upon appellant Pablo Nacuspag.

It is well-settled that self-defense is an affirmative
allegation that must
be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing
evidence
that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the
person
invoking it. (People vs. Lebumfacil, Jr., No. L-32910, March 28, 1980,
96 SCRA
573, See also People vs. Davis, L-13337, Feb. 16, 1961; 1 SCRA 473;
People vs.
Solaña, L-13967, Sept. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 60; People vs. Mendoza, L-16392,
Jan.
30, 1965, 13 SCRA 11; People vs. Libed, L-20431, June 23, 1965, 14 SCRA
410;
People vs. Tesorero, G.R. Nos. L-34828-31, June 30, 1976, 76 SCRA 579).

The circumstances in the instant case do not indicate
self-defense on the
part of Pablo Nacuspag. Having admitted that he was the author of the
death of
the deceased, Iniego Nala, it was incumbent upon the appellant, in order
to
avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed
by him –
self defense – to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely
on the
strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
prosecution,
for even if that were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused
himself
had admit­ted the killing. (People vs. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772; People vs.
Jamero,
G.R. No. L-32256, January 31, 1977, 75 SCRA 137; People vs. Tesorero,
supra;
People vs. Kindo, G.R. No. L-35781, January 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 553).

Appellant contends that the trial court committed a grave error
in giving
weight to the version of the prosecution which it found to be credible
while
debunking the version of the defense. This contention is untenable. The
record
bears out that prosecution’s eye witnesses Teodoro Nala and Felix Nahil,
in
clear, concise language, positively and steadfastly maintained that the
appellant Pablo Nacuspag together with his companions – Virgilio
Nacuspag,
Ernesto Saradolla and Aristedes Salazar (who all withdrew their appeal
in this
case) – ganged up on the deceased and during the fight appellant stabbed
the
deceased.

Appellant tries to impute unreliability to Teodoro Nala’s
testimony. During
cross examination (Pp. 16-34; 36-37, Tsn., Isberto) he was continuously
asked if
he is a relative of the deceased, Iniego Nala. As was the fact, Teodoro
Nala
admitted that the victim is his nephew. But mere relationship of a
pro­secution
witness to the victim does not necessarily vitiate his otherwise
credible
testimony nor does it impair his positive and clear evidence. (People
vs. Ruiz,
et al., G.R. Nos. L-33604?05, October 30, 1979, 93 SCRA 739.)

In brief what impresses Us is that notwithstanding thorough
cross-examinations of both prosecution witnesses Teodoro Nala and Felix
Nahil,
they came out unscathed, they stood pat on their declaration that
Virgilio
Nacuspag gave the deceased Iniego Nala a fist blow on the right jaw,
followed by
the appellant Pablo Nacuspag who gave another fist blow on the left
side; then
Aristedes Salazar approached Iniego Nala and with his arm squeezed the
neck of
said Iniego Nala from the back; and in such position appellant Pablo
Nacuspag
stabbed him on the left nipple with a “siyao”.

The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by appellant
in the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, such as who were present in the
room
during the melee or fight, refer merely to minor details. These are not
of such
magnitude and character as to lead Us to believe that these witnesses
were
coached or tutored. (People vs. Abejuela, G.R. No. L-32702, August 6,
1979, 92
SCRA 503).

Trite to say, appellate courts generally accept the findings of
the trial
court:

“Clearly, the focal issue presented here revolves around the
credibility of
witnesses, i.e., whether or not the trial court was correct in giving
weight to
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. And the well-established
rule on
this point is that the factual conclusion reached by the trial court,
which had
the opportunity more than the reviewing tribunal to observe and gauge
the
demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying and to properly
appreciate the same, is not to be disturbed, unless there is proof of
misapprehension of evidence. (People vs. Baduso, 60 SCRA 61; People vs.
De la
Victoria, 64 SCRA 400; People vs. Legones, G.R. No. L-30245, January 30,
1976,
69 SCRA 210; People vs. Padiernos, L-37284, February 27, 1976, 69 SCRA
484;
People vs. Sarile, L-37148, June 30, 1976, 71 SCRA 593; People vs.
Caramonte, G.
R. No. L-31866, November 7, 1979.)

“x x x This then is a case where the well-settled principle as
to the
acceptance of the findings of the lower court which had the opportunity
to see,
hear and observe the witness testify and to weigh their testimonies,
finds
application. This Court had even gone so far as to hold in People v.
Tila-on;
‘Finally, the rule is now firmly established to the point of becoming
elementary
in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that where there is irreconcilable
conflict
in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the
findings
of the trial court when the evidence of the successful party, considered
by
itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed from.'” (People vs.
Payao,
G.R. No. L-29364, November 21, 1975; People vs. Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729;
People vs.
Panganiban, 22 SCRA 817; People vs. Pelago, 24 SCRA 1027; People vs.
Manos, 36
SCRA 457; People vs. Beraces, 38 SCRA 107; People vs. Sabandal, 41 SCRA
179;
People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59; People vs. Angcap. 43 SCRA 437; People
vs.
Carandang, 52 SCRA 259; People vs Macaraeg, 53 SCRA 285; People vs. De
la
Victoria, 65 SCRA 400; People vs. Tila-on, 2 SCRA 653; See also People
vs.
Ordonio, G.R. No. L-33829, December 19, 1975.)

The findings and conclusions of the trial court on the
credibility of the
prosecution witnesses, specially Teodoro Nala and Felix Nahil, should
not be
disturbed in this appeal. We see no reason at all to do so. There is no
proof
that in making the findings, His Honor had failed to appreciate facts or

circumstances of weight and substance that would have altered the
results of the
case.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the
trial court, being supported
by evidence proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt, is
hereby
affirmed in toto, with costs against said appellant.

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro,
and Escolin, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Withdrawal of
appeal was granted by
this Court on March 17, 1975. (p. 170, Rollo)

^[2]
Withdrawal of appeal was likewise
granted on October 15, 1975. (p. 175, Rollo)

^[3] Withdrawal was granted on March
17, 1975. (p. 170, Rollo)