THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO PAAT ALIAS PEDRING, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Marcelo Paat alias Pedring, Virgilio Paat and Juan Donato 2.o,
were charged below with murder.  After
trial upon a plea of not guilty, the lower court acquitted Juan Donato and Virgilio Paat on the ground of
reasonable doubt, but convicted Marcelo Paat as charged and, after considering
in his favor the mitigating circumstance
of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation, sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from 10 years and 1 day of prision
mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with the
accessory penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Teodorico Catuiran in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay 1/3 of the costs.

Marcelo Paat appealed to the Court of Appeals, but after a review
of the evidence, said court found that, on the basis thereof, Paat was guilty
of murder, qualified by treachery, and without any right to have the mitigating
cir­cumstance of passion or obfuscation considered in his favor.  As the imposable penalty would then be
reclusion perpetua, said court certified the appeal to Us pursuant to section
34 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.

The Court of Appeals,
after a careful consideration of the testimony of prosecution witnesses,
correctly found that it established the following facts:

“x x x  x x x  x x x in the morning of August 25, 1957, Juan
Donato, Virgilio Paat, and Marcelo Paat were in the mar­ket place of the barrio
of Masical in the muni­cipality of Amulong in the province of Cagayan.  The three brothers Ricardo, Eulogio and
Teodori­co, all surnamed Catuiran, were likewise in the said market place.  Eulogio and Teodorico were drinking basi
in a tienda while Ricardo was reading an issue of the magazine Bannawag
some distance from the tienda. 
Eulogio invited Juan Donato, who was nearby to drink basi; the
latter excused himself, saying that he was not drinking.  Eulogio felt insulted and said to Donato:
“It seems that you resent us’.  An
altercation en­sued, in which Virgilio Paat and Teodorico Ca­tuiran
intervened.  Juan Donato held the right
hand of Teodorico while Virgilio held Teodori­co’s left hand.  At this very juncture, the accused Marcelo
Paat approached and stabbed Teodorico in the back with a small bolo (imuca).  When Donato and Virgilio released their hold
on Teodorico, the latter drew his bolo, swung it and hit Virgilio in the
abdomen.  Teodorico took a few steps,
slumped to the ground, and expired.

“According to Dr.
Dulce Donato Baculi, the municipal health officer, Teodorico Catuiran sustained
a ‘stab wound above the superior angle of the right scapula running
horizontally, pe­netrating the upper lobe of the right lung about 5-1/2 inches
deep and about 1 inch wide’ (see exh. A, post mortem examination report).  This wound was fatal; Teodorico died of
hemorrhage and shock.”

The same court found that
the evidence for the defense tended to prove that on the morning in question –

“x x x  x x x  x x x 
Virgilio Paat and Marcelo Paat were in the market place looking for men
whom they could employ to trans­plant palay in their land in Bayabat.  Virgilio was invited by Eulogio Catuiran to drink basi.  Virgilio declined the offer, but because of
the insistence of Eulogio he drank a little. 
Eu­logio suggested to Virgilio that the latter buy another bottle of basi
so that all of them could drink. 
Virgilio declined, saying that he had no more than P0.20.  Nevertheless, he bought another bottle and
they drank.  After this bottle was
emptied, Eulogio again requested Virgilio to buy another bottle.  Virgilio excused himself this time, saying
that he had no more money.  At this
juncture, Eulogio hurled these remarks at Virgilio, ‘You are the same as the
old man your uncle Juan Donato.  Vulva of
your mother’.  Virgilio was incensed, and
he retorted, ‘what is the matter with you? Because this is your place, you are
scandalizing me.  Leche!’ As
Virgilio said this, he swung his hands and struck Eulogio’s forehead.  Forthwith, Teodorico stabbed Virgilio, from
behind, and hit the right side of the latter’s abdomen, Teodorico attempted to
stab Virgilio a second time, but the latter retreated.  The appellant Marcelo saw Teodorico in the act of
stabbing Virgilio, and he immediate­ly ran to the rescue of Virgilio, and
stabbed Teodorico in the back.  Juan
Donato was not pre­sent when Marcelo stabbed Teodorico, as he had walked away
to return to his house in Masical.

“Virgilio was taken to
the hospital in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and was examined by Dr. Gregorio
Reyes.  Virgilio sustained a penetrat­ing
wound in his right loin; the right side of the middle third of his large
intestine was punctured.  Dr. Reyes
performed the necessary surgical operation on Virgilio.  In court he declared that Virgilio could not
have survived for more than 48 hours without the surgical operation.”

It is clear from the
foregoing that the decisive issue to be resolved in this appeal is whether
appellant inflicted the mortal wound that caused the death of Teodorico
Catuiran in defense of his brother Virgilio.

After a careful
consideration of the entire testimonial evidence of record, We have come to the
conclusion that the trial court committed no error in according full credit to
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 
Particular mention must be made of that given by prosecution witness
Alfonso Binayug against whose credibility and impartiality the record discloses
nothing.  In a clear and straightforward
manner he testified that while he was buying some merchandise in the market
place of Masical, he heard a scream; that thereupon, as he looked in the
direction the scream came from, he saw Juan Donato holding the right hand of
Teodorico Catuiran and Virgilio Paat holding the left; that it was at that
juncture that appellant, coming from behind, stabbed Teodorico in the back;
that as appellant pulled his weapon from the back of his victim, Juan and
Virgilio almost simultaneously released their hold on Teodorico and ran away;
that when Virgilio passed in front of Teodorico, the latter was able to draw
his bolo and stabbed him on the right side of his abdomen.

Having
arrived at the conclusion that it is the pro­secution evidence that has established the manner and cir­cumstances
under which appellant stabbed the deceased Teo­dorico, We must necessarily
reject his claim that he committed
the crime to defend the life of his brother Virgilio.  As it was only after appellant had already
mor­tally wounded Teodorico Catuiran that the latter, already free from the
hold of Juan Donato and Virgilio Paat, was able to stab Virgilio, it is
abundantly clear that the theory of the defense has no leg to stand upon.

With respect to the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, We agree with the Solicitor General that the
trial court erred in taking it into account in favor of appellant.  Upon the facts proven beyond reasonable
doubt, there was no reason for appellant to have acted under the influence of
passion or obfuscation.  While it is true
that Teodorico Catuiran tried – as did Virgilio Paat – to intervene in the
altercation that took place between Juan Donato and Eulogio Catuiran, the
evidence shows that Virgilio and Juan Donato immediately rendered Teodorico
helpless by holding his hands, and it was while the latter was in such helpless
condition that appellant stabbed him from behind.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, We are of the opinion and so hold, that the crime committed by appellant was
that of murder, qualified by treachery. 
There being no modifying circumstance present, the penalty provided by
law – reclusion temporal to death – should be imposed in its medium period,
that is, reclusion perpetua.  Thus
modified, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., no part.