THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DELFIN TORRECAMPO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DELFIN TORRECAMPO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Before the Court of First Instance of Samar, DELFIN TORRECAMPO and
ALFREDO MENDEZ were jointly charged with murder for the killing of
IGNACIO BALLONICO. After trial, Alfredo Mendez was acquitted for
insufficiency of evidence. His co-defendant Delfin Torrecampo was found
guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the
accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the
sum of P2,000.00, and to pay 1/2 of the costs. Torrecampo is appealing
from that decision. The amended information on which the defendants
were tried reads as follows:

“That on or about the 9th day of March, 1950, at Bo.
Makiwalo, municipality of Mondragon, province of Samar, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Hon. Court, the above-named accused
with intent to kill, and with evident premeditation and treachery,
conspiring together and confederating and helping one another did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and wound
one Ignacio Ballonico, with a knife which the accused Delfin Torrecampo
had conveniently provided himself for the purpose while accused Alfredo
Mendez was poised and in the act of preventing the said victim from
offering resistance, thereby inflicting one mortal wound upon the person
of said Ignacio Ballonico at the lower right abdominal cavity which
wound caused his instantaneous death.”

The trial court found Torrecampo guilty as charged, but as already
stated, sentenced him only to life imprisonment which is the medium of
the penalty prescribed for the crime of murder despite the allegation of
the aggravating circumstance of either treachery or premeditation.

The following facts have been duly established. In the evening of
March 8, 1950, Federico de Guia entertained friends in his house on the
occasion of the novena held there in connection with the death
of his mother. Drinking tuba was indulged in by the visitors and in the
course thereof, there ensued a quarrel which degenerated into a fight
between Delfin Torrecampo and Ignacio Ballonico, resulting in the latter
boxing the former and striking him on the back with a piece of wood.
Torrecampo presumably to avoid further punishment because Ballonico was
bigger and taller than himself, jumped out of the window but from below
he warned his assailant to beware for someday he was goint to kill him.

The following afternoon Ballonico accompanied by his wife Consorcia
repaired to the house of Manuel de Guia for the purpose of buying a
carabao to be slaughtered in connection with the novenario in the
house of Federico de Guia. After ascertaining the price of the carabao
which Manuel said was available for sale, and as the couple was about
to return home, Torrecampo suddenly approached Ballonico from behind and
as the latter turned around, struck him in the right lower part of the
abdomen with a knife, inflicting a mortal wound which the President of
the Sanitary Division described as –

“Wound, stab, rt. iliac region, 2″ long x 3/4″ wide.
Evisceration (of intestines, small) w/ gangrene. Wound, punctured, (S)
intestines, small, w/ peritonitis Hemorrage, acute, secondary. Shock.”

and from which Ballonico died the following day.

There is no doubt as to the infliction of the mortal wound by
appellant Torrecampo. He does not deny it. He, however, claims that he
acted in self-defense. As to the alleged participation of Alfredo
Mendez, the court found that he was not present on the occasion of the
stabbing, much less participated in it. The theory of appellant
Torrecampo is that when on the afternoon of March 9th, he approached the
house of Manuel de Guia, he found Ballonico and his wife in the yard
talking to De Guia who was at the window of his house; that Consorcia
began to reproach him, accusing him of spreading the rumor that he was
engaged to her sister LUCERING; that when he denied the charge, she
began assaulting him inflicting blows on his face, and that her husband
Ballonico immediately joined in the assault, striking him with a piece
of bamboo on the back with such force that the bamboo broke; that he
(Torrecampo) stepped forward to avoid other blows and when he turned
around he saw Ballonico with a knife in his hand which knife Ballonico
actually swung at him, and that to defend himself he brought but his own
knife and stabbed Ballonico in the abdomen.

After a careful study of the evidence, we agree with the trial
court in its rejection of the story of Torrecampo. We find that
appellant approached Ballonico from behind and as the latter turned
around to go home unaware of the presence of the appellant, the latter
suddenly stabbed him in the abdomen. There is evidence to the effect
that though caught unawares Ballonico instinctively stepped aside to
avoid the aggression; but his attempt at escape was blocked by Alfredo
Mendez. It is also said that immediately before the assault, Alfredo
Mendez was heard to say: “If you want fight, fight; if hit, hit”.
However, the trial court as already said acquitted Mendez on
insufficiency of evidence.

The killing was qualified by treachery thus raising it to the
category of murder. Although the information alleges the aggravating
circumstance of premeditation, as pointed out by the Solicitor General,
there is no valid ground for holding that it attended the commission of
the crime. The grudge engendered by the fight between Torrecampo and
Ballonico in the house of Federico de Guia the night before, in which
Torrecampo was at the losing end, may well and logically be considered
as the motive behind the killing. But although he warned Ballonico that
he would someday kill him, there is no evidence that he really meant to
kill the deceased, and that from that moment he planned and reflected
on killing his assailant, and in pursuance of said plan he followed the
deceased to the yard of Manuel de Guia the following day. For all we
know, it may well have been a chance meeting but that when he saw the
deceased that afternoon his resentment of the previous evening flared
anew and he decided right then and there to attack his victim.

We agree with the Solicitor General that the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender should be accorded appellant. It
was proved that the following day he surrendered himself to a policeman
in the town of Mondragon. The penalty corresponding to the crime of
murder should therefore, be imposed in its minimum degree, namely, reclusion
temporal in its maximum degree. Applying the law on indeterminate
sentence, the penalty should be not less than twelve (12) years of prison
mayor and not more than seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day of reclusion temporal. The indemnity should also be
increased to P6,000.00. With these modifications, the decision appealed
from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

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