THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VITALIANO CIRIA @ MANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Automatic review of the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court, Seventh
Judicial District, Pasig, Metro Manila, in its Case
No. CCC-VII-1548-Cavite, finding the accused Vitaliano
Ciria @ Mano guilty of the
crime of MURDER for the death of one Matias Arahan of Bo. Amaya, Tanza, Cavite
and sentencing him to suffer the capital penalty of DEATH and to pay the
corresponding indemnity, plus damages totalling P22,000.00 and the costs.

The brief of the People states, briefly but comprehensively, the
nature of the case and the facts:

“On April 7, 1972,
a complaint for murder was filed by Cpl. Esmeraldo G.
Romero against appellant Vitaliano Ciria and one Marianito Claros (p. 4, records). 
The Municipal Court of Tanza, Cavite, conducted a preliminary
examination of the case, docketed as Crim. Case 1070,
and found a prima facie case against the appellant only and ordered his
arrest.  It dismissed the complaint as
against Marianito Claros
(p. 14, records).

“On August 25, 1975,
presumably after the capture of appellant, the case was remanded for trial to
the Court of First Instance of Cavite (p. 17,
records), appellant, having waived the second stage of the preliminary
investigation (p. 17, records).

“On January 22, 1976,
appellant was formally charged before the Circuit Criminal Court (7th Judicial
District) with Murder.  The Information
in Crim. Case CCC-VII-1548 (Cavite) partly reads:

‘That on or about April 1, 1972, in the Municipality of Tanza, Province, of Cavite,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused armed with a bolo locally called ‘barang‘,
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
hack with the said bolo one Matias Arahan, inflicting upon the latter, wounds on his neck and
head which cause his death’ (p. 1, records).

“Upon arraignment on February
5, 1976, appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’ (p. 25, records).

“On June 29, 1976, a Decision was rendered by Judge Onofre Villaluz of the Circuit
Criminal Court, (now Justice of the Court of Appeals) the dispositive
portion of which states:

‘WHEREFORE, finding the accused Vitaliano
Ciria, Guilty beyond reasonable doubt, of the
commission of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as charged in the information, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of Death; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Matias
Arahan, the amount of P12,000.00;
to pay the amount of P5,000.00 as moral damages and another P5,000.00 as
exemplary damages; and to pay the cost.’ 
(p. 81, records)

”COUNTERSTATEMENT
OF FACTS

“On April 1, 1972,
in Amaya, Tanza, Cavite, Elizabeth Arahan, then 12 years old, was sitting by the window of
their house keeping an eye over her baby brother who was playing on the
floor.  On the ground, just about three arms-length from where she was sitting by the window, her
father, the deceased Matias Arahan,
was cooking ‘pata‘. 
It was about 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon (Tsn, Feb. 12, 1976, pp. 4, 7, 11, E. Arahan).  Her mother
had earlier left for the town clinic to have her younger brother treated.  An elder sister was also out buying something
from a store some distance away (Tsn, March 25, 1976,
pp. 4-6, Arahan).

“As Elizabeth was
thus sitting by the window that afternoon, she saw Marianito
Claros approach her father and ask that his cigarette
be lighted.  After it was lighted, Marianito left and upon reaching the street, was met by
appellant.  After a brief exchange of
words with appellant, Claros went his way.

“Appellant then approached Matias Arahan and also asked that his cigarette be lighted.  Appellant asked Arahan
what he was cooking.  Matias
Arahan replied he was making some ‘pulutan‘ for a little party the next day.  Appellant picked up the ‘barang‘
(Exhibit ‘D’ – bolo) which was beside Matias Arahan, and asked if it was sharp.

“The deceased, whose back was then towards appellant, answered
that it was, after which appellant hacked him three (3) times in quick
succession — at the nape, on the head and at the nape again, Matias Arahan fell face down,
dead.  Appellant dropped the bolo and ran
away (Tsn, Feb. 12, 1976, pp. 7-10, E. Arahan).

“That same day, Dr. Hernando Pulido,
Rural Health Physician of Tanza, examined the body of
the deceased at the latter’s house.  He
found that the deceased’s skull was cracked. 
The two wounds at the nape were both fatal, having severed the cervix
and the curative artery.  The doctor
asked the sanitary inspector to prepare an anatomical diagram showing the
wounds inflicted (Exhibit ‘A’).  He also
issued a death certificate wherein he attributed the cause of death to shock
and hemorrhage due to bolo wounds (Exhibit ‘B’; Tsn,
Feb. 10, 1976, pp. 2-8, Pulido).

“Meanwhile, appellant fled from the place.  He surendered (or
was apprehended) only after Martial Law was declared (Tsn,
June 10, 1976, p. 24, Ciria).  This would
seem to be sometime in 1975 already as the Order of the Municipal Court
remanding the case for trial on the merits is dated August 25, 1975 (p. 17,
records).” (Pp. 1-5)

After a painstaking review of the record and the transcript of
the stenographic notes taken at the trial, We are
satisfied that the People’s narration of the proven facts is not only accurate
but readily credible.

On the other hand, Ciria unhesitatingly
admitted having hacked his victim, Matias Arahan, but in an attempt to escape liability, presented
evidence tending to show self-defense. 
So, the only matter We have to determine in the instant review is
whether or not said evidence comes up to the long and well settled standard in
criminal prosecutions that in crimes against persons where the accused puts up
the defense of having acted in self-defense, the onus is on him to prove
such defense with clear, strong and convincing evidence, without relying on any
possible weakness of that of the prosecution. 
(People vs. Llonico, 54 SCRA 172-184) As stated in People vs. Llamera, 51 SCRA 48, 57:

“It is a well settled rule that one who admits the infliction
of injuries which caused the death of another has the burden of proving
self-defense with sufficient and convincing evidence.  If such
evidence is of doubtful veracity, and is not clear and convincing, the defense
must necessarily fail, for ‘having admitted
that he was the author of the death of the deceased, it was incumbent upon
appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying
circumstance claimed by him’ without relying on the weakness of that of the
prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, for even if the evidence
of the prosecution were weak ‘it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself
had admitted the killing’ (People v. Ansoyon, 75
Phil. 772; People v. Talaboc, 30 SCRA 87; People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533; People v. Banden,
77 Phil. 105; People v. Cruz, 53 Phil. 635; People v. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609;
People v. Alvior, 56 Phil. 98; People v. Espanilla, 62 Phil. 264; People v. Apolinario,
58 Phil. 586; People v. Gimeno, 59 Phil. 509; People
v. Jorge, 71 Phil. 451; People v. Jumauan, 98 Phil.
1).”

Conscious as We are that this is a
capital case, We have taken a hard look at Ciria’s
testimony.  His version was substantially
as follows:

“That at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 1, 1972,
while he was searching for his lost pig, he passed by the house of his
neighbor–the victim Matias Arahan–which
was only eight (8) meters distant from his own home.  He requested for drinking water from Matias, and the latter, who was then inside the house,
handed out to him the water as he (appellant) stood by the foot of the stairs;
from the foot of the stairs where he stood he saw his missing pig inside the
“batalan” of the house; the pig was then
slaughtered but not yet quartered; he demanded the return of his pig from Arahan, but the latter refused to give it back to him for
the reason that it was already “compromised”; and when he insisted, Arahan picked up his “barang”
from the floor of the house, got down and attacked him with it; as Arahan launched at him, he moved one-arms length from him
and thereby avoided Arahan’s first hacking blow, and
when the following assault came, he managed to grab the “barang” from the hand of Arahan,
albeit in the process, he was hit with the said bolo or ”barang” on the
eyebrow on the right side of his forehead; after he obtained possession of the
bolo, he hacked Arahan with it, face to face; it
happened so suddenly he could no longer recall the number of times he hacked Arahan, and because he got scared when he saw blood on the
face of his victim, he dropped the bolo beside his fallen adversary and ran
away, far out to the irrigated ricefields some twenty
(20) kilometers away from the place, sat down to rest under a mango tree until
darkness settled; from there he proceeded to Maragondon
where he, stayed for a couple of years up to the mid-portion of the year 1975
when he finally decided to surrender to a barrio captain of the place.”

We are fully convinced that such version of accused Ciria, uncorroborated at that, cannot stand even cursory
scrutiny.  It is shot thru with immediately
unbelievable circumstances, for being obviously inconsistent with the ordinary
experience and conduct of man.  His claim
that he passed by the house of Arahan while on his
way to look for his missing pig only to ask for drinking water is, to say the
least, unusual, considering that his own house was just beside that of Arahan-barely eight (8) meters distant from each
other.  Likewise, even assuming for the
sake of argument that he had really lost his pig, it is quite out of the
ordinary and difficult to believe that Arahan would
have had the nerve and be so cynical as to slaughter in his own house a pig
stolen from his immediate neighbor, thereby easily exposing his misdeed to his
other neighbors who would no doubt hear siren-like wails the pig would make
while being slaughtered, and then leave it unquartered
on the floor of an open “batalan” for any
and all passersby to see.  Again, it is
entirely out of the ordinary for an alleged thief, like what appellant claimed Arahan was, to simply reason out to the owner claiming back
his pig that he could no longer return it because it was already “compromised”,
instead of at least denying outright the imputation against him.  Further, appellant could not even explain
satisfactorily how he managed to wrest the bolo from the hand of Arahan.  He merely
told the court that “because of the sudden happening, I was not able to
know how I was able to grab that bolo.” (Tsn, p.
41)

Then too, appellant’s claim that he had to hack Arahan with the bolo as an act of self-defense because he
was placed in a tight situation and could not have moved away is difficult to
reconcile with his own admissions in his testimony that the fence on his left
towards the east had an opening of about 2-1/2 meters, and that after he had
wrested the bolo from Arahan’s hand said victim no
longer rushed at him, and so, he was then in complete control not only of said
bolo but also of Arahan, which proves indubitably
that at that precise point of time the alleged aggression against him, if ever
there was one, had already ceased.  What
need was there then for him to hack his victim with the bolo three times in
succession–to prevent or repel his alleged aggression against him?  Last, but not least, appellant’s insistence
that he hacked Arahan with the latter’s own bolo
frontally or face to face is belied completely by the location of the wounds he
inflicted on the said victim, first on the nape or back portion of the neck,
next at the back portion of the head, and then at the nape again, as testified
to by Elizabeth and confirmed by the medical findings of Dr. Pulido, the Assistant Health Officer of Tanza,
Cavite, who examined the deceased and caused to be
prepared under his direction, the report and diagram, Exhibit A, all of which
conclusively prove that the attack came from behind.  Verily, Ciria has utterly
failed to prove positively and convincingly the justifying circumstances of
self-defense he asserted and, therefore, the trial court did not err in not
appreciating the same.

Under his third assignment of error, counsel for accused laments his
conviction and ascribes error to the trial court for allegedly having found him
guilty on the basis merely of the testimony of the lone witness for the
prosecution which, he claims further, is open to suspicion because the said
lone witness is the, daughter of the victim. 
Such pretension is simply not true. 
To begin with, appellant’s own testimony shows
conclusively that he alone inflicted the wounds which caused the death of Arahan.  In view of
such admission of appellant, the only question left for this Court to decide,
as We have stated earlier, is whether or not he had really acted in
self-defense, and, as already discussed and pointed out above, accused utterly
failed to prove positively and convincingly any element of self-defense.  Independently, therefore, of the alleged
weakness of the evidence for the prosecution, appellant cannot avoid criminal
responsibility resulting from his admission.

Actually, while it is true that Elizabeth was the lone
eye-witness to the killing of her father, her testimony before the court below
was not really the sole basis of appellant’s conviction, because there was the
medico-legal officer’s finding, after an examination of the nature and location
of the wounds of the victim, which indicates, as already pointed out, the
wounds inflicted on Arahan were all from behind,
thereby corroborating Elizabeth’s testimony that appellant hacked her father
three (3) times with a bolo as he was in the act of blowing the fire over which
he was then cooking a pig’s “pata”.  Moreover, the testimony of a single witness
may be sufficient to produce conviction, if it appears trustworthy and reliable
(People vs. Naba-unag, 79 SCRA 32; People vs.
Salazar, 58 SCRA 467), which is exactly how Elizabeth’s
testimony appears to Us.

As to the alleged suspicious character of Elizabeth’s
testimony because she is the daughter of the victim, it is to be noted that
appellant does not specifically point to any portion of her testimony which may
render it doubtful.  Besides, We find no reason at
all to reject the finding and conclusion of the trial court regarding her
credibility.  In any event, suffice it to
say that relationship to the victim, standing by itself, does not prove that
the said witness is prejudiced and biased when, as in this case, said testimony
is not only clear and natural, but corroborated circumstantially by medical
findings.  (People vs. Estocada, 75 SCRA 295; People vs. Roxas,
73 SCRA 583; People vs. Pajenado, 69 SCRA 172;
People vs. Reyes, 69 SCRA 474; People
vs. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484; See also People vs. Puesca, 87 SCRA 130, 144, citing People vs. Miranda, 10
SCRA 385; People vs. Asmamil, 13 SCRA 497 and People
vs. Libed, 14 SCRA 410.)

We are fully and morally
convinced that the guilt of appellant Vitaliano Ciria for the murder of Matias Arahan has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  His conviction therefore follows as a matter
of course.  However, while he is indeed
guilty of murder, as observed by the Solicitor General in his brief, (p. 13),
no aggravating circumstance has been adequately established to warrant the
penalty of death imposed by the trial
court, and it should, therefore be reduced, as We do
hereby reduce the same to RECLUSION PERPETUA. 
In all other respects, the decision appealed from is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Fernandez,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on official leave of absence.