THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDDIE BUENBRAZO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant Eddie Buenbrazo and Sulpicio Torino were charged with
murder in the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental.  As the latter remained at
large for sometime, the case went on only against appellant who, after trial
upon a plea of not guilty, was convicted as charged and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Simplicio Talaroc in the sum of
P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.

It is not disputed that Simplicio Talaroc died of a stab wound inflicted upon him in the
evening of November 27, 1965 at the wharf area of Ozamis City, Misamis Occidental.

Appellant admits having stabbed the deceased but claims that he
did it in self-defense.  It was,
therefore, incumbent upon him to establish all the facts necessary to prove
self-defense.  In his brief he states
what, according to him, were the circumstances under which he stabbed the
deceased Simplicio Talaroc
as follows:

“On a certain occasion before November 27, 1965, Eddie Buenbrazo
was eating inside the store of Mrs. Gutierez located
at the wharf, Ozamiz
City.  Unexpectedly, Simplicio
Talaroc came and asked Eddie Buenbrazo
for a drink.  In retort, the latter told
the former that his money was just enough to pay for what he was eating.  Utterly dismayed, Simplicio
Talaroc went out of the store murmuring something.

“On November 27,
1965, at around 9 o’clock
in the evening, Simplicio Talaroc
with a compa­nion went to the dance at Katagalogan, Ozamiz City.  A few moments after seeing the dance, he
inquired from one Romeo Oligo, in-charge of the dance, as to where Eddie Buenbrazo
was.  The latter told the former
that Eddie Buenbrazo was at the wharf waiting for a
boat to work on.  But Simplicio
Talaroc got mad at Romeo Oligo,
and sternly forewarned him that once he gets back to the dance and sees Eddie Buenbrazo thereat, he (Romeo Oligo)
would be implicated in a case.

“Consequently, Simplicio Talaroc proceeded to the wharf.  When he saw Eddie Buenbrazo
coming out of the store of Mrs. Gutierez, Simplicio Talaroc exclaimed, ‘Here is Eddie!’ Right
then and there he rushed toward Eddie Buenbrazo, drew
a hunting
knife and thrust it upon him.  But the
latter parried the hunting knife by giving a sudden stroke with his open palm
with straight fingers closed together to the right hand of the former which
held the said weapon.  The weapon dropped
to the ground.  Then Eddie Buenbrazo picked up the hunting knife and a vigorous
struggle between the two ensued as one was trying to overpower the other,
especially Eddie Buenbrazo who labored hard to defend
his life and limbs against the homicidal assault of Simplicio
Talaroc.  When Simplicio Talaroc held the
left hand of Eddie Buenbrazo with his two hands, the
former pulled the latter.  But Eddie Buenbrazo resisted and tried to get himself free from the hold of Simplicio
Talaroc.  Inorder to extricate himself, he stabbed the left arm of
his assailant.  Resultantly, he was released
and so he ran away.  He went to the house
of his uncle, Luis Buenbrazo, at Katagalogan,
Ozamiz City,
where he was staying at that time.

“In that scuffle, Simplicio Talaroc sustained two stab wounds, one on his breast, left
side, and the other on his left arm.  But
these wounds were caused by one thrust only.”

As against the above, We have the
testimony of several prosecution witnesses which, according to the lower court,
established the following:

“It appears from the evidence for the prosecution that prior
to November 27, 1965, the
accused and the late Simplicio Talaroc
had grudges.  Between 9:00 and 10:00 in
the evening of November 27, 1965,
Simplicio Talaroc, Alan
Perez, Rene Balatero, Aling
Apdal and Diosdado Omelig were at the wharf, Ozamiz City.  While they were conversing, the accused Eddie
Buenbrazo, accompanied by one Torino, came. 
Torino placed his arm
around the shoulders of Simplicio and engaged him in
a conversation.  While so conversing, the
accused suddently stabbed Simplicio
with a pointed hunting knife, hitting him on his left breast.  Torino
faced Rene Balatero and asked him if he would defend Simplicio to which Balatero
replied that he did not have anything to do with the incident.  Torino
nevertheless boxed him but he was not hit. 
In the meantime, Simplicio ran towards the PC
Headquarters, followed by Rene Balatero, The others
ran in different directions.  Simplicio was at once brought
to the Rico Medina
Hospital, Ozamiz City,
where Sgt. Bonifacio Engracia
of the Ozamiz City Police Department took his dying
declaration, Exhibit ‘A’.  Dr. Medina examined
Simplicio and found on his body two injuries, one at
the left arm and the other, on his left side. 
The injury on the left side was fatal. 
There was only one thrust.  Cause
of death was external
hemorrhage, secondary to the stab wounds.  Lt Tamparong, Sgt Bonifacio Engracia and other
members of the Ozamiz City Police Department went to
the house of the accused to arrest him. 
Upon reaching the premises, they were informed that the accused was in the house of his uncle,
Luis Buenbrazo. 
Lt. Tamparong and companions proceeded to this house and inquired for the
accused.  When the accused appeared, Lt Tamparong asked him if he was the one who stabbed Simplicio Talaroc and he
answered in the affirmative.  He was also asked to produce the hunting
knife used in stabbing Simplicio and he gave it to
Lt. Tamparong who in turn delivered it to the sergeant
of the guard.”

Made to choose between the version given by the prosecution
witnesses, on the one hand, and those of the defense, on the other, the trial
court arrived at the definite conclusion
that “the accused is guilty of murder” because while Simplicio Talaroc and
four others were conversing merrily near the wharf, appellant, accompanied by Sulpicio Torino, arrived at the
place; that immediately Torino placed his arm around Simplicio’s shoulders and engaged him in a conversation; that suddenly appellant
stabbed Simplicio on the latter’s left arm, the
weapon penetrating his side, as a result of which he died of hemorrhage.

We
agree entirely with the lover court, particularly when it held that if the deceased, armed with a hunting
knife, was really the first to attack appellant, the latter could not
have avoided suffering physical injuries. 
The fact, however, is that
he suffered no “injury at all, not even a scratch”.

After a careful review of the record, We
find no justification at all to change the findings and conclusions of the
trial court with respect to the facts of the case.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed,
except that the indemnity of P6,000 to be paid by
appellant to the heirs of the deceased is increased to P12,000.

As a result, our
resolution of January 17, 1968 granting
appellant’s motion to be released on bail is set aside, and the bail bond submitted by him
in that connection is hereby disapproved.

With costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.