PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLOS CLEMENTE, PASCUAL CLEMENTE, AND ROSALIO CLEMENTE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Samar
(in Crim. Case No. C-778), convicting Carlos Clemente and Pascual Clemente of
the crime of murder, and Rosalio Clemente, of homicide, and sentencing them
accordingly, for the death of one Reyes Matnog.

At about 3 o’clock in the afternoon of February 5, 1962, at the
corner of the national highway and the barrio road in front of the house
of a certain Hospicio Tan in barrio San Miguel, municipality of Lave­zares,
province of Samar, Reyes Matnog, barrio lieutenant of barrio
MacArthur, same municipality, died of multiple wounds.  Reyes Matnog had just come from a party
(blow-out) given by Pedro Baniega in celebration of the latter’s election as barrio
lieutenant of San Miguel.  The
autopsy-report of the Rural Health Officer of Lavezares (Exh. A) shows the
deceased sustained the following injuries:

“EXTERNAL
FINDINGS

“x x x x

“2. Stab wound on the left lower part of the upper third of
the arm, lateral side about one inch in length penetrating thru the other side
and entering the chest cavity.

“3. Stab wound on the posterior part right side of the
umbilical region penetrating the abdominal cavity.

“4. Stab wound on the upper part of the back above the right
scapular region.  The wound measures
about one inch in length and 1 1/2 inch in depthness.

“6. Lacerated wound on the upper part of the back, scapular
region, left side measuring about 4 1/2 inches in length in a horizontal manner
and fracturing the supra-scapular bone.

“INTERNAL
FINDINGS

“1. The lower third of the left humeral bone is fractured.

“2. The third left medial part of the rib is also fractured.

“3. Blood about one liter was taken from the left chest
cavity.

“4. Left side of the heart was injured resulting to profuse
hemorrhage.

“5. Wound penetrating the abdominal cavity did not involve any
abdominal organ but there are some blood clot found due to some vessels that
were cut.”

Cause of death was reported to be due to
profuse internal hemorrhage resulting to shock.

Informed of the incident, the Chief of Police of Lavezares,
Victorino F. de Leon, immediately repaired to barrio San Miguel to in­vestigate,
and based on the statements of Basilio Pornelos and Isabel Medala, he prepared
a sketch of the crime-scene (Exh. D).  On
Feb­ruary 6, 1962 and February 8, 1962, respectively, Pornelos and Medala
executed affidavits to the effect that Pascual Clemente, Rosalio Cle­mente and
Carlos Clemente took part in the slaying of Reyes Matrog.  On February 7, 1962, the Chief of Police of
Lavezares filer the necessary complaint against Pascual, Carlos and Rosalio
Clemente.^[1]

On March 15, 1962, the three Clemente brothers were formally
charged before the Court of First Instance of Samar (Crim. Case No. C-778) of
the crime of murder allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of February, 1962, in the
afternoon, in Bo. San Miguel, Lavezares, Samar Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
bolo and knives locally known as ‘kinogon’, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation
and treachery and taking advantage of their superior strength and number, and
without any justifiable motive at all, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault, chase, stab and wound one Reyes Matnog, a
barrio lieutenant of Bo. MacArthur, Lavezares, Samar, with said weapons, which
the herein accused had then at hand, thereby inflicting upon said Reyes Matnog
several grave wounds on the different parts of his body, which wounds directly
caused the death of the latter.

“Contrary to law.”

On arraignment, the three accused pleaded
not guilty.

The prosecution tried to establish its case with the testimonies
of Dr. Antonio Ofiana, Rural Health Officer of Lavezares, who testified on the
fact and cause of death of Reyes Matnog; of Chief of Police Victoriano F. de
Leon, who identified the sketch of the crime-scene (Exh. D), which he prepared
according to the declarations of Basilio Pornelos and Isabel Medala,^[2]
indicating the supposed spots where Reyes was first attacked by Rosalio, and
then by Pascual and Carlos Clemente, and the path taken by the deceased up to
the doorsteps of the house of his (Reyes’) father-in-law where he expired; and
of Pablito Seriguini, an alleged eyewitness. 
Of the supposed eye­witnesses to the incident who had executed
affidavits, naming the three Clemente brothers as the assailants of Reyes
Matnog, only Pablito Seriguini was able to testify in court.  Basilio Pornelos was then already dead,
having been killed allegedly by Seriguini, while Isabel Medala was too ill to
appear at the trial.

Seriguini, who was apparently in hiding, was located by the
police authorities only after some time, and upon prodding of the police by the
Court.  He testified that at about 3
o’clock in the afternoon of February 5, 1962, while standing by the street, he
saw Reyes Matnog and Rosalio Clemente fighting; that Rosalio stabbed Reyes with
a double-bladed hunting knife; that upon being hit by Rosalio on the upper part
of the left arm, Reyes ran away; chased and overtaken by Rosalio, Reyes fell to
the ground; that while thus lying prostrate, he was stabbed by Rosalio on the
right side of the hip and again at the back; that Reyes was still able to run
away, but Rosalio did not follow him anymore.^[3]
Still on direct examination by the provincial fiscal, this witness affirmed the
contents of the affidavit that he executed on March 5, 1962^[4]
to the effect that while Reyes was lying flat on the ground, Pascual and Carlos
Cle­mente also attacked and slashed him with their weapons.

The defense, on the other hand, presented several witnesses,
including the three accused.

Carlos Clemente testified that he left his house in the morning of
February 5, 1962, with Gerardo Panes, to gather firewood in San Agustin, a barrio
about 3 1/2 kilometers from San Miguel, and returned only at about 7 o’clock in
the evening of the same day.  Pascual
Clemente declared that in the afternoon of February 5, 1962, he was in their
house holding his child when he heard that Reyes Matnog and his brother Rosalio
were quarreling; that he left the child with his niece and went out.  In front of the house of Hospicio Tan, he found
Rosalio holding a bolo called “kinogon”; that he advised Rosalio to
go hom, which the latter heeded.  He
denied participation in the slaying of Reyes Matnog.

Rosalio Clemente’s version of the incident is as follows:  He was on his way to the farm when he met
Reyes Matnog in front of the house of Hospicio Tan.  After saying that he (Reyes) was going to
kill him (Rosalio) and his family, Reyes lunged at him with a hunting knife,
hitting him on the right arm.^[5]
Rosalio then pulled the bolo tucked to his waist and stabbed Reyes, hitting the
latter at the left upper arm.  He
delivered a second blow finding its mark at the right side of Reyes’
abdomen.  Then, when Reyes lunged at him
again, he slashed him twice, both blows landing at the back.  When Reyes walked away to the direction of
the house of his parents-in-law, Rosalio started to leave.  At that moment, his brother Pascual came and
advised him to go home which he did.

Chief of Police Victorino F. de Leon, testifying for the defense,
declared that Rosalio Clemente surrendered to him on the same day, February 5,
1962, which fact was duly entered in the police blotter.  Gerardo Panes corroborated the testimony of
Carlos about their trip to San Agustin to gather firewood and their having
returned to San Miguel only at about 7 o’clock of the same day, February 5,
1962.  Roman Esplana and Bartolome Unay
testified to having witnessed the incident and declared that it was Rosalio
alone who had inflicted all the wounds received by Reyes Matnog, following a
quarrel between the two.

In its decision of June 8, 1964, the trial court ruled:

“The Court is morally and legally convinced that the three
accused killed Reyes Matnog.

“The fatal wounds were inflicted by the accused, Pascual
Clemente and Carlos Clemente while Reyes Matnog was prostrate on the ground,
unarmed and apparently stunned by the attack(ed) made upon him by Rosalio
Clemente.  No fight between Pascual
Clemente and Carlos Clemente preceded the stabbing.  Reyes Matnog knew that his only assailant,
and from whom he ran away, was Rosalio Clemente who chased him.  H was never aware that Pascual Clemente and
Carlos Clemente would attack him.  Since
the attack made by Pascual Clemente and Carlos Clemente was sudden and unexpected
and the deceased was then flat on the ground and in a defenseless position, the
crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery.”

In disregarding the alibi of Carlos Clemente, corroborated by
witness Gerardo Panes, the court found it strange that these two would be in
another  barrio gathering firewood
at a time when their barrio lieutenant was celebrating his election;
that Gerardo would leave Carlos in the banca, upon their arrival at about 7
o’clock in the evening; that Carlos’ wife should be in the house of Gerardo at
that time, but Gerardo did not inform Carlos who went to look for her.  The trial Court also concluded that from the
way these two witnesses testified and from the expressions of their faces while
testifying, they could not be telling the truth.  As regards Pascual Clemente, the trial court
found material the identification of Pascual as among the killers of Reyes
Matnog, by witness Pablito Seriguini, and which identification was allegedly
corroborated by the documen­tary evidence, Exhibit D, prepared by the Chief of
Police after the incident.

The claim of self-defense of Rosalio Clemente was also over­ruled
for lack of sufficient proof, the court not giving credence to the testimonies
of Rosalio and witness Bartolome Unay because, from their voice and facial
expressions, it was convinced that said witnesses were not sincere.

Consequently, Pascual and Carlos Clemente, found guilty of
murder, qualified by treachery, were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, with all the accessory penalties of the law; while Rosalio
Clemente was found guilty of homicide and was sen­tenced to imprisonment for
not less than 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to not more
than 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law.  The fact that Rosalio gave himself up to the
police immediately after the incident was not considered in his favor, because
during the trial, he declared that he did so out of fear of retaliatory action
from the relatives of the deceased. 
This, according to the trial Judge, is not the kind of surrender that
entitles the accused to the benefit of voluntary surrender.  The three accused, jointly and severally,
were ordered to indemnify the heirs Reyes Matnog in the sum of P 6,000.00, and
to pay them the sum of P7,200.00 for loss of earning capacity of the deceased
and P3,000.00, as moral damages, and costs.

All three accused appealed to this Court and assail the cre­dibility
of the eve-witness, Seriguini, claiming that it is full of incon­sistencies and
contradictions.  The transcript does not
substantiate these charges.  The version
of Seriguini (that the Court below de­clared to be “clear, positive and
devoid of signs of artificiality”) is that when Rosalio Clemente stabbed
the deceased Reyes Matnog, the former’s brothers, Carlos and Pascual Clemente,
were not yet there; but that after Rosalio and Matnog separated, the witness
saw Pascual with a weapon; that Carlos Clemente also showed up with a hunting
knife; and that all three chased Matnog as the latter was running away toward
the school house; and that when Reyes Matnog stumbled and fell, Rosalio,
Pascual and Carlos slashed and stabbed the prostrate man.  The witness, however, candidly admitted that
he did not see if Reyes was hit by Carlos Clemente nor whether he was hit by
the slash of Pascual Clemente.  This
version not only tallies with Seriguini’s own affidavit, executed before the
Clerk of Court only one month after the killing, when the facts were still
fresh in his mind, but is supported by the necropsy findings (Exh. A) that
attest to three stab wounds (two of them from behind) and one lacerated wound
in the body of Reyes Matnog.

While there is no showing that the wounds inflicted resulted in
cut arteries, such effect is implied in the medical finding that death resulted
from “profuse internal hemorrhage” that led to shock.

The criminal responsibility of appellant Rosalio Clemente is
beyond doubt.  He admitted stabbing the
deceased as a result of quarrel, and his pretense that he only did so in
self-defense is contradicted by the autopsy, that revealed that two of the stab
wounds were inflicted from behind. 
Necessarily, these mute but eloquent facts also contradict that of
Rosalio’s witness, Bartolome Unay, who endeavoured to confirm that Rosalio
stabbed the deceased Reyes Matnog in a frontal conflict.  This witness is further discredited by his
assertion that the deceased wounded Rosalio in the left forearm, when
Rosalio’s scar appeared on the right arm.  To cap it all, the Court was convinced by
Unay’s manner of testifying that he was not telling the truth.  The burden of proving self-defense is on the
accused5a
and we are satisfied that here it was not met.

The attack on the character of the deceased, as a man prone to
violence, has no weight, because it was not shown that the accusa­tions
levelled against him resulted in conviction. 
We must perforce be wary of such charges against a man who is no longer
in a position to offer explanations; and, moreover, Reyes’ election as barrio
captain indicates that he had not lost popular esteem, and negates the defense
picture of him as a bully.

However, we agree with the Solicitor General that Rosalio’s
liability was mitigated by his voluntary surrender to the authorities; and that
the trial court erred in not so holding. 
That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation by the
victim’s relatives does not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender, nor alter
the fact that by giving himself up, this accused saved the State the time and
trouble of searching for him until arrested.

Appellant Pascual Clemente and his witness, Roman Esplana,
asserted that Pascual, upon hearing the commotion of the quarrel, came down
from his house, met his brother Rosalio carrying a bolo, held him by the
shoulder and told him to go home.  It
does not strike us as cogent or natural, that seeing his brother with a bloody
bolo (for Rosalio admits having stabbed Reyes Matnog), Pascual Clemente should
not have even inquired into any detail of what had happened.  We can not say, therefore, that the trial
Court erred in denying them credence.

Carlos Clemente’s defense is an alibi.  Both he and witness Gerardo Panes testified
that they went to a distant barrio (San Agustin) to gather firewood and
returned by banca to barrio San Miguel only in the evening; that after
going home, Panes met the wives of Carlos and Rosalio Clemente in his house;
that Panes returned to the banca and told Carlos to go home, and the latter did
so, but not finding his wife, he looked for her in the neighboring houses.

This alleged conduct of Panes, in sending Carlos home with­out
telling him that his wife was at the former’s house, is certainly strange and
contrary to common experience, as noted by the Court below, for no reason is
given why the wife’s whereabouts should be kept from her husband, particularly
since the latter was returning to his domicile and could have taken his wife
along.  This incon­sistency, when coupled
with the lower Court’s express finding that the demeanor of these witnesses in
the witness stand left a distinct impression that they were not telling the
truth, leaves their testimony powerless to overcome the evidence for the
prosecution.

It was also claimed that prosecution witness Seriguini had an ax
to grind against the brothers Clemente in that Carlos and Pas­cual had secretly
denounced the first as one of those who held up a Gloco company truck the
previous December.  We find this asser­tion
unbelievable in that there is no showing that Seriguini ever learned of the
secret denunciation, and that after all, Seriguini was released after
investigation and not proceeded against. 
We note also that while Carlos and Pascual Clemente, each claimed to
have been the denouncer, neither mentioned the other as having likewise done
so, although they were brothers.

Considering the unparalleled opportunity of the trial Courts to
observe the attitude and demeanor of witnesses while testifying and thereby
form an opinion about their credibility, as well as the great weight uniformly
accorded to their appreciation of the relative weight of the evidence submitted
by the prosecution and the defense,^[6]
and there being no satisfactory showing that any material error was com­mitted
therein, this Court can not see its way clear to depart from the conclusions of
fact in the appealed decision as to the culpability of accused appellants.

There being neither premeditation nor treachery, inasmuch as the
attack by Rosalio Clemente on Reyes Matnog appears to have been the result of a
chance encounter and quarrel, and the wound­ing of the victim while lying prone
on the ground was merely in­cidental to the ensuing pursuit, not intended to
ensure the safety of the attackers themselves, the appellants appear to be
merely guilty of homicide, rather than murder.^[7]
In the case of the prin­cipal culprit, Rosalio Clemente, his liability is even
mitigated, as previously discussed, by his voluntary surrender.

In the case of appellants Carlos and Pascual Clemente, while they
joined their brother in the pursuit of the fleeing Matnog, and in the attack on
him as he fell, yet the prosecution eyewitness was unable to assert positively
that the two managed to hit the fallen man. 
There being no showing of conspiracy, and the extent of their
participation in the homicide being uncertain, they should be given the benefit
of the doubt, and consequently they are declared to be mere accomplices in the
crime.^[8]

WHEREFORE, reducing the penalties imposed by the Court
below, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence law, Rosalio Clemente is decreed
to suffer a minimum of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
and a maximum of thirteen (13) years of reclusion tem­poral.  Carlos and Pascual Clemente shall each
undergo imprison­ment for not less than three (3) years of prision correccional
and not more than eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor.  In all other respects, the decision appealed
from is affirmed.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
These brothers appear to be prominent residents of the barrio.  Rosalio was the barrio lieutenant of
San Miguel in 1959; Pascual was the barrio vice-lieutenant in 1960; and
Carlos was elected barrio coun­cilor, also of San Miguel, in 1964.

^[2]
t.s.n., Abata, pp. 22-23.

^[3]
t.s.n., Abata, pp. 5-7.

^[4]
One month after the incident.

^[5]
The Rural Health Officer of Lavezares certified that Rosalio Clemente was
treated on February 5, 1962, for a stab wound about 1/2 inch in length and 3
centimeters in depth, at the upper lateral third of the right firearm, caused
by a sharp, pointed instrument.  (Exh.
5).

5a
People vs. Ramos, 59 Phil. 7; People vs. Pabellan, 58 Phil. 964;
People vs. Baguio, 43 Phil. 683.

^[6]
People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64; People vs. Reyes, 47 Phil. 635;
People vs. Asis, 64 Phil. 757; People vs. Nate, 63 Phil. 667,
668.

^[7]
People vs. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478; People vs. Delgado, 77 Phil. 11;
People vs. Verga, 46 O.G. 1185.

^[8]
People vs. Riveral, G.R. No. L-14077, March 31, 1964, citing People vs.
Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 and People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil. 834.