PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAMILLANO GRIAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

From a judgment of conviction rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Surigao finding him guilty of murder and sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cantidiano
Soliano in the amount of P2,000, and to pay the costs, defendant-appellant
Mamillano Griar appeals to this Court.

On the evening of June 28, 1947, at about seven o’clock,
Cantidiano Soliano, now deceased, left his house in sitio Bayoyong, barrio
Madrid, municipality of Cantillan, Province of Surigao and went to the house of
Francisco Ornilla whose wife had died and for whom a requiem novena was being
held. Also present at the prayers were Cipriano Soliano, father of the deceased;
Gervasio Griar, father of appellant:, and appellant himself. At about ten
o’clock of that night, appellant left the Ornilla house, and about half an hour
later, the deceased also left.

At approximately this same time, Bernardina Soliano, wife of
the deceased, was in her house when she suddenly heard her husband crying for
help and shouting that he had “been ambushed and stabbed by appellant Mainillano
Griar. Bernardina immediately rushed down and met Emiliano Olvido, a neighbor,
who told her that her husband, was lying wounded in his yard. As soon as she
arrived at the Olvido yard, Bernardina came upon her husband lying on the ground
wounded and bleeding. She then asked what had happened to him and he answered
that he had been ambushed and stabbed by appellant Mamillano Griar. A few
moments later, he died.

The widow asked a neighbor to notify Cantidiano’s father and
she remained with the corpse of her husband until the following morning,
awaiting an investigation by the authorities. On the following morning,
Florencio Urbiztondo, sanitary inspector of Cantillan, accompanied by the Chief
of Police, Escolastico Escueta, and several policemen, went to the Ornilla yard
to conduct the corresponding investigation. Urbiztondo found that the deceased
had received three wounds from a bolo one being in the stomach which had caused
some of the intestines to come out; another in the nape which had cut several
veins; and a third across the back. He considered the wounds in the stomach and
in the neck as fatal.

In his investigation, Chief of Police Escueta found a shoe of
the deceased near the place of the ambuscade and also a trail of bloodstains on
the ground leading to the Olvido yard. This indicates that the deceased ran very
fast after he was wounded. After his investigation, the Chief of Police went
back to the municipal building where he found appellant. Upon being questioned,
appellant admitted to the Chief of Police that he had stabbed the deceased
because of some grudge arising from accusations by the deceased that his horse
had been killed by appellant. Appellant refused, however, to sign a sworn
statement. After appellant’s arrest, he instructed his father to get his bolo
from a certain place and turn it over to the Chief of Police. His father did so
and appellant admitted that such bolo was his and was the weapon he used in
stabbing the deceased.

The case of the prosecution is clear, logical and truthful. The
dying declaration of the deceased that he had been ambushed and wounded by
Mamillano Griar has been proven by the testimony of Bernardina Soliano. The
confession of the appellant, though not reduced to writing, was proved by the
Chief of Police against whose impartiality nothing has been proven. It has also
been shown that the deceased had left his house unarmed and had no weapon when
he died. Cipriano Soliano testified to the fact that appellant left the Ornilla
house ahead of the deceased. Moreover, the fact of the ambuscade is supported by
the fact that the place where it occurred was between the Ornilla house and the
residence of the deceased, while appellant’s house is farther away from the
Ornilla house in the direction diametrically opposite to that of the house of
the deceased. Also, the investigation by the Chief of Police shows that the
deceased did not fight back but ran away very fast from the place of attack to
the yeard of Olvido. The guilt of appellant is clear, and in fact it is partly
corroborated by his admissions such as that he had stabbed the deceased, that
there was some grudge between them and that the weapon surrendered to the Chief
of Police was his own and was what he used in stabbing the deceased.

The defense consists in the allegation of selfdefense, which
rests on the testimonies of appellant himself and a witness named Atenedoro
Ambray. Ambray testified that he was present when the deceased and appellant met
near the creek and that it was the deceased who suddenly attacked appellant.
However, it appears that Ambray had been investigated previously by the Fiscal
regarding the death of Cantidiano Soliano and he had disclaimed having any
information. Then, at the trial, as defense witness, he testified to numerous
details surrounding the incident. The testimony of such a witness is not worthy
of credit. Appellant’s own testimony that he was suddenly attacked by the
deceased and that he acted in self-defense has not been proven by evidence
sufficient to prove the element of justification. It is a fact that the deceased
was then unarmed and this together with the location of his wounds belies the
theory of self-defense.

Appellant having killed Cantidiano Soliano by ambush, and
therefore, with treachery, he is guilty of murder. No aggravating circumstances
have been proved. On the other hand, the voluntary surrender of appellant is a
mitigating circumstance in his favor.

In view of all the foregoing, the judgment of thle lower court
is hereby modified and appellant Mamillano Griar is sentenced to suffer from 12
years of prision mayor to 18 years of reclusion temporal, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000 and to pay the
costs, with all the accessories of the law.

Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason,
Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.