PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AURELIO CABALHIN Y DACLITAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused Aurelio D. Cabalhin y Daclitan appeals from the decision* of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal,
Branch 73, dated 27 March 1991, finding him guilty of three (3) offenses,
namely: frustrated homicide, homicide,
and parricide and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months of
arresto mayor as minimum to three (3) years of prision correccional as maximum
in Criminal Case No. 3081 (for frustrated homicide); imprisonment of four (4)
years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum in Criminal Case
No. 3082 (for homicide); and reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 3094 (for
parricide).

The records show that at about 3:30 in the afternoon of 22
February 1987, in Sitio Burol, Barangay San Juan, Taytay, Rizal, the appellant
stabbed, with the use of a 13-inch dagger, three (3) persons, namely, Marianita
Atison (appellant’s wife), Flaviana and Rolito, both surnamed Saldivia (mother
and son).

Three (3) separate informations were filed against
accused-appellant, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3081, dated 25 May 1987,
for: frustrated murder; Criminal Case
No. 3082, dated 26 May 1987, for: murder; and Criminal Case No. 3094, dated 25 May 1987, for: parricide, which informations read as
follows:

“Crim.
Case No. 3081

That on or about the 22nd day of February 1987, in the municipality
of Taytay, province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, armed with a deadly weapon (dagger), with
intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with the said
deadly weapon one Flaviana Lacambra-Saldivia on the right lower portion of the
breast, x x x x x thus performing all the acts of execution which would have
produced the crime of murder, as a consequence, but neverthe­less did not
produce it by reason of cause or causes independent of his will, that is, due
to the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Flaviana
Lacambra-Saldivia, which prevented her death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Crim. Case No. 3082

That on or about the 22nd day of February 1987, in the Municipality
of Taytay, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a dagger, with intent to
kill, and by means of treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and felonious­ly attack, assault and stab with the said
dagger one Rolito Saldivia y Lacambra on the vital parts of his body, thereby
inflicting upon the latter mortal stab wounds which directly caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Crim. Case No. 3094

That on or about the 22nd day of February 1987, in the municipality
of Taytay, province of Rizal, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with evident premeditation to kill his wife
with whom he was united in lawful wedlock, entered the house at Sitio Burol,
Brgy. San Juan, Taytay, Rizal, where she was then living separately, and said
accused armed with a bladed weapon suddenly and without warning and employing
means which tended to ensure its commission without danger to himself, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, stab his wife, Marianita
Atison, repeatedly, as a result of which the said Marianita Atison met her
instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

Criminal Case No. 3081 was originally assigned to the Regional
Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, while Criminal Case Nos. 3082 and
3094 were assigned to Branch 74 of the same court. The latter two (2) cases were consoli­dated later with Criminal
Case No. 3081, all three (3) cases having arisen from the same incident.

When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses
charged. The three (3) cases were set
for trial. The evidence for the
prosecution consisted of the testi­monies of two (2) alleged eye-witnesses to
the commission of the crimes, namely: Robin Saldivia (brother of deceased victim Rolito Saldivia) and Igmidio
Ducay. A third witness was Romulo del Monte
(a barangay tanod in Barangay San Juan).

The testimony of Robin Saldivia is as follows:

“x x x on February 22, 1987 at around 3:30 in the afternoon,
he (Robin Saldivia) was in their house in Sitio Burol, Taytay, Rizal. He was lying down with his brother Rolito
Saldivia who was sleeping on the floor. Their house had two bedrooms separated by a sala. On the other bedroom, Marianita Atison or
‘Ka Nita’ and his mother Flaviana Lacambra Saldivia were talking while on the
bed. All of a sudden, somebody forcibly
entered their house and so he got up and peeped behind the curtain. He saw the accused drew a double-bladed
instrument measuring about thirteen inches long from his right side. Sensing danger, Robin Saldivia hid under
their house the floor of which was about 4 1/2 feet from the ground. While hiding under the house, he could see
the movement of the feet of the accused between the wooden slabs of the
floor. Thru these spaces, he saw the
accused stabbed Marianita Atison or ‘Ka Nita,’ his mother Flaviana
Lacambra Saldivia and his brother
Rolito or ‘Lito’ Saldivia and blood even dripped on him. After stabbing these three persons, the
accused ran away. As a result of this
stabbing incident, Flaviana Saldivia sustained two stab wounds on the breast while
Marianita Atison and Rolito Saldivia died on the same day.”^[2]

Igmidio Ducay testified as follows:

“x x x on February 22, 1987 at around 3:30 P.M., he (Igmidio
Ducay) was infront of the house of Wenceslao Saldivia in Sitio Burol, Barangay
San Juan, Taytay, Rizal. He was playing
‘dama’ with his friend Alberto Espino when a person carrying a bladed
instrument passed by. The bladed weapon
or instrument has a length of 12 to 13 inches. This person suddenly entered the house of Wenceslao Saldivia by kicking
the door which was closed. Igmidio
Ducay stood up and peeped through inside the house. He saw the man suddenly stabbed Marianita Atison Cabalhin, an
acquaintance. After that, the man went
down from the bedroom and suddenly stabbed Lito who was sleeping face down
(nakataob) on top of a table just below the bedroom where Marianita Cabalhin
was stabbed. He also saw the man kicked
and stabbed ‘Manang’ or Flaviana Saldivia, wife of Wenceslao Saldivia.

Igmidio Ducay stated that he was about 4-5 meters away from the
door where he was peeping when Marianita Cabalhin, Rolito Saldivia and Flaviana
Saldivia were stabbed by the man whom he identified as the accused Aurelio
Cabalhin. The door was open and
everything that was happening inside the house could be seen outside because
there was no room or partition. He saw
the accused climbed the bed or ‘papag’ where Marianita Cabalhin and Flaviana
Saldivia were sitting side by side and the accused stabbed them while standing
on the ‘papag.’ After stabbing Marianita and Flaviana, the accused went down
and proceeded to Rolito Saldivia who was sleeping on top of the table on the
right side of the house and stabbed him also. After Flaviana Saldivia was stabbed, Igmidio Ducay left the place and
asked for help. x x x “^[3]

Romulo del Monte, on the other hand, testified as follows:

1. That in that afternoon of 22 February 1987
after being informed about the stabbing incident in the house of the Saldivias,
he went to said house and saw Nita Cabalhin and Lito Saldivia sprawled on the
bed in one room of the house — Nita Cabalhin was fully dressed while Lito
Saldivia was wearing khaki pants but naked up (without T-shirt); he did not see
Wenceslao Salvidia (father of Lito Saldivia) in the house and did not bother to
ask who the author of the crime was.

2. Between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. of that same
day, he saw the accused Aurelio Cabalhin coming out from an alley where the
house of the Saldivias was located. The
accused had a white shoulder bag on his left shoulder, his right hand was
inside the bag and his pants were bloodied. Nobody told him that said person was Aurelio Cabalhin but he was pointed
to as the one who stabbed the victims. When Romulo del Monte saw the accused coming out from an alley, he even
greeted him – “O brod, anong nangyari sa iyo at ganyan ka?” but the
accused did not answer and he just continued walking. The next time that he saw the accused was in court. (Romulo del Monte gave a sworn statement dated 23 February
1987 in connection with this case).^[4]

Appellant admitted having stabbed Marianita Atison, Rolito
Saldivia and Flaviana Saldivia, resulting in the death of the first two victims
(Marianita and Rolito), and in stab wounds on the breast of the third victim
(Flaviana). However, he declared that the
stabbing incident occured as he caught his wife Marianita and Rolito naked in
bed and actually engaged in sexual intercourse. The evidence for the defense consists of the testimony of the
sole defense witness, appellant himself. His testimony is as follows:

“x x x He and Marianita Atison Cabalhin are husband and wife
having been married on November 23, 1972 in Calubian, Leyte (Exhibit ‘1’). After their marriage, they stayed in the
house of his in-laws in Guinduhaan, Wague, Leyte for more or less one year. After that, they transferred to their own
house in Wague, Leyte and stayed there for more or less fifteen years. In 1985, they went to Manila where they
worked as caretaker of the house of Edgardo Co in Filinvest Subdivision for
about seven months. They left the
employment of Edgardo Co x x x. They transferred to Sucat, Paranaque where
he worked as laborer in a construction and his wife Marianita Atison Cabalhin
worked as housemaid.

x x x                x x x                 x
x x

After working as housemaid in New Alabang Village for more or less
five months, Marianita Atison Cabalhin transferred to Meralco Village, Taytay,
Rizal where she also worked as housemaid of Lola Waway. At that time, Aurelio Cabalhin was working
with Apex in San Pedro, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and residing in Mangga Site,
Sucat, Paranaque. His wife Marianita
Cabalhin who was working in Meralco Village, Taytay, Rizal was going home to or
staying with her sister Elevita Atison Dagame in Sitio Burol, Barangay San
Juan, Taytay, Rizal after her work. They
agreed that they would see each other every Sunday at Mangga Site, Sucat,
Paranaque. Aurelio Cabalhin had gone
thrice to the house of his sister-in-law where his wife was staying. On December 14, 1986, Aurelio Cabalhin went
to Sitio Burol, Barangay San Juan, Taytay, Rizal to find out the condition of
his wife in the house of Lola Waway. He
saw his wife and she told him that her work was fine and she was in good
condition. He saw also his
sister-in-law Elevita Dagame on that occasion.

On February 14, 1987, Elevita Dagame went to Sucat, Paranaque and
asked the accused Aurelio Cabalhin about his wife. Elevita told him that his wife was no longer working in the house
of Lola Waway and she was not going home to their house anymore. On February 17, 1987, the accused went to
Meralco Village, Taytay, Rizal and verified from Lola Waway if what Elevita
Dagame told him was true. Lola Waway
told the accused that his wife was not working with her anymore since January 30. Upon learning that, Aurelio Cabalhin asked
the help of Elevita Dagame to gather information regarding the whereabouts of
his wife and went back to Sucat, Paranaque.

On February 22, 1987, Aurelio Cabalhin returned to the house of
Elevita Dagame in Sitio Burol, Barangay San Juan, Taytay, Rizal to get some
informations about his wife. When he
arrived there at around 12:00 P.M., the only person in the house was Jun Dagame
who is the brother of Reynaldo Dagame, husband of Elevita. According to Jun Dagame, Elevita went to
Pasay. The accused talked with Jun
Dagame and their conversation lasted for about two hours.

Jun Dagame who was 14 years old, told the accused that his wife
Marianita was in the house of Wenceslao Saldivia and had a paramour. He wanted to know if what he was told about
his wife was true and so he went to the house of Wenceslao Saldivia which was
pointed to him by Jun Dagame who stayed at a distance of about 20 meters away from said house. He went near the door of the house of
Wenceslao Saldivia and saw Flaviana Saldivia. He asked her where his wife was and she answered that Marianita Cabalhin
was not there. The accused noticed that
Flaviana Saldivia became pale and trembled when he asked her about his wife and
so he entered the house and Flaviana Saldivia was behind him. He saw a room with curtain and when he
parted the curtain (hinawi ko po ang kurtina) he saw his wife lying with a man
on the bed. His wife was lying on her
back with her legs apart while the man was on top of her with his buttocks
between the parted legs of his wife. The man and his wife were engaged in sexual act. He boxed the legs of
the man and when he rolled over to the wall, he saw that his wife and the man
were naked. Because of anger, he lost
control of himself. He saw a knife near
the pillow and stabbed the testicles of the man. His wife tried to stop him and he stabbed her also. After that, he stabbed the man and his wife
again and again. The accused testified
that at the time he was stabbing these two persons, he was already out of his
mind because of anger. He could not
recall how many times he stabbed them but he was sure that all the stab wounds
were on the front portion of their bodies. He did not know what happened to Flaviana Saldivia but on
cross-examination, the accused declared that when he stabbed the testicles of
the man who he came to know as Lito
Saldivia, somebody behind him grabbed his shirt and he also stabbed that person
but he does not know if it was Flaviana Saldivia. After realizing that he had taken the law into his hands, the
accused left bringing the knife with him and walked towards the highway. His pants were full of blood and he boarded
a passenger jeep going to Crossing-JRC. He alighted at Crossing-Mandaluyong and went to the outpost where there
was a policeman. He told the police
that he was a criminal and he was brought to Capt. Sebastian Davan at the
Mandaluyong police headquarters. The
accused told Capt. Davan that he killed his wife and paramour. That evening, Capt. Davan brought him to
Taytay Police Station and he was incarcerated. x x x “^[5]

On 27 March 1991, the trial court rendered judgment finding
appellant guilty of the crimes of frustrated homicide (as to Flaviana),
homicide (as to Rolito) and parricide (as to Marianita), the dispositive part
of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Aurelio Cabalhin y Daclitan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of frustrated homicide in Crim.
Case No. 3081, homicide in Crim. Case No. 3082 and parricide in Crim. Case No.
3094, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of 6 months of
arresto mayor as minimum to 3 years of prision correccional as maximum in Crim.
Case No. 3081; imprisonment of 4 years 2 months and 1 day of prision
correccional as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum in
Crim. Case No. 3082 and reclusion perpetua in Crim. Case No. 3094.

The accused shall be credited with the preven­tive imprisonment he
has undergone pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 6127.”^[6]

In this appeal, appellant contends: (1) that he killed his wife Marianita and Rolito Saldivia under
the exceptional circumstances provided under Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code which reads:

“ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances. – Any legally married person who, having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person,
shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or
shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty
of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind,
he shall be exempt from punishment.”

and (2) that the crime he committed
against the person of the other victim, Flaviana Lacambra-Saldivia was only
serious physical injuries, not frustrated homicide.

We find no merit in the appeal.

As to the issue on the applicability of Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code to the case at bench, the principal question is whether or
not appellant killed his wife Marianita and Rolito as he caught them in the act
of committing the sexual act, or immediately thereafter. The appellant contends that in that fateful
afternoon of 22 February 1987, he entered a room in the house of the Saldivia
family and saw that his wife was “lying on her back with her legs apart
while the man was on top of her with his buttocks between the parted legs of
his wife.” Both the prosecution and defense witnesses gave different
versions as to the actual location, position and condition of Marianita and
Rolito at the time appellant saw them — in short, whether they were engaged in
the sexual act when allegedly caught by the appellant in the afternoon of 22
February 1987.

It is noted that the trial court gave great weight to the
testimony of the prosecution witness, Romulo del Monte (the barangay tanod) whom the trial court believed to be an
unbiased witness, and who testified that when he saw Marianita and Rolito on
that fateful afternoon of 22 February 1987, Marianita was fully dressed while
Rolito was wearing Khaki pants without T-shirt or naked up. The trial court said:

“The claim of the accused that he saw his wife lying on her
back with her legs apart while Rolito Saldivia was on top of her with his
buttocks between her parted legs is hard to believe if not unworthy of belief
in view of his testimony that the two were covered with blanket from their
shoulders down to their feet when he first saw them (pp. 26-27, t.s.n.,
3/21/90). Considering that Marianita
Cabalhin and Rolito Saldivia were covered with blanket from shoulders to feet,
it is impos­sible for the accused to see their exact position which he
described in detail and what they were doing. The testimony of the accused that his wife and Rolito Saldivia were both
naked while engaged in the carnal act was belied by Barangay Tanod Romulo del
Monte who went to the scene of the crime minutes after the stabbing
incident. Romulo del Monte, an unbiased
witness, declared that when he saw Nita Cabalhin and Lito Saldivia bloodied and
sprawled on the bed in one room of the house, Nita Cabalhin was fully dressed
while Lito Saldivia was wearing Khaki pants without T-shirt or naked up (pp.
20-21, t.s.n., 6/7/88). It should be
remem­bered that when this stabbing incident happened, the only persons in the
house of Wenceslao Saldivia were Robin Saldivia, Rolito Saldivia, Flaviana
Saldivia and Marianita Atison Cabalhin; Wenceslao Saldivia was not at home as
he was drinking and eating in the house of his friend (pp. 3-4, t.s.n., 2/17/88);
Robin Saldivia who was 13 years old, left their house after the victims were
stabbed to call and inform his father about the incident; Marianita Atison
Cabalhin died as a result of the stab wounds inflicted upon her; Rolito
Saldivia who was seriously wounded was then fighting for life as he died also
on the same day while Flaviana Saldivia was also wounded on her breast and in
serious condi­tion. It is therefore,
highly inconceivable and improbable that the victims Rolito Saldivia and
Marianita Cabalhin could still put on their clothes if indeed they were
naked.”^[7]

It is settled rule that the findings of fact of trial courts are
given great weight on appeal because they are in a better position to examine
the real evidence, and observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and can therefore
discern if they are telling the truth or not.^[8] We
therefore find no reversible error committed by the trial court in appre­ciating
the testimony of Romulo del Monte. Hence, as to the factual issue of whether Marianita and Rolito were
engaged in sexual intercourse when allegedly caught by appellant, we will
respect the factual finding made by the trial court as the same is supported by
the evidence on record.

Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, the killing of the wife by the husband (or
vice-versa) is justified if the husband kills her while engaged in sexual
intercourse with another man or immediately thereafter. As to the strict application of Article 247,
People vs. Wagas^[9] teaches that:

“x x x The vindication of a Man’s honor is justified because
of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this,
authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a
purification is so severe as that it can only be justified when the unfaithful
spouse is caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with
great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only during
the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.”

Clearly, in the present case, appellant failed to prove that he
killed Marianita and Rolito while in the act of sexual intercourse or
immediately thereafter. Therefore,
appellant can not invoke Article 247 to be exempt from criminal liability. He is guilty of parricide under Article 246
of the Code, which provides that any person who shall kill his or her spouse
shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

As to the second argument, appellant contends that he is guilty
only of serious physical injuries, not frustrated homicide as he had then no
intent to kill the victim, Flaviana.

In applying Article 249^[10] of
the Revised Penal Code, the essential element of intent to kill the victim must
be clearly established in order to convict one of the crime of homicide. The trial court ruled that there was intent
to kill on the part of the appellant, considering “the number and location
of the stab wounds inflicted upon the victim (Flaviana) — two stab wounds on
the lower right breast, and the weapon used by the accused which was a double
bladed dagger measuring about 13 inches long including the handle.”

Taking into consideration the number and location of the stab
wounds sustained by Flaviana, this Court believes, as aptly observed by the
trial court, that there was intent to kill when appellant attacked and wounded
Flaviana. We, therefore uphold the
ruling of the trial court finding appellant guilty of frustrated homicide in
having attacked Flaviana.

The trial court ruled that the appellant was entitled to two (2)
mitigating circumstances; the first, for having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obsfuscation (as provided for
in Article 13, paragraph no. 6, of the Revised Penal Code) and, the second, for
voluntary surrender (Article 13, paragraph no. 7 of the same Code).

The records show that on 22 February 1987 appellant went to the
house of the Saldivia family after being informed that he would find there his
wife (Marianita) together with her alleged paramour, Rolito Saldivia. The stabbing inci­dent happened, according
to the trial court, because appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion
or obsfuscation. The evidence further
discloses that after appellant stabbed the three (3) victims, he voluntarily
went to the Taytay Police Station on that same night of 22 February 1987 and
surrendered to Police Captain Davan.

We uphold the ruling of the trial court in appreciating the two
(2) mitigating circumstances above-cited.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, dated 27 March 1991, rendered in Criminal Cases
Nos. 3081, 3082 and 3094 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, and Puno, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Judge Marietta A.
Legaspi

^[1]
Original Records, pp. 227-228

^[2]
Original Records, p. 229

^[3]
Original Records, pp. 230-231

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 73-75

^[5]
Rollo, pp. 77-80

^[6]
Original Records, p. 246

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 81-82

^[8]
People vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 81332, April 25, 1989, 172 SCRA 742;
People vs. Solares, G.R. No. 82363, May 5, 1989 173 SCRA 203

^[9]
People vs. Wagas, G.R. No. 61704, March 8, 1989, 171 SCRA 69

^[10]
Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246 shall kill another without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty
of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.