PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BALTAZAR ESTRAÑA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the
case to this Court for final determination, is the decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Eighth Judicial Region, Branch 10 at Abuyog, Leyte, in Criminal
Case No. 721 entitled, “The People of the Philippines vs. Baltazar Estraña,
Jr.,” convicting the accused-appellant of parricide and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the
legal heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00.

The Information filed against the appellant alleged:

“That on or about the 30th day of May, 1987, in the Municipality of
Mayorga, Province of Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to kill, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and
wound one Nenita Lumpas Estraña, his legitimate spouse, with a bladed weapon
locally known as ‘pisao’ with which said accused had purposely provided
himself, thereby causing and inflicting upon the said Nenita Lumpas Estraña
wounds on her body which caused her death shortly therafter.” (p. 14, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment on February 12, 1988, Estraña pleaded “not guilty”
to the crime charged (p. 21, Records).

By the evidence of the prosecution, it was established that the
victim, Nenita Lumpas Estraña, was the legal wife of the accused, Baltazar
Estraña, Jr. In the afternoon of May
30, 1987, the couple joined Nenita’s parents and other members of her family at
the Mayorga Beach in San Roque, Leyte, for a swim. Afterwards they went to a party in the house of the prosecution
witness, Olegario Nodalo, by the seashore. There, the party guests consumed two gallons of tuba. At 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, all the
guests went home, except the Estraña spouses who continued to drink another
half-gallon of tuba while quarreling over a stepchild. The couple left Nodalo’s house at 8:00
o’clock in the evening. Nodalo accompanied
them to the road, but he walked three meters behind them because they continued
to argue and exchange heated words. Nodalo saw Baltazar holding Nenita on the shoulder as they walked and
heard Nenita shout: “You are no good,
you are only backbiting me that I am only your dependent!” (p. 51, Rollo). Shortly thereafter, he heard Nenita cry out
“Ouch! I am wounded!” (pp. 5-7, tsn, September 15, 1989) whereupon he ran back
to his house for fear that Baltazar would attack him also.

Baltazar arrived alone in his house, his clothes stained with
blood. His mother-in-law inquired
whether he had a quarrel with his wife, but he answered in the negative. Asked for his wife’s whereabouts, he alleged
that she had been snatched by unidentified persons. He then proceeded to the municipal building allegedly to report
the incident, while his mother-in-law ordered her children to look for their
sister. Baltazar, was detained in the
municipal jail that night because he challenged a police guard to a fight.

Early the next morning, the lifeless body of Nenita was
discovered by churchgoers near the pathway on a grassy area about two
kilometers from her house. It was
covered by a towel with nipa and coconut leaves laid on top of it.

Meantime, in jail, Baltazar admitted to his mother-in-law that he
killed Nenita because she allegedly bit him during their quarrel. Upon interrogation in the Office of the
Chief of Police, he repeated that admission.

The municipal health officer of Mayorga, Leyte, performed an
autopsy on the victim and found that she suffered three (3) fatal and
penetrating stab wounds in the chest and seven (7) other non-fatal ones on the
nipples and abdomen, caused by a sharp-pointed bladed “pisao.” She died from loss of blood as a result of
her wounds.

The accused did not adduce evidence.

On February 6, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment convicting
the accused of parricide, but it appreciated in his favor the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court sentenced Baltazar
Estraña to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor in its maximum period, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months,
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, minimum, and to pay P30,000.00 as
civil indemnity for the death of the victim. The full period of his preventive imprisonment was to be credited to the
service of his sentence as provided in Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

Estraña appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR
No. 07746) on the lone assigned error that the trial court erred in finding him
guilty of the crime of parricide upon insufficient evidence.

On April 21, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of
conviction, but increased the penalty to reclusion
perpetua. There is no room for the applica­tion of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
for the penalty of reclusion perpetua is a single and indivisible penalty,
hence, it should be applied regardless of the presence of any aggravating or
mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime. The civil indemnity was increased to
P50,000.00 in accordance with applicable jurisprudence.

As the imposable penalty is reclusion
perpetua, the Court of Appeals refrained
from entering judgment and instead, it certified the case to this Court for
final determination as provided in Section 3, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

After deliberating on the petition for review, we do not find any
compelling reason to disregard the trial court’s factual findings in this case
for it had the advantage of observing first-hand the demeanor of all witnesses
who testified before it and of testing their credibility and truthfulness
through cross-examination. Direct
evidence of the stabbing is not necessary, because circumstantial evidence has
adequately established the identity of the killer, destroyed the presumption of
innocence in his favor, and fulfilled the test of moral certainty sufficient to
convict him (People vs, Simene, 184 SCRA 99; People vs. Aldequer, 184 SCRA 1;
People vs. Flores, 186 SCRA 303).

In People vs. Agan,
181 SCRA 856, 859, we ruled that:

“Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2)
the facts from which the inference are derived are proven; and (c) the combination
of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. (Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of
Court.)”

The circumstances forming an unbroken chain leading to one fair
and reasonable conclusion that Baltazar, to the exclusion of all others, is the
guilty person, are the following:

1. The Estraña spouses were already quarrelling heatedly inside
the house of Olegario Nodalo in the afternoon of May 30, 1987 and when they
left Nodalo’s house together at 8 o’clock in the evening they were still
engaged in heated argument. They had no
other companions except Nodalo who walked a few meters behind them and heard
the victim’s cry: “Ouch, I am wounded!”
(pp. 6-7, tsn, Sept. 15, 1989).

2. The appellant arrived home alone and with bloody clothes after
eight o’clock in the evening. He
announced to his mother-in-law that his wife had been snatched (“guin-agao”)
(p. 6, tsn, August 17, 1989) by unknown men but he did not explain why he was
spared, and why he did not make any attempt to rescue his wife.

3. During his detention in the municipal jail, the appellant
admitted to his mother-in-law that he stabbed Nenita because she bit him on the
way home. He repeated this admission to
the Chief of Police.

4. The next morning, early churchgoers found the victim’s body
behind nipa plants by the road to the Estraña residence belying the accused’s
story that his wife was abducted.

5. Appellant did not testify at the trial, although he was ably
represented by counsel. He did not make
any effort, at any stage of the trial, to refute the serious criminal charge
against him.

These inculpatory facts and circumstances are not capable of any
other explanation than that the appellant killed his wife. The chain of circumstances occurring before,
during, and after the stabbing, of Nenita Lumpas Estraña, linked together,
leads to but one indubitable conclusion: that she was murdered by her husband, the herein accused, Baltazar
Estraña.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided
by law and to pay death indemnity of P50,000.00 to the legal heirs (children)
of the deceased, Nenita Lumpas Estraña, and the costs. He shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with the full period of his preventive imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Medialdea, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on leave.