PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADJUTOR TANDUYAN ALIAS “BOT”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In an information dated 10 August 1990, accused-appellant Adjutor
alias “Bot” Tanduyan was charged with the crime of murder allegedly
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 30th day of July, 1990 in the
Municipality of Malita, Province of Davao del Sur, Philippines, and within the juris­diction of the Honorable
Court, said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab, with treachery and evident premeditation, one
Benjamin Tanduyan in the different parts of the body while the latter was
sleeping and in no position to defend himself which injuries caused his
instantaneous death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

On 13 August 1990, accused-appellant was arraigned where he
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial
ensued with the prosecution presenting four (4) witnesses. In turn, the defense rested its case after
two (2) witnesses had testified.

The prosecution’s version is as follows:

In the evening of 30 July 1990, at around 9:00 p.m., in San
Roque, Malita, Davao del Sur, prosecution eyewitness Juvel Rellon, a 13-year
old boy and a first year high
school student, was tending his father’s store and at the same time was busy
working on his school assignment.

There were two (2) other persons present in the store that
evening. One was Benjamin Tanduyan, an
uncle of Juvel, who was then sleeping on the store counter with his head
resting on his right forearm. The other
was Desiderio “Takol” Geyrozaga, who was smoking a cigarette while
idly lying on a wooden bench in front of the store.

Later, Juvel Rellon saw accused-appellant enter the store and
approach (Takol) Geyrozaga to light a cigarette. He overheard accused-appellant asking Geyrozaga the identity of
the person who was sleeping on the counter. Geyrozaga replied that it was Benjamin Tanduyan. Thereafter, Geyrozaga left the store. Juvel Rellon observed that accused-appellant
also followed suit and proceeded to the nearby house of his sister named Garit
Lorion.

Moments later, accused-appellant returned to the store
brandishing a knife and, without warning, repeatedly stabbed the sleeping and
unsuspecting Benjamin Tanduyan in plain view of Juvel Rellon.

Juvel Rellon recounted that after the first two (2) thrusts, he
shouted a warning to his uncle and tried to pull him away but failed because
his uncle was quite heavy. It was at
this moment that accused-appellant told him to keep quiet and not to tell
anybody, uttering in the Visayan dialect: “VEL, YAW NG SABA HA?” [Vel, do not tell anyone ha?]
Thereafter, accused-appellant inflicted six (6) more successive thrusts on
Benjamin Tanduyan, then fled swiftly.

Juvel Rellon ran to their house upstairs and informed his mother
that his uncle was stabbed. His mother
then shouted for help to their neighbors who immediately responded and brought
Benjamin Tanduyan to the hospital where he expired.^[2]

Desiderio Geyrozaga corroborated part of Juvel Rellon’s testimony
as to his presence in Toting Rellon’s store on that fateful night. He testified
that accused-appellant went to the store and approached him to ask for a light
and asked him if he knew the person sleeping on the store’s counter. He told accused-appellant that the said
person was Ben Tanduyan, then he proceeded to his house which is located only
about thirty (30) meters away from the store.

Geyrozaga noticed that accused-appellant also left the store of
Toting Rellon and went to the neighboring store of his sister Garit where he
sat on a chair.

After about five (5) minutes, he heard the voice of Juvel
shouting. “TABANG KAY SI YOYO
SILUBA” [Help! because Yoyo was stabbed.]

Geyrozaga immediately rushed back to Toting Rellon’s store where
he saw Ben Tanduyan sprawled on the ground, lying over a pool of blood. Together with one Dr. Hortel and an ice cream
vendor named Florencio, he borrowed a pedicab and drove the victim, Ben
Tanduyan, to the nearest hospital.^[3]

Dr. Ma. Luisa Torres, the attending physician who examined Ben
Tanduyan in the hospital, testified that the victim died of cardio pulmonary
arrest secondary to severe hemorrhage. Based on her post-mortem findings, Ben Tanduyan suffered multiple
stab wounds at the back of his body, but the fatal wound that caused the severe
hemorrhage was the stab wound that was inflicted
through and through from the left cheek extending down to the lateral side of
the neck, which hit the victim’s carotid artery.^[4] From
the nature and position of said wound, as well as the other superficial wounds,
she opined that the victim was assaulted at his back by the assailant.

With respect to the civil aspect, Felisa T. Mamale, the
deceased’s eldest daughter, testified on the expenses incurred by the family
for the wake and funeral of her father, which amounted to approximately P4,000.00.^[5]

On the other hand, accused-appellant anchored his defense on
confession and avoidance. He maintained
his innocence as he testified that it was Benjamin Tanduyan who attacked him
while he was waiting for a ride home in front of Toting Rellon’s store.

At that particular time (9 o’clock in the evening), he claimed
that Rellon’s store, as well as the neighboring stores were already
closed. All of a sudden, a man carrying
a knife approached him, whom he identified as his uncle, Ben Tanduyan. The latter allegedly angrily shouted,
“If I had not killed you then, I would kill you now.”

Before the court a quo, accused-appellant demonstrated how he was able to parry
Benjamin Tanduyan’s thrust as he gripped the latter’s hand, thereby causing the
knife to fall on the ground. As
Benjamin boxed him with his (Benjamin’s) left hand, he was allegedly able to
pick up the knife, then faced Benjamin and stabbed him three (3) times, the
first two (2) hitting the victim’s neck. However, Benjamin was able to parry the third blow, then held him by the
neck. To free himself, he thrust the
knife on Benjamin’s back several times and then fled to his sister’s house in
San Roque. He requested her to
accompany him to the police station to surrender himself. This did not, however, happen for no sooner
on the same night, the policemen arrived to arrest him.

Accused-appellant denied the allegations of prosecution
eyewitness Juvel Rellon as he claimed Toting Rellon’s store was already closed
on that night and neither Juvel nor Takol Geyrozaga was around the store except
himself and Benjamin Tanduyan. To
bolster his claim, he presented Margarita Lorien, an adjacent neighbor of
Rellon, who testified that Rellon’s store was already closed at 9:00 o’clock on
the night of the incident.^[6]

Accused-appellant also related that three (3) years prior to the
incident, he and Benjamin Tanduyan had figured in a stabbing incident where he
was stabbed by the latter. He filed a
complaint which caused Ben Tanduyan’s imprisonment for more than two (2) years.^[7]

On 11 September 1992, the trial court rendered its decision^[8]
convicting Adjutor Tanduyan of the crime of murder, the dispositive part of
which states:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court finds (the)
Prosecution’s evidence to have established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
the accused Adjutor Tanduyan for the crime of Murder as charged and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the
offended party the sum of P50,000.00 for the loss of life of Benjamin
Tanduyan.”^[9]

Accused-appellant is now before this Court assailing the judgment
of conviction and pleading a lone assignment of error:

“THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER.”

In his appeal brief, accused-appellant argues that the testimony
of the lone prosecution eyewitness Juvel Rellon should have been received with
caution by the trial court inasmuch as Juvel’s affidavit executed after the
stabbing incident allegedly varied materially from his testimony in open
court. He points to the statement of
Juvel in his affidavit that Benjamin Tanduyan was sleeping “on top of both
his arms placed across his bended knees”, while his testimony at the trial
was that Benjamin Tanduyan was seated on a chair “with his right arm
resting on the display counter with his head resting on top of his right
arm.”

He further discredits Juvel’s testimony by pointing out that
Juvel Rellon, who was a mere thirteen-year-old
boy, even had the unusual presence of mind to count the number of times
Ben Tanduyan was stabbed. He
claims that this testimony “defies the approved norm of human
conduct and natural phenomenon.”^[10]

He also makes reference to an incident in the past wherein he
allegedly slapped Juvel Rellon for accidentally stepping on his foot. Hence, he concludes that Juvel Rellon
harbored a resentment deep enough to falsely testify against him as the author
of the crime.

Accused-appellant likewise assails the testimony of the examining
physician, Dr. Ma. Luisa Torres. He
asserts that since it was established that it was the first time that Dr.
Torres handled a medico-legal case, she could not competently give an opinion
that the stab wound which severed Benjamin Tanduyan’s carotid artery on the
left side of the neck was the fatal wound that caused his death.

Inasmuch as accused-appellant claimed to have acted in
self-defense, he argues that the trial court entirely based its conclusion on
speculation, surmises and conjecture.

These pro-forma protestations of accused-appellant are not
only without basis but also indicate the haphazard manner in which
accused-appellant seeks to exculpate himself from any criminal liability.

Having admitted that he killed Ben Tanduyan, accused-appellant
assumed the burden of proving the elements of self-defense by clear and
convincing evidence. He cannot assail
the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence because such plea (self-defense) has
to rely on the strength of his own evidence to establish the claim. Accused-appellant miserably failed to carry
this burden during the trial of the case, as he insisted that there were no
eyewitnesses to the crime when he was allegedly attacked by the victim,
Benjamin Tanduyan. His only evidence was
his own self-serving testimony that he acted in self-defense to repel Benjamin
Tanduyan’s alleged unlawful aggression.

Contrarily, his positive identification by eyewitness Juvel
Rellon cannot be seriously doubted notwithstanding the alleged discrepancy as
to the alleged sleeping position of Benjamin Tanduyan as mentioned in Juvel’s
affidavit vis-à-vis his testimony given in open court. Such inconsistency, it should be pointed
out, was readily explained by the prosecution as Juvel himself used the same
descriptive word “NAGHUKDONG” to illustrate how his uncle was
sleeping.^[11]
But even assuming for the sake of argument that Ben Tanduyan was sleeping on
his lap, this bolsters the prosecution’s theory that Benjamin Tanduyan was indeed asleep when attacked and
that accused-appellant was the real aggressor.

Corollarily, appellant’s claim of self-defense is belied and
negated by the number of wounds inflicted on the body of the deceased and their
location as shown in the autopsy report of Dr. Ma. Luisa Torres.^[12]
The number of wounds at the back of the deceased strongly indicate that the
assault on the deceased was not an act of self-defense but a determined effort
to kill him.^[13]

Consequently, the attack on Dr. Ma. Luisa Torres’ credibility,
i.e., that she has no experience in medico-legal cases, is sorely
misplaced. She was the attending
physician who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the victim’s body, which formed the basis of her
opinion that the victim was attacked from behind. Evidentially, therefore, when a proper foundation is laid, an
opinion as to causation based on knowledge acquired by a physician who had
either attended or examined the person, is admissible in evidence.

Furthermore, the Court observes no material variance between the autopsy report
and Juvel Rellon’s eyewitness account relative to the incident. His testimony was categorical and
straightforward as to the identity of his uncle’s assailant who also happened
to be his first cousin, herein accused-appellant. No motive was proven by the defense as to why Juvel Rellon would
falsely implicate a relative to the murder, except the uncorroborated and
self-serving testimony of accused-appellant that he slapped Juvel sometime in
the past, the exact date of which he could not even recall on the witness
stand.

Thus, to argue how a thirteen year old boy could count the number
of times a person was stabbed and characterize such testimony as incredible is
itself answered by its own puerility. For it should be worth stressing that “children of sound mind are
likely to be more observant of incidents which take place within their view
than older persons, and their testimony is therefore likely to be more correct
in detail than that of older persons; and where once established that they
understood the nature and character of an oath, full faith and credit should be
given to their testimony.”^[14]

Another fact left unexplained by the defense, and accurately
observed by the trial court, is the following:

“x x x. He (appellant)
insisted that there were no people around the premises, no passers-by. The neigh­boring stores were already closed
and the place was hardly lighted. It
is, therefore, surprising why he was identified, traced, and arrested shortly thereafter.^[15] (Emphasis supplied)

x x x                              x x x                                  x
x x

More importantly, the demonstra­tions made by the accused as to how
he stabbed the deceased are clearly unorthodox, defying the route of an
impulsive act which should charac­terize his action under the circum­stances he
presented. By way of explaining the
stab wounds at the back of the deceased, the accused claimed that when the
deceased held him by the neck with deceased’s left arm still twisted by the
accused, he took the chance to stab him at the back, when the more convenient
and instinctive act would have been to thrust the knife towards the victim’s
stomach or chest depending on whether he would thrust upward or downward.”¹⁶

The confluence of circumstances clearly negate
accused-appellant’s plea of self-defense. Rather, his vengeful act of stabbing Benjamin Tanduyan at the
back clearly established the presence of
treachery which qualifies the killing to murder. In the final analysis, the trial court’s appreciation of the
evidence and of the credibility of the witnesses in this case, cannot be set
aside, since, in the first place, jurisprudence has assigned them to its
primary domain.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the
decision of the trial court convicting accused-appellant Adjutor
Tanduyan is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto. Costs against
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, p. 4.

^[2]
TSN, January 15, 1991, pp. 5-16.

^[3]
TSN, December 5, 1991, pp. 9-14.

^[4]
TSN, December 12, 1991, pp. 6-13.

^[5]
TSN, January 15, 1991, pp. 27-30.

^[6]
TSN, March 5, 1991, pp. 11-12.

^[7]
TSN, September 17, 1991, pp. 8-30.

^[8]
Penned by Judge Magno C. Cruz.

^[9]
Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 18.

^[10]
Rollo, p. 41.

^[11]
TSN, January 13, 1991, p. 22.

^[12]
Exhs. “A”, “A-1”,
“A-3, “A-4”.

^[13]
People v. Sarense, G.R. No. 97433, October 20, 1992, 214 SCRA
780 and People v. Sagadsad,
G.R. No. 88042, November 13,
1992, 215 SCRA 641.

^[14]
People v. Alambra and Garcia, G. R. No. L-33526, January 22, 1931, 55 Phil.
578; People v. Ricaplaza, G.R. No. L­-25856, April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA
374.

^[15]
Decision, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp.
15-16.