PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARIEL GOMEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused Ariel Gomez was originally charged with the crime of
homicide in an information filed on 7 April 1987 by Provincial Fiscal Augusto
Zabala with Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Norte.^[1]
However, on 6 April 1990, State Prosecutor Santiago Turingan filed an Amended
Information^[2]
charging Ariel Gomez with the crime of murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about 2:15 o’clock in the morning of February 11,
1987, at Barangay Sta. Cruz, municipality of Jose Panganiban, province of
Camarines Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused by means of treachery and with intent to kill,
unlawfully, feloniously and criminally, did then and there, assault, attack and
stab one Rodil^[3]
Rieza with an icepick, thereby inflicting upon the vital parts of the body of
the latter mortal stab wounds which directly caused his death, to the damage
and prejudice of the heirs of said Rodil [Rodel] Rieza.”

The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge when arraigned on 26
April 1990.^[4]
A pre-trial conference was held on 19 June 1990.

After trial on the merits, the trial court promulgated on 22
December 1992 its decision^[5]
finding the accused guilty as charged and specifically disposing as follows:

“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and is hereby sentenced to serve the
single penalty of reclusion perpetua. The accused is furthermore, ordered to pay P12,600.00 for burial and
funeral expenses spent by the relative Rubio Rieza and the amount of
P150,000.00 moral damages to the latter; and finally to indemnify the victim’s
heirs the amount of P50,000.00 for his death.”^[6]

The accused filed a notice of appeal^[7] a day
after the promulgation of sentence.

The appeal is predicated on the following errors allegedly
committed by the trial court:

“I.       The Court a quo erred in
disregarding the plea of self-defense interposed by the accused-appellant.

II.       The Court a quo erred in disregarding the facts
and/or evidence pointing to the innocence of accused-appellant herein.”^[8]

The prosecution’s evidence showed that on the night of 10
February 1987, Rodolfo Labella (a barangay
tanod of barangay Sta. Cruz, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte),
Rodel Rieza, and Larry Natino were at a dance party sponsored by a beauty
queen. The party was held near the
elementary school of barangay Sta. Cruz. At around 11:00 p.m., Rodolfo admonished the accused from imbibing more
liquor as he was already drunk.^[9]

Some ten minutes later, the accused left the party. While the dance was going on at around 2:00
a.m. of 11 February 1987, a woman screamed that one Rosa Español had been
stabbed. Rodolfo Labella asked Rodel
Rieza and Larry Natino to accompany him to check the outcry. Rodel and Larry agreed. After procuring a torch, the three walked
toward the direction of the scream. Rodel walked ahead holding the torch borrowed from the store of Alberto
Maderal while Rodolfo and Larry followed. They walked two meters behind Rodel. When they were about twenty-five meters from the dancing hall, the
accused came out from nowhere and without any warning stabbed Rodel twice. As the latter fell slowly to the ground, the
accused ran away.^[10]

Rodolfo and Larry assisted Rodel and brought him to the Health
Center where he was treated by a midwife. Believing that Rodel’s injury was serious, Rodolfo procured a banca to bring Rodel to the
poblacion of Jose Panganiban for
further treatment. Seven other persons
accompanied Rodel in the banca. On board the banca, Rodel told Rodolfo that it
was the accused who had stabbed him. Rodel, however, died after they had sailed for about twenty minutes and
before they could reach the poblacion of Jose Panganiban. Thus, instead of proceeding to a doctor,
they brought Rodel’s body to the barangay captain of barangay San Jose, Jose
Panganiban, as Rodel is from San Jose. At around 8:00 a.m., Rodolfo reported the incident to the Station
Commander of Jose Panganiban. He told
the latter that it was the accused who had stabbed Rodel.^[11]

At 7:00 p.m. on 11 February 1987, Dr. Marcelino Abas, Rural Health
Physician of Lobo, Camarines Norte, conducted a post­mortem examination of the
body of Rodel Rieza. He found stab
wounds at the 5th intercostal space of the midclavicular line which pierced the
heart, and at the left hypocardiac region which pierced the abdomen. The first injury is 11 cm. in depth, 1 cm.
in length and 0.5 cm. in width, while the second is 10 cm. in depth, 1.5 cm. in
length and 0.7 cm. in width. He opined
that the first injury at the left chest was more serious than the other and
could cause instant death and that the wounds could have been caused by a
bladed instrument, such as balisong,
dagger, small bolo, or any sharp-pointed instrument with a length of
about 8 to 10 centimeters. He prepared
a sketch showing the injuries sustained by Rodel (Exhibit “B”) and
also signed a death certificate indicating that Rodel died of
cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to shock and severe internal hemorrhage due
to stab wounds (Exhibit “A”).^[12]

Rodel Rieza was an orphan and during his lifetime lived with his
uncle, Rubio Rieza. The latter spent
P600.00 for the rental of the banca, P12,000.00 for funeral services,
and P2,000.00 for food and drinks during the wake. He also quantified his personal sufferings caused by the death of
Rodel at P150,000.00.^[13]

The defense presented a different version
of the incident. In his testimony,
accused Ariel Gomez declared that on 11 February 1987 at about 2:00 a.m., while
on his way home to barangay Sta. Cruz, he was waylaid and ganged upon by more
or less seven persons, four of whom he recognized to be Carlito Tarosa, Edgardo
Caldit, Larry Natino, and Rodel Rieza. At that time, only the stars illuminated the place as there were no
street lamps. Carlito hacked him on his
back with the bolo, another struck him from behind, Larry hit him with the
stick, and Rodel hit him with a piece of wood. When somebody shouted “kill,” Rodel threw away the piece of
wood he was carrying and drew a sharp object from his waist. So he grabbed Rodel’s arm and grappled for
the possession of the sharp object until he was able to wrest it away and
thrust it on Rodel.^[14]
While grappling, he sustained wounds on his lower palm and lower arm. He had no idea, however, what weapon he was
able to grab from Rodel.^[15]
Thereafter, he ran away from the scene and, instead of going home, went to the
house of Rosita Alposeba, his aunt.^[16] Upon
arrival at Rosita’s house at 4:30 a.m., he told her, “nadisgrasya
ako.” Rosita dressed with a piece of cloth the wound on his right arm.^[17]
He lay down and slept. When he woke up,
he felt his whole body aching. His aunt
advised him to go to the hospital, but he failed to go because he lost
consciousness. After he regained
consciousness in the afternoon, he decided not to go to the hospital anymore
and instead requested his aunt to go to the barangay captain to facilitate his
voluntary surrender. The barangay
captain, one Nena Jurilla, acceded to his aunt’s request, picked him up, and
brought him to the police headquarters of Jose Panganiban where he was
detained.^[18]

At 2:45 p.m. on 12 February 1987, the accused was examined at the
Labo District Hospital at Labo, Camarines Norte, by Dr. Agnes Sinaon, a
resident physician, who found some injuries in the accused’s body and who
thereafter issued a medical certificate^[19]
(Exhibit “1”) attesting to her findings of old incised and
superficial lacerated wounds, old hematoma and abrasions. On the line “DATE OF
INJURY/ILLNESS” in the said medical certificate, Dr. Sinaon made the following
entry: “2/10/87.” She also declared that the wounds were two or three
days old at the time of her examination, i.e., were sustained two or
three days earlier, and when she asked the accused how he sustained them, the
accused answered that he had a quarrel with someone.^[20]
On cross-examination, Dr. Sinaon stated that the injuries were inflicted on 10
February 1987, because the accused told him so.^[21]

The lower court did not believe the version of the accused. It gave full faith and credit to the testimonies
of Rodolfo Labella and Larry Natino that the accused suddenly stabbed the
victim while the three of them were on their way to investigate an outcry of a
woman. The lower court took into
consideration the fact that Rodolfo Labella was a barangay tanod who was well
known to the accused and expressed the view that the former “will not be
motivated to lie” against the accused.^[22]

As to the qualifying circumstance of treachery, it considered the
two sudden and successive stabbings of the victim as a “treacherous
assault upon the deceased who did not have a bit [of a] chance to repel the
aggression or defend himself.”^[23]

The resolution of this appeal principally hinges on the merit of
the accused’s plea of self-defense.

It is hornbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the
burden of evidence shifts to the appellant to show that the killing was
justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. He must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, for, even if
the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of
responsibility for the killing.^[24] He
must prove the essential requisites of self-defense, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression,
and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.^[25]

The prosecution established that a few minutes before the victim
was stabbed, the accused was admonished by barangay tanod Rodolfo Labella to
stop drinking as he was already drunk; the latter then left and did not come
back. Then, as Rodolfo Labella, Larry
Natino, and the deceased were on their way to investigate the cry of a woman
that one Rosa Español was stabbed, the accused suddenly appeared from the dark
and attacked the deceased who was then carrying a torch. The unlawful aggression thus came from the
accused and the proximate cause therefor could be nothing less than the earlier
admonition of Rodolfo Labella which the accused must have resented, for which
reason he left.

The accused’s insistence that he was waylaid and mauled by seven
persons, as evidenced by the injuries he sustained, does not convince us. His own witness, Dr. Agnes Sinaon, testified
that the injuries she found on the accused when she attended to him on 12
February 1987 were already two or three days old and, therefore, could not have
been inflicted on 11 February 1987. As
a matter of fact, she indicated in her medical certificate that, per
information from the accused, the injuries were inflicted on
“2/10/87,” or 10 February 1987. Dr. Sinaon further declared that when she asked the accused how he
sustained his injuries, he answered that
he had a quarrel with someone — therefore only one, not more.

If he were indeed ganged upon and mauled by seven, one of whom,
Carlito Tarosa, hacked his back with a bolo, another struck him from behind and
Larry Natino and the deceased hit him with a stick and a piece of wood,
respectively,^[26]
then the accused should have been badly injured. Yet, his medical certificate belies his claim.

Moreover, if it were true that the weapon he used to stab the
deceased belonged to the latter which he wrested from the deceased during the scuffle,
the accused should have presented it to the police and if he threw it away
somewhere, pointed that out to the police. He did not.

Even if we accept his version on the issue of unlawful
aggression, the accused failed, nevertheless, to prove the second requisite of
self-defense. If indeed he was able to
obtain possession of the weapon from the deceased, there is no further evidence
that the latter or his companions persisted in their aggression. Hence, there was no necessity to stab the
deceased for aggression had already ceased. There was no more aggression to repel.

In support of his second assignment of error, the accused
attempts to engender doubt on his culpability by pointing out the inconsistency
between the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the Medico-Legal
Officer regarding the description of the weapon used to stab the victim. According to him, the former declared that
it was an icepick while the latter stated that it was a sharp-bladed
instrument. This contention is unmeritorious. Since he admitted having killed the victim
in self-defense, the kind of weapon used has become immaterial.

The accused likewise suggests that the prosecution is guilty of
suppression of evidence because it did not present Rosa Español as a witness in
this case. He believes that she is the
only one who could shed light on the incident. The disputable presumption laid
down in Section 3(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,^[27] however, does not apply when the testimony
of the witness is merely corroborative or where the witness is available to the
accused.^[28] In this case, Rosa’s testimony could not
even qualify as corroborative evidence because there was no showing that she
was an eyewitness to the stabbing of the victim. Even if she were, her testimony could be dispensed with. Moreover, in People vs. Fernandez^[29]
and People vs. Pablo^[30] this
Court held that if an accused honestly believed that the testimony of a witness
would be adverse to the prosecution, he should have availed of the compulsory
process to have such witness produced as his witness, or even as a hostile
witness.

Finally, the accused puts special significance on his voluntary
surrender. According to him, such act
militates against the workings of a guilty mind and cannot be the natural reaction
of a man who had cold-bloodedly killed a person. While this Court agrees that he voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities, which would therefore mitigate his criminal liability, it cannot
accept the proposition that such act is indicative of his innocence. True, persons who kill another in legitimate
self-defense almost often surrender themselves to the authorities. But voluntary surrender may also be the
spontaneous act of one who acknowledges his guilt. Precisely, voluntary surrender is recognized by the Revised Penal
Code as one of the circumstances which mitigate criminal liability.^[31]

We agree with the trial court that the killing of the deceased is
murder because of the qualifying circumstance of treachery which is duly
alleged in the amended information and proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
evidence of the prosecution. There was
treachery in the sudden attack which the accused consciously and deliberately
adopted to ensure the accomplishment of his criminal objective without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the victim might make.^[32]

The penalty for murder at the time it was committed by the
accused was reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to death.^[33]
Since the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is present
and is not offset by any generic aggravating circumstance, the penalty to be
imposed upon the accused should be the minimum period of the prescribed
penalty, which is reclusion temporal
in its maximum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused may be sentenced to
an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which should be within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree and the maximum of which should be within the
range of reclusion temporal maximum. The accused may thus be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as minimum to seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum.

In  respect of the civil
liability imposed by the trial court, some modifications are in order. The award for actual damages in the amount
of P12,600.00 representing funeral and burial expenses is increased to
P14,600.00 as the prosecution had duly proved that P600.00 was spent for the
rental of the banca, P12,000.00 for funeral services, and P2,000.00 for food
and drinks during the wake. The award
of P150,000.00 for moral damages
is without basis as the deceased was single, an orphan, and survived only by an
uncle. The civil indemnity for death in
the amount of P50,000.00 is affirmed.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision in Criminal Case No. 4660
of Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte, is hereby
AFFIRMED with the following modifications:

(1) the penalty imposed is hereby reduced from reclusion
perpetua to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Ten (10) years and (1)
One day of prision mayor maximum as minimum, to Seventeen (17)
years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum as maximum.

(2) the civil liability of the accused is
hereby fixed at P14,600.00 as actual damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
for the death of the victim.

Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

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

^[1]
Original Records (OR), 1.

^[2]
Id., 42.

^[3]
Should be Rodel.

^[4]
OR, 45.

^[5]
Id., 189-194; Rollo, 20-28. This
decision is dated 10 December 1992. Per Judge Luis D. Dictado.

^[6]
Id., 194; Id., 28.

^[7]
OR, 195.

^[8]
Rollo, 48.

^[9]
Testimony of Roberto Labella, TSN, 17 August 1990, 8-10.

^[10]
Id., 11-13.

^[11]
TSN, 17 August 1990, 18-20.

^[12]
Testimony of Dr. Marcelino Abas, TSN, 19 July 1990, 7-14.

^[13]
TSN, 28 May 1991, 7-19.

^[14]
TSN, 20 August 1992, 3-12.

^[15]
Id., 15.

^[16]
Id., 18.

^[17]
Testimony of Rosita Alposeba, TSN, 1 July 1992, 5-6.

^[18]
TSN, 20 August 1992, 18-21.

^[19]
OR, 176.

^[20]
TSN, 2 June 1992, 8-10.

^[21]
Id., 12-13.

^[22]
OR, 194.

^[23]
Id., 194.

^[24]
People vs. Ybeas, 213 SCRA 793 [1992].

^[25]
Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code; 1 RAMON C. AQUINO, The Revised
Penal Code 132 (1987 ed.); People vs. Deunida, G.R. No.
105199-200, 28 March 1994.

^[26]
TSN, 20 August 1992, 5-12.

^[27]
It provides: “(e) That evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.”

^[28]
People vs. Pablo, 213 SCRA 1 [1992]; People vs. Casinillo, 213
SCRA 777 [1992].

^[29]
209 SCRA 1 [1992].

^[30]
supra.

^[31]
Article 13(7), Revised Penal Code.

^[32]
Article 14(16), Id.

^[33]
Article 248, Id. As amended by
R.A. No. 7659, the penalty has been amended to reclusion perpetua to death.