G.R. No. 13337. February 16, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JAMES DAVIS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
PAREDES, J.:
The evidence adduced by the prosecution fully shows the following facts:
On the night of April 18, 1954, a dance was held in the house of
Fortunato Delizo, located at barrio Gusing Sur, Naguilian, La Union, in
connection with the prayer ceremony for his son’s death. Alfredo Estepa
and his brother Bernardo Estepa, and Federieo R. Estepa, the last two
as musicians (trumpeteer and drummer, respectively), attended the
dance. At about 12:30 a.m. when the dance was about to be terminated,
Alfredo Estepa left the place to go home, taking the Naguilian-Bagulin
road. He was about 45 meters away from the improvised dance hall, when
accused James Davis showed up and without any word or warning, pulled
out a knife (Exhibit B), and suddenly stabbed Alfredo Estepa on the
abdomen. Alfredo Estepa held his wound and cried: “Help me, I am
wounded. I was stabbed by James Davis”. Ariston Villanueva and his son
Alfredo Villanueva, who were then walking at some distance behind the
victim, immediately went to succor him, and with the aid of other
persons, Alfredo Estepa was placed in a jeep and brought to the Lorma
Hospital at San Fernando, La Union, owned by Dr. Rufino N. Macagba.
Doctor Macagba found Alfredo Estepa very weak, suffering from a wound
on the left side of the navel, with a part of the intestine protruding
out from the wound. His pulse was weak and rapid and he was complaining
of thirst. The attachment of his intestines and several loops thereof
were pierced. Alfredo Estepa died at 3:30 a.m. of the same date.
Having been informed that his brother Alfredo was stabbed by Davis,
Bernardo Estepa rushed out of the dance hall and went to the road to
look for the accused. He met Davis, some 40 meters distant from the
dance hall and asked him why he stabbed his brother. Davis ran away and
Bernardo chased him until he (Davis) stumbled because of a wire which
blocked his way. Bernardo boxed Davis several times until the latter
fell. He also twisted Davis’ hands. Federico Estepa also came out and
even tried to pacify Bernardo when the latter was maltreating Davis.
The defense on the other hand, tried to prove that the accused, Samson
Banayat, and Danny Banayat also attended the dance. At about 12:30
midnight, Davis left the dance and when he was about 7 meters away from
the, dance hall, Alfredo Estepa followed him and held him by the right
shoulder and after turning him around, Alfredo boxed him on the left
jaw, without saying anything. Alfredo Estepa continued to box him
several times, until Davis fell down. Alfredo rode on his belly, held
his neck and tried to strangle him and pounded his head on the ground.
Believing that he was going to be killed by Alfredo, the accused pulled
a knife from the right back pocket of his trousers and thrust it on the
abdomen of Alfredo. Then they both stood up and some persons came
around and held them. Dr. Isabelo C. Villanueva certified that accused
Davis suffered certain injuries (Exhibit. 2). Accused admitted that he
stabbed the deceased Alfredo Estepa with the knife Exhibit B, but
interposed self-defense.
The issues in this case hinge on the credibility of the witnesses.
We have carefully gone over the record of the case and we find the
testimony of the people’s eye-witnesses to the killing credible. In a
positive, clear and straightforward manner, Ariston Villanueva and
Alfredo Villanueva testified that while they were walking along the
Naguilian-Bagulin road, some distance behind the deceased Alfredo
Estepa, the latter was met by the appellant who, without any ceremony
or warning, stabbed the deceased on the abdomen, and that the moon was
full and shining brightly and the flourescent lamps from the dance hall
were sufficiently strong to illumine the scene. Alfredo Villanueva
averred that appellant was his boyhood friend, playmate and neighbor;
and that the deceased was not so close to him, because of the disparity
of their ages. The appellant himself declared that Alfredo Villanueva
was his friend and that he could not conceive of any reason why he and
his father Ariston Villanueva would testify against him. Silvino Calub,
another state witness, asserted that two days before the fatal incident
(Holy Thursday), the deceased Alfredo, as a rural policeman, scolded
the accused, telling him not to make foolishness (chasing boys), during
a religious procession, as it was Holy Thursday, and the accused, on
that occasion said: “Hey, you testicle, I will see you someday”. There
was no reason revealed why Silvino Calub would have declared in the way
he did.
The testimony of the appellant can not be believed;
it did not reflect the truth. It is extremely doubtful whether
appellant could still draw his knife from the right back pocket of his
pantaloon, while the deceased was straddling him and raining blows upon
him. As aptly observed by the Solicitor General “a person lying down
with his face up would be unable to get a knife in his back pocket
unless he moves sidewise, and this would be infinitely difficult if his
foe is riding astride and raining blows upon him.” While it is conceded
that appellant received contusions, these were, however, the effect of
the blows given by Bernardo Estepa after he had known that his brother
Alfredo was stabbed by said appellant. And this must be true, because
it is the natural reaction of a brother to retaliate in cases of this
nature. Furthermore, Federico Estepa, who was then the incumbent Mayor
of the town of Naguilian when he testified, fully corroborated this
fact. Mayor Federico Estepa had no reason to tergiversate the truth.
Appellant declared that Alfredo Estepa sat astride his belly (Davis),
with his legs spread apart and raining blows on him. In this posture,
deceased Alfredo could not, in the ordinary course of things, have
inflicted blows on the gluteal region (right buttocks), below the elbow
of the right hand or hit so hard as to cause possible fractures on the
rib and right arm of the appellant. The most natural act that could
have caused these injuries, was the beating Bernardo Estepa gave to the
appellant, after the former was informed that appellant had stabbed his
brother. Appellant’s injuries were inflicted by a powerful and mobile
agent who could move freely, and not one sitting astride his (Davis’)
belly. In fact, Bernardo declared that after giving the appellant as
many blows as he could muster, he also twisted appellant’s hands
causing them fractures. Appellant must have had evil intentions
beforehand. For if his heart was really directed to prayer and to the
youthful exuberance of dancing, it was not explained why he was armed
with a deadly weapon, a sharppointed small bolo, when he went to
Delizo’s place that evening. Appellant claimed that he suffered
injuries in his face and chest and an injury on the neck because the
deceased strangled him, and that he told this fact to Doctor Villanueva
who issued medical certificate, Exhibit 2. Yet, the medical certificate
does not contain the description of any injury or any scratch on the
neck. If appellant had really suffered such injury, he should have
insisted its inclusion in the certificate, the same being vital element
for his defense.
The testimony of appellant is likewise
unreliable, ever changing. Sampling, we have this one. He said that the
blow on his side felled him, which was different from his original
story that he fell down when he was hit on the left jaw. And asked if
he wanted to change his statement, in view of the inconsistency and
incoherence of his testimony, the appellant answered in the
affirmative. Appellant denied that he was beaten by Bernardo Estepa and
averred that it was only when Bernardo testified in court that he came
to know him. In his sworn statement, Exhibit 3, taken on April 18,
1954, date of the killing, he said: “When I saw that Alfredo Estepa was
wounded because blood was bleeding (oozing), I wanted to go away from
him. Bernardo Estepa held me”. Appellant and Bernardo were
barrio-mates, their houses were about 250 meters apart. Appellant knew
even the name of Zosimo Estepa, Bernardo’s brother. And lastly,
appellant alleged that he accosted the son of Alfredo Estepa, for
having taken fruits of his mango tree that evening. In his sworn
statement (Exhibit C), appellant admitted having had no trouble with
Alfredo at all.
The demeanor or conduct of defense witnesses
Samson Banayat and Danny Banayat, during the commission of the offense,
were unnatural and beyond the realms of reality. According to them,
they saw their friends, Alfredo Estepa and appellant Davis, allegedly
fighting each other, and yet they did not in the least try to pacify
them. Their reason that they were afraid and did not want to be
included, is flimsy and weak. The State witnesses, the Villanueva’s
father and son, who were there, acted more natural, as they went to
succor the victim. The conflicting versions on material points between
the testimony of appellant and his two witnesses, do not sustain the
claim of self-defense. Self-defense, to be appreciated, should be
established with clear, satisfactory and convincing manner (People vs.
Gimena, 59 Phil., 509). The evidence for appellant does not measure to
this criterion. Danny Banayat on two occasions, during his testimony,
admitted that he committed mistake and that was the reason he had to
change, portions thereof, twice. And the trial court had to call his
attention on the mutability of his statements. The presentation of
these persons as witnesses, can not but engender the conclusion that it
was an eleventh hour concoction. They were never investigated by the
police authorities of Naguilian, neither did they present themselves
for investigation in connection with the case. They revealed what they
knew of the case for the first time, at the trial.
It,
therefore, results that appellant James Davis committed the crime of
murder, qualified by treachery. He intercepted the deceased as the
latter was walking along the road, at midnight. Without any word or
warning, he stabbed the deceased with a deadly weapon, on a vital spot.
The attack was so sudden and unexpected that the deceased had no chance
to defend himself. The amount of indemnity, should be, as it is hereby
raised from P4,000.00 to P6,000.00. And there being no other
circumstances to consider, and modified in the manner just indicated,
the decision appealed from is affirmed in all other respects, with
costs.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Dizon, JJ., concur.