THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. APRONIANO DIAZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Diaz

The Case

This is People versus Diaz, a criminal appeal from a conviction for homicide decided by the Supreme Court in March 1934. The People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Aproniano Diaz for killing Patricio Granados with a bolo in Abuyog, Leyte, on or about the nineteenth of June 1932. The trial court convicted him of homicide, and he appealed, assigning as errors that the evidence did not support the conviction and that the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was wrongly appreciated. The case matters for two enduring lessons: how the Supreme Court treats a confession offered in evidence, and how the continued infliction of wounds on a victim already mortally wounded destroys a plea of self-defense.

Procedural History

The defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Leyte with homicide under the Revised Penal Code. After trial, that court found him guilty and rendered judgment of conviction. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the trial court erred in finding him guilty under the proofs, and that it erred in holding that the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was present. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment with a modification of the penalty and the indemnity.

Facts

On or about the nineteenth of June 1932, in the municipality of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, the defendant Aproniano Diaz attacked and assaulted Patricio Granados with a bolo. Granados sustained numerous wounds: on the left frontal parietal region, a contusion with ecchymosis on the forehead, a wound on the occipital region, several wounds on the front and back of the neck, a wound on the right side of the neck extending from the middle of the neck toward the mouth, and a wound on the right shoulder. Granados died in the same act of aggression.

The defendant set up self-defense, but the evidence showed that Granados was unarmed and that the defendant sustained no injury whatsoever. The three wounds on the back of Granados's neck showed that he was attacked from behind and without any provocation on his part.

The defendant's confession, offered as an exhibit, showed that he had on a former occasion quarreled with Granados over expressions Granados had used about him; that Granados struck at him with his fist but the defendant warded off the blow; and that afterwards the defendant slashed Granados with his bolo. On the witness stand, however, the defendant contradicted that portion of his confession, testifying that when Granados struck him with his fist he retreated, and that he did not draw his bolo until Granados attacked him a second time with a bolo in hand. The Court noted that, according to his testimony, he injured Granados not in self-defense against the first assault but in alleged self-defense against the second assault, and that as to this second assault his testimony is false and his confession is silent. The Court also observed that the defendant continued to inflict grave injuries upon Granados after the latter was already mortally wounded and disabled.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty under the proofs, that is, whether or not the plea of self-defense must be rejected.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was present.

Applicable Provisions

The information charged the offense as committed with violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes the crime of homicide. The conviction rests on this provision, and the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction under it.

Hecho cometido con infraccion del articulo 248 del Codigo Penal Revisado.

The Court also applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act Number 4103, in fixing the minimum term of imprisonment.

Act No. 4103, the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court rejected the plea of self-defense. The evidence left no doubt that Granados was unarmed and that the defendant inflicted the injuries that caused his instant death. The plea of self-defense must be rejected because the evidence clearly showed that Granados was unarmed and the defendant sustained no injury whatsoever. The three wounds on the back of Granados's neck showed that he was attacked from behind and without any provocation whatsoever from him.

On the confession, the Court applied the well settled rule that when a confession is accepted in evidence, it must be admitted in its entirety, as well in respect to what is prejudicial to the defendant as to what is beneficial to him. The defendant's testimony contradicted his confession, and the Court found that as to the alleged second assault, his testimony is false and his confession is silent. The fact that the defendant continued to inflict grave injuries upon Granados after he was already mortally wounded and disabled further negated the theory of self-defense.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the judgment below with a modification: the minimum term of imprisonment, in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, was fixed at eight years of prision mayor, and the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased was fixed at one thousand pesos, with costs against the appellant.

Doctrine

A confession, once accepted in evidence, must be taken in its entirety, as well in respect to what is prejudicial to the defendant as to what is beneficial to him. A plea of self-defense cannot stand where the victim was unarmed, the accused sustained no injury, and the wounds were inflicted from behind without provocation. The continued infliction of grave injuries upon a victim already mortally wounded and disabled negates self-defense. The Indeterminate Sentence Law governs the fixing of the minimum term of imprisonment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction with modification, fixing the minimum term of imprisonment at eight years of prision mayor and the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased at one thousand pesos, with costs against the appellant.

Remember This

A confession admitted in evidence must be taken in its entirety, both for and against the accused, and self-defense fails where the victim was unarmed, the accused was unhurt, and the wounds came from behind. Examiners use this case to test the entire-confession rule and the negation of self-defense by the continued infliction of wounds on a mortally wounded victim.