THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SEVERINO CASTANEDA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SEVEEINO CASTANEDA, APPELLANT.

Defendant-appellant was convicted of the
crime of parricide in the Court of First Instance of Zambales. The
facts of the case are well set forth in the decision of the trial
court.

“* * * In June, 1929, Eladio Castaiieda and his
wife Maria Fontillas were living together with their son, the accused
Severino Castaiieda, in their house, situated in the barrio of
Siminublan, San Narciso, Zambales. The other accused, also their son,
was then living in a separate house nearby. One night in June, 1929,
Eladio Castaneda, while drunk, was scolding and threatening his wife
who then shouted for help. The wife ran away from the house, evidently
to take refuge in the house of accused Felixberto. She was followed and
chased by the deceased who, however, had nothing in his hand. The other
accused, Severino Castaneda, followed his parents and as he was coming
down their house, picked up a piece of chopped wood about two feet long
and three inches in diameter. Maria Fontillas went up the house of
defendant Felixberto and the deceased followed her. Just as the
deceased was entering the kitchen, his son, the defendant Felixberto,
met him and gave him a fist blow on the left eye, which made the
deceased somewhat groggy and to incline his head towards the right
side. Right at that moment, his other son Severino Castaneda, who had
already reached that part of the kitchen, struck and hit with the piece
of wood he was carrying the deceased on the left side of the head of
the tempoparietal region, which had caused a fracture on the skull of
said deceased, which fracture resulted in cerebral hemorrhage, causing
his death a few hours thereafter, that is, the following morning.
Severino Castaneda then said that he would kill anybody who would tell
what had happened. For this reason, the neighbors who had gone to the
place in response to the screams for help and who had witnessed the
incident, immediately left the place. * * * Most of the witnesses to
the tragic incident helped not only in making the coffin of the
deceased but also in burying him in the cemetery in San Narciso.
Because of their fear on account of the threats made by the accused,
for the last four years, the persons in the barrio who had known what
really happened, had kept quiet about the matter. * * * Thanks to the
activity of the Constabulary, especially Lieuts. Canuto and Arambulo,
the burial place of the deceased was found and his mortal remains were
exhumed. The coffin of the deceased, which was made of hard wood, was
still intact. The skull of the deceased was found still intact, but
with a big perforation on the tempo-parietal region, which fact,
according to the District Health Officer, Dr. Anicio Pascual, proves
that the deceased had received a strong, enormous blow on the head
which resulted irresistibly in his death. The corresponding information
charging the two defendants with the crime of parricide was filed
before the justice of the peace of San Narciso, on September 25, 1933.

“The information does not allege, and the prosecution has not
established, any conspiracy between the two defendants. Without a
previous plan or agreement to assault or kill their father, the two
defendants performed two different acts directed against their father,
Felixberto Fontillas alias Castaneda giving a fist blow on
the left eye, and defendant Severino Castaneda giving a blow on the
left temple with a piece of wood which, according to the prosecution
evidence, was the direct cause of the death of the deceased. It is
clear that the defendants acted independently of each other. .Under
these facts, each of the defendants should be held liable only for the
acts committed by him. (U. S. vs. Reyes and Javier, 14 Phil., 27; U. S. vs. Macuti, 26 Phil, 170; People vs.
Martinez, 42 Phil., 85.) The prosecution evidence has not shown the
nature of the injury, if there was any, inflicted upon the left eye of
the deceased as a result of the act performed by defendant Felixberto.
Neither has the prosecution shown that the fist blow that landed on the
left eye of the deceased has contributed in any manner to the death of
the deceased. * * *

“When the other accused, Severino
Castaneda, was duly arraigned in open court, assisted by his attorneys
of record, Messers. Alejo Labrador and Vicente Aquino, and after he had
fully understood all the contents of the information which was read to
him in his own native dialect, he voluntarily and spontaneously pleaded
guilty. The court ordered, nevertheless, the prosecution to present its
evidence in order that the proper penalty to be imposed may be
determined. Counsel for the defense prayed that in view of the fact
that at the previous separate trial against Felixberto Fontillas alias
Castaneda, accused Severino Castaneda was present throughout the trial
and that the attorneys who assisted Felixberto Fontillas alias
Castaneda and cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution are the
same attorneys that now represent said Severino Castaneda, the evidence
in said former trial against Felixberto Castaneda be deemed reproduced
as evidence in the trial against Severino Castaneda. The prosecution
offered no objection to this petition, and rested its case. Whereupon,
counsel for the defense put on the witness-stand the accused Severino
Castaneda who admitted having killed his father, the deceased Eladio
Castaneda, but tried to prove the existence of the following mitigating
circumstances: (1) that he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed; (2) that there was an incomplete defense of a
relative; and (3) that he had acted with passion and obfuscation.

“The court finds that Severino’s plea of incomplete defense of his
mother is without merit. His uncorroborated testimony that his deceased
father was carrying a bolo when he was chasing Maria Fontillas with
intent of stabbing her, should give way to the clear and positive
testimony of the disinterested eye-witnesses for the prosecution who
testified that at the time the deceased was chasing his wife, he was
not carrying a bolo or anything in his hand. This accused knew that at
the time in question his aged father was drunk. The court finds that
the deceased was not carrying a bolo on the occasion in question. He
was just chasing his wife and quarreling with her just because at the
time he was intoxicated. There was, therefore, no unlawful aggression
on the part of the deceased. Neither was there evidence proving that
the life of Maria Fontillas at the time she was being chased was in
imminent danger. There was also no reasonable necessity of the means
employed by defendant Severino to prevent his father from chasing his
mother. The court, however, finds that in committing the offense, the
following mitigating circumstances concurred and should, therefore, be
considered in favor of defendant Severino: (1) his plea of guilty; (2)
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed; and (3)
lack of instruction. The court finds no aggravating circumstance
against him. The court finds the accused Severino Castaneda guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide charged against him
with the attendance of the mitigating circumstances as aforesaid and
without the concurrence of any aggravating circumstance. The defense
would want the court to believe that the application of the penalty
should be in accordance with article 69 of the Revised Penal Code and
not in accordance with the rules established by article 63 of the said
Code. The court is of the opinion that article 69 is not applicable to
the instant case, as the condition prescribed therein does not exist.
The penalty prescribed for the crime of parricide under article 246 of
the Revised Penal Code is composed of two indivisible penalties, to
wit, reclusion perpetua to death. When the commission of the
act is attended by some mitigating circumstance or more than one
mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the
lesser penalty shall be applied, (Article 63 [3], Revised Penal Code,
and U. S. vs. Ortencio, 38 Phil., 341.) In the opinion of the
court, the proper rule to be applied in the instant case against
Severino Castaneda is that prescribed under article 63 (3).

“Wherefore, the court hereby sentences the accused Severino Castaneda to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the accessories of the law, and to pay one-half of the costs. * * *”

This appeal raises virtually the same questions as presented to the
trial court. The claim of incomplete self-defense cannot be allowed, as
there was no reasonable necessity for the means employed to prevent or
repel the unlawful aggression, which is essential under subsection 2 of
article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

The penalty prescribed for the crime of parricide under article 246
of the Revised Penal Code is composed of two indivisible penalties, to
wit, reclusion perpetua to death. Notwithstanding the
numerous mitigating circumstances found to exist by the trial court,
paragraph 3 of article 63 is specific and must be applied.

We are convinced by a careful review of the record that the trial
court properly appreciated the facts and the law the judgment appealed
from is therefore affirmed.

We are likewise convinced that appellant did not have that malice
nor has exhibited such moral turpitude as requires life imprisonment,
and therefore under the provisions of article 5 of the Revised Penal
Code, we respectfully invite the attention of the Chief Executive to
the case with a view to executive clemency after appellant has served
an appreciable amount of confinement.

No expression as to costs. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Vickers, and Diaz, JJ., concur.