THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO BANASEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

An appeal from the Decision of the then Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan, Branch XI, in Criminal Case No.
L-2081, convicting the accused, Domingo Banasen, of
Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The People’s
evidence was summed up by the Trial Court as follows:

“The evidence for the prosecution tends to establish that at
about 2:00 o’clock in the early
morning of December 2, 1979,
Leonardo Malong fetched Nemesio
Gonzales, his brother-in-law.  They were
bound for Loob, Uyong, Labrador,
Pangasinan to buy ‘boho‘.  On
their way, Nemesio
Gonzales stopped to answer a call of nature. 
As Leonardo Malong walked ahead, Domingo Banasen suddenly appeared. 
Domingo Banasen, then and there, hacked away
at Leonardo Malong with a bolo.  (Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘B-1’).

Nemesia Gonzales got scared.  He ran to Barangay
Captain, Buenaventura Arenas of Uyong, Labrador,
Pangasinan.  He
told the Barangay Captain about the incident.  Later, Martha, Domingo Banasen’s
wife, arrived.  She revealed that
Leonardo Malong and her husband, Domingo, were
fighting.  Thereafter, Buenaventura
Arenas and Nemesio Gonzales returned to the place of
the incident.  They came upon Leonardo Malong in a yard soaked in blood and lifeless.  About thirty (30) to forty (40) meters away
was Domingo Banasen’s house.

Buenaventura Arenas returned home. 
He proceeded to report the matter to the police authorities at Labrador,
Pangasinan.  Nemesio Gonzales, on the other hand, proceeded to inform
Leonardo Malong’s wife of the incident.

Responding to Buenaventura Arenas’ report, Patrolmen Camalao, Castillo and Isora of
the Labrador, Pangasinan INP
were ordered to conduct a spot investigation. 
At the scene of the crime, the investigators saw Leonardo Malong lying dead in a yard (Exhibit ‘A-4’) some thirty
(30) to forty (40) meters away from Domingo Banasen’s
house (Exhibit ‘A-2’).  Patrolman Camalao prepared a sketch. 
(Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘A-1‘).  There were bloodstains (Exhibits ‘A-3’,
‘A-5’, ‘A-6’, ‘A-7’) within the perimeter. 
There were also shreds of the skull. 
(Exhibit ‘A-8’).  Similarly, an
inspection on Domingo Banasen’s house revealed the
presence of bloodstains on the flooring.

Further inquiries indicated that Domingo Banasen
went to Loob, Uyong, Labrador,
Pangasinan. 
So, the police authorities went over to the place.  Here, they came upon Domingo Banasen hiding in a ‘boho‘
groove.  Identifying themselves, the
police ordered Domingo Banasen to surrender.  After a while, Domingo Banasen
came out.  He threw his bolo to the
ground.  (Exhibits ‘B’ and ‘B-1’).  Domingo Banasen was
asked about Leonardo Malong’s death.  Domingo Banasen
readily admitted causing the victim’s death.

Domingo Banasen was brought to town.  He was treated of his wounds on his hand and
knee by the Municipal Health Officer. 
Thereafter, Domingo Banasen was lodged in
jail.”^[1]

The accused admitted
authorship of the crime but claimed that he killed Leonardo Malong
in defense of himself and of his wife’s honor. 
His version of the event was summarized by the Trial Court in this wise:

“On the other hand, the evidence for the accused tends to show
that at about 12:30 to 1:00 o’clock
in the early morning of December 2,
1979, Domingo Banasen came home from the
mountain at Imbo, Labrador, Pangasinan.  He
carried a sack full of palay.  As he approached his house, he heard his wife
crying.  So, he silently went up the
ladder.  Then and there, he saw Leonardo Malong atop his (Banasen’s)
wife.  Domingo Banasen
confronted Leonardo Malong.  Leonardo Malong
immediately put on his pants and stood up. 
Then Leonardo Malong drew a bolo.  He held Domingo Banasen’s
hair.  Simultaneously, Leonardo Malong boloed Domingo Banasen on the left palm. 
This was followed by blows hitting Domingo Banasen
on the left hand and knee.  Thereafter,
Domingo Banasen moved back.  He also drew his bolo.  He hacked away at Leonardo Malong first hitting his right wrist.  As a result, Leonardo Malong’s
bolo fell.  Leonardo Malong
ran downstairs, Domingo Banasen gave chase.  Once at the ground, Leonardo Malong held Domingo Banasen by
the left arm.  But Domingo Banasen extricated himself from Leonardo Malong’s hold.  There
was a struggle.  The protagonists sought
to evade each other.  But then, Leonardo Malong persisted at pursuing Domingo Banasen.  So, Domingo Banasen
boloed Leonardo Malong at
the left hand.  Domingo Banasen followed through. 
Leonardo Malong was hit in the forehead and
the head.  Leonardo Malong
ran.  Mockingly, he reminded Domingo Banasen of the earlier incident with Martha Banasen.  Domingo Banasen got enraged. 
He could no longer control himself. 
So, he hacked away at Leonardo Malong.  By then, the protogonists
were already on the road.

Leonardo Malong fell dead.  After a while, Domingo Banasen
came to his senses.  So, he dragged
Leonardo Malong to a nearby yard.  By now, the thought for repentance overcame
Domingo Banasen. 
He pondered on his options on whether to go to the Municipal
Building or to proceed to Loob, Labrador, Pangasinan
where he had his relatives.  He decided
on going to his relatives.  He intended
to seek his relatives’ assistance at surrendering at Alaminos,
Pangasinan. 
His plans did not go through. 
Police authorities caught up with him at Loob,
Labrador, Pangasinan.  He gave himself up to the police.  He also handed over his bolo.

Domingo Banasen was brought to the Municipal Building of Labrador, Pangasinan.  He
refused a formal investigation.  He was
treated of his wounds.  (Exhibits ‘1’ and
‘1-A’).”

The Trial Court, on August
21, 1980, rendered a
verdict of guilty, thus:

“WHEREFORE, with these considerations, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused DOMINGO BANASEN, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
MURDER as charged in the Information and is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnity the heirs of the deceased, Leonardo Malong,
in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00).  With costs.”

In this appeal, the
accused assigned the following errors:

“1.  The lower court gravely erred into having
believed in and relied upon the
biased and uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witness Nemesio
Gonzales;

2.  The trial court gravely erred into finding
defendant-appellant guilty of the crime of murder.

3.  The trial court gravely erred in not
acquitting defendant-appellant of the crime charged against him, on the ground
of reasonable doubt.”

Upon the evidence, we
find merit in this appeal.  The
Trial Court failed to accord the correct significance to the physical evidence
consisting of blood stains found on the flooring of the accused’s
house, porch and stairs as testified to even by prosecution witness Pat. Camalao^[2] and by Atty. Pedro Rodriguez, defense
counsel, and as confirmed by the sketch of the scene of the incident drawn by
Pat. Diomedes S. Camalao
showing additional blood stains in surrounding areas (Exhibits “A-3”,
“A-5”, and “A-6”). 
Those blood stains confirm the accused’s
version that the fight between the accused and the victim started inside the sala of the house, down the stairs with the accused chasing
the victim, with the fight continuing by the kitchen, and up to the barbed wire
fence on the southern shoulder of the road where the victim was fatally hacked
as shown by the pieces of skull and brain tissue and blood stains scattered
thereat.  From that point, the accused
realizing the gravity of what he had done, dragged the victim to the adjoining
yard belonging to Mariano Vinluan so that, according
to the accused, the victim would not be trampled upon by a cart or animal.^[3] It was on that spot that the victim was
found (Exhibit “A-4”).

The accused’s
version that the victim’s hat flew off when he boloed
the victim on the latter’s forehead is likewise confirmed by Exhibit
“A-7” showing the hat on the ground near the kitchen.  That there was such a struggle on the
ground outside the kitchen was also corroborated by defense witness, Merita Rosario, who was living in the accused’s
house at the time of the incident, and who testified that she heard such
struggle from their bedroom.^[4]

The presence of blood stains inside the house also supports the accused’s version that upon arriving from the mountain at
around midnight of December 2, 1979, he heard his wife crying for help and upon
going up, he surprised the victim having carnal knowledge of her, after which
the fight between him and the victim started inside the house.  Corroborating this is the testimony of Merita Rosario, who stated that the accused’s
wife woke her up in the middle of the night, “trembling and afraid”,
and informed her that her Uncle Domingo and one Dadoy
were fighting each other^[5],
after which said witness went downstairs and ran immediately to the house of
“grandmother Binay” (mother of the victim)
to fetch her to go to the house of the Barrio Captain to seek assistance, but
they went instead to the house of Melecio Gonzales
whom she woke up, after which they proceeded to the residence of the Barrio
Captain.^[6]

That the wife, Martha Banasen,
mentioned nothing of the assault on her honor to the Barangay
Captain that early morning when she went there to ask for assistance, nor did she
testify on that happening, does not militate against the accused’s
version as the transcript shows that Martha had started to testify but the
Trial Judge opined that she needed the consent of her husband, the accused, to
do so.^[7]
When the defense counsel dispensed with her testimony, it is likely that the
accused did not want to expose his wife and his family to the dishonor and
disrepute that would result from the exposure of the cause of the fight in a
public trial.

The accused was apparently a mild-mannered man for his immediate
reaction upon seeing the victim atop his wife was to say “why Compadre are you doing this to my wife”.^[8]
It was only after the victim drew the bolo under his hat which he had picked up
that the accused retaliated and did so unrelentingly, taunted by the victim who
had told him “anyway, I fucked your wife”.^[9]

The accused’s declaration that upon
surprising the victim, the latter pulled up his pants hurriedly and was about
to leave, is further confirmed by the
“physical findings” in the Medical Certificate of Dr. Ranulfo Parras (Exhibit
“C”) that the victim was “1. wearing pants,  zipper opened.”

That the bolo used by the
victim was not presented as evidence by the defense should neither be taken
against the accused.  The latter, while
incarcerated, had asked his children to look for it but it could no longer be
found, the house having been abandoned soon after the incident out of fear by
the wife and the fact that the breadwinner of the family had been incarcerated
and was not allowed to post bail.

Additionally supportive
of the accused’s version is the fact that the accused
himself had suffered incised wounds of “4-5 cms.
lateral aspect, dorsum (1) hand’ 2-3 cms. distal end
index finger (1); and 3-4 cms. lat. aspect of right
knee” (Exhibit “1”). 
Although apparently superficial, his wounds were found by the police to
have been bleeding for which reason, they immediately took him to the Municipal
Health Officer for treatment.

Neither can it be said
that the accused took to flight because he was found by the police in barrio Loob hiding in the “buho”
grove.  As he had explained, he was so
overcome by remorse over what he had done that he actually did not hide but
just sat there until help from his relatives could come.  Besides, when found by the police, he
immediately turned over his bolo and went with them.

In contrast, the version
of prosecution witness, Melecio Gonzales, that he and
the accused were together that fateful evening and that while said witness was
answering the call of nature, the accused suddenly hacked the victim by the
side of the road after which the witness ran away in fright to report to the Barangay Captain, do not and cannot explain the blood
stains inside the house, and from there, the blood stains to the exact spot
where the victim was found sprawled flat on his back, as well as the blood
stains from the side of the road where pieces of the skull and brain tissue
were found, to the said spot.

The explanation of the
Trial Court to the effect that the accused had gone back to the house before he
went into “hiding”, which would account for the blood stains thereat,
is not plausible because the accused himself testified that he went direct to Sitio Loob, Labrador, Pangasinan where he and his wife had relatives^[10] after he had killed the victim.

Gonzales’ version is
further refuted by Merita Rosario’s testimony that
after having been awakened by Martha Banasen, she and
grandmother Binay whom she fetched immediately
proceeded to the house of Melecio Gonzales and woke
him up, and together, they went to the house of the Barangay
Captain to report the incident and to ask for help.  Further, Gonzales gave inconsistent
declarations when he stated in his Affidavit (Exhibit “2”), that
three persons held the victim (Exhibit “2-A”) but that he recognized
only the accused, whereas on the witness stand he declared that only the
accused attacked the victim suddenly.

These inconsistencies
aside from the fact that his version does not compaginate
with other factual circumstances surrounding the case strongly militate against
his credibility.

The next point to consider is the accused’s plea of defense
of the person of his spouse.  Upon the
facts, as established by the evidence, we find that the three requisites
required by law to justify the offense under paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code are present, namely, unlawful aggression; reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense
had no part therein.

The accused upon coming
home, caught the victim in the act of raping his (accused’s)
wife.  Thereafter, a fight, commenced by
the victim, ensued, both protogonists using their
respective boloes, culminating in the fatal wounding
of the victim.  The circumstances under
which the victim was hacked to death by the accused, as already discussed
above, prove that the accused merely made use of his legitimate right to defend
the honor of his wife, and neither did he provoke the affair nor had any part
therein, consequently, he incurs no criminal responsibility.

“Where a husband entered his house one morning while it was
yet dark and surprised a person in the act of holding his wife by the hands,
with the intention of laying her on the floor and lying with her, if his first
impulse was to inflict upon the aggressor a rather serious wound on one of the
arms, he undoubtedly acted in defense of the person and rights of his offended
wife; he made use of a legitimate right, one which is included in article 8,
No. 5, of the Penal Code, inasmuch as there concurred the three requisites
required by the law; neither of the spouses provoked the affair nor gave the
wounded man any occasion to enter the house, in which the woman was alone at a
very early hour of the morning,
and the husband, on seeing that a man was making a violent attempt upon the
honor of his wife, found himself obliged to repel and prevent his attempt,
availing himself as a rational means of the bolo which he carried, and for this
reason he is exempt from all responsibility and should be absolved.”^[11]

In fact, it can even be
said that the accused was himself acting also in self-defense.  In the ensuing fight between him and the
victim, and the obfuscation that must have been produced in
his mind, he could not be expected to
retain the presence of mind to employ some other less violent means.

“One who, together with his wife, is wounded with a bolo in an
effort to protect said wife from an assault with intent to rape, and who in turn
inflicts a wound with said bolo upon the aggressor from which the latter dies
is acting in self-defense and incurs no criminal responsibility.”^[12]

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby
reversed and the accused, Domingo Banasen, is hereby acquitted of the crime with which he has
been charged.  Costs de officio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
pp. 126-127, Record of Criminal Case No. L-2081.

^[2]
T.s.n., June 24, 1980, pp. 16 & 29.

^[3]
T.s.n., July
17, 1980, p. 19.

^[4]
T.s.n., July
17, 1980, pp. 10-11.

^[5]
T.s.n., ibid., p. 4.

^[6] T.s.n.,
ibid., pp. 5-6.

^[7]
T.s.n., ibid., p. 35.

^[8]
T.s.n., ibid., p. 13.

^[9]
T.s.n., ibid., p. 18.

^[10]
T.s.n., ibid., p. 20.

^[11]
U.S. vs.
Padilla, 34 Phil. 641 (1916).

^[12]
U.S. vs.
Salandanan, 1 Phil. 478 (1902).