PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLO LAGRANA Y MAÑIBO AND FRANGELINE SALAZAR, ACCUSED. CARLO LAGRANA Y MAÑIBO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused, Carlo LAGRANA, appeals from the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, Oriental Mindoro (Calapan), Branch 39, convicting him, as principal, of
Murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased, Benito Adarlo, in the amount of
P8,000.00.

The other accused, Frangeline SALAZAR,
who was found guilty as an accomplice and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty, did not appeal.^[1]

The evidence for the prosecution discloses that at around
8:00 P.M. on 3 December 1981, Benito Adarlo (the Victim, for short) was seated along the road
near the store of Eladio de Villa in Dao, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, with the
accused SALAZAR.  The latter was holding one of the Victim’s right
arm under the armpit.  While thus
positioned, LAGRANA, who is an uncle of SALAZAR,
arrived.  LAGRANA focused the lighted flashlight he was then
carrying at the face of the Victim and forthwith hit the latter on the
head with a piece of wood (“kakawati“), about
one meter in length.  As a result, the Victim fell face downward, unconscious.  He never
regained consciousness until he died in the provincial hospital on
6 December
1981.

The autopsy findings disclosed the cause of death as “shock
secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage secondary to skull fracture
secondary to head trauma”.^[2]

The Victim’s brother, Nestor Adarlo, who
was nearby, ran to the succor of his brother only to be challenged by
LAGRANA.  Nestor, however, ignored the challenge and carried his
brother to their house, which was not too distant from the scene of the
incident.

In addition to Nestor, another eyewitness to the incident was
Pio Sigalat, who happened
also to be on his way to the store of Eladio de Villa,
behind LAGRANA, at a distance of about five (5) meters.  Sigalat saw LAGRANA carrying a flashlight and a piece of
wood and ultimately hitting the Victim on the head.

LAGRANA and SALAZAR were summoned by the police authorities the
following morning of 4 December
1981 for investigation, but were initially released.

Subsequently, however, they were both charged with Murder. 
Trial proceeded only against LAGRANA initially, while SALAZAR stood trial
only after his arrest in 1983.

LAGRANA invoked self defense claiming that the Victim, who was
then drunk, chased him with a knife for which reason he hit the Victim with a
piece of “kakawati” when the latter thrust
the knife at him.

SALAZAR, for his part, claimed that he and the Victim drank liquor
before the incident and that, because the Victim was challenging him, he left
the latter behind as he was afraid.  Continuing, he recounted that
the following morning when informed by his mother that policemen were looking
for him, he and LAGRANA went to the police station to report but that they were
both sent home.

The Trial Court gave no credence to the defense of either accused and convicted LAGRANA as principal and
SALAZAR, as accomplice of Murder, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery,
unattended by any generic aggravating or mitigating circumstance. 
The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:

“ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds accused Carlo Lagrana and Frangeline Salazar
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal and accomplice, respectively, of
the crime of Murder, punishable with reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, as regards the principal, under Article 248 in relation to
Article 46 of the Revised Penal Code, and with prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its medium period, as regards the accomplice,
under Article 248 in relation to Article 52 of the said code. 
Considering that there is neither generic aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. 
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to accused Carlo Lagrana, considering the penalty imposable on him, but
applicable to accused Frangeline Salazar.

“Accused Carlo Lagrana, as principal, is
hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment),
together with the accessory penalties provided for by law, while accused Frangeline Salazar, as accomplice, is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE (12)
YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, together with the accessory penalties provided for by law. 
Both accused are ordered to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased
Benito Adarlo in the amount of P12,000.00, by way of actual damages, P8,000.00 to be paid by
accused Carlo Lagrana and P4,000.00 by Frangeline Salazar, the same to be enforced in accordance
with the provisions of Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

“The accused shall be credited with the full term of their
preventive imprisonment, if they have any to their credit, pursuant to the
provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 6127, provided that the accused shall have agreed to abide with the
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise,
they shall be entitled to only four-fifths (4/5) of the preventive
imprisonment.”^[3]

Only LAGRANA has appealed, who does not question his conviction
nor the characterization of the crime, but merely raises as the lone assignment
of error that

“The Court erred in brushing aside the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender and imposing upon accused-appellants penalties that are over
and above those that they deserve.”

Indeed, LAGRANA’s guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.  Two credible prosecution eyewitnesses
identified him as the main culprit.  His plea of self-defense,
uncorroborated as it is, fails to overcome the clear and direct testimony of
these witnesses.  The crime is Murder, attended by treachery,
considering the method by which LAGRANA attacked the Victim without risk to
himself arising from any defense which the Victim might have made.

The evidence on record does not support voluntary surrender, as
contended.  As aptly pointed out by the Trial Court:

“Although both accused reported to the police authorities the
following day after the commission of the crime, it was not for the purpose of
submitting themselves unconditionally.  Accused Carlo Lagrana claimed self-defense when interrogated, while
accused Frangeline Salazar did not give any statement,
either verbal or written.

“Accused did not go to the police authorities to surrender but
merely to report the incident.  Indeed, they never evinced any
desire to own the responsibility for the killing of the deceased (People vs.
Rogales, 6 SCRA 830).”

Indeed, wanting in this case are the following requisites for
voluntary surrender to be considered mitigating:

“A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent
of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either (1) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (2) because he
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search
and capture.”^[4]

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with the modification that LAGRANA shall indemnify the heirs of the deceased,
Benito Adarlo, in the amount of P20,000.00 with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa, Cruz, Feliciano,
and Gancayco, JJ.,
concur.

^[2] Exhibit “A”, p. 6, Original
Record.

^[3] pp. 9 & 10, Rollo.

^[4] Criminal Law, Luis B. Reyes, 1981
Edition, p. 299.