THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PACALSO MAT-AN Y KUTBING/KATUBING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision^[1] dated
March 7, 1989 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 5 in Criminal
Case No. 4230 wherein accused-appellant Pacalso Mat-an y Kutbing or Katubing
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE in an
Information filed on January 19, 1987 which reads:

“The undersigned accuses PACALSO MAT-AN y KUTBING or KATUBING
of the crime of PARRICIDE, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 24th day of December, 1986, in the City
of Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strike his mother, Martha
Mat-an, with a branch of pine tree, hitting the latter on the head, thereby
inflicting upon the victim neurogenic shock secondary to contrecoup injuries of
the brain, subdural hemorrhage, and basal skull fracture all due to application
of physical violence of the head, which injuries directly caused the death of
said Martha K. Mat-an.”^[2]

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded “NOT
GUILTY” to the offense charged and after due trial, the court a quo rendered a judgment against him, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused PACALSO MAT-AN
y “KATUBING” or “KUTBING” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of parricide as charged, and hereby sentences him to suffer reclusion
perpetua; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Martha Katubing y Mat-an
in the amounts of: P30,000.00 for the
latter’s death and P30,869.75 as consequential damages, representing the burial
expenses; and to pay the costs.

“In the service of his
sentence, the accused shall be credited with his preventive imprisonment
under the terms and conditions prescribed in Article 29 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.”^[3]

It appears on record that at around 6 p.m. of December 24, 1986,
David Mat-an, youngest brother of the accused-appellant, was walking towards a
nearby store with his four (4) friends when he met accused-appellant, Pacalso
Mat-an.

Accused-appellant told David that he was going to talk to their
sister, Brenda, and upon noticing that the former was holding a long piece of
wood, drunk and only in his briefs, the latter decided to follow
accused-appellant who is known to make trouble whenever he is drunk and had, in
fact, killed their brother, Witty, in 1968.

When accused-appellant reached the compound of the house of his
sister, the former confronted the latter about the spilled water at his
residence and told her to pay for one-half (1/2) of his water bill to which his
sister readily agreed. Inspite of this,
accused-appellant hit his sister’s right jaw and left arm with the pine tree
branch he was holding causing the latter to fall down on the ground.

David, who followed accused-appellant and witnessed the incident
tried to pacify the latter and told him to go home but accused-appellant,
instead, hit his mother on the head with another piece of wood after arguing
with her about an indebtedness involving money.

To prevent the accused-appellant from inflicting further harm on
their mother, David got an axe and hit the chest of the accused-appellant with
it and the latter fled.

Thereafter, David called his friends to help him bring his mother
to Baguio Medical Center where the latter was pronounced dead on arrival.

On the following day or on December 25, 1986, accused-appellant
was arrested and a pine tree branch (Exhibit “A”) used by the
accused-appellant in hitting his mother was recovered from the scene of the crime.

An autopsy conducted on the body of the victim by Dr. Emmanuel N.
Fernandez, the medico-legal officer of the
Baguio Health Department on the evening of December 25, 1986 reveal the
following per his report, to wit:

“AUTOPSY
FINDINGS:

1.   Body of a female; medium built; height of
4’7″ and weight of about 90 lbs.

2. Rigor mortis beginning to disappear;
postmortem lividity fully developed on the neck, back and buttocks; cornea
cloudy; pupils dilated;pinkish conjunctivae.

3.  
Presence of the following external injuries:

a)    Contusion-hematoma on the left malar region of the face.

b)    Contusion-hematoma
on the right forearm, lateral aspect.

c)    Contusion
on the medial aspect of the left knee.

4.  INTERNAL FINDINGS:

a)    Presence of a subdural hemorrhage located over the left cocipital
lobe and the left cerebellar hemisphere.

b)    Presence
of a basal skull fracture on the left middle cranial vault.

c)    The rest of the internal organs are within
normal limits.

CAUSE OF
DEATH

Neurogenic shock secondary
to contrecoup injuries of the brain, subdural hemorrhage and basal skull
fracture due to application of physical violence on the head.”^[4]

On the other hand, accused-appellant testified that at around 6
p.m. of December 24, 1986, he went to the house of his sister to advice the
latter not to connect her water hose to his water hose as the connection was
causing water to spill since his water hose does not have a gate valve.

After informing his sister of said situation, his sister got mad
and started cursing him causing accused-appellant to get mad that he slapped
his sister causing the latter to fall down on the ground unconscious. Striken by a guilt complex,
accused-appellant was about to help his sister when his brother David suddenly
lunged at him and hit his left clavicle with an axe causing him to fall on the
ground. As he was struggling to get up
from the ground, he saw David about to hit him again with the axe and, in order
to save himself from further injury, he picked up a piece of wood and swang the
same towards David but instead hit his mother Martha who was about to embrace
David to prevent the latter from hitting accused-appellant. Thereafter, accused-appellant ran away and
proceeded to the Dr. Efrain Montemayor Medical Center for the treatment of his
wound.

Accused-appellant further denied that he was drunk when he went
to his sister’s house, although he admitted to have previously drunk a bottle
of beer before proceeding to her house.

The appeal is devoid of merit.

It is well settled that appellate courts will generally not
disturb the conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court considering
that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial, unless the court has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.^[5]

The conflicting testimonies of the accused-appellant and the
prosecution witnesses with regards to the chain of events that occurred on that
fateful day were properly assessed by the trial court in its decision which
states that:

“The Court finds more credible the version of the prosecution
that Pacalso deliberately struck his mother Martha with a piece of wood after
picking up a quarrel with her over an indebtedness which he was insisting to be
still subsisting but which Martha claimed to have already been paid. From all appearances, when Pacalso went to
confront Brenda, with whom Martha was living, about Brenda’s use of his water
supply, he was ready for trouble. He
went there only in his briefs and was holding a piece of wood. He even imbibed of liquor to embolden
himself. In fact, he admitted to
slapping Brenda although the latter asserted that he hit her with a piece of
wood. His violent temper even towards
his next of kin is amply shown by his having already killed his own brother,
Witty, an attribution which he did not bother to deny.

“x x x.

“Otherwise stated, it is more probable that David hit Pacalso
with the axe only after the latter had struck Martha with a piece of wood in
order to prevent Pacalso from inflicting further harm on Martha. This explains why Pacalso has not seen it
right to complain against David up to the present time.”^[6]

Furthermore, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were
rendered in a direct, simple and consistent manner and there is no showing of
any improper motive on their part to testify falsely against the
accused-appellant. Besides, the injury
sustained by the accused-appellant makes his claim of self-defense highly
improbable since the wound inflicted upon him was such as to immobilize the
latter’s usage of his arms immediately after he was hit by his brother
David. Thus, defense witness Dr. Samuel
Lachica, resident physician of Dr. Efrain Montemayor Medical Center who treated
accused?appellant’s wound, testified that:

Q.   Now,
what would happen to the person if hit by an axe?

A.    Due
to this fracture and this wound, the first problem of the patient would be of
course, the limitation of range of motion over the left shoulder due to pain
and there will be massive bleeding. Not
only will it cause massive bleeding but it would also affect the neuro-vascular
structures in which the patient cannot move the extremities, not even a
little range of motion.^[7]
(Underscoring Supplied)

There is no doubt that accused-appellant killed his mother when
he hit the latter with a piece of wood. His contention that her death was accidental and without any criminal
intent as he was only defending himself from the unlawful attack of his brother
is unavailing since it was accused-appellant himself who started the unlawful
agrression when he slapped his sister which led to the untimely death of their
mother.

For the exempting circumstance of accident to be properly
appreciated in accused-appellant’s favor, the following requisites must
concur: (1) that the accused person was
performing a lawful act with due care; (2)
that the injury is caused by mere accident; and (3) that there was no
fault or intent of causing the injury (Paragraph 4, Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code). In the case at bar,
accused-appellant is liable for his unlawful act even if he never intended to
hit his mother since his act of hitting his mother was not done in the performance of a lawful act as required by the
aforementioned Article.

WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from,
the same is hereby AFFIRMED but with MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity to
be awarded to the heirs of the victim be increased to P50,000.00 in accordance
with our present jurisprudence.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 12.

^[3]
Id., at pp. 18-19.

^[4]
Original Records, p. 225.

^[5]
People vs. Natan, 193 SCRA 355.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 17-18.

^[7]
T.S.N., January 24, 1989, p. 18.