Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > October 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25004 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO TALABOC, JR.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25004. October 31, 1969.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEOFILO TALABOC, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Isidro C. Borromeo and Solicitor Eulogio Raquel-Santos for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Amadeo D. Seno, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE; SELF-DEFENSE; BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS UPON THE ACCUSED. — Long familiar is the rule that in self-defense the burden of proof rests upon the accused. His duty is to establish self-defense by evidence clear and convincing. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence It matters not that the People’s evidence is weak.

2. ID.; MURDER; QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY; WHERE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT TREACHERY ATTENDED THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, THE CRIME IS REDUCED TO SIMPLE HOMICIDE; INSTANT CASE — The People’s evidence show that assailant and victim were face to face. Prior to this attack, Labarda, the victim, first identified himself, asked appellant to desist from harming Bugtai and to turn over his weapon with the assurance that it would be returned as soon as the appellant was ready to go home. The bladed weapon was still tucked at the waist of the accused. He had to draw that weapon before he could stab the deceased. In the posture thus presented, we find ourselves unable to say that treachery attended the commission of the offense. With the result that the crime is reduced to simple homicide.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY; VERSION OF THE ACCUSED DESERVES NO CREDENCE IN INSTANT CASE. — Improbable is the version of the accused that he never threatened Francisco Bugtai, who was his friend and that while 15 persons were ganging up on him as he was lying on the ground face downwards he was able to perform the feat of wresting the weapon from one of his 15 assailants, some of whom were armed with wooden clubs.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


The charge is murder. The qualifying circumstance averred is treachery. The Court of First Instance of Leyte found defendant Teofilo Talaboc, Jr. guilty as charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of the victim Vivencio Labarda in the sum of P6,000.00 with the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs. 1 Defendant appealed.

It was about 10:00 o’clock in the night of July 17, 1962, when appellant Teofilo Talaboc, Jr., and four other companions, namely: Francisco Quiroz, Gregorio Porcadilla, Lito Mercadal and Ruperto Sidney, were at the store of the sisters Virginia and Rosenda Batulan in barrio Linao, Ormoc City. They were drinking. Francisco Bugtai, a laborer of Ormoc Sugar Central, who at times worked under the supervision of appellant Teofilo Talaboc, Jr., a capataz, passed by. Appellant called Bugtai. The latter approached appellant who asked him where he was going followed by an invitation to take beer. Bugtai refused. Instead, he told appellant, "I have here twenty centavos, you please give me another twenty centavos so that we can buy Coca-cola." Appellant who was already a little bit tipsy took this for an insult and threatened to harm Bugtai. Appellant accompanied this threat by placing his hand at his waist where a bladed six-inch long weapon akin to a Japanese saber was tucked.

Vivencio Labarda, sergeant of the rural police, was then on patrol in barrio Linao. With him were Potito Sotto, Nicolas Medroso and Roberto Abaño, all also of the rural police. Upon hearing the threat aired by appellant against Bugtai, Labarda approached the two. He tried to persuade appellant into foregoing with his intention to assault Bugtai. He identified himself as a rural policeman, showed his badge to appellant, and asked appellant to turn over his weapon with a promise to return the same as soon as appellant was ready to go home. Appellant stabbed Labarda, the thrust finding its mark on the upper left clavicle. Bugtai took to his heels. Appellant with the same weapon in his hand then went after and tried to stab Roberto Abaño and Nicolas Medroso. In retaliation Abaño gave appellant a fist blow, hitting him on the left face. Potito Sotto saw Labarda run towards the street. The latter was then calling to him: "Potito, I am wounded." Potito went to his aid and later brought Labarda to the hospital with the help of Medroso and Abaño. Labarda, however, was already dead on arrival.

Dr. Eutiquiano Fiel performed the autopsy. He found a punctured wound on the left supraclavicular region, with an entrance of about 1 cm., directed internally downwards, penetrating the thoracic cavity injuring the large vessels (aorta) on the anterior portion of the heart. The doctor opined that Labarda died of shock and internal hemorrhage consequent to the wound.

1. Appellant pleads self-defense. His evidence is this: While in the store heretofore mentioned, an unknown person touched his shoulder. He turned around, received a fistic blow on his mouth. He fell to the ground. The assailant ran towards the street. Lito Mercadal, one of appellant’s companions, suggested that they go home. Appellant was about to leave on his bicycle when several persons approached him, grabbed the bicycle from him. One of them gave him a fistic blow on the right cheek. He tried to run away. Instead, he received several blows on the back. He staggered to the ground face downwards. He turned around, felt that there was something hitting his buttocks and back. About 15 persons were ganging up on him. One of them was on top of him, and with the use of a sharp bladed weapon stabbed him. He parried the blow with his two hands. He was able to twist the hand of the assailant and succeeded in getting hold of the weapon. The assailant tried to recover the weapon, whereupon he gave a thrust on the left shoulder near the base of the neck. The assailant’s companions scampered away. He afterwards learned that his assailant was Vivencio Labarda.

The foregoing version deserves no credence. In an effort to dramatize his plight, defendant overshot his mark. If, as he claims, he never threatened Francisco Bugtai who was his friend, there is no reason why Bugtai should testify against him. As improbable is his version that while 15 persons were ganging up on him as he was lying on the ground face downwards still he was able to perform the feat of wresting the weapon from one of his 15 assailants, some of whom were armed with wooden clubs. He did not even dare present as evidence the sharp-pointed and bladed weapon with which he killed his supposed assailant, Vivencio Labarda.

Long familiar is the rule that in self-defense the burden of proof rests upon the accused. His duty it is to establish self-defense by evidence clear and convincing. 2 He must rely on the strength of his own evidence. It matters not that the People’s evidence is weak. For, as well expressed by this Court in the leading case of People v. Ansoyon, 75 Phil. 772, 777, such evidence "could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing." Since the evidence in exculpation is notches below the level of that which is clear and convincing, conviction is in order.

2. But for what crime? There is the People’s evidence itself. Assailant and victim were face to face. Prior to this attack Labarda first identified himself, asked appellant to desist from harming Bugtai and to turn over his weapon with the assurance that it would be returned as soon as the appellant was ready to go home. The bladed weapon was still tucked at the waist of the accused. He had to draw that weapon before he could stab the deceased. In the posture thus presented, we find ourselves unable to say that treachery attended the commission of the offense. 3 With the result that the crime is reduced to simple homicide.

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the judgment under review is hereby modified. We find defendant-appellant Teofilo Talaboc, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide and sentence him to imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from 8 years and one day of prisión mayor, to 14 years, 8 months and one day of reclusión temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Vivencio Labarda in the sum of P12,000, without subsidiary imprisonment but with the accessories of the law and to pay the costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

Endnotes:



1. Criminal Case 1362-O, entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Teofilo Talaboc, Jr., Accused."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. See: U.S. v. Capisonda, 1 Phil. 575, 578; People v. Salahuddin, 51 Phil. 840, 842; People v. Gutierrez, 53 Phil. 609, 610; People v. Embalido, 58 Phil. 152, 154; People v. Ramos, 59 Phil. 7, 10; People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533, 536; People v. Borbano, 76 Phil. 702, 708; People v. Ramos, 77 Phil. 4, 6; People v. Bauden, 77 Phil. 105, 108; People v. Paras, 80 Phil. 149, 152; People v. Tandag, 83 Phil. 683, 685; People v. Vista, 86 Phil. 140, 144; People v. Clemente (1967), 21 SCRA 261, 268.

3. U.S. v. Highfill, 4 Phil. 384, 387; People v. Ilano, 54 Phil. 96, 99-100; People v. Luna, 76 Phil. 101, 104, citing U.S. v. Idica, 3 Phil. 321 and People v. Mercado, 51 Phil. 107; People, v. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 479; People v. Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738, 742. See also: People v. Concha, 49 Phil. 212, 214.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27755 October 4, 1969 - ARSENIO REYES v. LEONARDO MANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27335 October 28, 1969 - BALTAZAR SALUDARES, ET AL. v. JOSE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27412 October 28, 1969 - BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18519 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACABATO ALI

  • G.R. No. L-20274 October 30, 1969 - ELOY MIGUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21740 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO GALLORA

  • G.R. No. L-22245 October 30, 1969 - JUAN PARREÑO v. IRENEO GANANCIAL

  • G.R. No. L-22366 October 30, 1969 - RODOLFO GUERRERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22662 October 30, 1969 - PEDRO C. TIANGCO, ET AL. v. HERCULES IRON MINES DEV., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23694 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES BRITOS AGLIBUT

  • G.R. No. L-25134 October 30, 1969 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26270 October 30, 1969 - BONIFACIA MATEO, ET AL. v. GERVASIO LAGUA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 887 October 31, 1969 - AVELINA C. ARAGON v. ATTY. TOMAS B. MATOL

  • G.R. No. L-19617 October 31, 1969 - U.P. BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL v. AUDITOR GENERA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22197 October 31, 1969 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. HON. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22633 October 31, 1969 - JULIAN B. DACANA v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23069 October 31, 1969 - TEOFILA RAMOS, ET AL v. FELICISIMO RAYMUNDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23256 October 31, 1969 - JOSE MA. GONZALES v. VICTORY LABOR UNION (VICLU), ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23464 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO DORADO Y ARABACA

  • G.R. No. L-23359 October 31, 1969 - PHIL. IRON MINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23580 October 31, 1969 - BACOLOD-MURCIA PLANTERS’ ASS., INC., ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23733 October 31, 1969 - HERMINIO L. NOCUM v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23833 October 31, 1969 - JOSE GARRIDO v. CAYETANO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24735 October 31, 1969 - CONSOLACION P. MANGILA v. HON. JUDGE JOSE T. LANTIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25004 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO TALABOC, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-25177 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS LAYSON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25033 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO PAMITTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25413 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONOFRE SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25481 October 31, 1969 - GERONIMO CAGUIAT, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25659 October 31, 1969 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. JOSEFA AGUIRRE DE GARCIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26002 October 31, 1969 - ABELARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL v. FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26059 October 31, 1969 - DOMINADOR S. JAMILANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27861 October 31, 1969 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28129 October 31, 1969 - ELIAS VALCORZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27537-44 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR GARCIA SY

  • G.R. No. L-27401 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO BALONDO

  • G.R. No. L-27419 October 31, 1969 - GUILLERMO F. GARCIA, ET AL v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27352 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN ABLAZA

  • G.R. No. L-27033 October 31, 1969 - POLYTRADE CORPORATION v. VICTORIANO BLANCO

  • G.R. No. L-26531 October 31, 1969 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26718 October 31, 1969 - ELITE SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. HON. W. L. CORNEJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26775 October 31, 1969 - MAMERTO IRIOLA v. SILVERIO FELICES

  • G.R. No. L-26146 October 31, 1969 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26173 October 31, 1969 - OPERATORS, INCORPORATED v. RICARDO CACATIAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26240 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN GONDAYAO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26244 October 31, 1969 - IN RE: CHAN HO LAY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26382 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO L. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. L-26406 October 31, 1969 - AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & EQUIP. CO., INC. v. JOSE B. LINGAD, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24883 October 31, 1969 - MACHUCA TILE CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26098 October 31, 1969 - JOSE LAUREL, ET AL v. HON. ONOFRE SISON ABALOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28591 October 31, 1969 - MARIANO RAMIREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29210 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE BRAÑA

  • G.R. No. L-30694 October 31, 1969 - STERLING INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL v. HON. V. M. RUIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-30774 October 31, 1969 - TEODORA B. DE LA CRUZ v. TEODULO G. GABOR, ET AL