ManilaTHIRD
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 121178
January 22, 1997
-versus-
ROMEO
CAHINDO,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
MELO, J.:
For the killing
of one Militon Lagilles, Romeo
Cahindo was charged with Murder, thusly:
That on or about the 23rd day of
September
1989,
in the City of Tacloban, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to
kill,
with treachery and evident premeditation, did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously attack and wound Militon Lagilles, with the
use of a deadly weapon known as "sarad" which the accused had
provided
himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon him hack wounds on his
head and deltoid area near shoulder joint of his body which caused his
death.
Contrary to law. [p. 5, Rollo].
After trial,
Cahindo was found guilty as charged
in a Decision dated September 20, 1993, and he was accordingly meted
out
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, aside from being ordered to
indemnify
the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. [p. 18, Rollo].
Dissatisfied,
accused-appellant has interposed
the instant appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in giving more
weight to the prosecution's evidence instead of believing his
protestations
of self-defense.cralaw:red
The facts of the
case, as found by the trial court
and as borne out by the evidence, are as follows:
The evidence for
the prosecution consists of the
testimonies of Dr. Rogelio Daya, Lucila Lagilles, Cristilyn Lagilles
and
Anatolio Bohol. The evidence for the people seeks to establish that at
about 7 o'clock in the evening of September 23, 1989 at Baybay
District,
San Jose, Tacloban City, while the deceased victim Militon Lagilles was
urinating at the yard of his house, the accused Romeo Cahindo,
approached
the victim from behind and with a scythe locally known as "sarad"
held in his [accused] right hand, delivered hacking blows upon said
victim
hitting the latter at his right shoulder and on top of the head, after
which, the deceased victim fell down on the ground and died.cralaw:red
The post
mortem examination [Exhibit
"B"] issued by Dr. Rogelio Daya, Assistant City Health Officer of
Tacloban
City shows that the deceased Militon Lagilles sustained the following
injuries
which resulted in his death, to wit:
(1) Hacking wound, [R] deltoid area,
upper
portion
anterior aspect, near shoulder joint, 22 cms. long, 5.5 cms. deep, 5
cms.
wide;
(2) Hacking wound, scalp, 16 cms.
long, 3
cms.
wide, skull deep, extending from frontal area to occipital area.
Cause of Death :
Hemorrhage due to hacking wounds.
Prosecution
witness Cristilyn Lagilles and Anatolio
Bohol revealed that immediately prior to the hacking incident, the
accused
challenged the deceased to a fight, which the victim obviously did not
mind. Nonetheless, the accused persisted in his criminal designs and
hacked
the victim to death. Said prosecution witnesses further testified that
before the accused hacked the victim, the latter was heard uttering the
statement "I will not fight you, don't do it, don't do it."
Said prosecution witnesses could not have erred as they were barely two
arms-length from the scene of the crime. After inflicting the fatal
wounds
on the victim, the accused immediately ran away from the scene of the
crime.
This significant piece of evidence was, surprisingly, not denied by the
defense, hence admitted.
According to said
witnesses, at the time accused
challenged the deceased victim to a fight, the former was drunk. While
the hacking incident was taking place, prosecution witnesses Cristilyn
Lagilles and Anatolio Bohol were immobilized with shock, although
Lagilles
was able to shout for help. Only after the victim had fallen down to
the
ground and his assailant fled that witness Anatolio Bohol regained his
composure and rushed and ran towards Costa Brava to fetch the husband
of
Cristilyn Lagilles, Danilo Lagilles who, upon arrival, immediately
rushed
the victim to the hospital, but the victim was dead on arrival at the
hospital.
[pp. 13-14, Rollo].cralaw:red
Accused-appellant
argues that he should have been
exculpated on the ground of self-defense. Having invoked such
justifying
circumstance, accused-appellant is deemed to have necessarily admitted
having killed the victim (People vs. Besana, Jr., 64 SCRA 84 [1975]).
The
burden of proof is thereupon shifted to him to establish and to prove
the
elements of self-defense (People vs. Nuestro, 240 SCRA 221 [1995]) by
clear
and convincing evidence (People vs. Boniao, 217 SCRA 653 [1993]). For
exculpation,
he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness
of the prosecution's (People vs. Morin, 241 SCRA 709 [1995]).cralaw:red
The elements of
self-defense are: [a] unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; [b] reasonable necessity of the
means
employed to prevent or repel it; and [c] lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself (People vs. Camahalan, 241
SCRA 558 [1995]). Accused-appellant maintains that he acted in
self-defense
when he inflicted the fatal wounds with his scythe upon the victim
because
the victim stabbed him twice when he [accused-appellant] refused to
sell
tuba to the victim. According to accused-appellant, at
around 7
o'clock on the evening of December 23, 1989, the victim went to the
house
of accused-appellant to buy tuba but accused-appellant refused
because
the victim was already drunk, and because of this refusal, the deceased
stabbed accused-appellant three times after which the latter retaliated
by hacking the deceased on the head with his scythe which he pulled
from
his waist.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant's
version is unconvincing, flawed
as it is by serious inconsistencies. He testified that "there was a
person
who called wanting to buy tuba." It would seem that when the
deceased
"called", he must have been at a certain distance from
accused-appellant,
such that the latter could not have been certain whether the buyer was
drunk or not. In any event, human experience tells Us that one who
sells
alcoholic drinks does not usually refuse a buyer unless the latter is
obviously
too intoxicated and is already creating trouble. There is not even a
suggestion
that the buyer was acting unnaturally, or boisterously, or bellicosely
at the time he "called" accused-appellant to buy tuba. Further,
it is too much of a coincidence that the victim would arm himself with
a bladed weapon while on his way to buy tuba. And it goes
against
human nature to suggest that the accused should be carrying a scythe at
his waist even after he had reached his house and was resting. Then,
too,
not the slightest injury was sustained by accused-appellant from the
alleged
attack by the victim.cralaw:red
Moreover,
accused-appellant's version is adulterated
with evident falsehoods. He declared that he inflicted the fatal wounds
on the deceased while he was down on the ground grappling with the
deceased.
This declaration goes counter to his earlier statement that he hacked
the
deceased while the latter was at the door of the former's house.
Such manifest falsehood and discrepancy in accused-appellant's
testimony
seriously impair its probative value and cast serious doubts on his
credibility.
(People vs. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759 [1994]).cralaw:red
The factual
findings and conclusions of the trial
court are entitled to great weight and respect and should not be
disturbed
on appeal (People vs. Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 [1995]), unless the trial
court had overlooked, disregarded, misunderstood, or misapplied some
fact
or circumstance of weight and significance which, if considered, would
have altered the result of the case. (People vs. Gapasan, 243 SCRA 53
[1995]).cralaw:red
We have scoured
the record in search of such fact
or circumstance and have found none. Hence, the findings of the trial
court
must stand.cralaw:red
Another
circumstance which glaringly points to
the guilt of accused-appellant is his flight from the scene of the
killing.
Flight of an accused from the scene of the crime removes any remaining
shred of doubt on his guilt. (People vs. Deunida, 231 SCRA 520 [1994]).cralaw:red
As
afore-mentioned, accused-appellant invokes
self-defense, but he has utterly failed to substantiate the same. The
paramount
element of self-defense is unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim,
the absence of which negates self-defense. (People vs. Ponayo, 235 SCRA
226 [1994]). As shown above, accused-appellant has grossly failed to
establish
that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. No injury
on accused-appellant was shown, or else any alleged wound must have
been
inflicted long before he hacked the victim, and must have been the very
motive why he killed the victim. No witness has come forth to
corroborate
any supposed unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.cralaw:red
On the other
hand, prosecution witnesses Anatolio
Bohol and Cristilyn Lagilles positively and categorically testified
that
the victim was urinating at the yard of his house when
accused-appellant
appeared from behind and hacked the victim with a scythe on the right
shoulder
and on the head causing his death. The location and extent of the
wounds
sustained by the victim clearly demonstrate the intent and
determination
of accused-appellant to kill the victim, and in effect, corroborate the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses that accused-appellant, suddenly
and without warning, treacherously attacked the victim from behind
while
the latter was totally oblivious of his impending doom.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
appealed decision is hereby affirmed
with costs against accused-appellant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Francisco and
Panganiban, JJ., concur. |