SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 98196 January 31, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELEUTERIO ADONIS alias "TANDANG," accused-appellant.chanrobles virtual law library

FELICIANO, J.:

Eleuterio Adonis appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding him guilty of murder.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

He was charged with murder in an information which reads as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of June 1985 in the municipality of Dulag, Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the honorable court, the abovenamed accused, with deliberate intent to kill, with treacherous and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted, stabbed, and hacked, Benedicto Basas with a bladed weapon known as "pisao" which the accused had provided himself, thereby hitting and inflicting on the latter a fatal wound that caused the instant death of Benedicto Basas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Contrary to law. ¹chanrobles virtual law library

At arraignment, Adonis pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay P30,000.00 to the heirs of the victim Benedicto Basas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The judgment was based on factual findings outlined by the trial court as follows. At about 7:00 pm on 10 June 1985, after Benedicto Basas had finished his dinner in his home, he went down to their front yard together with his wife and son. Benedicto sat on a bench with his back against the street. His wife and 14-year old son also sat down, one somewhat to the right and the other somewhat to the left of Benedicto, but both facing Benedicto. The accused Eleuterio Adonis, also known as "Tandang," suddenly appeared behind Benedicto Basas and stabbed the latter once with a knife known as "pisao," killing him. Benedicto stood up and then fell down. Thereafter, Eleuterio ran away from the shocked wife and son of his victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

For his part, the accused Eleuterio invoked self-defense ² and controverted the version of the prosecution witnesses. Eleuterio testified that while he and Bienvenido Arguta were passing by the house of Benedicto Basas, the latter suddenly hacked at him with a bolo but that he was not hit. Eleuterio retaliated by stabbing Benedicto with a knife, inflicting a single though mortal wound on the deceased. Eleuterio claimed that Benedicto had stood in front of his house, intoxicated and challenging passersby to a fight moments before his death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In his appeal, Eleuterio assigned the following as supposed errors of the trial court:

1. The trial court erred in choosing the version of the prosecution over the version of the defense on the basis of speculation, conjecture, and suspicion;chanrobles virtual law library

2. the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. ³chanrobles virtual law library

After careful examination of the evidence on record, we find that appellant Eleuterio did not succeed in substantiating the above claimed errors.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The well-entrenched doctrine in this jurisdiction is that when the accused invokes self-defense, he has the burden of proving the elements of that defense by clear and convincing evidence. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's. ⁴ For implicit in self-defense claimed by appellant Adonis is the admission that he had in fact killed Benedicto Basas; hence, even if the evidence for the prosecution were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused had owned the killing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellant failed to discharge his burden. The evidence presented to show unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and thus clearly inadequate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Defense witnesses asserted that the deceased Basas was armed when he was killed, but their testimonies were at best inconsistent with each other. Appellant Eleuterio Adonis ⁵ and Uldarico Gobangco ⁶ testified that Basas was armed with a bolo when he was challenging passers by to a fight moments before his death. On cross-examination, however, Gobangco backed off from this claim:

Atty. Martines (cross-examination):chanrobles virtual law library

Q. On that particular incident, was he drunk?chanrobles virtual law library

Uldarico Gobangco:chanrobles virtual law library

A. He was drunk.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Was he armed with a bolo?chanrobles virtual law library

A. He had none I was not able to see. ⁷

This inconsistency does not merely deal with a minor detail. That Basas was armed on that occasion is crucial in establishing the fundamental requisite of self-defense: that Basas had exercised unlawful aggression against appellant. Adonis himself, of course, claimed that a bolo was used by Benedicto Basas in attacking him; his claim was, effectively, bereft of corroboration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

There are other contradictions in the testimonies submitted for the defense which, while not as critical nonetheless cloud the credibility of the defense witnesses. Appellant Adonis testified that he went to his farm with his cousin Bienvenido Arguta at around 5:00 p.m. on June 10, 1985. ⁸ This conflicted with Arguta's assertion that he met accused at about 7:99 pm of June 10, 1985. ⁹ Appellant also stated that the road by the house of Basas where the crime took place was the only route to appellant's ricefield. ¹⁰ This is contrary to Arguta's statement that there were actually other routes to Eleuterio's ricefield. ¹¹ Defense witness Gobangco testified that deceased Basas had announced "I will kill you!" when he attacked appellant. ¹² But Arguta testified that he (alleged) attack of Basas on appellant was not preceded by any exchange of words. ¹³

The defense also presented evidence to prove the bad moral character and quarrelsome disposition of the deceased. Barangay Captain Uldarico Gobangco testified that "whenever the victim got drunk, he would challenge anybody to a fight and that he was also [known] to steal a carabao." ¹⁴ The Barangay Captain also stated that, per the notebook where the customarily recorded all incidents occurring in their barangay, a complaint for theft had been lodged against the deceased Basas. The trial court, however, noted that the statements of the Barangay Captain Gobangco that the deceased had habitually challenged other people to a fight whenever he was drunk found no support in his own notebook.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The testimony of the Barangay Captain was given neither credence nor weight by the trial court. While the accused may prove the bad moral character of the victim, the proof must be of his general reputation in the community and not merely of isolated and specific acts. ¹⁵ Thus, the mere allegation that a complaint for theft had been filed against the victim cannot establish his general reputation. Besides, there was no showing that Basas was ever convicted of that charge, assuming it had ever been filed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, as the trial court held, no evidentiary value can be attributed to the Barangay Captain's notebook. That notebook can hardly be considered an official record, for record-keeping is vested in the Barangay Secretary and not in the Barangay Captain. Moreover, an incomplete record, especially one with blank or torn pages allowing the inclusion or deletion of certain matters, lacks reliability; its contents are open to the suspicion that they are reflective not of all actual events, but only of those which the recorder, for reasons of his own, wanted to record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Even if it had been proved by competent evidence that the deceased was of a quarrelsome disposition, such evidence would only have established a probability that he had indeed started an unlawful assault on Eleuterio. ¹⁶ This probability cannot overcome the positive statement of the prosecution witnesses during trial that the accused-appellant had assaulted Basas without any provocation. ¹⁷

It is well to recall that whether or not appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. ¹⁸ The trial court judge, having seen and heard the witnesses during the trial, is necessarily in a better position than an appellate court to evaluate and weigh their testimonies. In the absence of any showing that the trial court failed to appreciate facts and circumstances that would have altered its conclusion, its factual findings must be accorded respect. We find no adequate reason to disturb the conclusion of the trial court that the appellant had not acted in legitimate self-defense.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Upon the other-hand, the evidence presented by the prosecution did show beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant. Rosalina Basas, wife of deceased Benedicto, and their son Jovencio, positively identified accused-appellant Eleuterio Adonis as the person who had, without provocation, stabbed Basas to death. Jovencio Basas testified thus:

Atty. Martinez: (Direct Examination)chanrobles virtual law library

Q. What were you doing on that evening in question?chanrobles virtual law library

Jovencio Basas:chanrobles virtual law library

A. After we ate our supper, my mother, my father and I went down.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. To what place, you said "down"?chanrobles virtual law library

A. To our porch, because we had just finished eating and we were there to breathe fresh air.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. While you, your father and your mother were in the front yard on that evening in question, was there anything unusual that happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, my father (Benedicto Basas) was stabbed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Who stabbed your father?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Eleuterio Adonis, alias Tandang.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you know what kind of weapon was used in the stabbing of your father?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir, a pisao.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. How many times was your father stabbed by the accused?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Only once.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. And after the accused stabbed your father once hitting him on the back, what did he do?chanrobles virtual law library

A. He stood up, after standing, he fell to the ground.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. You are referring to your father?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. How about the accused, what did he do?chanrobles virtual law library

A. He ran away.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Was there any light in your front yard when this incident happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, there was a home-made lamp which was placed on a stand. ¹⁹

Jovencio Basas stuck to his testimony under cross-examination:

Atty. Canete: (Cross Examination)chanrobles virtual law library

Q. When you saw the accused for the first time, you saw that he was already armed with a small bolo without a scabbard, correct?chanrobles virtual law library

Jovencio Basas:chanrobles virtual law library

A. He immediately drew a pisao from his side and used it in stabbing my father?chanrobles virtual law library

Q. When the accused drew that small bolo, was that the first time you saw the accused while he was about two meters away from your father?chanrobles virtual law library

A. When I saw him, he immediately drew his pisao from his side and stabbed my father immediately.

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Did you not shout to your father to give him a warning when you saw the accused draw his bolo?chanrobles virtual law library

A. I could not shout because when he appeared he immediately stabbed my father, I could not shout anymore. ²⁰

Rosalinda Basas, reiterating the gist of Jovencio's testimony, was just as forthright. She stated:

Atty. Martinez: (Direct Examination)chanrobles virtual law library

Q. After you had eaten your supper, where did you go?chanrobles virtual law library

Rosalinda Basas:chanrobles virtual law library

A. We went down the house to the front yard to breathe fresh air.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. While you, your husband and your son were in the front yard of your house which is situated in Brgy. Baluntuhan, Dulag, Leyte, was there any unusual incident that happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. What happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A. My husband was stabbed by Eleuterio Adonis.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. What weapon was used by Eleuterio Adonis in stabbing your husband?chanrobles virtual law library

A. A "pisao".

xxx xxx xxx

Q. Was your husband hit when he was stabbed by the accused with that "pisao"?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Yes, he was hit on his back.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Do you remember how many times was your husband stabbed by the accused?chanrobles virtual law library

A. Only once.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. After your husband was stabbed once and was hit at the back by the accused, what did the accused do?chanrobles virtual law library

A. He ran away.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q. Was there any light in your front yard when the incident happened?chanrobles virtual law library

A. There was a home-made lamp in our porch. ²¹

We agree with the trial court that the element of treachery was adequately proved. The attack delivered by appellant Eleuterio was sudden, without warning of any kind. One thrust of the "pisao" on the unprotected back of Benedicto Basas, then unarmed and peacefully digesting his evening meal, was all that was necessary. Eleuterio promptly ran away, before the wife and son of the victim could recover from the shock of seeing Benedicto suddenly stand up and then crumple to the ground. The speed and dispatch with which the deed was done argues clearly that the mode of attack had been devised and sought rather than improvised at the spur of the moment.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

We conclude that the trial court erred only in awarding an indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,00.00). The amount awarded should have been Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). ²²

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding appellant Eleuterio Adonis guilty of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED, with the sole modification that he shall pay the heirs of Benedicto Basas an indemnity of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00)chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Romero, Melo, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.

1 Rollo, p. 16.chanrobles virtual law library

2 Appellant's Brief, p. 3; Rollo, p. 87.chanrobles virtual law library

3 Appellant's Brief, p. 3; Rollo, p. 87.chanrobles virtual law library

4 People vs. Tidong, 225 SCRA 324 (1993); People vs. Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 (1992); People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558 (1992).chanrobles virtual law library

5 TSN, 20 November 1987, p. 4; Records, p. 55.chanrobles virtual law library

6 TSN, 11 March 1988, p. 4; Records, p. 70.chanrobles virtual law library

7 TSN, 1 June 1988, p. 11; Records, p. 87.chanrobles virtual law library

8 TSN, 20 November 1987, p. 3; Records, p. 54.chanrobles virtual law library

9 TSN, 31 August 1988, p. 2; Records, p. 99.chanrobles virtual law library

10 TSN, 20 November 1987, p. 6; Records, p. 57.chanrobles virtual law library

11 TSN 31 August 1988, p. 7; Records, p. 104.chanrobles virtual law library

12 TSN, 11 March 1988, p. 4; Records, p. 70.chanrobles virtual law library

13 TSN, 31 August 1988, p. 9; Records, p. 106.chanrobles virtual law library

14 TSN, 11 March 1988, p. 6; Records, p. 72.chanrobles virtual law library

15 Section 41, Rule 130, Rules of Court; People vs. Babiera, 52 Phil. 97 (1928).chanrobles virtual law library

16 Section 51 (3), Rule 130, Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library

17 People vs. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700 (1990); People vs. Pinto, 204 SCRA 9 (1991); People vs. Babiera, supra.chanrobles virtual law library

18 People vs. Binondo, 214 SCRA 764 (1992); People vs. Sazon, supra.chanrobles virtual law library

19 TSN, 20 February 1986, pp. 5-6; Records, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library

20 TSN, 20 February 1986, pp. 11-12; Records, pp. 12-13.chanrobles virtual law library

21 TSN, 21 August 1986, pp. 4-7; Records, pp. 25-28.chanrobles virtual law library

22 People vs. Sison, 189 SCRA (1990); People vs. Sazon, supra.