PEOPLE VS.

PARANA
64 PHIL 331 (1937)

NATURE: The accused Primo Parana appeals from the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Occidental Negros sentencing him, for the crime of murder committed on
the person of Manuel Montinola, to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to infirmity the
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1, 000.00 with costs.

FACTS: On the morning of May 19, 1936, in the municipality of Silay, Occidental
Negros, the deceased, who was taking part in a game of monte in the house of Jose
Lapuos, was informed by the chauffeur Valentin Poblacion that his brother Glicerio
Montinola’s car which he had ordered for his trip to the municipality of Cadiz, was ready
to start. Five minutes later the deceased came downstairs and upon reaching the street,
he turned towards the car which was waiting for him.
At that moment the chauffeur Poblacion, who saw the appellant behind the
deceased in the attitude of stabbing him with a dagger shouted to warn him of the
danger, and the deceased’s looking behind, really saw the appellant about to stab him.
The deceased, defending himself retreated until he fell on his back into a ditch two
meters wide and 1.7 meters deep. Without lessening the aggression on the appellant
mounted astride of the deceased and continued to stab him with the dagger.
After the appellant and the deceased had been separated, the former still asked
Montelibano for the weapon taken from him but at that moment a policeman arrived and
the appellant was placed under arrest. When the deceased was later removed from the
ditch into which he had fallen, he was found wounded and was taken to the provincial
hospital where he was treated by Dr. Ochoa, expiring six days later, as a result of
general peritonitis produces by one of his wounds.
The preceding nights, at about 11o’closk, monte had also been played in the
house of Glicerio Montinola, brother of the deceased. The deceased took part in said
game where the appellant was designated to attend to the players. One Lamay, who
was also taking part in the game, gave appellant the sum of P2 to buy beer. For failure
of the appellant to immediately comply with this request, a discussion ensued between
him and Lamay and, as both raised their voices, they were admonished by the
deceased. As the appellant disregarded said admonition, the deceased slapped him
and ordered him to leave the house. The appellant left and went to Lapuos’ house
where he lived, where the deceased took part in another game on the following day,
and where said deceased came from when he was attacked.
At about 7 o’clock in the morning of the crime, the appellant purchased from the
store of the Japanese Matzu Akisama, a hunting knife (Exhibit F) which is the same
knife used by him in attacking the deceased.
On the same morning, at about seven thirty, the appellant went to the house of
Crispin Espacio for who he used to work to ask to wreak vengeance on somebody.
Espacio advised him against it as he might again go to Bilibid prison, inasmuch as he
had already served a term for the crime homicide.
The appellant’s testimony is the only evidence in his defense. According to him,
on the morning of the crime he saw the deceased taking part in the game in Lapuos’
house where he lived. The deceased then uttered threatening words to him which he
disregarded, leaving the house and going to a nearby Chinese store. Sometime, later as
he was on his way for Lapuos’ house, he saw the deceased coming down and
approaching the latter, he spoke to him about the incident of the previous night and of
their meeting a few minutes before asking said deceased to forgive and met wreak
vengeance on him. The deceased, by way of an answer drew the revolver which he
carried on his belt, and the appellant in the efface suck attitude, attempted to wrest the
weapon from him. In the struggle the deceased fell on his back into a ditch and the
appellant mounted astride of him tried to wrest the revolver from him, and at the same
time drew the knife which he carried, attacking the deceased therewith. When the
appellant had succeeded in taking possession of the revolver, the deceased got up and
walked towards the car. At that moment Liboro Montelibano appeared and the appellant
turned over the knife and the revolver to him.
The version of the incident given by the appellant in his testimony, without any
corroboration is contradicted by the testimony of the chauffeur Poblacion and of Liboro
Montelibano. Furthermore, it is improbable taking into consideration the fact that he was
the offended [arty, suffering from the injustice of the offense received, provided himself
with lethal weapon and approached the deceased, which circumstances do not agree
with his attitude according to his testimony.

HELD: The court finds the appellant guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery
and taking into consideration the presence of one aggravating and two mitigating
circumstances in the commission of the crime and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, Act No. 4103, he is sentenced to the penalty of from ten years of prision mayor, as
the minimum, to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, as
the maximum, affirming the appealed sentence in all other respects with the costs.

RATIONALE:
 The court correctly found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was
present in the commission of the crime. The appellant, inspite of having seen the
deceased in the upper story of Lapuos' house, did nor wish to attack the latter there
undoubtedly to avid his being defended by the many players who were with him.
Instead, he waited for the deceased at the nearby store until the latter came down, and
attack him while he had his back turned and could not see the appellant. All these,
which were the beginning of the execution of the appellant’s design to kill ye deceased,
constitute treachery inasmuch as they tended to avoid every risk to himself arising from
the defense which the deceased might make.
 The aggravating circumstance that the appellant is a recidivist must be taken into
consideration. The mitigating circumstance that he had acted in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense committed against him a few hours before, when he was
slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons, must likewise be taken into
consideration. Although this offense, which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so
immediate, that the influence thereof, by reason o it gravity and the circumstances
under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was continued. Lastly, the
other mitigating circumstance that the appellant had voluntarily surrendered himself to
the agents of the authorities must be considered.