People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Clemente and Rosalio Clemente

Where the killing results from a chance encounter and quarrel, and the wounding of the victim while lying on the ground is merely incidental to the ensuing pursuit rather than intended to ensure the safety of the attackers, the crime is homicide and not murder qualified by treachery; and where conspiracy is not shown and the extent of an accused's participation in the homicide is uncertain, the accused may be held liable only as an accomplice.

The Clemente brothers were prominent residents of barrio San Miguel, Lavezares, Samar: Rosalio had served as barrio lieutenant of San Miguel in 1959, Pascual as its vice-lieutenant in 1960, and Carlos was elected barrio councilor in 1964. The deceased, Reyes Matnog, was the barrio lieutenant of the neighboring barrio of MacArthur in the same municipality, and the killing occurred on the day a third barrio official, Pedro Baniega, celebrated his election as barrio lieutenant of San Miguel. The dispute thus arose among local barrio officials of the same municipality.

At about three o'clock in the afternoon of February 5, 1962, Reyes Matnog, the barrio lieutenant of barrio MacArthur, Lavezares, Samar, died of multiple wounds at the corner of the national highway and the barrio road in front of the house of Hospicio Tan in barrio San Miguel, Lavezares. He had just come from a blow-out given by Pedro Baniega in celebration of the latter's election as barrio lieutenant of San Miguel. The Clemente brothers — Rosalio, Pascual, and Carlos — were prominent residents of the same barrio.

The autopsy report of the Rural Health Officer of Lavezares (Exh. A) disclosed that Matnog sustained a stab wound on the left lower part of the upper third of the arm, penetrating the chest cavity; a stab wound on the posterior part of the right side of the umbilical region, penetrating the abdominal cavity; a stab wound on the upper part of the back above the right scapular region, about one inch long and one and one-half inches deep; and a lacerated wound on the upper part of the back, left scapular region, about four and one-half inches long and horizontal, fracturing the supra-scapular bone. Internally, the lower third of the left humeral bone and the third left medial rib were fractured, about one liter of blood was taken from the left chest cavity, and the left side of the heart was injured, producing profuse hemorrhage. Death was attributed to profuse internal hemorrhage resulting in shock.

Informed of the incident, Chief of Police Victorino F. de Leon repaired to barrio San Miguel and, based on the statements of Basilio Pornelos and Isabel Medala, prepared a sketch of the crime scene (Exh. D). On February 6 and February 8, 1962, Pornelos and Medala executed affidavits stating that Pascual, Rosalio, and Carlos Clemente took part in the slaying. On February 7, 1962, the Chief of Police filed the corresponding complaint, and on March 15, 1962, the three brothers were formally charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Samar. Arraigned, all three pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution presented Dr. Antonio Ofiana, who testified on the fact and cause of death; Chief of Police de Leon, who identified the sketch he had prepared; and Pablito Seriguini, the only one of the affiants able to take the witness stand, Pornelos having been killed, allegedly by Seriguini, and Medala being too ill to appear. Seriguini, who had gone into hiding and was located by the police only after some time and upon the prodding of the Court, testified that at about three o'clock in the afternoon of February 5, 1962, while standing by the street, he saw Reyes Matnog and Rosalio Clemente fighting; that Rosalio stabbed Reyes with a double-bladed hunting knife on the upper part of the left arm; that Reyes ran away but was chased and overtaken by Rosalio and, while lying prostrate, was stabbed by Rosalio on the right side of the hip and again at the back; and that Reyes was still able to run away, but Rosalio did not follow him anymore. On direct examination, Seriguini affirmed the contents of his affidavit executed on March 5, 1962, one month after the killing, to the effect that while Reyes lay flat on the ground, Pascual and Carlos also attacked and slashed him with their weapons.

Carlos Clemente testified that he left his house in the morning of February 5, 1962 with Gerardo Panes to gather firewood in San Agustin, a barrio about three and one-half kilometers from San Miguel, and returned only at seven o'clock in the evening of the same day. Pascual Clemente declared that in the afternoon of that day he was in their house holding a child when he heard that Reyes Matnog and his brother Rosalio were quarreling; that he left the child with his niece and went out; that in front of the house of Hospicio Tan he found Rosalio holding a bolo called "kinogon"; and that he advised Rosalio to go home, which the latter heeded, and he denied participation in the slaying. Rosalio, for his part, testified that while on his way to the farm he met Reyes Matnog in front of Hospicio Tan's house; that after saying he was going to kill Rosalio and his family, Reyes lunged at him with a hunting knife and hit him on the right arm; that he then pulled the bolo tucked at his waist and stabbed Reyes on the left upper arm, delivered a second blow on the right side of Reyes' abdomen, and, when Reyes lunged at him again, slashed him twice on the back; and that when Reyes walked away toward the house of his parents-in-law, Rosalio started to leave, but his brother Pascual arrived and advised him to go home, which he did. Chief of Police de Leon, testifying for the defense, declared that Rosalio surrendered to him on the same day, February 5, 1962, a fact duly entered in the police blotter. Gerardo Panes corroborated Carlos' account of the trip to San Agustin, while Roman Esplana and Bartolome Unay testified that they witnessed the incident and that Rosalio alone inflicted all the wounds following a quarrel between him and the deceased.

The trial court found that the fatal wounds were inflicted by Pascual and Carlos while Matnog lay prostrate on the ground, unarmed and apparently stunned by Rosalio's attack; that no fight between Pascual and Carlos preceded the stabbing; and that because the attack by the two was sudden and unexpected and the deceased was flat on the ground and defenseless, the crime was murder qualified by treachery. It disregarded Carlos' alibi, finding it strange that he and Panes would be gathering firewood in another barrio at a time when their barrio lieutenant was celebrating his election, and that Panes would leave Carlos in the banca upon arrival at seven in the evening and fail to tell him that his wife was then in Panes' house; it also relied on Seriguini's identification of Pascual, allegedly corroborated by Exhibit D. Rosalio's claim of self-defense was overruled for lack of sufficient proof, and his voluntary surrender was not credited because he declared that he had given himself up out of fear of retaliatory action by the relatives of the deceased.

• Credibility of the Eyewitness: Appellants assailed the credibility of Pablito Seriguini, the prosecution's sole eyewitness, contending that his testimony was full of inconsistencies and contradictions.
• Self-Defense: Rosalio Clemente maintained that he acted in self-defense, claiming that Reyes Matnog, after threatening to kill him and his family, lunged at him with a hunting knife and wounded him on the right arm before he retaliated with the bolo tucked at his waist.
• Alibi: Carlos Clemente set up alibi, asserting that he was in San Agustin, a barrio about three and one-half kilometers from San Miguel, gathering firewood from morning until about seven o'clock in the evening of February 5, 1962, a claim corroborated by Gerardo Panes.
• Denial: Pascual Clemente denied participation in the slaying, claiming that he merely came upon his brother Rosalio holding a bolo in front of the house of Hospicio Tan and advised him to go home.
• Bias of the Witness: The defense claimed that Seriguini harbored a grudge against Carlos and Pascual, who had allegedly secretly denounced him as one of those who held up a Gloco company truck the previous December.

• Voluntary Surrender: The Solicitor General, appearing for the People, argued that Rosalio Clemente's liability was mitigated by his voluntary surrender to the authorities and that the trial court erred in not so holding.

• Credibility of the Eyewitness: Whether the testimony of Pablito Seriguini was credible notwithstanding the claimed inconsistencies and contradictions.
• Self-Defense: Whether Rosalio Clemente acted in self-defense when he stabbed Reyes Matnog.
• Alibi: Whether Carlos Clemente's alibi should be credited.
• Treachery and Premeditation: Whether the killing was qualified by treachery and evident premeditation so as to constitute murder.
• Conspiracy and Degree of Participation: Whether conspiracy was established among the three brothers and whether Carlos and Pascual Clemente were principals or merely accomplices.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether Rosalio Clemente's surrender to the authorities entitled him to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

• Credibility of the Eyewitness: No. The transcript does not substantiate the charges of inconsistency; Seriguini's version was clear, positive, and devoid of artificiality, tallied with his affidavit executed one month after the killing, and was supported by the necropsy findings.
• Self-Defense: No. The autopsy revealed that two of the stab wounds were inflicted from behind, contradicting the claim of a frontal conflict; the burden of proving self-defense rested on the accused and was not discharged.
• Alibi: No. Carlos' alibi, corroborated only by Gerardo Panes, was attended by circumstances contrary to common experience and could not overcome the evidence for the prosecution.
• Treachery and Premeditation: No. The attack by Rosalio Clemente appeared to be the result of a chance encounter and quarrel, and the wounding of the victim while lying on the ground was merely incidental to the ensuing pursuit, not intended to ensure the safety of the attackers.
• Conspiracy and Degree of Participation: No conspiracy was shown, and the extent of Carlos' and Pascual's participation in the homicide was uncertain; they were therefore declared mere accomplices rather than principals.
• Voluntary Surrender: Yes. The surrender was spontaneous and saved the State the time and trouble of searching for Rosalio; that it was induced by fear of retaliation did not negate the mitigating circumstance.

• Credibility of the Eyewitness: The charges of inconsistency and contradiction against Seriguini found no support in the transcript. His account — that when Rosalio stabbed Matnog, Carlos and Pascual were not yet present; that after Rosalio and Matnog separated, Pascual appeared with a weapon and Carlos with a hunting knife; that all three chased Matnog as he ran toward the school house; and that when Matnog stumbled and fell, the three slashed and stabbed the prostrate man — tallied with the affidavit he had executed before the Clerk of Court only one month after the killing, when the facts were still fresh in his mind, and was supported by the necropsy findings (Exh. A) attesting three stab wounds, two of them from behind, and one lacerated wound. The witness candidly admitted that he did not see whether Reyes was hit by Carlos or by Pascual's slash, a concession that did not destroy the credibility of his testimony but bore instead on the degree of participation of the two brothers. The claim that Seriguini had an ax to grind because Carlos and Pascual had secretly denounced him in connection with a Gloco company truck hold-up was rejected: there was no showing that Seriguini ever learned of the secret denunciation, and he was in fact released after investigation and not proceeded against. Neither brother, moreover, mentioned the other as having likewise denounced Seriguini, although they were brothers.

• Self-Defense: Rosalio's criminal responsibility was beyond doubt. He admitted stabbing the deceased as a result of a quarrel, and his pretense of self-defense was contradicted by the autopsy, which revealed that two of the stab wounds were inflicted from behind. These facts likewise discredited the testimony of his witness Bartolome Unay, who endeavored to confirm that Rosalio had stabbed the deceased in a frontal conflict; Unay was further discredited by his assertion that the deceased had wounded Rosalio in the left forearm when the scar appeared on the right arm. The burden of proving self-defense lies on the accused, and the Court was satisfied that it was not met.

• Alibi: Carlos' defense of alibi, corroborated by Gerardo Panes, was rejected. The conduct of Panes in sending Carlos home without telling him that his wife was at Panes' house was strange and contrary to common experience, no reason having been given why the wife's whereabouts should be kept from her husband, particularly since the latter was returning to his domicile and could have taken his wife along. This inconsistency, coupled with the lower court's express finding that the demeanor of these witnesses on the witness stand left the distinct impression that they were not telling the truth, left their testimony powerless to overcome the evidence for the prosecution.

• Treachery and Premeditation: There was neither premeditation nor treachery. The attack by Rosalio Clemente on Reyes Matnog appeared to be the result of a chance encounter and quarrel, and the wounding of the victim while lying on the ground was merely incidental to the ensuing pursuit, not intended to ensure the safety of the attackers themselves. The appellants were therefore guilty only of homicide rather than murder.

• Conspiracy and Degree of Participation: While Carlos and Pascual joined their brother in the pursuit of the fleeing Matnog and in the attack on him as he fell, the prosecution eyewitness was unable to assert positively that the two managed to hit the fallen man. There being no showing of conspiracy, and the extent of their participation in the homicide being uncertain, they were given the benefit of the doubt and declared mere accomplices in the crime.

• Voluntary Surrender: The trial court erred in refusing to credit Rosalio's voluntary surrender. That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation by the victim's relatives did not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender, nor alter the fact that by giving himself up, the accused saved the State the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested. His liability was accordingly mitigated by this circumstance.

• Treachery (Alevosia) — Treachery qualifies a killing to murder only where the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The Court held that the attack by Rosalio Clemente arose from a chance encounter and quarrel, and that the wounding of the victim while lying on the ground was merely incidental to the ensuing pursuit rather than intended to ensure the attackers' safety; hence the killing was homicide, not murder.

• Conspiracy — Conspiracy must be proved as clearly as the crime itself; it is not presumed from mere presence at the scene or from the fact that several persons joined in the pursuit of a fleeing victim. Because the prosecution eyewitness could not assert positively that Carlos and Pascual managed to hit the fallen man, and no conspiracy was shown, the two were not treated as principals.

• Accomplice Liability — Where the extent of an accused's participation in the homicide is uncertain and conspiracy is not established, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and may be held liable only as an accomplice, not as a principal.

• Self-Defense — The burden of proving self-defense rests on the accused, who must establish its elements by clear and sufficient evidence. The claim of a frontal conflict was contradicted by the autopsy, which showed that two of the stab wounds were inflicted from behind; the defense was therefore not established.

• Voluntary Surrender — Voluntary surrender mitigates criminal liability where it is spontaneous and saves the State the time and trouble of searching for the accused. The circumstance is not negated by the fact that the surrender was induced by fear of retaliation by the victim's relatives, since such motive does not destroy the spontaneity of the act.

• Alibi — Alibi is a weak defense that must be supported by credible corroboration and must be consistent with common experience; it cannot prevail over positive evidence for the prosecution, especially where the trial court's findings rest on the demeanor of the witnesses.

• Credibility and Demeanor — The trial court's opportunity to observe the attitude and demeanor of witnesses while testifying, and its consequent appreciation of the relative weight of the evidence, is accorded great weight and will not be disturbed absent a satisfactory showing of material error.

• "There being neither premeditation nor treachery, inasmuch as the attack by Rosalio Clemente on Reyes Matnog appears to have been the result of a chance encounter and quarrel, and the wounding of the victim while lying on the ground was merely incidental to the ensuing pursuit, not intended to ensure the safety of the attackers themselves, the appellants appear to be merely guilty of homicide, rather than murder." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the qualifying circumstances, holding that a chance encounter and quarrel negate treachery and premeditation and reduce the crime from murder to homicide.

• "In the case of appellants Carlos and Pascual Clemente, while they joined their brother in the pursuit of the fleeing Matnog, and in the attack on him as he fell, yet the prosecution eyewitness was unable to assert positively that the two managed to hit the fallen man. There being no showing of conspiracy, and the extent of their participation in the homicide being uncertain, they should be given the benefit of the doubt, and consequently they are declared to be mere accomplices in the crime." — This passage defines the Court's treatment of the two brothers, establishing that absent proof of conspiracy and with participation uncertain, liability is reduced to that of accomplices.

• "That the surrender was induced by his fear of retaliation by the victim's relatives does not gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender, nor alter the fact that by giving himself up, this accused saved the State the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested." — This passage articulates the Court's ruling on voluntary surrender, holding that fear of retaliation does not destroy the spontaneity of the surrender nor the mitigating effect of the accused having saved the State the trouble of searching for him.

• "The burden of proving self-defense is on the accused and we are satisfied that here it was not met." — This passage states the settled rule on the burden of proof in self-defense, applied against Rosalio Clemente after the autopsy showed two stab wounds inflicted from behind.

• People vs. Ramos, 59 Phil. 7; People vs. Pabellan, 58 Phil. 964; People vs. Baguio, 43 Phil. 683 — Cited in support of the rule that the burden of proving self-defense rests on the accused, applied to reject Rosalio Clemente's claim of self-defense.
• People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64; People vs. Reyes, 47 Phil. 635; People vs. Asis, 64 Phil. 757; People vs. Nate, 63 Phil. 667, 668 — Cited in support of the deference uniformly accorded to the trial court's opportunity to observe the attitude and demeanor of witnesses and its appreciation of the relative weight of the evidence.
• People vs. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478; People vs. Delgado, 77 Phil. 11; People vs. Verga, 46 O.G. 1185 — Cited in support of the ruling that, absent premeditation and treachery, the appellants were guilty only of homicide rather than murder.
• People vs. Riveral, G.R. No. L-14077, March 31, 1964, citing People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 and People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil. 834 — Cited in support of the holding that Carlos and Pascual Clemente, whose participation was uncertain and whose conspiracy with their brother was unproven, should be declared mere accomplices in the crime.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in the dispositive portion in recomputing the penalties of all three appellants after the crime was reduced from murder to homicide and the participation of Carlos and Pascual was reduced to that of accomplices.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ.