THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENITO MIER y VISTAL, accused-appellant. ULANDU

Before us on automatic review is the Decision1 [Penned by Judge Raineldo T. Son, Records, pp. 96-135.] in Criminal Case No. 9582 of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Branch 47, dated May 29, 1997 finding Benito Mier y Vistal guilty of murder for the killing and beheading of Pablito Laguros y Tasic and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.

Appellant Benito Mier was charged with the crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in an Information2 [Rollo, p. 8.] which reads:

On one hand, the evidence adduced by the prosecution showed that on September 28, 1995, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, prosecution witness Perfecto Cabreros and a certain Romy Banga were drinking liquor in front of the cooperative store in Barangay Baang, Catigbian, Bohol when appellant Mier, together with Rolando Zapatos, Ramie Zapatos, and a certain Segundino, arrived at the store in order to redeem his Kulafu crown. They were all armed with bolos. For lack of Kulafu stocks, the salesboy, Eugenio Silangan, declined to change the Kulafu crown of appellant.

Consequently, appellant bought one pocket-size Tanduay rum and drank with his companions. He also asked money from prosecution witness Cabreros to buy softdrinks, and the latter gave him P5.00 out of fear inasmuch as Mier and his companions were carrying bolos. Jksm

At around 7:30 in the evening, prosecution witness Cabreros and Romy Banga went home leaving behind appellant Mier and company.3 [TSN dated March 14, 1997, pp. 4-8.]

At about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, prosecution eyewitnesses Danilo Quindao and Alberto Agad, both residents of Barangay Bagtic, Catigbian, Bohol, went to the house of Pedro Ebua, which was about 150 meters from the cooperative store, to hire his motorcycle which is locally known as "habal-habal". Prosecution eyewitnesses Agad and Quindao worked for a bus owner named Aurelio Dinorog as driver and conductor, respectively. The bus earlier broke down due to mechanical defect. They then decided to hire the "habal-habal" of Pedro Ebua to take them to the poblacion and to contact Aurelio Dinorog in Tagbilaran City to inform the latter that his bus broke down.4 [TSN dated May 17, 1996, pp. 5-6; TSN dated June 7, 1996, pp. 3-5.]

While Agad was negotiating with Pedro Ebua in front of his house, Quindao was standing nearby. Appellant approached Quindao and asked him if he knew the person who was picking trouble with him at the cooperative store. Quindao answered that he did not know inasmuch as he had just arrived.5 [TSN dated May 17, 1996, p.6.]

Thereafter, appellant approached the victim, Pablito Laguros, who was by the roadside about fifteen (15) meters away from the house of Pedro Ebua. Appellant likewise asked him if he knew the person who was picking trouble with him at the cooperative store. After answering in the negative, Laguros started to leave. However, appellant followed Laguros and persisted on asking the same question to which Laguros kept replying that he knew nothing about the matter. Appellant then unsheathed his bolo and immediately hacked Laguros from behind the shoulder.6 [TSN dated May 17, 1996, pp. 7-9,16.] Laguros, who was unarmed, attempted to run but appellant chased him and hacked Laguros two more times at the back.7 [Ibid, pp. 11-12.] Prosecution witness Quindao clearly saw the incident inasmuch as the place was lighted by a 20-watt flourescent lamp.8 [Ibid, p.18.]

Quindao and Agad went inside the house of Pedro Ebua for fear that appellant might also hack them. Later that evening, Quindao and Agad saw the decapitated body of Laguros, which was still clad in the same white t-shirt and brown short pants, on the road about fifteen (15) meters from the house of Pedro Ebua with its head nowhere in the vicinity.9 [Ibid, pp. 14-17.] Esm

Meanwhile, prosecution witness Claro Suarez was in the house of a certain Alicia Udtohan in Brgy. Baang, Catigbian, Bohol on September 28, 1995. At about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, he observed people running and passing by the house of Alicia Udtohan. He then went upstairs to observe. From the window, he saw a person around thirty (30) meters away in the act of hacking another person who was already lying on his side near a lamp post. Subsequently, the attacker picked up something that turned out to be a human head. He passed by the house of Alicia Udtohan and came as close as five (5 ) meters. Prosecution witness Suarez failed to recognize the person carrying the decapitated human head. However, he testified that the same person had more or less the same body built and height of appellant Benito Mier.10 [TSN dated June 18, 1996, pp. 4-7.]

Prosecution witness Dr. Vito B. Inting, M.D., Municipal Health Officer of Catigbian, Bohol, testified in court that he conducted post mortem examination on the body of the victim at the Catigbian District Hospital on September 29, 1995 upon the request of SPO3 Modesto Renoblas of the Catigbian Municipal Police. His findings are embodied in his Post Mortem Report,11 [Exhibit "D", Records, p. 41.] to wit:

Dr. Inting also testified that from the nature of the wounds sustained by the victim, he believed a sharp bladed weapon was used by the attacker and that two (2) of those wounds which were sustained by the victim on the scapular area, measuring about five (5) and six (6) inches, respectively, were inflicted from behind by the attacker and were fatal.12 [TSN dated June 17, 1996, pp. 5-7.]

Prosecution witness SPO3 Modesto Renoblas, Chief of Police of Catigbian, Bohol, testified that he led the police team from Catigbian, in coordination with other police teams from the Municipality of Batuan and Tagbilaran City, in effectuating the arrest of appellant on January 24, 1996. The three (3) police teams were armed with a warrant of arrest13 [Records, p. 8.] dated October 20, 1995 which was issued by Judge Aldrico Melicor of the 20th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Catigbian, Bohol. Among the articles seized from the appellant during his arrest were a long sharp bolo believed to have been used in killing Pablito Laguros, a .22 caliber rifle and a fragmentation grenade which had no safety pin.14 [TSN dated August 1, 1996, pp. 4-6.]

On February 4, 1996, appellant Benito Mier, upon the advice of his father, Samuel Mier, drew a sketch of the place where he allegedly buried the head of Pablito Laguros. After obtaining the said sketch from appellant’s father, prosecution witness SPO3 Renoblas, PO3 Ebora and PO2 Ramirez, together with some relatives of the victim and the accused, proceeded to the spot situated between two mahogany trees near the house of the appellant in Sitio Behind the Clouds, Barangay Casingi, Batuan, Bohol as indicated in the sketch, and dug up the skull of the victim.15 [TSN dated February 7, 1997, pp. 11-12.]

On the other hand, the defense invoked self-defense. Appellant Benito Mier testified that he arrived at the house of his mother-in-law in Barangay Bagtic, Catigbian, Bohol, in the afternoon of September 28, 1995 and that about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, he went to the cooperative store in Barangay Baang, which is adjacent to Barangay Bagtic, in order to redeem his Kulafu crown and also to buy kerosene and some spices. Upon his arrival at the store, he heard the four (4) persons who were drinking liquor there say, "Ato ning birahin," which means, "We will assault this person." After hearing the remark, appellant retraced his way to the road to avoid any untoward incident but the four (4) persons followed and told appellant to wait because they have something to ask him. As the four (4) got close, one (1) of them tried to stab him. But since appellant was able to parry the thrust with the umbrella which he was carrying, the tip of the weapon merely grazed the lower right portion of his breast just below the nipple. Appellant attempted to run but he stumbled. As he rose to his feet, one of the pursuers stabbed him on his left thigh. This time appellant retaliated by hacking the said attacker several times with his bolo, but he denied having beheaded said attacker. Thereafter, he fled toward his house in Sitio Behind the Clouds, Batuan, Bohol, located nine (9) kilometers from Barangay Baang, Catigbian, Bohol, where his wounds were treated by his mother and his wife.16 [TSN dated December 3, 1996, pp. 5-10.] Esmsc

The testimony of appellant was corroborated by Uldarico Milar who is his neighbor in Sitio Behind the Clouds, Batuan, Bohol. Defense witness Milar testified that he was in Barangay Baang, Catigbian, Bohol at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening on September 28, 1995 to borrow some rice from Isabel Otom. Before he reached the house of Isabel Otom, he saw appellant being pursued by four (4) persons who were carrying bolos. Upon catching up with him, they attacked appellant who retaliated by hacking one (1) of his pursuers.17 [TSN dated September 25, 1996, pp. 3-5.]

Subsequently, defense witness Milar proceeded to the house of Isabel Otom where he passed the night. On the following day, Milar visited appellant in his house and saw the latter’s wife treating his wounds on the right chest and left leg. When asked by Milar about the incident the night before, appellant related that he was ganged up by four (4) persons.18 [Ibid, pp. 5-6.]

Eusebia and Regina Mier, mother and wife of the appellant, respectively, testified that on September 28, 1995 appellant arrived bloodied at 11:00 o’clock in the evening. Appellant, according to them, was allegedly stabbed when four (4) persons ganged up on him. They did not bring the appellant to the doctor for treatment. Likewise, they did not report the incident to the barangay captain or to the police for fear that the appellant might be arrested.19 [TSN dated October 4, 1996, pp. 3-6; TSN dated October 7, 1996, p. 5.]

After evaluating the evidence, the trial court convicted appellant as charged. It ruled, thus:

Accordingly, the trial court meted the following penalty:

In assailing the foregoing decision, appellant cited the following errors by the trial court, to wit: Exsm

Appellant invoked the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Having invoked self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim, and the burden of proof thereupon is shifted to him to establish and prove the elements of self-defense.23 [People vs. Cabindo, 266 SCRA 554, 558 (1997)]

The elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.24 [Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 270, 285 (1997)]

To show the existence of unlawful aggression, appellant Benito Mier testified that on September 28, 1995 he was assaulted by four (4) persons who were armed with bolos at the cooperative store for no apparent reason. The four (4) persons were drinking liquor when he arrived at the cooperative store in order to redeem his Kulafu crown and to buy kerosene and some spices. He was allegedly able to parry the first blow from one (1) of the attackers with an umbrella but the tip of the bolo nevertheless grazed the lower right portion of his chest just below the nipple. His attempt to run away from his attackers proved futile as he stumbled. As he rose to his feet, one of the attackers stabbed him on the left leg, to which he retaliated by hitting the said attacker with his bolo several times.

But the claim of self-defense by appellant is not convincing.

Accused-appellant did not report the incident to the police authorities. After he fatally hacked the victim several times, appellant fled from the scene of the crime and remained at large until January 24, 1996 when he was arrested by a composite team of police authorities on the strength of a valid warrant of arrest. It is axiomatic that flight negates self-defense and indicates guilt.25 [People vs. Gregorio, 255 SCRA 380, 392 (1996)] Kyle

Self-defense, like alibi which is inherently a weak defense, can easily be concocted.26 [People vs. Ocsimar, 253 SCRA 689, 695 (1996)] At the time of his arrest and in the subsequent period prior to the trial of this case on the merits, there was no evidence on record that appellant ever indicated to the authorities that he was allegedly attacked by four (4) persons armed with bolos and that he killed the victim in self-defense. Hence, there is reason to believe that the idea of self-defense was a mere afterthought of the appellant to escape criminal liability.

Moreover, the bolo which was allegedly used by the victim in attacking accused-appellant was never presented in evidence by the defense during the trial. The non-presentation thereof and the failure of the defense to account for its non-presentation are fatal to appellant’s plea of self-defense.27 [People vs. Alfaro, 119 SCRA 204, 211(1982)] The defense also significantly failed to present a medical certificate to support its claim that the appellant sustained injuries from the alleged attack by the victim with the use of a bolo. The mere exhibition of scars by appellant Mier does not meet the required quantum of proof of unlawful aggression by his victim.28 [People vs. Alba, 256 SCRA 505, 514 (1996)]

It has been established by evidence that the victim suffered seven (7) hacking wounds on different parts of his body. In addition, his head was severed from the body. The nature, location and number of the wounds inflicted on the victim belie and negate accused-appellant’s claim of self-defense.29 [People vs. Unarce, 270 SCRA 756, 764 (1997)]

The testimonies of the other defense witnesses were correctly found by the trial court to be unworthy of credence. Uldarico Milar testified that he covered the distance of nine (9) kilometers on foot from Barangay Casingi, Batuan, Bohol to Barangay Bagtic, Catigbian, Bohol merely to borrow rice from the mother-in-law of appellant, Isabel Otom, who is not even his relative, purportedly to feed his children. Despite the urgency of the matter, Milar opted to stay overnight in the house of Otom. Moreover, it was shown that he had friends from whom he could readily seek help in his own barangay and in the three other barangays through which he had to pass before he could reach the house of Otom in Barangay Bagtic, but for some reason, he chose to go to Otom.30 [TSN dated September 26, 1996, pp. 5-6.] Besides, his testimony that he visited the appellant in his house on the day following the incident was belied by the appellant himself.31 [TSN dated December 13, 1996, p. 6.] The testimonies of appellant’s mother and his wife were likewise dismissed by the trial court as biased. We perceive no arbitrariness on the part of the trial judge in arriving at his findings, and so his evaluation on the credibility of witnesses is well-nigh conclusive upon this court.32 [People vs. Belga, 258 SCRA 583,595 (1996)] Kycalr

On the other hand, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that on September 28, 1995, at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening, appellant and three (3) other persons arrived at the cooperative store in Barangay Baang to redeem the Kulafu crown of the former. For lack of available stock, the salesboy declined to change the Kulafu crown. Appellant instead bought one (1) pocket-size Tanduay rum and drank the same with his companions. He even asked for P5.00 from Perfecto Cabreros, who happened to be drinking liquor with a companion at the same store, to buy softdrinks.

At about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, appellant was at the vicinity of the house of Pedro Ebua asking about the identity of the person who allegedly offended him at the cooperative store. Among the persons he initially asked were prosecution eyewitnesses Danilo Quindao and Alberto Agad who were then negotiating with Pedro Ebua for the services of the latter’s motorcycle. After eliciting negative responses from the two (2), appellant approached the victim, Pablito Laguros, who gave the same negative reply. However, this time appellant was not satisfied and pressed Laguros who turned to walk away. Without any warning, appellant unsheathed his bolo and immediately hacked Laguros from behind several times until the latter fell to the ground.

From the foregoing established facts, it is clear that the appellant killed Pablito Laguros with treachery so as to qualify the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Said provision reads:

To appreciate treachery, two conditions must be present, to wit: 1) employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself and retaliate; and 2) the means of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted.33 [People vs. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471, 481 (1996)] In the case at bench, the attack was sudden, unexpected and continuous when the back of unarmed Laguros was toward the appellant, thus ensuring the commission of the criminal act without risk of any defense from the victim.

However, we do not find that the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty by outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of the victim, is obtaining in this case. The trial court simply relied on the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Vito Inting that the decapitation of the body of the victim may have taken place after the said victim had already died inasmuch as the hacking wounds sustained by the latter at the scapular area were both fatal injuries.34 [TSN dated June 17, 1996, p.6.] That opinion of Dr. Inting is merely speculative, and it does not constitute a valid basis or reason to hold that the generic aggravating circumstance is present in this case. It is a well settled rule that an aggravating circumstance must be proved as fully as the crime itself and any doubt as to its existence must be resolved in favor of the accused.35 [People vs. Maturgo, Sr., 248 SCRA 519, 529 (1995)]

The prosecution also failed to adduce evidence to prove the existence of evident premeditation as alleged in the Information. Evident premeditation may not be considered where, as in the case at bench, there is no direct evidence of any plan or preparation to kill the victim.36 [People vs. Manuel, 234 SCRA 532, 544 (1994)]

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the crime of Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance attendant in this case, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The amount of P50,000.00 by way of civil indemnity and another amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages were correctly awarded by the trial court. However, the award of exemplary and actual compensatory damages should be deleted due to the absence of evidence on record to support the same.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Branch 47, convicting Benito Mier y Vistal of the crime of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that the penalty to be imposed on him is reclusion perpetua and the award for civil liability is limited to civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.