The instant case was forwarded to this Court by the Court of Appeals pursuant to its Decision, dated 29 July 1997,1 [Penned by Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero.] upon finding that the proper penalty imposable on accused-appellants Venancio Francisco and Ernie Mansamad in Criminal Case No. C-4567 for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua. This Court accordingly accepted the appeal of accused-appellants in its Resolution, dated 1 December 1997.

Accused-appellants were charged with and convicted for the crimes of murder and attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40 of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The Information filed against accused-appellants for murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-4567, reads:

The Information against accused-appellants for attempted murder, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-4588, reads:

At their arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. Upon agreement of the prosecution and defense, the two (2) cases were jointly tried as the criminal charges against accused-appellants arose out of the same incident.

The prosecution presented Josefina Montoya-Mendoza, Supremo Macatangay and Baldomero Gonzales as witnesses. Josefina Montoya-Mendoza, widow of the victim Danilo Mendoza, testified4 [TSN, Testimony of Josefina Montoya-Mendoza, 3 August 1994, pp. 3-23.] that on 21 April 1994, at around one o’clock in the morning, she and her husband Danilo, together with their four-year old son Rico, were on their way home. They just came from Barangay Evangelista, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, which was then celebrating its barangay fiesta.

While they were walking along the road, husband and wife were conversing with each other. Accused-appellant Francisco suddenly appeared in front of them shouting "putang ina mo, patay kayo sa amin." He immediately stabbed Danilo in his belly. Reeling from the attack, Danilo leaned and embraced accused-appellant Francisco who then stabbed the victim's back several times. While stabbing the victim, accused-appellant asked his companion, accused-appellant Mansamad, for the bolo muttering, "Ernie, gulok!" Accused-appellant Mansamad then hacked the victim with the bolo.

Josefina tried to pull away her husband from accused-appellants. She was, however, unable to do so because accused-appellant Francisco likewise stabbed her several times. She sustained three (3) stab wounds in her stomach, leg and at her back. The knife or "balisong" used by accused-appellant Francisco to stab both husband and wife was recovered by Josefina as it was left in her leg. Fortunately, their son, Rico, was unharmed. Josefina readily recognized accused-appellants as the assailants because there was sufficient light from the illumination of the moon. Moreover, she was able to beam her flashlight at accused-appellants’ faces.

After accused-appellants had fled, Baldomero Gonzales, ex-barangay captain of Evangelista, happened to pass by the scene of the crime. He narrated5 [TSN, Testimony of Baldomero Gonzales, 1 August 1994, pp. 33-41.] that he was on his way home when he saw Danilo lying on the road lifeless. He also saw Josefina, who was wounded, and their son. Josefina asked for Gonzales’ help who forthwith went to the police authorities in Barangay Aurora. He came back with the Detachment Commander and four (4) members of the CAFGU. They immediately conducted an investigation. Josefina was brought to the provincial hospital while Danilo was taken to the Alcancia Funeral Parlor in Barcenaga, Naujan, where his body was autopsied.

When it was his turn to take the witness stand, Supremo Macatangay substantially corroborated the testimony of Josefina.6 [TSN, Testimony of Supremo Macatangay, 1 August 1994, pp. 5-20.] On that fateful day, at around one o’clock in the morning, Macatangay was also on his way home after attending the festivities in Barangay Evangelista. On the road, he noticed that the people ahead of him were scampering away. He saw Danilo being ganged up by two men. One of them was stabbing Danilo with a "balisong". The other hacked him with a bolo. Macatangay also saw Josefina desperately trying to separate her husband from his assailants.

Macatangay recognized accused-appellants as the assailants because when the incident transpired, he was only three (3) meters away from them. He was able to see their faces by pointing his flashlight at them. After witnessing the assault on Danilo, Macatangay hurriedly left the place for fear that accused-appellants would turn their attention on him.

The testimonies of Drs. Angelita Legaspi and Marlon dela Rosa were dispensed with after accused-appellants' counsel admitted the authenticity of their autopsy report7 [Exhibit "D", Criminal Case No. C-4567.] and medical certificate,8 [Exhibit "E", Criminal Case No. C-4567.] respectively. The postmortem findings revealed that Danilo died of "hypovolemic shock; blood and chemical peritonitis secondary to penetrating perforating stabbed wound of the abdomen."9 [Exhibit "D-2", Criminal Case No. C-4567.] He sustained the following injuries:

The medical certificate of Josefina, on the other hand, showed that she sustained the following injuries:

For its part, the defense presented as witnesses accused-appellant Francisco, Alberto Gonzales and Dr. Marlon dela Rosa. Accused-appellant Mansamad did not take the witness stand. Accused-appellant's version of what transpired on 21 April 1994 at around one o'clock in the morning is as follows:12 [TSN, Testimony of Venancio Francisco, 16 September 1994, pp.21-42.] He was walking on his way home from the barangay fiesta in Evangelista, Naujan. Out of nowhere, Danilo appeared with a bolo and hacked him on the left shoulder. When accused-appellant turned his head, Danilo hacked him on the right shoulder. Thereafter, Danilo and accused-appellant Francisco grappled for the possession of the bolo. As a result thereof, the bolo was thrown away. Josefina then picked it up and hacked accused-appellant Francisco on his head.

Accused-appellant Francisco managed to run away from Danilo and Josefina. After about ten (10) minutes, he met accused-appellant Mansamad and Alberto Gonzales who brought him to the hospital. Accused-appellant Francisco admitted to killing Danilo but claimed that he did so only as an act of self-defense.

Accused-appellant Francisco intimated that prior to the incident, he and Danilo were not in good terms with each other. Three years ago, Danilo stoned accused-appellant Francisco's house and hit him on the left brow.

There was also a time when the victim and his son challenged accused-appellant Francisco to a fight but the latter ignored them. Their serious quarrel, however, occurred when accused-appellant Francisco drained the excess water in his land which flooded the land of Danilo and Josefina. To prevent their house from being flooded as well, the Mendozas closed the culvert. The closure of the culvert caused the water to flood accused-appellant Francisco’s one-hectare land. Consequently, most of the palay on said lot was destroyed. He used to harvest forty (40) cavans of palay but because of the flood, he was able to harvest only twelve (12) cavans.

Alberto Gonzales testified13 [TSN, Testimony of Alberto Gonzales, 29 August 1994, pp. 3-22.] that he was walking home with accused-appellant Mansamad on 21 April 1994 at around one o'clock in the morning. He saw Josefina hack accused-appellant Francisco. She hit him on his head and on his back. He (Gonzales), accused-appellant Mansamad and one Ireneo Cabales brought accused-appellant Francisco to the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Hospital. He averred that they did not report the matter to the police authorities.

Dr. Marlon dela Rosa appeared as a witness for the defense.14 [TSN, Testimony of Dr. Marlon dela Rosa, 16 September 1994, pp. 3-11.] He attested to the authenticity and genuineness of the medical certificate he issued in connection with the wounds inflicted on Josefina. A sharp pointed instrument was used to inflict these wounds. As stated in the medical certificate, wound no. 2 (Incised wound, 5 cm. left iliac region) was inflicted on the left side of Josefina's body below her waist. Wound no. 3 (Incised wound, 5 cm. left lumbar area) was inflicted on the same side of her body but above the waist. The location of these wounds showed that the assailant could have been in front of Josefina. Upon the other hand, the assailant could have been at the back of Josefina when wound no. 1 (Incised wound, 2 cm. left leg) was inflicted on her.

After trial, the lower court rendered judgment the dispositive portion of which reads:

In Crim. Case No. C-4567

In Crim. Case No. C-4588

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. C-4567 but modified the penalty imposed therein to reclusion perpetua. In Criminal Case No. C-4588, the CA absolved accused-appellants of the crime of attempted murder. The CA held therein that only accused-appellant Francisco is liable for slight physical injuries, defined and penalized under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:

As mentioned earlier, in view of its finding that the proper penalty imposable on accused-appellants for murder is reclusion perpetua, the CA correctly refrained from entering judgment and certified the case to this Court. Upon acceptance of the appeal, the Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. In compliance therewith, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that in lieu of filing a supplemental brief, it is adopting the Appellee’s Brief it earlier filed with the CA.17 [Rollo, pp. 3-4.] Accused-appellants, in their letter, dated 21 January 1998, informed the Court that "they are no longer interested in pursuing the appeal" because they could no longer afford the services of a counsel.18 [Id., at 8.] Acting thereon, the Court designated the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) as counsel de oficio for accused-appellants.19 [Id., at 13.]

In their Appeal Brief filed with the CA, accused-appellants made the following assignment of errors:

THAT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEFINA MENDOZA.20 [Appellant’ s Brief, pp. 1-2; Records of the CA, pp. 27-28.]

Moreover, in their Supplemental Appellants’ Brief filed with this Court, accused-appellants raised the following assignment of errors:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.21 [Supplemental Appellant’s Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 23.]

Underlying the foregoing assignment of errors is the crucial contention of accused-appellants that they acted in self-defense. Thus, the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved is whether accused-appellants’ claim of self- defense is worthy of credence.

The appeal must fail.

Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

It is well-settled in our criminal jurisprudence that when the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove the existence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression; (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. The most decisive of these is the requisite that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression.22 [People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, 9 March 2000, pp. 10-11; People vs. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, 26 August 1999, p. 14; People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 96092, 17 August 1999, p. 8;] Absent clear and convincing evidence of a prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot be given credence.

Accused-appellant Francisco claims that it was the victim, Danilo, who attacked and hacked him with a bolo. This claim was corroborated by Gonzales who testified that he saw Josefina hack accused-appellant Francisco on the head. These claims, however, are belied by several attendant factual circumstances. First, the autopsy report of the victim showed that he sustained four (4) stab wounds and an incised wound. Three (3) of these stab wounds were inflicted on the victim's back.23 [See Exhibit "F", Criminal Case No. C-4567.] The number and location of such wounds inflicted on the victim effectively negate accused-appellants' claim of self-defense.

Second, accused-appellants’ assertion that he himself sustained wounds is unsupported by evidence. As found by the trial court and subsequently affirmed by the CA, the medical certificate presented by accused-appellant Francisco to prove his wounds is of doubtful authenticity as it was not identified by the physician who examined him. Further, said physician did not affix his signature thereon. The scars which accused-appellant Francisco showed to the trial court when he took the witness stand may have been sustained on a different occasion. Granting accused-appellant Francisco did sustain injuries from said incident, the same may have been inflicted by Josefina when she tried to help her husband.

Third, accused-appellant Francisco's allegation that it was Danilo who attacked him is incredulous. At the time of the incident, the victim was with his wife and their four-year old son. It is utterly inconceivable and against human nature for a man to bring with him his family, including a helpless child, and unnecessarily endanger their lives, to commit a dastardly crime.

Under the given circumstances, accused-appellants miserably failed to convince this Court that the killing of Danilo was an act of self-defense on their part.

Upon the other hand, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the general rule that "factual findings of the trial court deserve respect and are not disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, and would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case."24 [People vs. Alagon, G.R. No. 126536-37, 10 February 2000, p. 9; People vs. Quinanola, 289 SCRA 710 (1998).]

In this case, the trial court correctly gave credence to the clear, categorical and straightforward testimony of Josefina as she recounted the events on that fateful day, thus:

Supremo Macatangay, an eyewitness to the incident, corroborated the testimony of Josefina on its material points, including the identity of accused-appellants as the assailants, thus:

Contrary to accused-appellants' contention, the fact that Josefina is the wife of the victim does not make her testimony less believable. No law disqualifies a person from testifying in a criminal case in which [her] relative is involved if the former was really at the scene of the crime and witnessed the execution of the criminal act.27 [People vs. Andales, G.R. No. 130637, 19 August 1999, pp. 6-7; People vs. Nitcha, 240 SCRA 283 (1995).] In this case, Josefina did not only witness the killing of her husband by accused-appellants; she was a victim herself as accused-appellants likewise hacked her when she tried to pull her husband away from them.

For the death of Danilo, the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellants for murder. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.28 [People vs. Aranjuez, 285 SCRA 466 (1998); People vs. Zamora, 278 SCRA 60 (1997).] In this case, accused-appellants, armed with a bolo and balisong, launched a surprise attack on the victim, who was innocuously walking with his wife and four-year old son. The victim was caught unaware and had no chance of putting up any defense. Clearly, treachery attended the commission of the crime since the attack, although frontally, was no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.29 [Id.; People vs. Apongan, 270 SCRA 713 (1997).]

As observed by the CA, however, the trial court erroneously imposed on accused-appellants the penalty of imprisonment from "17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum, as minimum, to 33 years and 4 months of reclusion perpetua medium, as maximum" for murder. In imposing said penalty, the trial court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law stating that Republic Act No. 7659 (An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes) made the penalty of reclusion perpetua indivisible. This is incorrect. Notwithstanding R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua remains an indivisible penalty. In this Court's En Banc Resolution, dated 9 January 1995,30 [People vs. Lucas, 240 SCRA 66 (1995).] it was explained that "[a]fter deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty."31 [Id., at 69.] The CA thus correctly imposed the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua on accused-appellants for the crime of murder.

With respect to Criminal Case No. C-4588, the Court fully agrees with the findings of the CA that only accused-appellant Francisco is liable therein and only for the crime of slight physical injuries. The CA explained, thus:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals modifying the decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants are found guilty of murder (Criminal Case No. C-4588) and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The award of damages to the heirs of the deceased Danilo Mendoza in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity is likewise AFFIRMED. Further, accused-appellant Venancio Francisco is found guilty of slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. C-4588) and, accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of eleven (11) days of arresto menor.