Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40328:g-r-no-130941-august-3,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-ponciano-aglipa&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:20:05+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PONCIANO AGLIPA, Accused-Appellant.
Ponciano Aglipa appeals the July 29, 1996 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City (Branch 18), finding him guilty of murder and frustrated murder.
"In the early afternoon of April 24, 1995, Severina Macion was at home in Barangay Mindanao, Malabuyoc, Cebu, when her son, Erick, informed her that their goats had eaten the corn plants of the Aglipas. Severina told Erick that they would report the matter to the Barangay Captain as soon as his father would arrive (TSN, pp. 34, April 15, 1996).
"Later, at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Severina’s husband, Solano Macion, arrived. The couple went to the house of the Barangay Captain, Nemesio Pielago. When they arrived there, they found that the Barangay Captain was not at home. They, however, decided to wait for him for a while. As they waited for the Barangay Captain, appellant Ponciano Aglipa suddenly appeared and stood on the road in front of the Barangay Captain’s house. Appellant shouted at Solano challenging him to a ‘buno’ (fight to the death). Solano answered saying he was not afraid of him. Severina advised her husband not to mind appellant so as to avoid trouble. Solano ignored appellant’s challenge. Appellant, however, kept on shouting at Solano and challenging him to a fight. Severina confronted appellant asking him why he followed them, kept on challenging Solano to a fight, and looked for trouble. Appellant was pacified by the wife of the Barangay Captain who admonished him to leave. To avert any fight, Severina pulled Solano inside the house of the Barangay Captain. Appellant then went home (TSN, pp. 4-7, April 15, 1996; TSN, p. 8, February 5, 1996).
"Sensing danger, Solano advised Severina to go ahead and take their children inside their house because he would still urinate. As it was already dark, Severina got a kerosene lamp and went back to her husband, who stood [a] few meters away from the door of Honorata’s house. While Solano was urinating, Severina stood behind him holding the kerosene lamp. Momentarily, appellant, who came from nowhere, suddenly appeared passing behind Honorata’s house. Without saying a word, appellant hit Solano with an iron bar at the back of his head. Solano slumped with his face down. Daniel Aglipa and Anecita Aglipa, who were in their yard, shouted at their son and urged him by saying: "Patya na! Patya na!’ (kill him, kill him). Appellant hit Solano repeatedly with a crowbar which caused Solano’s instantaneous death. Severina rushed to the aid of her husband but she too was hit by Ponciano at the back of her head. Severina instinctively turned around to face appellant and attempted to wrest the crowbar from him but appellant hit her on the hand holding the kerosene lamp. Bloodied and feeling dazed, Severina shouted at Honorata for help. When appellant was about to strike again at Severina, Honorata picked up a stone and hurled it at appellant. Hit by the stone hurled by Honorata, appellant scampered away bringing with him the crowbar (TSN, pp. 11-20, February 5, 1996; TSN, pp. 9-15, April 15, 1996).
"Because of the blows Severina sustained, she became unconscious. Honorata pulled Severina inside her (Honorata’s) house. When the Barangay Captain arrived, he accompanied Honorata and several barangay tanods in taking Severina to the hospital. The cadaver of Solano Macion was left behind watched by other barangay tanods. Severina was admitted at the Mariano Jesus Cuenco Memorial Hospital in Malabuyoc, Cebu. The Barangay Captain and the Barangay Tanods proceeded to the nearby Police Station to report the crimes (TSN, pp. 20-25, February 5, 1996; TSN, pp. 15-16, April 15,1996).
1)	Laceration 2 cm. (R) parietal area.
2)	Laceration 3 cm. occipital area.
3)	Incision - 2 cm. Forehead.
1)	Lacerated wound measuring 5 inches in length at the occipital area of the head.
2)	Lacerated wound 4 inches in length, at the right side of the forehead.
3)	Lacerated wound, 4 inches in length, right eyebrow.
4)	Lacerated wound, 1.5 cms. right upper eyelids.
"Then, the wife of Solano Macion, Severina, picked the gun which was released by Solano Macion. In anticipation that she [would] use it against the accused, the latter also struck her hand with the same lumber. Since he was standing and she was crouching in her attempt to pick-up the gun, the back of her head was also hit which [was] injured.
"1.	The court below erred in finding . . . the accused guilty of the crime of murder in [the] killing of Solano Macion and of frustrated murder in [the] wounding of Severina Macion.
In the main, the Court will resolve the following questions: (1) tenability of self-defense and (2) presence of treachery. In addition, the Court will also discuss the proper penalty.
The appeal has no merit. The Decision, however, should be modified in respect to the penalty for frustrated murder.
"1.	Lacerated wound measuring 5 inches in length at the occipital area of the head.
2.	Lacerated wound 4 inches in length, at the right side of the forehead.
3.	Lacerated wound, 4 inches in length, right eyebrow.
4.	Lacerated wound, 1.5 cms. right upper eyelids.
Significantly, all the wounds were located on the head. No injury was found on the victim’s right hand, which appellant had allegedly hit first. Moreover, contrary to Aglipa’s claim that he had hit Solano’s head only once, the autopsy report clearly indicated that five wounds had been inflicted on the victim.
Q	So, what then is the truth?
A	The truth is, he only challenged [me] on April 24,1995.
Q	So, your statements regarding the shouts of "buno" allegedly made by Solano Macion before April 24, 1995 were not true?
A	They were] not true, Ma’am.
Q	Why did you tell a lie?
What is there to explain? I don’t think that is proper.
The veracity of the entire claim of appellant was further weakened by his flip-flop regarding what he had done after the incident. In his direct testimony, he claimed that he had surrendered at the police station around 3:00 a.m. the following day. 15 On cross examination, however, he admitted that he had not actually surrendered. 16 In fact, the second version was corroborated by PO2 Mario Paler, who testified that he and SPO4 Cesar Guerrero had arrested the appellant while the latter was inside a bus.
Indeed, appellant’s version was contradicted by the prosecution witnesses, who testified that he was the aggressor.
"Q	Now, [o]n the afternoon of April 2i, 1995, at about 5:30, where were you?
A	I was in my house, I saw Solano Macion together with his wife going to the house of the barangay captain.
Q	Aside from the wife of Solano Macion, who were his other companions, if any?
A	Their four (4) children.
Q	Minutes after Severina Macion and her husband, Solano Macion, together with their children, passed by your house towards the house of the barangay captain, what did you hear, if any?
A	I heard Ponciano Aglipa shouting.
Q	What were the shouts of Ponciano Aglipa?
A	He want[ed] to finish them off. He challenged Solano Macion to go down because they would, finish (’magtiwas’) [their quarrel].
Q	Okay. Now, at that time that Solano [–] Ponciano shouted that challenge, where was, at what particular place was Solano?
A	[At] the entrance of my house; right at the door of my house.
Q	Okay. Now, after . . . Where was Ponciano when he shouted the challenge?
A	Ponciano Aglipa, together with his father and his mother, were shouting together.
Q	What did Daniel Aglipa shout?
A	Daniel Aglipa shouted that he wanted killings (’buno’).
Q	What did Anecita Aglipa shout?
Q	What did Solano Macion say, if any?
A	Solano Macion wanted to pay but the Aglipas were shout[ing] because they wanted payment immediately.
Q	Where was Daniel Aglipa at the time that he shouted ‘buno’, ‘patay’?
Q	Where was Anecita Aglipa when she shouted that she did not want payment to be made the following day but she wanted the damage caused by the goats to be made immediately, that evening; where was she?
A	Also at their house, lower portion of their house.
Q	Where was Ponciano at the time he also shouted ‘magtiwas’ ta’, let us finish; where was he?
Already answered, Your Honor: in his house.
Q	Do you confirm defense counsel’s statement that Ponciano Aglipa was at his house at the time he made the challenge about killings?
A	He was initially in his house, but he went around not later than five (5) minutes, and because he was downstairs, he even went around my house and he passed by me.
Q	When you saw . . . How many times did Ponciano Aglipa make that challenge?
A	Two (2) times in their house, and he was [in front]. Later, I saw him passing [in front] of me carrying a crowbar.
Q	Okay. You said that you saw Ponciano Aglipa [pass] by you. Where were you then at that time?
A	I was sitting on the stone at the front yard of my house facing the door of our house.
Q	If the crowbar is presented to you, can you tell this Honorable Court, can you identify that crowbar?
A	This is the one.
Q	Now, when Ponciano Aglipa passed by you while you were sitting on a stone fronting your door, what was the position of Solano Macion?
A	Solano Macion [–] his back was towards me because he was urinating and he was facing the house of the Aglipas with his back towards me.
Q	Where was Solano Macion hit for the first time?
Q	How about the second and the third striking[s], where did those strikings land?
A	He was already slumped to the ground.
Q	In what portion of his body was [he] hit by the second and third striking[s] while he was already in that position?
A	The same: Solano Macion was hit on his head.
Q	So, the three (3) strikings landed on his head?
Q	What did Severina Macion do, [while] standing by near your door?
Verily, appellant failed to show sufficient reason to justify the reversal of the trial court’s findings of facts. He did not show any motive for Cedeño to testify falsely against him. Indeed, we find no reason to reject the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of this witness.
The argument is unacceptable. Speculative at best, it is bereft of any evidentiary basis. In any event, the wounds of Solano were found not only at the back of his head, but also on the right upper eyebrow and the right upper eyelids.
Furthermore, Cedeño’s eyewitness account clearly showed that Aglipa had sneaked behind Solano, who was urinating at the side of the road, and struck him on the head with a crowbar. Not content with doing that, appellant also hit the victim’s equally defenseless wife on the head, almost killing her. Verily, he carried out his attack in a swift manner with no risk to himself from any defense which the victims might put up. Clearly, there was treachery.
Hence, the trial court did not err in finding him guilty of murder for the death of Solano Macion and frustrated murder for the wounding of Severina Macion.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, provides that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that no other aggravating circumstance was established in this case, the trial court was correct in imposing on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the death of Solano Macion.
As earlier stated, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Hence, the penalty for frustrated murder, which is one degree lower, is reclusion temporal. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 23 the proper penalty for the frustrated murder in this case should be ten years of prision mayor to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal.
1.	Written by Judge Galicano C. Arriesgado.
5.	Decision, p. 26; rollo, p. 64.
6.	The case was deemed submitted for resolution on June 7, 2000, upon receipt by this Court of the Appellee’s Brief. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as none had been submitted within the reglementary period.
7.	Signed by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General Mariano M. Martinez and Solicitor Raul J. Mandin.
8.	Appellee’s Brief, pp. 4-8; rollo, pp. 167-171.
9.	Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 104-105. The Brief was signed by Atty. Gines N. Abellana.
10.	Decision, p. 23; rollo, p. 61.
11.	Appellant’s Brief, p. 8; rollo, p. 110.
12.	Art. 11 (1), Revised Penal Code. See also People v. Janairo, 311 SCRA 58, July 22, 1999; People v. De la Cruz, 291 SCRA 164, 180, June 26, 1998; People v. Borreros, 306 SCRA 680, May 5, 1999; People v. Dorado, 303 SCRA 61, February 11, 1999; People v. Vermudez, 302 SCRA 276, January 28, 1999.
14.	TSN, January 8, 1996, pp. 30-32.
15.	TSN, December 27, 1995, pp. 8-9.
"Q	So in effect, therefore, you did not actually surrender because you were confused on that day and you found only on the following day that you were already . . . inside the jail?
17.	People v. Sumbillo, 271 SCRA 428, April 18, 1997; People v. Quinao, 269 SCRA 495, March 13, 1997; People v. Nuestro, 240 SCRA 221, January 18, 1995; People v. Jimenez, 302 SCRA 607, February 4, 1999; People v. Angeles, 275 SCRA 19, July 1 1997; People v. Atuel, 261 SCRA 339, September 3, 1996; People v. Cura, 240 SCRA 234, January 18, 1995; and People v. Malunes, 247 SCRA 317, August 14, 1995.
18.	TSN, April 19, 1996, pp. 22-23.
19.	People v. de La Cruz, 291 SCRA 164, June 26, 1998; People v. Cawaling, 293 SCRA 267, July 28, 1998; People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751, August 31, 1998; People v. Sumalpong, 284 SCRA 464, January 20, 1998.
20.	People v. Oliano, 287 SCRA 158, March 6, 1998; People v. Villamor, 284 SCRA 184, January 16, 1998; People v. Andres, 296 SCRA 318, September 25, 1998; People v. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331, October 7, 1998.
21.	Appellant’s Brief, p. 10; rollo, p. 112.
22.	Decision, p. 26; rollo, p. 64.
23.	Section 1 of the law provides that "in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; . . ."

References: v. 
	Art. 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.