Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45834:127089&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:32:36+00:00

Document:
RAFAEL RENDON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and INOCENCIA D. MAGRARE, Respondents.
Assailed in this Petition for Review is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 7, 1996 affirming the conviction of petitioner herein Rafael Rendon for homicide in Criminal Case No. 4181.
That on or about 5:30 o'clock more or less in the afternoon of October 28, 1989, at Brgy. Bia-an, Municipality of Hamtic, Province of Antique, Philippines, and within the preliminary jurisdiction of this Honorable Circuit Trial Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to kill and with treachery, [grabbed], [and] grappled with the use of bolo and spear (Bangkaw), stabbed the victim, RODOLFO MAGRARE, and [as] a result thereof, said RODOLFO MAGRARE DIED instantaneously.
Accused Rafael Rendon is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide for the death of Rodolfo Magrare for which the penalty of reclusion temporal is imposed under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstances to offset the [same], accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal or maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P50,000.00 for the death of Rodolfo Magrare, and another sum of P15,000.00 spent in relation thereto.
WHEREFORE, we find no reversible error in the appealed Decision, which is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
To prove self-defense, petitioner brought forward the witness Larry Sarion,9 who testified that on the day the incident happened, he was at petitioner's house helping him saw some logs. According to Sarion, they stopped and rested at around 3:30 p.m., and walked to the house of petitioner's father, which was one kilometer away. At around 5:30 p.m., they proceeded back to petitioner's house and as they were walking, the victim Magrare blocked them and asked petitioner, "Why are you smiling?" Petitioner allegedly answered that he was not, but Magrare immediately grabbed petitioner's bolo. The bolo was in a sheath hung at the waist of petitioner. Magrare was not able to completely grab the bolo away from petitioner and the two men struggled for its possession. However, Magrare fell on the ground and was hit on the neck by the bolo. The witness further testified that the two men still continued to struggle for around fifteen minutes. He also saw petitioner's wife helping petitioner strike Magrare.
On the other hand, the prosecution presented two witnesses: (a) Leticia Ferreras,10 a neighbor of the Magrares, and (b) Inocencia Magrare,11 the widow of the victim. Both witnesses testified that on that fateful day, at around 5:30 p.m., while they were sitting with the victim on a pile of sand in front of the house of the Magrares, petitioner came to them, unsheathed his bolo, and poised himself to attack Magrare. Petitioner, at first, was unable to hit the victim since the latter was able to grab the hand of the former. The two men then struggled for possession of the bolo, but Magrare fell and was hit on the neck by the bolo. Petitioner then called out to his wife for help. His wife came out carrying a spear and started thrusting the spear at the back of Magrare. The victim's wife also testified that petitioner and his wife dragged her husband a few meters away from where the fight began. The two then ran away after they saw that the victim had stopped moving.
Petitioner also claims that he was not physically fit enough to dare to attack a bigger and stronger man like the victim, Magrare. He further asserts that, in fact, he walks with a limp, a result of a past leg injury. To prove this, petitioner brought forward Dr. Sme Panes as witness.15 Dr. Panes testified that he treated petitioner for a leg fracture from January 22, 1988 to February 28, 1988. Upon cross-examination, however, Dr. Panes admitted that such an injury may heal in only thirty days. This Court notes that the attack against Magrare happened on October 28, 1989, more than one year after petitioner allegedly suffered the alleged fracture.
Finally, this Court cannot give credence to the allegation of petitioner that the hearing on July 9, 1990 was held inside the chambers of the presiding judge, and not in open court. An examination of the records does not show that there was anything unusual by the way the trial was being held.16 Furthermore, the transcripts do not show any objection from petitioner's counsel or any statement made on record that the manner by which the trial was held was highly unusual and directly infringed upon the rights of petitioner as the accused in the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
5 Decision of the Court of Appeals, p. 1; Rollo, p. 17.
6 Petition, p. 7; Rollo, p. 9.
7 Cormero v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 291 (1995).
8 People v. Mercado, 159 SCRA 453 (1988).
9 Testimony of Larry Sarion, July 19, 1991.
10 Testimony of Leticia Ferreras, May 11, 1990.
11 Testimony of Inocencia Magrare, June 14, 1990.
12 Elayda v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 349 (1991).
13 People v. Baluarte, 60 SCRA 356 (1974), Cortez v. Court of Appeals, 163 SCRA 139 (1988), People v. Lapitaje, et al., 397 SCRA 674 (2003).
14 People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 118912, May 28, 2004.
15 Testimony of Dr. Sme Panes, August 28, 1998.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.