Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8


[G.R. No. 132167. January 8, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO

QUENING Y VERSOZA, accused-appellant.


On appeal is the decision[1] dated October 9, 1997, of the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate, Branch 46, in Criminal Case No. 7737, finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
Appellant was charged under the following Information:

That on or about March 12, 1995, in the afternoon thereof, at sitio Siwayan, barangay
Bangon, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of Masbate, Philippines, within the
evident premeditation, and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and hack with a bolo one Antonio dela Cruz y Rebesi,
hitting the latter on the different parts of the body therefore inflicting wounds which
cause[d] his instantaneous death.


Appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned. Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued. The facts of the case, as culled from the testimonies of the prosecution and
defense witnesses, are as follows:
BERNADETH DELA CRUZ,[3] widow of the victim and the first witness for the
prosecution, testified that on March 12, 1995, her husband, Antonio dela Cruz, attended
a birthday party.In the afternoon of that same day, she saw him walking towards their
house but stopped at appellants house, which was about 10 to 15 meters from theirs.
There was a rumor in their sitiothat her husband and appellants wife were having an
affair. She saw her husband talking to appellants wife just outside the latters
house. Seeing this, she went over to join them. She overheard her husband telling
appellants wife that should appellant die, he would take the latters place. She interrupted
them and said that this could not be true. She and her husband were about to leave when
suddenly appellant arrived. She then tried to explain to appellant that her husband was
just joking. Piqued, appellant immediately boxed her husband. She said she tried to hold
on to appellant to stop him from further hurting her husband, but instead both fell to the
ground. She recalled that appellants brother-in-law, nicknamed Egoy, appeared and tried
to hit her as well. However, her husband hit Egoy first, and the latter fell. The spouses
hurriedly went home. Upon reaching their house, her husband remained and sat by the
gate, facing the house, with his back to the road. She was standing about 4 to 5 meters
away from him, just outside their gate, when she saw appellant, who was armed with a
bolo, walking towards her husband. She recalled that she tried to shout and warn him but
to no avail as no sound came out of her throat. She saw appellant hack her husband to
death. She said appellant killed her husband because appellant might have envied her
On cross-examination, Bernadeth admitted that when her husband left, she stayed
behind and talked to appellants wife who apologized for the rumor. According to her,
when she neared her home, Egoy arrived and engaged her husband in a fistfight in the
middle of the road. She reiterated what she narrated in her direct testimony. [5]
The second witness for the prosecution was JULITO RABINO,[6] a neighbor of the
victim and the appellant. He testified that on March 12, 1995, at around 3:30 P.M., while
he was riding his bicycle, he saw appellant hacking at Antonio, near the gate infront of
the latters house. He shouted for appellant to stop but appellant only looked back at him
and continued to hack Antonio. The victim sustained wounds on his head and
shoulder. Julito said he was just three (3) arms length away. He saw appellant leave and
go to the house of Rafael Mendoza, a barangay kagawad, to surrender. Meanwhile, he
saw Bernadeth faint by the side of the road. He then brought her to her parents house.[7]
DR. ARTEMIO G. CAPELLAN, Municipal Health Officer of Masbate, testified and
interpreted the medico-legal findings of Dr. Noel Jazul, who conducted the autopsy and
prepared the autopsy report, as follows: (1) Hacking type of wound located at the left side
of the head. (2) Hacking wound, 11 cm. x 5 cm., parieto occipital right. (3) Hack wound 5
cm. x 3 cm., extended from maxillary area, located at the right cheek up to the back
passing through the right ear. (4) Hacking wound, 11 cm. x 2 cm., right postero lateral
aspect, at the right side of the neck through his back. (5) Hacking wound, 8 cm. x 4 cm.,
with complete fracture at the right shoulder. (6) Hacking wound, 10 cm. x 10 cm., right
scapula, at the right side of the back. (7) Hacking wound at 17 cm. x 2.5 c.m., scapular
area posterior chest, at the left side of the back. Dr. Capellan clarified that of the seven
wounds, nos. 6 and 7 were at the back. All the wounds were fatal. However, he was not
certain which of the wounds caused the actual death of the victim.[8]
For the defense, witness ORLANDO BARTOLAY CABILES testified that on March
12, 1995, while standing six (6) meters away from the house of appellant, he saw Antonio,
armed with a bolo, running towards the direction of appellants residence. Antonio then
found appellant in his yard. Antonio tried to hit appellant with the bolo but missed. They
grappled for the bolo and appellant, after getting the weapon, hacked Antonio. Appellant
then went up his house while Antonio ran towards the middle of the road where he
fell. Cabiles also noticed that there were other people who saw the incident but were too
afraid to come forward. When cross-examined, he admitted that he resided in Sitio
Bangon while the incident was in Sitio Siwayan; that he was in the vicinity of the crime
because there was a shorter road in the area leading to his house; and that when he ran
for councilor in the local elections, appellant and he were political allies. He likewise
admitted that had he not been asked by appellant, he would not have testified for him. He
claimed that he never saw what or how the incident started and that he witnessed only
the part when Antonio armed with a bolo rushed towards appellant.[9]
The final witness was appellant himself. In his own defense, ARMANDO QUENING
recounted that on March 12, 1995, at around 3:30 P.M., he was awakened by a
commotion near the gate of his house. When he looked out the window, he saw Antonio
boxing his brother-in-law, Egoy. He went down to pacify them but to no avail. When
Antonio saw him, Antonio was uttering It is good that you came here., while lunging at
him with a twelve (12) inch-knife. Antonio missed. They grappled for the knife and he
managed to get hold of it then he thrust the knife at Antonio. He explained that perhaps
out of blind rage, he hit the victim four (4) times. At this point, he claimed, he no longer
knew where Egoy was. He surrendered to Councilor Rafael Mendoza who brought him
to the Municipal Building of Aroroy.[10]
In its decision, the trial court found appellant guilty for the murder of Antonio dela
Cruz. The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the accused Armando Quening y Versoza is hereby sentenced to

suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay the heirs of Antonio dela
Cruz y Rebesi the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
damages. The accused is further ordered to be transferred to the National Penitentiary.


In this appeal, he avers that the trial court erred:

Appellant seeks the reversal of his conviction and raises principally the issue of
credibility of the prosecution witnesses as well as the propriety of the trial courts
appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the offense.
On the issue of credibility, appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving full
faith and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He avers that the
court a quo merely adopted the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but wholly
disregarded those of the witnesses for the defense.[14]
For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General posits that the trial court did not err
in finding appellant guilty of murder qualified by treachery. However, the State moves for
the modification of the trial courts decision insofar as the award of moral damages is
concerned, which according to the State should have been denominated as indemnity ex
delicto and should be increased from P50,000 to P75,000.
It is well settled that in assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great
respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the
demeanor of witnesses and their deportment while testifying. Such an opportunity is
denied the appellate courts, which rely on the cold pages of the records of the
case.[15] Only when such assessment is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of a
significant fact or circumstance that could affect the result will the appellate court depart
from the trial courts factual conclusions.[16]
Appellant claims self-defense. For self-defense to prosper, the following
requirements should be met: (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.[17]
Appellant avers that he merely came to the aid of his brother-in-law, Egoy, who was
being attacked with fistblows by the victim. However, Bernadeth dela Cruz, the victims
wife, positively testified that appellant stabbed her husband without any provocation on
his part.
Between these contradicting testimonies, we are constrained to uphold the findings
of the lower court. It found that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. Appellant claimed he was attacked by the victim with a bolo. We find it less than
credible that the victim who was a bigger man, and armed with a bolo, could be disarmed
by appellant, who was unarmed and of smaller built. Noteworthy too is the fact that
despite appellants claim that they grappled for the possession of the bolo, appellant did
not sustain any wound or bruise. Other than his bare allegation, there is no evidence on
record, testimonial or documentary, to support appellants claim that the victim was the
unlawful aggressor.
Curiously too, as observed by the trial court, appellants brother-in-law, Christopher
dela Pea nicknamed Egoy, was not presented as a witness, when Egoy was the person
that appellant allegedly aided. Appellant could not even account for the whereabouts of
Egoy after the stabbing took place. If it is true that appellant merely came to Egoys rescue,
it was crucial that Egoy corroborate his plea of self-defense. But Egoy was not put on the
witness stand. There was no sufficient proof of unlawful aggression on the victims
part. Thus, appellants claim of self-defense could not prosper since unlawful aggression
is an indispensable element thereof.[18]
Appellant when cross-examined by the prosecutor testified, thus,
Q: What is the name of your brother-in-law with a quarrel with Antonio dela Cruz?
A: Christopher dela Pea.[19]
Q: And according to you, the victim, Antonio dela Cruz boxed on the face your brother-
A: Yes sir.
Q: He boxed your brother-in-law?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And after boxing your brother-in-law, Antonio dela Cruz stopped boxing your
A: Yes sir, because my brother-in-law fel[l] unconscious.
Q: But when your brother-in-law fel[l] unconscious, Antonio dela Cruz felt aggressive?
A: Antonio dela Cruz fell in the perimeter fence.
Q: But is it not that you said, you pacified the quarrel between Antonio dela Cruz and
your brother-in-law Charlie dela Pea?
A: Yes sir.
Q: At the time Antonio dela Cruz [was] boxing your brother-in-law, Antonio dela Cruz
was not carrying any weapon that is why he only boxed your brother-in-law?
A: There was.
Q: You mean that at the time Antonio dela Cruz boxed your brother-in-law, he was
already carrying that weapon?
A: Yes sir.
Q: But he did not use it against your brother-in-law?
A: No sir. He was not able to use it because it was still [on] his waist.
Q: It was only when you pacified that Antonio dela Cruz would like to attack you with
his bladed weapon, is that correct?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And you were able to grab into possession that bladed weapon from Antonio dela
A: Yes sir.
Q: So after you have wrestled from Antonio dela Cruz that bladed weapon, Antonio has
no weapon anymore?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Therefore, there was no more danger in yourself because Antonios weapon was in
your possession?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How many times did you hack Antonio?
A: Four (4) times.
Q: Actually Mr. Witness, according to you when you hacked Antonio dela Cruz you lost
control of yourself, you could not really count the number of times you hacked the
victim because according to you, you lost control of yourself?
Atty. Sulat: Misleading, Your Honor.
A: Yes sir.[20]
Given the aforecited circumstances in this case, appellants plea of self-defense has
no leg to stand on. Further, as shown by the autopsy report, the victim suffered seven
hack wounds, all of which were deemed fatal by the medico-legal officer. The gravity of
these hack wounds negates the claim of self-defense. It is an oft-repeated rule that the
presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their seriousness would negate
self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill.[21]
Additionally, we note that the testimony of appellants corroborating witness, Orlando
Bartolay Cabiles, is suspect. Cabiles admitted that he was a political ally of appellant; that
he came forward upon the invitation of the latter; and that conveniently he was in the area
by chance when he took a shortcut home. Compare this with the testimony of prosecution
witness Julito Rabino. Despite the grueling cross-examination by the defense, his
testimony was consistent, straightforward, and candid. The defense had not imputed any
ill-motive against him for testifying. It is settled that where there is no evidence that the
and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[22]
Was the crime qualified by treachery? There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[23]
As revealed by witnesses in their testimony, on the day of the crime, there was a
previous altercation between appellant and the deceased. Not long after, the stabbing
incident took place. The victims wife testified that appellant tapped her husbands right
shoulder before appellant hacked her husband, a warning that the latters life was in
danger.[24] Also, since witness Rabino said he did not see how the incident commenced,
his testimony could not be utilized to support the allegation of treachery. The fatal wounds
found at the back of the deceased do not, by themselves, indicate treachery.[25] In the
absence of other details that would confirm that indeed appellant deliberately adopted the
means employed to kill the deceased, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
treachery cannot be appreciated. Treachery cannot be presumed and must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. [26] Hence, the
conviction of appellant must be modified so that he is declared guilty not of murder but
only homicide.
Moreover, we find in favor of appellant the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. For surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and must show the
intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either: (1)
because he acknowledges his guilt; or (2) because he wishes to save the authorities the
trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. [27] Appellant testified that after
the hacking incident he went to the house of kagawad Rafael Mendoza who brought him
to the Municipal Building of Aroroy to admit to the killing, albeit in self-defense. This was
effectively corroborated by the prosecution through witness Julito Rabino. [28]
Finally, the award of damages needs modification. The trial court improperly
awarded P50,000 as moral damages. Moral damages can be awarded only upon
sufficient proof that the aggrieved party is entitled to it in accordance with Article 2217 of
the Civil Code.[29] Nothing on record shows that the wife asked for moral damages. Since
moral damages was not prayed for and no evidence to substantiate the award for moral
damages was presented,[30] moral damages may not be awarded. Nonetheless, the heirs
of the victim are entitled to civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, pursuant to prevailing
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, Branch 46, in
Criminal Case No. 7737, is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that appellant is found
guilty only of HOMICIDE, not murder. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender in his favor, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its minimum period of 6 years and 1 day
of prision mayor as minimum and 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum
in relation to Article 64[32] of the Revised Penal Code. The award for moral damages in the
amount of P50,000 is deleted for lack of basis. But appellant is ordered to pay the heirs
of the victim the amount of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto.
Costs de oficio.
Buena, J., on official leave.

Rollo, p.10.
Id. at 4.
Also referred to as Bernardita dela Cruz and Bernadette dela Cruz elsewhere in the TSN, August 21,
1995, p.12; September 26, 1995, p. 1.
TSN, August 21, 1995, pp. 2-6.
TSN, August 21, 1995, pp. 7-12.
Also referred to as Dioleto Rabino in some part of the records.
TSN, September 26, 1995, pp. 3-10.
TSN, July 24, 1996, pp. 2-6.
TSN, January 7, 1997, pp. 1-5.
TSN, February 18, 1997, pp. 2-6.
Rollo, p. 16.
Id. at 31.
Id. at 33.
Id. at 34.
People vs. Garcia, G.R. Nos. 137379-81, 341 SCRA 502, 509 (2000); citing People vs. Castillo, G.R.
No. 132025, 335 SCRA 100, 111-112 (2000); People vs. Babera, G.R. No. 130609, 332 SCRA
257, 266 (2000).
People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, 333 SCRA 269, 280 (2000); People vs. Balgos, G.R. No.
126115, 323 SCRA 372, 380 (2000).
Art. 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code.
People vs. Lascota, G.R. No. 113527, July 17, 1997, 275 SCRA 591, 601 (1997).
Also referred as Charlie dela Pea.
TSN, February 18, 1997, pp. 7-10.
People vs. Rivero, G.R. No. 112721, 242 SCRA 354, 360 (1995), citing People vs. Maceda, G.R. No.
91106, 197 SCRA 499 (1991); People vs. Sagadsad, G.R. No. 88042, 215 SCRA 641 (1992);
People vs. Nuestro, G.R. No. 111288, 240 SCRA 221, 228 (1995), citing People vs. Boniao, G.R.
No. 100800, 217 SCRA 653 (1993).
People vs. Alfeche, G.R. No. 124213, 294 SCRA 352, 376 (1998), citing People vs. Simon, G.R. No.
56925, 209 SCRA 148 (1992); People vs. Rostata, 218 SCRA 657 (1993); People vs. Bergante,
G.R. Nos. 120369-70, 286 SCRA 629, 642 (1998).
Art.14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code.
TSN, August 21, 1995, p. 5.
People vs. Maturgo, Sr., G.R. No. 111872, 248 SCRA 519, 531 (1995).
People vs. Silvestre, G.R. No. 109142, 244 SCRA 479, 494 (1995).
People vs. Sion, G.R. No. 109617, 277 SCRA 127, 154 (1997).
TSN, September 26, 1995, p. 5.
People vs. Manegdeg, G.R. No. 115470, 316 SCRA 689, 709 (1999).
Citing Kierulf vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114383, 269 SCRA 433, 452 (1997) and People vs. Corea,
G.R. No. 114383, 269 SCRA 76, 94 (1997).
People vs. Verde, G.R. No 119077, 302 SCRA 690, 706 (1999).
ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods.- In cases in which the
following rules, according to whether there are or no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
(2) When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.