G.R. No. 51686 September 10, 1993
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Gregorio Pastoral y Tamondong, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the night of January 19, 1978, the body of Rodolfo Meneses was found at a store. His death was caused by a stab wound. The prosecution’s version, as adopted by the trial court, was that accused-appellant Gregorio Pastoral appeared at the store, warned others not to meddle, and then lunged at Meneses with a concealed knife. After an initial miss, Pastoral jumped over the counter, and despite Meneses attempting to defend himself with a bench, Pastoral succeeded in fatally stabbing him in the stomach. Pastoral was convicted of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, Pastoral contended that the trial court erred in convicting him based on the testimony of a single witness, Bonifacio Lagman, whose credibility he attacked due to alleged inconsistencies and bias. Pastoral claimed self-defense, asserting that Meneses was the initial aggressor who attacked him with a balisong, and the fatal wound occurred accidentally during a struggle. He also claimed the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testimony of prosecution witness Bonifacio Lagman is credible.
2. Whether the accused acted in self-defense.
3. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is present.
4. Whether the crime committed is murder or homicide.

RULING

1. Yes, the testimony of Bonifacio Lagman is credible. The Supreme Court found the alleged inconsistencies in his testimony (e.g., use of “chair” vs. “bench,” seating arrangement details, sequence of events) to be minor, inconsequential, and adequately explained. The variance between his sworn statement and court testimony was not fatal, as affidavits are considered inferior to court testimony due to being often incomplete and prepared ex parte. His relationship to the victim does not, by itself, impair his credibility absent proof of improper motive.
2. No, the accused did not act in self-defense. The Court rejected Pastoral’s claim. His lone corroborating witness was not credible, as his view was obstructed and his companion denied witnessing the incident. Pastoral’s conduct after the incident—leaving the scene, going home to sleep without aiding the victim or informing his wife, and later attempting to hide from police—was inconsistent with innocence and belied his claim of accidental killing.
3. No, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is not present. Police testimony established that Pastoral was found hiding on a bus and was apprehended, which negated his claim of voluntarily surrendering himself to authorities.
4. The crime committed is homicide, not murder. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation alleged in the Information were not conclusively established. The prosecution failed to prove that the mode of attack was deliberately chosen to ensure execution without risk to the assailant. Evidence of a prior motive (Meneses testifying against Pastoral in a theft case) was insufficient to prove evident premeditation, as there was no showing of a clear plan or sufficient time to reflect between the alleged decision to kill and its execution.
DISPOSITIVE:
The conviction for murder is REDUCED to HOMICIDE. Accused-appellant Gregorio Pastoral y Tamondong is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, ten (10) months and ten (10) days of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum. The civil indemnity is increased from P12,000.00 to P50,000.00.