G.R. No. L-10644-45; February 19, 1959
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MELQUIADES GOROSPE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Melquiades Gorospe, was convicted of two counts of murder for the deaths of Melecio Guillen and Leon Padchanan. The cases were tried jointly. On the evening of June 10, 1953, Bernabe Andres and his son-in-law Leon Padchanan went to fetch another son-in-law, Melecio Guillen (the barrio lieutenant), to attend a dance. They were informed of a quarrel between appellant and his nephew, Bonifacio Gorospe. Guillen, Padchanan, and Bernabe Andres went to Bonifacio’s house. Guillen and Padchanan went up to the balcony, while Bernabe Andres remained below. Appellant suddenly appeared on the balcony behind the victims and stabbed Padchanan in the chest. As Guillen turned, appellant held his head and stabbed him in the forearm and then the chest, stating, “I will kill all of you.” Both victims fled and died. Bernabe Andres witnessed the attack and hid. Appellant fled via the kitchen stairs. The bodies were later found, and a hand grenade was found in Guillen’s pocket. Initial investigations led to statements, including one from appellant (Exhibit F), where he admitted the killings, citing a grudge against Guillen from a prior incident and Padchanan’s earlier remark about assaulting him. The original cases were provisionally dismissed after a witness turned hostile. They were later revived based on an affidavit from Bernabe Andres. At trial, appellant claimed self-defense, testifying that the victims, particularly Guillen, had previously assaulted him and that on the night in question, they attacked him with a hand grenade and a knife on the balcony, forcing him to use his bolo in defense. The trial court rejected this defense and found him guilty of murder, sentencing him to cadena perpetua for each count.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder and rejecting his claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the essential elements of self-defense. The claim that the victims were the unlawful aggressors was not credible. The evidence showed the attack was sudden and treacherous (alevosia). Appellant approached the unsuspecting victims from behind on a small, unenclosed balcony and stabbed them without warning, ensuring they had no opportunity to defend themselves. This manner of attack qualified the killings as murder. The Court found no evidence of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. It also rejected the claim of “lack of instruction” as a mitigating circumstance, holding that mere illiteracy (using a thumbmark) is insufficient; it requires a combination of lack of education and lack of sufficient intelligence to understand the consequences of one’s acts, which was not proven. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty for each murder is reclusion perpetua. The trial court’s imposition of “cadena perpetua” was therefore modified to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.