G.R. No. L-110; April 3, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VALERIANO PAGKALIWAGAN and VICTORIANO PAGKALIWAGAN, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of March 16, 1945, in Barrio San Agapito, Verde Island, Batangas, a group of armed men gathered in front of the barrio lieutenant’s house for instructions on guarding against Japanese stragglers. The deceased, Teodoro Ebora (an old man), ironically remarked that those who displayed superficial bravery and would run upon seeing a Japanese should not become guards. Appellant Valeriano Pagkaliwagan, a young man present and a nephew-in-law of Ebora, sharply retorted that their courage could be tested by those who would not run. A verbal altercation ensued. In an effort to pacify them, appellant Victoriano Pagkaliwagan intervened, whereupon Valeriano embraced Teodoro Ebora. At this juncture, Ebora called Valeriano “hijo de p.” Valeriano, incensed, abruptly took hold of his bolo and struck Ebora on the chest, inflicting a fatal gaping wound. As Ebora unsheathed his own bolo and inflicted a cheek-to-cheek wound on Valeriano’s face in a counter-offensive, appellant Victoriano Pagkaliwagan, hearing Valeriano’s cry of “Que dolor, hermano,” struck the rear side of Ebora’s head with his bolo. Victoriano’s blow accidentally also wounded Valeriano on the head. Teodoro Ebora died from the wounds inflicted by the appellants. The prosecution presented two eyewitnesses, Leon Rayos and Delfin Garcia. Valeriano Pagkaliwagan’s signed statement (Exhibit C) indicated a prior land dispute with the deceased, which explained his antagonistic attitude. The trial court convicted both appellants of homicide.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants guilty of homicide based on the evidence presented.

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The guilt of both appellants was duly established by the direct, positive testimony of two eyewitnesses (Leon Rayos and Delfin Garcia) who had no reason to falsely implicate them. The court found the sequence of events credible: Valeriano initiated the fatal attack with treachery (sudden attack while embracing the victim), and Victoriano intervened by striking the deceased, acting out of obfuscation to aid his brother. The court rejected the defense’s arguments. It upheld the admissibility and probative value of Valeriano’s signed statement (Exhibit C), as he admitted his signature and his claimed weakness at the time was belied by his subsequent travels and activities. The court also correctly sustained the trial court’s exclusion of defense Exhibits 2 and 3 (affidavits from the Mindoro Provincial Hospital Director and Provincial Fiscal) as hearsay, not falling under the exception for public documents. Regarding penalties, the court agreed with the trial court’s assessment: For Valeriano, the mitigating circumstances of provocation (by the insulting words) and voluntary surrender offset the aggravating circumstance of treachery. For Victoriano, the mitigating circumstance of obfuscation was applied. The penalty imposed—an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal—was in accordance with law. The appealed judgment was affirmed.