G.R. No. L-15130; May 31, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CLIMACO DEMIAR, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Climaco Demiar lived with his wife and his mother, Pilar Edaño, in San Remigio, Cebu. On August 5, 1955, at about noontime, appellant and his wife went to the market. Upon returning before sunset, appellant found that his mother had not prepared food. When she explained she had been busy grinding corn, appellant became angry and choked her. This was witnessed by Pacita Catanda, the 12-year-old granddaughter, and the screams attracted Trifona Demiar (appellant’s sister) and Meliton Magdadaro (the barrio lieutenant). Trifona intervened and appellant released his mother and went upstairs. Pilar Edaño, speaking in a guttural voice, told Magdadaro she had been choked by her son. After the incident, Pilar Edaño’s face became bluish, she could no longer swallow, and her condition deteriorated until she died three days later. Appellant prevented Trifona from calling a doctor, threatening her with death. After the death, the incident was reported to the police. During investigation, appellant initially denied choking his mother, claiming he only held her shoulder, but his wife admitted the choking. Appellant also cried, asked for forgiveness, and sent a letter requesting the complaint be withdrawn. At trial, appellant claimed his mother died of natural sickness (high blood pressure) and that the accusation was fabricated by a sister who bore a grudge over a land mortgage.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant Climaco Demiar of the crime of parricide.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed but the penalty is modified. The Supreme Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Pacita Catanda, Trifona Demiar, and Meliton Magdadaro to be credible, direct, and positive, establishing that appellant choked his mother, which led to her death three days later. The court rejected appellant’s defense of death by natural causes, noting the witnesses’ credibility and the corroborating evidence, including appellant’s own pleas for forgiveness. The crime committed is parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as the victim was his legitimate mother. The court recognized the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong but rejected the claim of obfuscation. The penalty is modified from the indeterminate penalty imposed by the trial court to reclusion perpetua. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects, including the indemnity and costs.