GR L 18032; (April, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Gorgonio Serdeña, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of January 9, 1959, in Barrio Katipunan, Sta. Fe, Leyte, several persons, including the appellant Gorgonio Serdeña and the victim Genaro Roldan, gathered at a store. After consuming a large quantity of tuba together, Vicente Palamos and Serdeña went home, while Roldan, intoxicated, fell asleep on a bench in the store. Around 8:00 p.m., Serdeña returned with an 18-inch bolo, declared, “You will not be saved anymore, Pacanap,” and stabbed the sleeping Roldan to death. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Gregorio Palamos and Vicente Valera, among others. The appellant admitted the killing but interposed the defense of his wife’s honor, claiming he acted to prevent Roldan from assaulting his wife, who was alone in the store. The trial court rejected this defense, noting the witnesses supporting it were related to the accused and were nervous and unconvincing, and found it incredible that Roldan would attempt such an act in a store frequented by people. The Court of First Instance of Leyte convicted Serdeña of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment and indemnity.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder, specifically in rejecting his plea of defense of a relative and in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The trial court’s factual findings, including its assessment of witness credibility and its rejection of the appellant’s defense of a relative, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent compelling reasons. The defense was deemed incredible given the circumstances of the killing occurring in a public place where others were present. The appellant’s admission of the deed rendered the prosecution’s failure to establish motive inconsequential. Furthermore, the claim of voluntary surrender was unsupported by the records, as the warrant for his arrest was issued after his alleged surrender date, and the warrant itself indicated a later surrender date. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in full.