G.R. No. L-22946 April 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAXIMO DIVA and CESARIA DIVA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Maximo Diva and Cesaria Diva, husband and wife, were charged with murder for the killing of Ananias Bano on June 3, 1962. The information alleged conspiracy, evident premeditation, treachery, and abuse of superior strength. The incident occurred at a road junction in barrio Santiago, San Francisco, Cebu. Prior to the incident, a boundary dispute existed between the deceased and Maximo Diva (caretaker of his father’s land), which was pending in court. In September 1961, the deceased was ambushed by Maximo and his brother at the same location, but no serious harm occurred. On June 3, 1962, the deceased and his common-law wife, Justa Señor, were returning from a pilgrimage when, at the said junction, they were suddenly attacked by the accused spouses. Maximo was armed with a bolo, and Cesaria with a bolo and a “sangalab.” The deceased retreated while defending himself. The prosecution witnesses Justa Señor and Rosalio Dagatan testified that Cesaria sneaked behind the deceased and hacked him on the back. The deceased eventually picked up a piece of wood, disarmed Cesaria of her bolo, and then exchanged blows with Maximo, who also sustained injuries. The deceased, having suffered eight wounds (two fatal), died. The accused fled after the incident. Maximo surrendered to police in Poro the next day. Maximo admitted killing the deceased but claimed self-defense, alleging the deceased attacked him first from behind in their coconut plantation. Cesaria claimed she did not participate and only shouted for help. The trial court convicted both accused of murder and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

The main issues, as distilled from the appellants’ assignments of error, include: (1) whether evident premeditation qualified the offense; (2) whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited to Maximo Diva; (3) whether conspiracy existed; (4) whether the accused were the aggressors; (5) whether Cesaria Diva participated in the crime; and (6) whether Maximo Diva acted in self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision.
1. The Court found that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven. The prior boundary dispute and the 1961 ambush did not conclusively establish a deliberate plan to kill on June 3, 1962.
2. The Court held that Maximo Diva was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as he surrendered to authorities in Poro the day after the incident.
3. The Court found no conspiracy. The evidence did not sufficiently prove that Cesaria Diva participated in the attack. The testimony of prosecution witnesses that she hacked the deceased from behind was deemed not credible, especially in light of the testimony of another prosecution witness, Cristina Dagatan, whose declaration contradicted that claim. Cesaria Diva was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
4. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the accused were the aggressors and rejected Maximo Diva’s claim of self-defense. The nature, number, and location of the victim’s wounds were inconsistent with a claim of self-defense.
5. Consequently, Maximo Diva was found guilty only of Homicide, not Murder. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he was sentenced to an imprisonment of 10 years of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim.
6. Cesaria Diva was ordered released immediately from detention.