G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, querellante-apelado, vs. BENITO GUHITING y BERNARDO GUHITING, acusados-apelantes.

FACTS

Between one and two in the afternoon of January 30, 1943, Dorotea Orillo, wife of accused Benito, ran towards a guerrilla outpost shouting that her sister-in-law (“Manay”) was dead. The accused Benito and Bernardo Guhiting, along with Daniel Elandag and others at the outpost, immediately went to the house of Matilde Guhiting, sister of Benito and Bernardo. Benito was armed with a piece of wood about one meter long and as thick as a man’s wrist, locally called a “bankaro,” and Bernardo was armed with a pointed bolo, locally called a “buyo.” Upon arrival, they saw Zacarias, Matilde’s common-law husband, seated on a mat with his feet extended and leaning against a trunk; he had Matilde’s head on his lap as she lay on the floor apparently suffering from stomach pains, with Zacarias’s hand on her abdomen to soothe the pain. Benito and Bernardo immediately entered the house and assaulted Zacarias: Benito struck blows with his “bankaro” on Zacarias’s head (right side), right hip, and arms, and Bernardo attacked Zacarias with his bolo, inflicting a wound on the wrist that nearly severed the right hand from the forearm. The brothers then took their sister Matilde away, leaving Zacarias badly injured on the floor. Zacarias’s father, Hermogenes, upon learning what happened, went to the house and found Zacarias in serious condition with a fracture on the right parietal region of the head, broken arm bones, and a wound on the right wrist. Zacarias told his father that Benito and Bernardo Guhiting attacked him. Hermogenes took him home, where he died around five o’clock that same afternoon. The defense claimed that Bernardo acted in self-defense, alleging that Zacarias tried to hack him with a scythe, and that Benito had no participation. The trial court rejected this defense, convicted both accused of murder, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of murder and rejected their claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The defense of self-defense was untenable. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Daniel Elandag and Alfredo Gorimbao, who were relatives by affinity of the accused and had no motive to testify falsely, were credible. The nature and location of Zacarias’s injuries—a fracture on the right parietal region of the head, contusion on the right hip, broken arm bones, and a severe wrist wound—contradicted the claim that only Bernardo inflicted a single wound while parrying an attack. These injuries, caused by a blunt instrument and a bolo, corroborated the prosecution’s version that Benito attacked with a “bankaro” and Bernardo with a “buyo.” The crime committed was murder because the accused attacked Zacarias while he was sitting, unarmed, unprepared for their arrival, and was attentively caring for Matilde, who had her head on his lap, while the accused were armed. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling was not applicable because the house belonged to the accused’s sister, Matilde, and they entered intending to help her, not to commit a crime. The accused acted under the impulse of a justifiable obfuscation, believing their sister had been killed by Zacarias, which constituted a mitigating circumstance with no aggravating circumstances in effect. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessories. The rest of the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.