G.R. No. L-3479; July 30, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eufracio Irinco, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On the afternoon of March 10, 1947, the appellant Eufracio Irinco and the victim Donato Caparroso drank tuba at the house of Margarita Ponce. A dispute arose when Donato reminded Irinco of his promise to repair Donato’s house to pay a debt; Irinco stated he would pay in cash instead. Donato remarked that Irinco was saved from hunger but was backing out of his commitment. Irinco then went down and challenged Donato to a fight, but Donato declined, citing the presence of frightened children. The family secured the house and made Donato stay overnight. At around 4:00 a.m. the next day, Donato left for home accompanied by his nephew Jesus Caparroso. While on a trail near the Palapag river, Irinco suddenly appeared and struck Donato with a bolo on the inner side of his right foreleg near the ankle. Donato exclaimed, “Agui, you wounded me Eufracio,” and Jesus pleaded with Irinco to stop. Irinco instead threatened Jesus, who then ran home pursued by Irinco. Donato was later found dead; the medical examination showed the bolo cut severed a principal artery, causing fatal hemorrhage. The police arrested Irinco that same morning and found a blood-stained bolo hidden in his house. Irinco admitted being at the house and drinking with Donato but claimed he went home, slept, and was arrested the next morning while going to work, asserting the bolo stains were from tan bark.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of murder is sufficiently proven by the evidence presented.

RULING

Yes, the appellant’s guilt for murder is amply substantiated. The Court found the testimony of the lone eyewitness, Jesus Caparroso, credible and without motive to falsely incriminate the appellant. The appellant’s own admissions supported the prosecution’s theory that he was incensed by the victim’s attitude. The attack was sudden and without warning, qualifying the killing as murder. However, the Court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, as the bolo thrust was directed at the victim’s limb rather than the upper body, indicating the appellant did not foresee the fatal severity. No aggravating circumstances were present. The penalty was modified to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, with legal accessories. The appealed judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellant.