G.R. No. L-66240 October 8, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAULINO SAROL, DOROTEO SAROL, FRANCISCO SAROL, GENARO SAROL and VICTORIO SAROL, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On November 11, 1980, during a basketball game in San Fernando, Cebu, Eutiquio Canoy was stabbed nine times and died on the spot. Paulino Sarol surrendered that same afternoon, yielding a small bolo. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Visitacion Canoy, who stated she saw the five Sarol brothers encircle the victim, with Francisco holding Eutiquio’s right hand. The trial court, evaluating the testimonies, credited the portion of witness Juanito Canoy’s account that he saw Francisco holding the victim’s hands, Paulino stabbing from the back, and Doroteo stabbing from the front. This was corroborated by autopsy findings of six frontal and three back wounds. The defense, presenting twelve witnesses, claimed incomplete self-defense, alleging Paulino was first beaten by the victim with a cane.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants based on partly credited testimony, in classifying the crime as murder, and in not acquitting Francisco and Doroteo or appreciating incomplete self-defense for Paulino.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty and civil indemnity. The plea of incomplete self-defense for Paulino was rejected. The legal logic is that the burden of proving self-defense rests on the accused, and the number and nature of the victim’s wounds—nine stab wounds inflicted while he was defenseless and encircled—negated any claim of a mere defensive act and instead demonstrated a determined effort to kill. The Court upheld the trial judge’s discretion to partly accept and partly reject witness testimony, noting it is permissible for a trier of fact to believe some portions and disbelieve others based on the evidence’s overall credibility and consistency with objective findings like the medico-legal report. The crime was properly categorized as murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, as three assailants, two armed, made a simultaneous attack on a defenseless victim who had raised his arms. All three were principals by concerted action. Regarding penalty, Paulino was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, his 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. Civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00.