32. PEOPLE VS.

PARANA
64 PHIL 331 (1937)
NATURE: The accused Primo Parana appeals from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros sentencing
him, for the crime of murder committed on the person of Manuel Montinola, to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to infirmity
the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1, 000.00 with costs.
FACTS: On the morning of May 19, 1936, in the municipality of Silay, Occidental Negros, the deceased, who was taking part in
a game of monte in the house of Jose Lapuos, was informed by the chauffeur Valentin Poblacion that his brother Glicerio
Montinolas car which he had ordered for his trip to the municipality of Cadiz, was ready to start. Five minutes later the deceased
came downstairs and upon reaching the street, he turned towards the car which was waiting for him.
At that moment the chauffeur Poblacion, who saw the appellant behind the deceased in the attitude of stabbing him
with a dagger shouted to warn him of the danger, and the deceaseds looking behind, really saw the appellant about to stab him.
The deceased, defending himself retreated until he fell on his back into a ditch two meters wide and 1.7 meters deep. Without
lessening the aggression on the appellant mounted astride of the deceased and continued to stab him with the dagger.
After the appellant and the deceased had been separated, the former still asked Montelibano for the weapon taken from
him but at that moment a policeman arrived and the appellant was placed under arrest. When the deceased was later removed
from the ditch into which he had fallen, he was found wounded and was taken to the provincial hospital where he was treated by
Dr. Ochoa, expiring six days later, as a result of general peritonitis produces by one of his wounds.
The preceding nights, at about 11oclosk, monte had also been played in the house of Glicerio Montinola, brother of the
deceased. The deceased took part in said game where the appellant was designated to attend to the players. One Lamay, who was
also taking part in the game, gave appellant the sum of P2 to buy beer. For failure of the appellant to immediately comply with
this request, a discussion ensued between him and Lamay and, as both raised their voices, they were admonished by the deceased.
As the appellant disregarded said admonition, the deceased slapped him and ordered him to leave the house. The appellant left
and went to Lapuos house where he lived, where the deceased took part in another game on the following day, and where said
deceased came from when he was attacked.
At about 7 oclock in the morning of the crime, the appellant purchased from the store of the Japanese Matzu Akisama,
a hunting knife (Exhibit F) which is the same knife used by him in attacking the deceased.
On the same morning, at about seven thirty, the appellant went to the house of Crispin Espacio for who he used to work
to ask to wreak vengeance on somebody. Espacio advised him against it as he might again go to Bilibid prison, inasmuch as he
had already served a term for the crime homicide.
The appellants testimony is the only evidence in his defense. According to him, on the morning of the crime he saw the
deceased taking part in the game in Lapuos house where he lived. The deceased then uttered threatening words to him which he
disregarded, leaving the house and going to a nearby Chinese store. Sometime, later as he was on his way for Lapuos house, he
saw the deceased coming down and approaching the latter, he spoke to him about the incident of the previous night and of their
meeting a few minutes before asking said deceased to forgive and met wreak vengeance on him. The deceased, by way of an
answer drew the revolver which he carried on his belt, and the appellant in the efface suck attitude, attempted to wrest the
weapon from him. In the struggle the deceased fell on his back into a ditch and the appellant mounted astride of him tried to
wrest the revolver from him, and at the same time drew the knife which he carried, attacking the deceased therewith. When the
appellant had succeeded in taking possession of the revolver, the deceased got up and walked towards the car. At that moment
Liboro Montelibano appeared and the appellant turned over the knife and the revolver to him.
The version of the incident given by the appellant in his testimony, without any corroboration is contradicted by the
testimony of the chauffeur Poblacion and of Liboro Montelibano. Furthermore, it is improbable taking into consideration the fact
that he was the offended [arty, suffering from the injustice of the offense received, provided himself with lethal weapon and
approached the deceased, which circumstances do not agree with his attitude according to his testimony.
HELD: The court finds the appellant guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and taking into consideration the
presence of one aggravating and two mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, Act No. 4103, he is sentenced to the penalty of from ten years of prision mayor, as the minimum, to seventeen
years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, as the maximum, affirming the appealed sentence in all other respects with
the costs.

RATIONALE:
The court correctly found that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the crime.
The appellant, inspite of having seen the deceased in the upper story of Lapuos' house, did nor wish to attack the latter there
undoubtedly to avid his being defended by the many players who were with him. Instead, he waited for the deceased at the
nearby store until the latter came down, and attack him while he had his back turned and could not see the appellant. All these,
which were the beginning of the execution of the appellants design to kill ye deceased, constitute treachery inasmuch as they
tended to avoid every risk to himself arising from the defense which the deceased might make.
The aggravating circumstance that the appellant is a recidivist must be taken into consideration. The mitigating
circumstance that he had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against him a few hours before, when
he was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons, must likewise be taken into consideration. Although this

offense, which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, that the influence thereof, by reason o it gravity and the
circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was continued. Lastly, the other mitigating
circumstance that the appellant had voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of the authorities must be considered.