G.R. No. L-26750 - People vs. Encomienda

Accused-appellant: Jose Encomienda y Navarro; charged with murder (information alleged treachery, evident premeditation, armed with bolo and blunt instrument) and alleged recidivism (prior murder conviction April 30, 1958, CFI Nueva Ecija, Criminal Case No. 4382).
Trial court (Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch IV, Guimba) rendered decision September 12, 1966 convicting appellant of murder aggravated by recidivism but mitigating by voluntary surrender; sentenced to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, ordered to indemnify heirs P6,000, suffer legal accessories and pay costs. Appeal docketed (G.R. No. L-26750); record received by Supreme Court October–November 1966; briefs filed January and July 1967; case submitted August 14, 1967.

Date/place: May 30, 1965, in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. Victim: Severino Cabaral (born 1898; aged 67 at death). Victim was hacienda overseer; appellant a tenant of the hacienda.
Sequence as related by prosecution evidence:

Patrolman Esmenino Delo found Severino mortally wounded in appellant’s yard, kneeling, unable to raise his head; Severino said (ante-mortem writing, Exhibit "C", translated in Exhibit "C-1") "Who boloed you? — Jose Encomienda" and affixed thumbmark; statement recorded at 4:45 P.M. May 30, 1965.
Police found blood stains near appellant’s stairs and a water box with blood; victim taken to clinic; medical certificate (Exh. "A") described multiple wounds including a fatal forehead cut exposing brain, forearm and wrist cuts, and ecchymoses on scapula and hip area. Death certificate (Exh. "B") recorded death May 30, 1965 from shock and hemorrhage.
Police inspector Casimiro Aguinaldo testified appellant went to municipal building at about 4:55 P.M. May 30, 1965 and surrendered a bolo (Exh. "D") and a .32 caliber revolver (Exh. "E") together with two live bullets and four empty shells; appellant refused to give statement and said he would wait for his lawyer.
No eyewitness account of the actual infliction of the mortal wound was produced by the prosecution; prosecution relied on the ante-mortem written statement and medical testimony.

Victim visited appellant repeatedly before May 30, 1965 and on May 30 told appellant he was removed as tenant; confrontation occurred while appellant was cutting wood beside house stairs with a bolo.
Victim drew a revolver with his right hand when about one meter apart; appellant grabbed victim’s right hand (holding gun) with his left, forced him against the stairs and pinned the hand; struggle ensued during which revolver fired four times; appellant struck victim’s right forearm with bolo, later boloed victim’s left forearm when victim tried to get the gun with left hand, shook the right arm so the gun dropped; when victim tried to pick the gun up, appellant stepped back and hacked victim’s forehead; appellant then retrieved the revolver and surrendered both bolo and revolver at municipal building.

Corroboration: neighbor Aurelio Encomienda heard several gunshots and observed thereafter through a hole the victim seated under the shed of appellant’s stairs while appellant sat in front holding a bolo and a revolver; neighbor related observation to barrio captain next morning.

No eyewitness to the fatal blow; prosecution presented no direct testimonial sequence of the killing.
Police did not conduct forensic procedures: no immediate fingerprint examination of the revolver trigger, no powder-burn examinations of hands or clothing of appellant or victim, and no ballistic testing/recovery of slugs to determine trajectories; absence of such examinations weakened proof of who fired the revolver or the dynamics of the struggle.
The ante-mortem written statement (Exh. "C"/"C-1") was brief (three monosyllabic answers) and lacked details of motive and circumstances; patrolman Delo admitted victim was unconscious and could not raise his head when found.

After trial-court decision, AFP T/Sgt Venancio B. Banaga filed petition (Jan. 14, 1970) claiming ownership of Exhibit "E" (.32 caliber revolver) and sought delivery; trial court denied motion due to pendency before Supreme Court; Supreme Court eventually ordered forfeiture to government and delivery to Philippine Constabulary headquarters.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of murder, despite the ante-mortem statement of the victim and the medical evidence.
Whether the ante-mortem statement (dying declaration) of the victim, consisting of brief answers attributing the attack to appellant, sufficed as reliable and conclusive proof of appellant’s guilt.

Whether appellant established legitimate self-defense under Article 11, par. 1, R.P.C., i.e., unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation.
Whether investigative failures (absence of forensic tests and missing ballistic/fingerprint analysis) and lack of eyewitnesses materially undermined the prosecution’s case.
Disposition of the seized revolver and appellant’s bolo following disposition of the criminal case.