People v. Padiernos, 1976

University of the Philippines College of Law
D2021
Topic Presumptions; Disputable

Case No. G.R. No. L-37284 February 27, 1976
Case Name PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NONA SALAZAR
PADIERNOS, defendant-appellant.
Ponente Justice Concepcion
Quick Facts
Case Criminal Case for Parricide against wife for killing
husband.
Evidence in Question The non-presentation by the prosecution of the
written statement of the cousin of the victim
(who was present at the scene of the crime)
made to the police.
Supreme Court Decision No presumption arises, because the evidence
was available to both parties, since it was in the
possession of the police authorities. It could have
been subpoenaed.
RELEVANT FACTS
- The wife (Nona) came home after dropping off their child at school, and the cousin of the
deceased Leny (the cousin) was there, and Nona just asked Leny where the stuff of the
husband was.
- Shortly after she went into the room, the accused and the deceased came out of the room,
shouting: "Vale, Vale, Vale” (Roberto Valerians), the family driver, responded to the call,
and when he entered the house, he saw the accused holding with her' right hand, a blood-
stained knife, and the deceased sprawled in a bloody mess on the floor, groaning and
moaning in pain. The wife was very angry and said: "Ganyan na lang ang pagmamahal ko sa
iyo, niloloko mo pa ako."
- The members of the family were able to load the deceased into the car to bring him to the
hospital. While in the car, the wife said “"Putang ina mo, iyan ang nababagay sa iyo, pag
namatay ka magpapakamatay na din ako."
- The police went to investigate the residence of the spouses Padiernos and made the
following findings and did the following:
o The room was well arranged, but the bedspread was "spilled with blood". When the
policeman lifted the mattress of the bed, Letty saw thereunder the gun of the
deceased (the husband), and gave it to the officer. The knife used by the accused
in stabbing the deceased was likewise taken by Pat. Arsenio Santos.
- The Necropsy Report 3 shows that the deceased sustained one (1) lacerated wound and
three (3) stab wounds, which caused his death.
- The wife, Nona, admitted that she killed the accused but raised the defense that she killed
him in SELF-DEFENSE. She offered the following version of events:
D2021
o While she and the deceased were in the room, the latter accused her of stealing
P1,000.00 from his brief case, which she allegedly gave to her brother Jose Salazar.
After a heated argument, the deceased pulled her hair and slapped her on the face.
She held the clothes of the deceased, and when the latter pushed her back, they fell
on the floor together. The deceased stood up first, and then, kicked her on the
stomach, saying: "Putang ina mo, papatayin kita." Then, he got his gun under the
mattress and pointed it at her. Believing that the deceased would kill her, she
grabbed, with her left hand, the knife under the bed. Then she stood up and with
the deceased in front of her, covered her eyes with her right hand, and began
swinging the knife from left to right and from right to left. to prevent the deceased
from coming near her. After awhile, she opened her eyes and seeing that the
deceased was about two (2) meters away from her, she opened the door and ran
out fast. The deceased followed her but he fell on the floor in a bloody mess.
ISSUE
● Whether or not the assertion of self-defense is proven? NO.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
Whether or not the The court explaining why she failed to fulfill her burden:
assertion of self-defense
is proven? "It is now a well-settled rule that one who admits the infliction
of injuries which caused the death of another has the burden
Sub-issue: Whether there of proving self-defense with sufficient and convincing
is a presumption in favor evidence. If such evidence is of doubtful veracity, and is not
of the defense because of clear and convincing, the defense must necessarily fail, for
the non-presentation of a having admitted that he was the author of the death of the
witness statement [THE deceased. it was incumbent upon appellant, in order to avoid
RELEVANT ONE] criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance
claimed by him without relying on the weakness of that of
the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, for
even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not
be disbelieved after the accused himself admitted the killing."
Having failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence her
plea of self-defense, the appellant must suffer the
consequences of her unlawful act.”
The court explaining why despite the non-submission of the written

statements (suppression of evidence) of the witness for the
prosecution did not give rise to a presumption in favor of defense:
D2021
“To begin with, the appellant's contention that prosecution witness

Letty Basa is biased because she is the cousin of the deceased,
is without merit. While witnesses may be said to be interested
by reason of their relationship with one of the parties, their
declarations should not be disregarded or rejected
capriciously on the ground of bias alone where-as in the
present case-they are reasonable, consistent and supported
by facts and circumstances. Nor do We find merit in the
contention that the non-presentation of the written
statement of this witness to the police which she allegedly
did not sign, gave rise to the presumption that it "contained
declarations disastrous to the prosecution case". The
presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does
not apply where the evidence was at the disposal of both the
defense and the prosecution. In the case at bar, the alleged
statement of prosecution witness Letty Basa was in the
possession of the police authorities. Hence, the defense
could have requested the court below to issue a subpoena
requiring the police to produce such statement, but as the
defense failed to do that, they cannot now argue that said
statement if produced would have been adverse to the
prosecution.”
Why Nona’s version of Appellant's plea of self-defense is untenable. If she really inflicted
self-defense is untenable. the wounds sustained by the deceased in the manner claimed and
demonstrated by her during the trial, that is, by swinging the knife
sidewise from left to right and from right to left, then the deceased
would have sustained "slash wounds and not stab wounds". The
autopsy report, however, shows that the deceased sustained three
(3) stab wounds, one of which, the fatal wound, being located at the
left part of the back of the deceased. Moreover, these stab wounds,
specially the fatal wound at the back, could not have been sustained
by the deceased if he had been facing the appellant. The nature and
location of the stab wounds indicate that the appellant inflicted
those wounds while she was behind or at the back of the deceased.
These physical facts belie and negate the appellant's claim of self-
defense.
Furthermore, after the stabbing incident, the appellant did not

surrender to the authorities, but fled and went into hiding and
surrendered only after almost four (4) years from the commission of
D2021
the crime. Such conduct of the appellant is inconsistent with and

casts doubt upon her claim of self defense. On the Contrary, it tends
to establish her guilt.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby affirmed in toto.
With costs against the appellant.

People v. Padiernos, 1976

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Padiernos, 1976

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Padiernos, 1976

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Presumptions; Disputable

The court explaining why despite the non-submission of the written

“To begin with, the appellant's contention that prosecution witness

Furthermore, after the stabbing incident, the appellant did not

the crime. Such conduct of the appellant is inconsistent with and

You might also like