G. R. No. L-6372. April 29, 1954

Convicted of the crime of murder, with which they are charged, and,
hence, sentenced to life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties
provided by law and to, jointly and severally, indemnify the heirs of
the deceased, Crispin Amacio, In the sum of P2,000.00, and to pay the
costs, defendants Sinforiano Sedenio and Sipidio Mejenio have appealed
to this Court.

The theory of the prosecution is as follows: 0n December 18, 1950, at
about 5sC0 p.m., Crispin Amacio, who was living with Felina Sedenio,
without the benefit of marriage, left their house in the sitlo of Libon,
municipality of Catarman, province of Samar, for the purpose of
gathering tuba. A few minutes later, Espiridion Benesisto saw
Crispin talking with appellant Sinforiano Sedenio atop a coconut tree,
about 24 feet from the ground, not far away from said house. Soon later,
Exequiel Congayan—a resident of the sitio of Libho, who, likewise,
happened to pass by — noticed that Sinforiano kicked Crispin, while he
was cutting a coconut bud, and that, as a consequence, Crispin fell to
the ground. As he tried to stand up, appellant Elpidio Mejenio, who was
then at the foot of the tree, struck him on the chin with the butt of a
home-made firearm, locally known as “bardog”, thus knocking him down.
Thereupon Sinforisno, who had meanwhile come down from the tree, stabbed
Crispin, with a knife, in the throat. Thereupon, Exequiel, who became
frightened, crawled away to prevent the appellants from noticing his
presence, and, when already at a safe distance, he ran away towards the
poblacion. As he did so, Exequiel met Juan Sodiaga, who was walking
towards the scene of the occurrence, where he saw appellants talking to
each other under a coconut tree and heard one of them say to the other
“he is already dead.”

That evening, at about eight o’clock, appellants, armed with a
shotgun and a small bolo, locally known as “dipang”, arrived at the
house of Pelagio Sedenio and his wife, Teresa Mejenio, in the sitio of
Macagtas, Catalan, Samar. Pelagio is the father of appellant Sinforiano
Sedenio and of Crispin Amacio’s paramour, Pelina Sedenio, whereas Teresa
Mejonio is a sister of appellant Elpidio Mejenio and the step-mother of
his co-dsfendant Sinforiano Sedenio. Sinforiano, whose shirt was then
blood-stained, confided to his father, in the presence of Elpidio
MeJenio and Teresa Mejenio, that they (appellants) had killed Crispin
Amacio, adding that he (Sinforiano) had thereby avenged the maltreatment
of his sister, Pelina Sedenio, by the deceased, Elpidio Mejenio, in
turn, said that he had already wreaked vengeance upon Crispin, the
latter having destroyed his (Elpidio’s) home-made shotgun.

Later that same night, at about eleven o’clock, Lucio Arcebuche
reported to Vicente Ainacio, in the pobiacion of Catarman, that his son
Crispin was dead already. Vicente and his son-in-law immediately
proceeded to Crispin’s house, where Felina Sedenio was. As they asked
for Crispin, she answered:

“I do not know. May be he fell down, because he did not return
anymore,” Accordingly, Vicente Aniacio, with several other persons,
searched for Crispin, whom they found dead, about three meters from the
coconut tree where he used to gather tuba, some 300 meters from
his house. Upon examination of the local sanitary inspectors the
latter found upon the body of Crispin the following injuries:

“Lacerated wound, left forearm, w/ a dimension of 1/2 inch long,
1/4 inch wide and 2 inches deep.

Lacerated wound, right side cheek, w/ a dimension of 1/2 inch long
1/4 inch wide and 1 1/2 inches deep. Lacerated wound, on the throat, w/
a dimension of 1/2 inch long, 1/4 inch wide and 2 inches deep and the
mouth portion was disorder, with a color of blackest type.” (Exhibit A,
p. 10, Record.)

Said official expressed trio opinion that Crispin died of shock
following acute hemorrhage from the throat wound.”

Appellants set up an alibi. Sinforiano Sedenio testified
that on Do camber 13, 1950, he was confined in the insular penitentiary,
at Muntinlupa, Rizal, serving a term for the crime of robbery. However,
it appears that 8iruoriano had escaped from jail prior to the
occurrence and that lie was
in Catarman, not in Muntinlupa, on said date. Upon the other hand,
appellant Elpidio Mejenio asserted that he was then in his house, in the
sitio of Manaliguan, which is only two kilometers from the scene of the
crime, so that it was not impossible for him to have been there at the
time of the commission ox the offense charged. Besides, Elpidio’s
statement is completely uncorroborated.

In any event, appellants’ alibis cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of:

1) Espiridion Benesisto, who saw Sinforiano Sedenio talking with.
Crispin Amacio, on top of the coconut tree aforementioned, a few seconds
before the occurrence;

2) Exequiel Congayan, who saw appellants commit ting the offense
charged;

3) Juan Sodiaga, who saw them, at the scene of the crime,
immediately after its perpetration; and

4) Pelagio Sedenio and Teresa Mejenio, to whom appellants admitted
their guilt, in the manner above stated.

Again, these witnesses for the prosecution had no possible motive to
falsely incriminate appellants herein. On the contrary, Pelagio Sedenio
and. Teresa Mejenio had every reason to favor appellants’ acquittal, in
view of the relation of consanguinity and affinity that binds them.

The defense tried to prove that the death of Crispin Amacio was due
to an accidental fall from the coconut tree. For this purpose, it
introduced the testimony of Felina Sedenio and Florentine Sedenio but
neither saw Crispin falling felina declared that Florentine) reported to
her that Crispin had fallen from said tree; that she went, therefore,
to the place where Crispin used to gather tuba, and there found
his dead body, with his throat impaled by a bamboo twig, which she
removed; and that, thereupon, she returned home. The record shows,
however, that her testimony cannot be given full faith and credence,
for:

1) The testimony of her own father, Pelagio Sedenio, indicates that
Crispin had been maltreating her;

2) When the father of Crispin and his brother-in-law inquired about
him, several hours after, the occurrence, Feiina claimed ignorance of
his whereabouts and added that he may have fallen,: perhaps, from a
coconut tree, thus demonstrating, not only that she had neither received
the aforementioned report of Florentine Sedenio nor seen the body of
Crispin, as she would have us believe, but, also, her indifference to
his fate, if not her antagonism to him;

3)Typical of her character and of the nature of her attitude
towards Crispin is the fact that, soon after his death, Felina—who was
only 19 years of age when she took the witness stand in October,
1952—lived with another man and was then! in the family way, having been
cohabiting with her present paramour for about a year prior thereto;

4) Her testimony does not dovetail with that of her brother,
Florentino Sedenio, who declared that, upon seeing Crispin, she merely
“called and moved” his “body but he did not answer anymore,” and that,
thereupon, they returned to her house;

5) The body was in a coconut plantation, where there were neither
bamboos nor bamboo twigs;

6) I Said body was found, not at the Toot of the coconut tree
above-mentioned—where it would, have bean, had the death been merely the
result of an accidental, fall—but three meters away from said trees
and

7) Had she found the body of Crispin, as testified to by her, she
would have caused it to be brought to their house immediately and
reported the matter to the authorities, instead of leaving him at the
scene of the occurrence, and letting other people- search for him, give
his body a decent burial and notify the local officials.

As regards Florentine Sedenio, his sister, Felina Sedenio, testified
that he was only about seven years of age on December 13, 1950, so that
he was too young to accompany Crispin to gather tuba. Besides,
Florentino admitted-that he did not know how Crispin happened to fall
for, in his own words, “I heard only the sound of falling and when i
turned my face towards him he was already there.” At any rate, the
foregoing evidence for the defense is far from sufficient to offset the
aforementioned proof for the prosecution, already adverted to, and we
are fully satisfied that appellants’ guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.

Is next urged that appellant Elpidio Mejenio should, at most, be
convicted of slight physical injuries, there being allegedly no,
positive evidence of conspiracy with his co-defendant. This pretense is
clearly untenable, for Elpidio presence at the foot of the coconut
tree—which he did not even try to explain—and the Tact that he attacked
Crispin as soon as the latter fell to the ground, prove that appellants
were united in their purpose and in the execution thereof. This is borne
out by the fact that, shortly after the occurrence, Sinforiano Sedenio
told Palagio Sedeiiio, in the presence! of Elpidio Hejenio and Teresa
Mejenios ”Father we killed somebody. We, forced Crispin Amacio
to fall from a coconut tree.” (Page 14, t.s.n.; underscoring supplied.)
Instead of denying his participation in the offense charged, as implied
in this statement, Elpidio Mejenio confirmed it, according to; Pelagic
Sedenio and Teresa Mejenio, In the words of the latter, “they told
us that they killed Crispin Amacio * * * .” (Page 22,
t.s.n; underscoring supplied.)

The Solicitor General is in favor of giving appellants the benefit of
the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, but we do not share
this view, for the lower court is in a better position to determine the
propriety of appreciating said circumstance and the record before us
does not disclose, and the prosecution has not indicated, any particular
reason why we should disturb the action of the lover court thereon,
apart from the existence of indicia that appellants had acted with
evident premeditation, in addition to the treachery which characterized
the crime.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bangzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ.,concur.

Mr. Justice Padilla did not take part.