G.R. No. L-9045. September 28, 1956

According to  the  evidence  for  the   prosecution,   on the moonlit night of May 14,   1954,   at  about 11:00 o’clock,   Cayetano Banaay and Teodorico Bergonio we’re  returning home   from a dance  at the  Dagupan Sawmill in South Villazar,  Sipocot, Camarines Sur.     On the way,   Banaay was followed by Bergonio who was  3 meters  behind.    Upon reaching a place   about  250 meters  from the  Dagupan Sawmill,   the  latter  saw Numsriano Balines,   Jose”  Balines,  Vicente  ArmazaL Ramon Burce  and Calixto Llanzon emerge  from the   tall grasses beside  the  road and that Jose  Balines suddenly struck Cnyetano Banaay on the  back of  the head with a piece of wood,    Brmany staggered as  a  consequence of  the   blow and Numeriano  Balines followed  suit and  also  struck Banaay with a piece  of  weed similar   to Exhibit B.     Banaay fell  and Yicente  i-rmaza also hit him with  a piece  of wood.     Thereupon,   Teodorico Bergonio approached them and inquired why  they assaulted Cayetano. Vicente   also  struck Teodorico  in reply  but the  latter was not hit.     Teodorico  then ran away and hid behind  the   grasses, about 4 meters  away.     From his hiding place  he   saw  that Numoriano, Jose and Vicente   continued beating Banaay while  Galixto Llanzon and Ramon Burce  were   stoning him. After Teodorico had recognized them,   he  left and went to  the  house of his  cousin Daniela Barrameda and related  the   incident identifying Jose,   Numeriano,   Yicente,  Ramon and Calixto  as Cayetano’s  assailants. Teodorico  also  repaired  to  the  house of Josefina Bonita and told her  that her uncle  Cayetano Banaay was killed by the  aforementioned 5 persons.

On the  following morning,  May 15,   1954,   at about 8:00 o’clock,   Numeriano Balines accompanied  by  the   barrio Lieuten­ant Warciso Hint surrendered to  the   Chief  of Police,   Porfirio Pantalla,   and confessed  that he  had  struck somebody. Thereupon,   the   Chief  of Police   accompanied  by Dr.  Felix Macalino,   charity physician oi  Sipocot,   Camarines Sur,   a photographer  and Numeriano went  to  the   scene   of  the   crime and there  found the   dead body of  Cayetano Banaay. A picture  of  the   cadaver of  the   deceased  (Exh.  A)  was taken at the  place  of  the   incident,     Dr. Macalino  conducted n post mortem examination and made   the   following report;

(a) Fracture of the occipital portion of the skull exposing the brain followed by profuse hemorrharges;

(b) Blood exit from the mouth,   ears,   and nose;

(c) Multiple   contusions and swelling all over  the  face;

(d) Swelling with hematama at  the   neck (back)   – Exhibit C,

After  due   investigation and proper proceedings,   a complaint was  filed  in  the   Court of First Instances( of Camarines Sur   charging Humsri.ano Balines,   Jose  Balines, Vicente Armaza,.  Baraon Burce   and Calixto Llanzon with the crime   of murder   qualified  by  treachery. After hearing, the Court found defendants  guilty as   charged in the   information and each of   them was  sentenced to   the penalty of reclusion perpetua,   with  the  exception of  Ramon Burce who,   being  a minor 17   years  old,   was  sentenced to  a penalty one   degree  lower,  pursuant  to  Article   68  of  the Revised Penal Code,   or  to  14 years  and 8 months of reclusion temporal;   to   the accessory penalties prescribed in Article 41  of  said legal   body to pay  jointly and  severally P3,000.00 as indemnity to  the  heirs of  Cayetano Banaay;   and  to pay one-fifth of  the   costs.

From this  verdict  all  the   defendants  appealed to Us and in this  instance   their   counsel  interposes the   defense of  alibi  in favor of  all the   accused,   except Numeriano Balines who   claims  self-defense.

In  addition  to   the  facts   stated at  the   beginning of this  decision,   the  evidence   of   the   prosecution further established the motive  for  the   assault upon Cayetano Banaay, which is  disclosed by the   testimony of Josefina Bonita,     We copy from the   decision appealed from the   following:

“She   (Josefina Bonita)  testified  that previous  to May 14,   1954,   Numeriano Balines had been making love   to her.     On one  occasion,   while she was   alone   in the  house,   Numeriano  attempted to  abuse  her. The   arrival  of  her  sister,   who come   in response to her  cries  for help,   frustrated Numeriano’s  design,     Since   then,   she  was  forbidden  by her uncle   and mother   to have   any  dealings with  Nume r ian o.

“Josefina further   declared  that on April 16, 19 54,   she met Mumeriano  and Jose  Balines  in Sipocot.     Numeriano proposed that  she  elope with him.    Upon her refusal, they told her that they will kill her uncle.    She met them again,   together with.  Calixto Llanzon,   at  a dance  on May 10,   and on that occasion they inquired about h6r uncle. On May 14  (1954),   she  observed that th6  5  accused, who were all  at the dance   in the   Dagupan Sawmill, (would)   get  together  and  then look at her uncle.”

Numeriano Balines admitted having killed  the   deceased but in self-defense,  His version of  the   incident,   as narrated in the  decision and adopted by his   counsel,   is  as follows;

“x x x    that after  the  dance  in the  Dagupan Sawmill,   which he  attended,   he  left for his house at about 11:00  or 12:00 p.m. On his  way home,   some 200 meters from the  dance hall,   he was attacked by two men,   armed with pieces of wood,  who suddenly came  out of  the   bushes„     One   of  them struck him, but he   dodged and was not hit.     Before   they could strike him again,   he managed  to  turn back and escape.    After running some   60 meters,  he   stumbled on stones, He picked up a stone  and threw it at Banaay who was hit,     Banaay went down squatting and dropped the piece  of wood he  was  carrying. Numeriano picked it up,   and as he   saw Banaay  stand up,  he hit him in the  region of  the  right ear  and in the  left forearm,,     The  left forearm was also hit because   Banaay parried  the   blow with his  left hand.     After  the  first blow Banaay reeled.    As he did  so,   Numeriano  struck him again hitting him on the   back of   the  head.     Numeriano  clubbed him for the   third  time   but he   does  not know where   this blow landed.    He   approached the man he  hit but did not recognize him.    He  then fled and surrendered to  the   barrio lieutenant of South Villazor.”

The   trial  court,   however,   did not give   any  credence to   this version for according to His Honor;

“This  account of  the   incident by Numeriano Balines  is  difficult to  believe.     If it is  true that two men,   who  from all  appearances  were  out to  kill him,   suddenly emerged from the   bushes. and attacked him and he  was alone  and unarmed, it  is highly improbable   that he  not only was not hit but that he   should  be   able   to- turn back,   escape  unscatched,   and later  kill one   of   them with his” own weapon,

“Besides  being highly  improbable,   Numeriano’s story is furthermore  confused and full of inconsistencies.     At first,   he   declared that  before  he  was struck,  he   did not see   anyone  and that his assailants  suddenly  came   out of  the   bushes  on the   side of the  road;   later,  he  stated that he   saw his assailants when they were   still about five meters away from him,   standing on the  road.     He   said he was not hit for he  parried  the   blow.     After a while,   he  explained he  was  not hit because  he ducked”.     In direct examination   he   testified that he fell as lie   stumbled on stones,     in cross-examination,   he   asserted that    he  fell  because lie  was running fast and the  road was  small and somewhat descending,

“Asked why he  did not  shout for help  since he  was only 140 meters  from the   dance  hall where there  might  still be   some  people,   he   answered that if he   shouted his  speed would have   been retarded (how he   did not explain),   but later he   said he did not shout because   the   deceased might have other  companions  and if  he   (Numeriano)   shouted, they might join in the  attack.     In.  the  examination-in-chief,  he   declared that he hit the  deceased as he   saw him stand up while  in the   cross-examination,   he   swore   that he   delivered  the  first blow when the   deceased was  already  standing,   set  to fight.    He   testified that he  hit the   deceased for  the   third time  while he was reeling from the second blow but after  a while  he   said  that he  hit Banaay for  the   third  time  after he  fell from the second blow,   with his  body bent forward.    He   disclosed  in the   direct examination that Banany  dropped his  club when he  was  in a squatting position after being hit by the   stone  whereas  in the   cross-examination he  manifested  that he   does  not know whether the   deceased dropped his   clud when he  was  standing or   squatting.

“The   injuries found upon the   body of  the   deceased also  furnish  convincing evidence  of  the  falsity of Numeriano’s  testimony.     The   findings of  Dr.  Macalino show that the   deceased had no  injuries either  in the  right ear or  in the   left forearm which he   should have   if   it  is  true,   as Numeriano   claims,   that he  hit him in those   parts  of  the   body with  the  first blow. Again,   Numeriano  did not  state   that he hit Banany in the  face   and yet,   according to  Dr.  Macalino,   he had multiple   contusions  and  swelling all over  the face,   indicating that he   was hit many times  in the face.     Finally,   Numeriano  Balines   stated  that he   gave Cayetano Banaay four  blows one  with a stone   and three with the  wooden  club.     If  this   is  true   then Banaay should have   only four  injuries  in his  body but  the   findings  of   Dr.  Macalino  disclose   that   the deceased had more   than four  injuries, for  be aides the  fracture   in the   skull,   the   swelling at the   neck, he had,   as already mentioned,   many contusions and swelling all over  the   f ace „     This  is  incontrovertible proof  that the   deceased was hit more   than four times,   giving the  lie   to Numeriano’ s  assertion  that he   received only four  blows  as well as  confirming Teodorico Bergonio’s  declaration  that  the   deceased was hit  by the   five   accused many times.

Moreover,   between Numeriano Salines  and Teodorico Bergonio, the   latter undoubtedly  is  the more   reliable.    His  testimony  is   clearer,  more consistent and more   probable   than that  of  Numeriano. He   is not indicted for murder. He   is not related to   the   deceased nor has  any reason been shown why he   should falsely testify to a  charge that may bring death  to five men against not one of whom he harbors any feelings of hate  or resentment.  The  fact that Teodorico Bergonio  stated that it was full moon on May 14,   when according to the   calendar,   the  moon was not full until  the 18th does not materially impair his   credibility. The error is plainly an innocent mistake.     It is one   anybody  is  likely to fall  into,   for where   the moon is  already big and high in the   sky,   as  it was at about 11:00 or 12;00 o’clock in the  night of May 14 when Cayetano Banany was attacked,   it is difficult to   say,   without consulting a calendar, whether  the  moon  is full or  about  to  be  full.”   (Decision,   pp.   46-49,   rec,).

As to  the   defense  of  alibi interposed by the   other appellants,  the Courts have  already held that such defense is  the  weakest that an accused can avail of  and  cannot prosper when the   accused as  in this   case,   have   been positively and properly identified,   when the  presence   of  all
the appellants at the Dagupan Sawmill dance was established by the testimony of Josefina Bonita and when the identification of all the accused as the assailants was established by the testimony of Teodorico Bergonio who knew them very well. Alibi should be proved by proper evidence which would reasonably satisfy the Court of the of such defense (U.S. vs. Oxiles, 29 Phil. 587). Oral proof of alibi must be clearly and satisfactorily established because it is so easily manufactured and is usually so unrealible that it cannot be given credit (People vs. Badilla et al., 48 Phil. 710).

As may be   seen from the  foregoing considerations,   there is  conflict between  the  evidence  produced by  the prosecution and the   defense. This  conflict involves  a  question of  credibility of  the  witnesses presented by both parties,  which depends to a large measure on the   sound discretion of the  trial Court.    It has been repeatedly held in this  jurisdiction that;

“The  appellate   court will not disturb  the findings of fact made   by the   trial  court as  to the   credibility of witnesses,   in view of its opportunity to observe   their  demeanor  and  con-  -duct while   testifying and that the   said findings will generally be   accepted and acted upon  (people vs.  Borbano,   76 Phil.   702,   citing People vs. De Asis,   61 Phil.   642;  People   vs.   Garcia,   63 Phil. 296; People   vs.  Masim,   64 Phil,   757  and many others).    Nor will  the  appellate   court reverse any findings of fact by the   trial  court made upon conflicting testimony and dependent solely upon the   credibility of  witnesses,  unless  the court below failed to  take  into   consideration some material fact or   circumstance presented to  it for  consideration  (U.S.   vs.  Ambrosio,   17 Phil.   295;   U. D.   vs.   Melad,   27  Phil.   488;   Baltazar vs.  Alberto,   33 Phil,   336;  Melliza vs. Towle,   33 Phil.   345; U.S.   vs.  Semigio,   37 Phil. 599;  People   vs.   Cabrera,   43 Phil.   64;   Carazay vs.  Arquiza,   53 Phil.   72,   and Garcia vs.   Garcia, 65 Phil.   419).

Upon going over the evidence  on record,   the  find no reason to alter or modify the  findings of fact and conclusions of the trial judge who,   by reason of his opportunity of hearing the witnesses ‘and observing their  demeanor  and conduct while   testifying,   is  in a better position than the  appellate   court to gauge   their  credibility.

The   crime   at  bar  is murder qualified by treachery,   which absorbs the  circumstances of nighttime   (People  vs.  Antonio et al,,   G-.  R.   No.  L-3458;  People   vs.   Chan Lim wat,   50  Phil. 191,   and People   vs.  Yan,   G.  R.   No. L-2161),   and the  use of superior  strength. This Court has already held that when in the   qualifying  circumstance  of  treachery nighttime   and abuse  of  superior  strength are   involved,   the  latter  circumstances  should not be   taken into  account for  the purpose of increasing the  penalty (People  vs.  Domingo,  18 Phil. 250 L

The Solicitor  General  calls  our  attention to  the fact that the   trial  judge   failed  to  consider   the   mitigating  cirumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of appellant Numeriano Balines and,   consequently,   that  the penalty attached by the  Code   to murder,   reclusion temporal  in its maximum period  to  death,   should be   imposed in the  minimum period. The State   counsel also   states  that the  benefit of  the  In­determinate Sentence law should be   given to him.     As  to appellant Ramon Burce,  who was about 17 years old at the time  of the   commission of the  offense,  he   shall also  be given the  benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

WHEREFORE, upon finding appellants guilty of  the   crime charged  in the   information,   We hereby  sentence  Numeriano Balines to  the   indeterminate penalty of from 10  years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years,   4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal.     We  also  sentence Ramon Burce   to  suffer the  indeterminate penalty of from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor  to  12 years and 1  day of reclusion temporal. The  decision appealed from thus modified’ is hereby affirmed in all other  respects,  with one-fifth of the   costs against each of the  appellants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.