G.R. Nos. L-5781-82. August 30, 1957

The facts proved in these cases,  as correctly narrated by the Solicitor  General, may  be summarized as follows:

On June 1.5, 1951, Domingo Curi met his son-in-law Enrique Arejola  in Obo,  Tinambac, Camarines Sur, and was requested by the latter to meet him on the following night in the house of Manuel Daet in San Vicente, also in Tinambac. Pursuant thereto, Curi went  to the appointed place  at 7:00 o’clock of the following evening and there he found Manuel Daet and his wife Cenona Toy, Jose Villaroya and Enrique Arejola, who  were then discussing  the plan  to kill the spouses  Felix Refugio and Victoria Toy that same evening.  According to their plan, Daet was to shoot Felix Refugio, Villaroya was to stab Victoria Toy, while Arejola was to kill the dog; afterwards they  were to carry the body of Felix Refugio  to the  railroad track to  be run over  by the  train in  order to remove any suspicion  of foul play and that his  death may appear  accidental.   Inasmuch  as Curi overheard their plan,  the  group invited him to join them in their unholy mission, and when  he demurred, Daet threatened  him with  bodily harm.   So Curi had no  other alternative but  to  go  with them.

On  that  same  evening Enrique Arejola,  then armed with a long bolo,  Manuel Daet carrying a home-made revolver, and Jose  Villaroya  who  was  armed  with a .45 caliber revolver and a hunting knife,  together with Domingo  Curi,  left  Daet’s place and  walked towards  the house of their intended victim Felix Refugio which was about 120  to 150 meters away.   On  nearing the place, Curi was told to stand guard from a distance of five meters from Refugio’s  house, while Daet, Villaroya  and Arejola proceeded towards the stairs.  At that  hour, the main door of Refugio’s  house was open and the interior lighted with a petromax lamp.  Felix Refugio was then upstairs, seated  in front of  a desk busy  writing  and giving his back to the  three intruders.  As the latter were approaching, the dog which  was chained to the stairway barked, whereupon  Arejola struck it twice with his  bolo on  the head and body thus  killing it.  Almost  simultaneously, Daet,  from  the foot of the  stairs, fired  a shot with his paltik at  Felix Eefugio  and  then fled from the scene. Felix  Refugio was hit on the  back  of his  head and he slumped on  the  floor.  Immediately afterwards, Villaroya and Arejola went up the house  and  meeting Refugio’s wife, Victoria Toy, Villaroya  stabbed  her twice on the chest with  his  hunting  knife.  Meanwhile,  Arejola took a can  of petroleum from a corner  of the house and after spraying the floor and  walls  with it, applied a lighted match thereto burning the house.  As the fire spread inside the house, Villaroya and Arejola hurriedly carried down-stairs  the limp body of Felix Refugio who was still alive. Arejola then took  a pole from the eamarin in  front of the house, and used it to carry the body of Felix Sefugio  to the  railroad tracks about  a kilometer away. Domingo Guri accompanied  Villaroya  and Arejola,  acting  as their look-out, and upon reaching the railroad tracks, the latter two left the body  of Felix Refugio making his head rest on  the rails.  Felix  Refugio  was still groaning at the time,  and then Villaroja shot him  on the back of the head thereby causing his  death.   Immeliately afterwards, Domingo Curi escaped from that place.  (Exhibit 2.).

The charred remains of Victoria Toy were identified by her son-in-law  Filoteo  Cruz,  from  her  ring  and the  3 keys which she  used to  carry.  On the  other hand,  the cadaver of  Felix Kefugio was discovered  by Angel  Tobale along-side the railroad tracks covered ‘by talakib and grass,  and  not far away, the bloodstained bamboo pole.

The post-mortem examination conducted by  Dr. Pablo T, Platon on the remains of  Victoria  Toy-Kefugio show the following findings:

1. Carbonization  of the whole  body.

2. Brain  substance carbonized.

3. Bladder; uterus;  and  small  intestines  partly carbonized.

Cause  of death:  Universal burn with  secondary shock.  (Exhibit C,  p. 21, Record  of case G. R.  No. L-5781)

On the  cadaver of  Felix  Refugio,  the following  are the findings of Dr.  Platon:

1. Bullet wound  penetrating skull  at the  region  of the left occipital region.  Wound was probed  to a  depth of 6 1/2 inches; course parallel  to the base  of the skull.  Slug recovered.

2. Fractured skull—left  parietal.

3. Fractured skull—right occipital.

4. Bullet wound; penetrating; just above the right scapula (inner border)  with exit at the right side of the neck about  1 1/2 inches above the  distal end of the clavicle  (right) with the  course  of the bullet travelling upward and slightly inwards.

Cause of death—wound,  bullet, at the left occipital region;  with secondary shock; Homicidal.  (Exhibit A, p.  19, Esc. of case G.  R. No. L-5782.

Because of  these and other facts that appeared at the investigation held by the local authorities, Jose Villaroya, Manuel Daet,  Enrique  Arejola,  Jose  Morales,  Alfredo Ibasco, Jr., Ernesto Tacorda and Loreto Selpo were charged in two separate informations filed  in  the Court of  First Instance  of  Camarines  Sur.   In the  first case  said  defendants were accused of the crime  of murder of  Victoria  Toy de  Kefugio with arson  (see CFI No. 2295— G. R. No. L-5781) and in the second of the murder of Felix Refugio  (see CFI No.  2296—G. R. No.  L-5782).

The  two  cases  were tried  simultaneously and at the conclusion  of which  the  trial judge  rendered  a  single decision  finding  Jose Villaroya,  Manuel  Daet  and  Enrique Arejola,  guilty of  complex crime of  murder with arson and sentenced each of them to the penalty  of death and to indemnify  the heirs of Victoria Toy in  the sum of P6,000.   The same defendants were also convicted of the crime of murder  of Felix Refugio, and  each  of them again were sentenced to death and to  indemnify the heiry of Felix Kefugio  in  the  sum of P6,000.  The other accused :   Jose Morales, Loreto  Selpo, Ernesto Tacorda and Alfredo Ibasco, Jr., were  acquitted  in both cases.

From this decision Jose Villaroya, Manuel Daet and  Enrique  Arejola  appealed  to us  and in  this instance their counsel makes several assignments  of error,  ail of them dealing’ on the weight of the  evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

The narration of the facts proved made at the beginning of this  decision clearly shows appellants’  guilt of two crimes  of murder.   As the crimes are so serious  and  the penalty imposed by the lower  Court is the capital punishment.   We will proceed  to  consider said facts in the light of appellants’  defenses interposed.

There is no dispute to the  fact that the  spouses Felix Refugio and Victoria Toy met violent deaths on the night of June 16,  1951.   The principal controverted question in this appeal refers to the  identity of  the  assailants,  the prosecution maintaining  that appellants were the killers, while the latter disclaim any  participation in the crimes by putting-up a defense of alibi.   The only eyewitness to the horrible event was Domingo Curi who positively identified appellants, one  of whom, Enrique  Arejola, is  his own son-in-law,  as the perpetrators  thereof.  With  regard to this point,  appellants assail the credibility of said witness  because of alleged contradictions  and by claiming that he  was  an old man of 51 years  of age  and  illiterate, his  memory  being faulty and  confused  as  to  make  his testimony “absolutely  unreliable”.  For  a man  living in the country the age of 51 years does  not turn  a man very old  as  to affect  his  memory  to  make it  faulty.  In  the second place  the  Solicitor General states:

“The rule is well established that  contradictions  in  one’s  testimony do not necessarily  render  the  entire testimony  incredible, and  that  we  are  not  to discredit  “witness  whenever ingenuity can  develop the  slightest inconsistency  (People  vs. Buada,  60 Phil. 863; People vs. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil. 908;  Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 11th ed.s  2332).  In  the instant  case, the  alleged  contradictions pointed out by  appellants,  such as: that while in his direct  testimony  Curi declared that the dog was barking  when  it was slain, on cross-examination he stated that the dog was sleeping; that while  at  first  he  declared  that  appellant Daet  shot Felix Refugio after Arejola killed the dog, later he stated that the shooting of  Refugio  took place simultaneously with the killing of the dog; and that  while in his direct testimony he  stated that immediately after  the  shooting,  Daet  went  home thereby  implying  that he merely walked  home, on cross-examination he stated that Daet  ran away,  are more  apparent than real, and  if at  all,  refer  to  unimportant  details which do not destroy the  effectiveness  of  the testimony as a whole.  ‘Deficiencies of translation and  transcription and the lack of thoroughness  in the examination of the witness have to he taken into account.”   (People vs. Mangcol, et al., G.  R.  No.  L-2B44,  June  30, 1950).  Then again, truthful   eyewitnesses  do not  always  make perfect  witnesses.  We  must  not lose sight of the fact that a witness has his own  way  of  stating the facts  as they are known  to him and had come to his perception.  Moreover,  his  degree of education,   mental  condition,   and the solemnity of  the court proceedings  often account for many defective answers.  But judges  are  trained to make allowances  for all  these, and  consequently pay more  attention to  the sincerity of the witness  and  his willingness  to  tell  the  whole  story.  Likewise!, .it has  already “been  held that the testimony  of  an ignorant person is still  worthy of  credence  (People vs.  Dionlsio Villamin, G- R. No. 45301;  U. S. m  Burns,  41 Phil. 418), and indeed, simple country folk like  Domingo Curi could  not  have  fabricated, much less so clearly  described in detail  the  events that  transpired  that fateful evening unless he had really witnessed it.

One significant  circumstance which should not escape our notice is that no competent evidence has been introduced by the defense to show why  Domingo  Curi the principal  witness  for the prosecution should  testify falsely against the  appellants, one  of whom is his own  son-in-law.   The testimony of Domingo Curi  has  been corroborated  by the evidence subsequently unearthed,  such  as the wounds on the dog  and the bullet wound on  Felix Refugio found above the  right scapula  with exit  at the right side  of  the  neck (‘also the bullet wound  penetrating-  skull  at the left  occipital region).  According  to Dr. Platon, who conducted the  autopsy, the bullet travelled upward  at  the angle of 30  degrees.  According to Curi. Felix Refugio was sitting1 before a table with  his  back towards the door when Daet who was on the ground shot him.   Furthermore, the testimony  of  Curi  is corroborated  by Honesto Gacer, who  declared that at about  7: BO in  the evening of June  16, 1951, while  on his  way home from  the  store  of  Filoteo Cruz in  San Vicente,  Tinambae, he met  appellants Villaroya and Daet in  company with  Domingo Curi  going towards the house  of  the  late Felix Refugio  (pp.  85-86, t.s.n., Vol. Ill).  Appellants now question  the credibility  of  the  said Honesto  Gacer  claiming that if it was true  that  he met the appellants  and  Curi on the  night in question, it  is  strange that he did not greet them  nor was he seen by  them on  that occasion.  We  believe  the claim is without any  merit.”

As to the reason  why  Domingo Curi  was  moved to  testify  in  this case and even implicate  Enrique  Arejola, his son-in-law,  the trial  Judge has  the following to say:

“Domingo Curi  must  either have  been, motivated  by a  desire to tell the truth, or by a consuming hatred to induce  him to state a falsehood.  The possible  motive given by the defense why  Domingo Cwri testified for the prosecution was because Enrique  Arejola had not followed the wishes  of his fathcr-In-law to  stay in his  land, but instead,  had left  the house of Domingo  Curi  with his wife and went to live in Bani; and that later Domingo Curi took  his  daughter Cresencia from the house of  Enrique Arejola and brought  her  back to his house.  According to Enrique  Arejola,  when he,  tried to get his wife back, he was not even able  to talk with his father-in-law, because he was chased  with a bolo.”

Even assuming that this was true, the trial  Judge did not  believe  that this reason is  sufficient to impel Domingo Curi  to testify  falsely against  all of  the appellants  and to subject them, including his son-in-law, to the highest penalty that can be imposed under the law.  We, certainly, agree with His  Honor.

It is already  settled and  enunciated in a long line of decisions  of this Court, that the trial Judge that saw the witnesses testify  and  had  opportunity  to  observe their demeanor and manner of  testifying,  is  in a most preeminent position to  gauge  their  credibility  and,  consequently, that  his findings of fact  must not be disturbed, unless the record shall show that some facts  or circumstances of weight  or  influence have been overlooked,  or the significance  of  which has  been misinterpreted by the lower Court, or  some conclusion established from the facts is inconsistent with those findings,  or there is some inherent  weakness in  the evidence  upon  which the  trial judge based his conclusion.   (Baltazar vs. Alberto, 33 PhiL 336; People  vs. Severino Labartene, G. R. No.  6360-R., promulgated October 2,  1951.  See  also  People vs. Rorbano,  78  Phil.  702,  citing  People vs De Asis,  61 Phil. 384; People vs. Garcia,  63  Phil. 296;  People vs. Masin, 64 Phil. 757;  People vs. Macalindong,  76 Phil. 719; Hermenegildo Lao vs. Director of Lands, 76  Phil.  719, citing Baltazar  vs. Alberto,  33 Phil.  358; Licad  and Vitug vs. Bacani, 51 Phil. 53; U.S. vs. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. 295; U.S vs.  Molad, 27 Phil. 488;  Melliza vs. Towle, 33 Phil.  345; U.S. vs. Remigio, 37  Phil.  599;  People  vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil.  64; Corasay vs. Arquiza, 53  Phil. 72;  Garcia vs. Garcia, 63 Phil. 419).

 The  other  defense  raised  by appellants is one of alibi. This Court  has  already held in numerous  decisions  that the defense of alibi  is the  weakest defense” that an accused can avail  of,  and cannot prosper where the accused has been positively and properly identified by the offended party.   An alibi should be proved  by probable  evidence which  reasonably satisfied the Court of the truth of said defense.  U. S. vs.  Oxiles, 29  Phil. 587.  Oral proof  of alibi must  be clearly  and  satisfactorily established  because it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that  it  can  rarely be given  credit  (People vs.  Badilla, 48  Phil. 710).

As pointed  out by the Solicitor  general, “an  alibi to be  effective  must be proved by positive, clear  and satisfactory  evidence  which  reasonably  satisfy  the court of its  truth (People vs. Dizon, 76 Phil.,  265,  42  Off. Gaz., 2766), and  it  has been held that  an alibi  is weak when it is  only supported by  witnesses  found  to  be  related by ties  of relationship  or friendship to  the  appellants as in the instant case (People vs. Japitana et al., 77 Phil., 175). and that even if  the proof  of  alibi ia  supported by  the  testimony of witnesses, yet such  proof  cannot prevail  when the  identity of the appellants as the person who committed the offense  has been established  by eye witnesses and* L-1713).”

As to  appellants’  motive  for killing the spouses Felix Refugio and Victoria Toy,  it is not difficult to find that bad blood had  existed between appellants and their victim Felix Refugio.
Daet, and Villaroya on one hand and Felix Eefugio on  the  other, had  filed mutual accusations  and appellant Villaroya even made attempts upon  the life of Felix Refugio even  as early  as  1948.  The  defense  of Arejola  also  supplies the motive for Arejola’s  willingness to join  appellants in  a common cause to inflict  harm upon the person  whom they  believed  to have  caused them damaged.

In  criminal  case No. 2295 (L-5781), appellants were prosecuted and found guilty of the complex  crime of murder  of   Victoria  Toy de Refugio  with arson.   To this the Solicitor General does  not agree,  for  he  holds  that the crime committed in that case is murder qualified  by evident premeditation.  According to the post-mortem examination conducted  by Dr. Pablo T. Platon  on  the remains of Victoria Toy de  Refugio,  the cause of death is said to be “universal burn with secondary shock” (Exhibit  C,  p. 21,  rec. of case No.  L-5781).  Nothing is said that the stab wounds inflicted upon her by appellant Jose Villaroya was the cause of her death.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal  Code prescribes the following:

Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within tire provisions of article 246, shall kill another,  shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death,  if  committed  with   any  of  the  following  attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery,  taking advantage of  superior  strength, “with .the aid of  armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense; or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

2. * * *

3. By  means of  *  *  *, fire (incendio  says the Spanish text of the Code)  *  *  *, or with  the use of any  other means involving great waste and ruin;

4. * * *

5. With evident premeditation;

6.  With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging  or  scoffing  at his person or corpse.

Arson as a means of killing  a  person  is  a qualifying circumstance  of  murder and in the case  at  bar  can  not be taken into account to form the complex crime of murder with arson  (see Article 62, Nos. 1 and 2, RPC).

In connection  with the death of  Victoria Toy  the following aggravating- circumstances attended the commission of the offense, to wit, that the crime was perpetrated  with treachery, evident premeditation, cruelty, by means of arson and in  the dwelling” of  the offended party.   The  circumstances  of night time and use  of  superior  strength, the  three defendants being  armed, are usually  included in the circumstance of treachery. One of the  first four . circumstances can  be used as qualifying and the rest as aggravating circumstances and there  being no mitigating circumstances to offset  the  same, the penalty to be imposed upon each of appellants is death.  (Article 64, No. 3, UPC.)

As regards Criminal Case No. 2296 (G. E. No. L-5782) appellants are found guilty of  murder attended  by the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident  premeditation and dwelling of the victim.   The circumstance of evident  premeditation may serve as qualifying circumstance while  the other two as ordinary aggravating circumstance, and  there being no  mitigating  circumstance to offset the same the three appellants  are also sentenced to the  capital punishment.  (Article 64,  No. 3, RPC.)

In  view of  the foregoing, the decision appealed  from are  hereby  affirmed  except in  so far  as the  nature of the  crime in  G. R.  No. L-5781 which is  murder,  with costs against  appellants.  In  the execution  of  this  sentence, the provisions  of  Articles 81,  82  and 84 of the Revised Penal Code shall be strictly applied.  It is so ordered.

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

---

* People vs. Faltado, 84 Phil. 89.