THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TOMAS ESTACIO, FEDERICO ESTOESTA AND MAXIMINO ROMERO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
La Union finding the three defendants herein guilty of the crime of
murder, frustrated murder, and attempted murder, and sentencing them to
suffer life imprisonment for the offense, to an indeterminate penalty
of from 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal for the second offense, to another indeterminate penalty of from 6 months and 1 day of prision mayor,
for the third offense, and to pay jointly and severally the sum of
P3,000.00 to the heirs of Rosita Ogoy, the sum of P500.00 to Teofilo
Orille, the sum of P200.00 to Mercedes Oribello, and the sum of P100.00
to Natalia Orille.

In the early morning of July 27, 1953, while Antonio Orille was
sleeping in one of the rooms of their house at barrio Ambangonan, Pugo,
La Union, his mother Mercedes Oribello and his older sister Natalia
Orille in another room, and his older brother Teofilo Orille and the
latter’s wife Rosita Ogoy in the sala of the house, Antonio was
awakened by some outcries and when he got up and peeped through the
door he saw three men in the sala of the house one of whom he
recognized as Maximino Romero, while the other two he did not know but
recognized their faces because of the light of a lamp placed on top of
a drawer. At this moment, Romero approached Teofilo Orille whom he
hacked with a bolo in the head when he was about to stand up causing
him to fall down. Teofilo tried to stand up again but Romero slashed
him a second time at his right eye causing him to fall unconscious.
When his wife Rosita was about to stand up, one of the intruders, who
happened to be the tallest and was later identified as Tomas Estacio,
attacked her with a bolo killing her instantly. Then Estacio and the
other intruder, who was later identified as Federico Estoesta, entered
the room where Mercedes Oribello and Natalia Orille were sleeping at
which moment Antonio Orille, who got scared of what he saw, jumped out
of the window shouting for help and went to the neighboring house of
Catalino Morales where they drummed a can. Natalia Orille, who was
awakened by the shouts of Antonio, saw Federico Estoesta and Tomas
Estacio advancing towards her and all of a sudden Estoesta hacked her
on the top and back of her head causing her to fall unconscious.
Mercedes Oribello, on the other hand, who was also awakened by the
noise, likewise saw the three intruders one of whom hit her with a bolo
on her left cheek and on the right side of her head causing her also to
fall unconscious.

In the early hours of the same morning, Ignacio Millanes, a farmer
living in the same barrio, left his house to fetch the carabao he left
to graze in the field, and upon reaching a road nearby he saw from a
distance of seven meters three men walking hurriedly all armed with
bolos, and as they remarked that they were going to bypass the nearby
houses, he stopped to look and noticed that they had their pants wet.
He identified the three men as the three defendants in this case.

Almost at the same early hour, one Antonio Asuncion, whose house was
twenty-five meters from that of Millanes, also saw three men “walking
very fast in a somewhat running manner” wearing wet colored pants and
carrying bolos on their waist, whom later he identified as the three
defendants herein. Asuncion was at the time on his way to his ricefield
which he had irrigated.

Mayor Faustino Madriaga of Pugo, La Union, upon being informed of
the tragedy, went the same morning to Orille’s house to conduct an
investigation, but desisted from doing so when he saw that Rosita Ogoy
was dead and her companions lying on the floor unconscious. However,
Antonio Orille lost no time in reporting to him the occurrence telling
them that one of those who perpetrated the gruesome act was Maximino
Romero whom he personally knew and that while he did not know the other
two, he could however recognize their faces if he could see them again.

In the morning of the tragedy, a post mortem examination of
the body of Rosita Ogoy was performed by Dr. Clemente M. Vergara, while
the three wounded were taken to the La Union Provincial Hospital for
treatment. They remained there from July 27, 1953 to August 7, 1953, or
for a period of twelve days, although in the opinion of Dr. Vergara it
would take two or more weeks before the three could fully recover and
resume their work.

Sometime prior to the date of the occurrence, a prayer ceremony for
a dead child was held in the house of Teofilo Orille which Maximino
Romero and Federico Estoesta attended. On said occasion, Romero got
drunk and while dancing with the niece of Teofilo, he attempted to
abuse her, whereupon, Esteban Mabutas, brother-in-law of Teofilo,
intervened giving rise to a fracas. On one hand, Romero and Estoesta,
helping one another, tried to hit Mabutas with a “black jack” which the
latter was able to dodge. Then Estoesta started boxing the people
around forcing Teofilo Orille to hold his hands to pacify him. This
attitude enraged Romero who instructed Estoesta to proclaim that they
will not stop until they have drawn blood.

Sometime in 1953, Teofilo Orille went to Rosario, La Union, to
attend the town fiesta but upon arriving at the parking place for
buses, his cousin Ceferino Oribello persuaded him to desist from going
because Romero and Estoesta threatened to kill him if they should have
a chance to see him. This is in substance what Teofilo Orille stated in
the affidavit he thumbmarked when he was investigated after the
occurrence wherein he said that those two who were involved in the
incident that happened at the death anniversary of his child “came up
our house and boloed us.”

The defense set up an alibi for the three defendants.
Federico Estoesta claims that in the evening of July 26, 1953, he and a
companion were at the house of one Valentin Refuerzo in barrio
Amallapay, Tubao, La Union, because sometime earlier on that date they
had purchased some tobacco leaves in Agoo, La Union and because it
rained that night they decided to sleep in the house of Valentin
Refuerzo which they did not leave until three o’clock in the afternoon
of July 27, 1953 because they helped in spreading and bundling the
tobacco leaves. Maximino Romero, in turn, claims that in the evening of
July 26, 1953, he and two other companions helped Jose Estoesta carry
some lumber for the repair of the latter’s house at barrio Amallapay,
Tubao, La Union, and they were not able to return to their respective
houses because it started to rain at eight o’clock, that same evening,
and so they spent the night in the house of Estoesta where they
remained up to five o’clock in the afternoon of July 27, 1953. Tomas
Estacio, on his part, claims that from July 24, 1953 to July 27, 1953,
he was in San Fabian, Pangasinan, because he performed some carpentry
work in the house of Alejandro B. Caballero, the mayor of the town,
where he took supper and slept in the evening of July 26, 1953, and
stayed until the afternoon of the next day, July 27, 1953, when he
returned to Agoo, La Union.

There is no question that Rosita Ogoy and the other members of the
Orille family were assaulted and attacked in the early morning of July
27, 1953 resulting in the instant death of Rosita and in the infliction
of serious injuries to others which almost caused their death were it
not for the opportune medical treatment accorded them at the Provincial
Hospital of La Union. The tragedy that has befallen the Orille family
is admitted. The only question in dispute refers to the identity of
their assailants who the defense contends are not the herein
appellants. The prosecution, however, claims that the evidence it has
presented sufficiently establishes that the assailants are the herein
appellants because their identity and participation have been proven by
competent witnesses.

After a careful examination of the evidence on record, we are
persuaded to agree to this claim of the prosecution. In the first
place, we have the testimony of Antonio Orille who, because of the
commotion and outcries coming from the sala of their house, peeped
through the door and saw three men who intruded into the house among
whom he immediately recognized Maximino Romero although he was frank
enough to state that he did not know the other two even if he could
recognize their faces if he could see them again. This in effect he did
when upon the request of some constabulary soldiers he was asked to
identify the three defendants among the several persons shown to him
for identification where then and there he picked up the three herein
defendants. Again, in the course of the investigation conducted before
Judge Madarang of Agoo, La Union, Orille was also able to identify the
three defendants when they were made to sit in different places with
other persons by pointing to them immediately, which show that he was
indeed able to recognize them in the morning of the occurrence. It is
true that Antonio Orille was not able to state the color of the pants
the appellants were then wearing, but this is of no importance, for
experience shows that in meeting people one does not generally pay
attention to their clothes especially when he meets them in an unusual
situation such as what actually happened to the victims. In fact, this
is what happened. Antonio Orille frankly stated that while he’
recognized the culprits he did not however pay any attention to their
clothing,

Aside from Antonio Orille, we have other witnesses who testified as
to the identification of appellants, namely, the victims who survived
the dastardly attack—Teofilo Orille, Natalia Orille and Mercedes
Oribello—who each testified as to the particular happening concerning
their respective fate, and who deserved full credence from the trial
court. In fact, the trial court stated that “notwithstanding the long
cross examination made by the defense attorneys to the prosecution
witnesses, the living victims, Teofilo Orille, Natalia Orille and
Mercedes Oribello, had positively and consistently reiterated their
identification of the herein accused who attacked them in that early
dawn of July 27, 1953.” We may mention in addition the testimony of
Ignacio Millanes and Antonio Asuncion, two humble farmers who were
living in the neighborhood of the fatal occurrence and surprised the
three defendants walking hurriedly immediately after committing the
dastardly act wearing colored pants and carrying bolos on their waist.
These two farmers, who had no motive whatsoever to prejudice the
defendants, were positive in their assertion that they were the ones
they saw walking hurriedly in that early morning in a suspicious manner
as though they were trying to prevent detection or apprehension.

As regards the motive why defendants attacked their victims, the
record also furnishes sufficient proof. It arose at the prayer ceremony
carried out in the house of Teofilo Orille sometime prior to the
commission of the crime which was attended by Maximino Romero and
Federico Estoesta. On that occasion, Romero got drunk and tried to
abuse a niece of Teofilo for which reason one Esteban Mabutas, his
brother-in-law, intervened. This enraged the two defendants who started
the fracas involving the people around which forced Teofilo to
intervene to pacify them. As a result, defendants got mad and
threatened to kill him. While the defense attempted to discredit this
proof by pointing out some flaws in the testimony of Teofilo Orille,
the court is satisfied that the fracas actually took place which must
have been the root cause of the aggression even if in the opinion of
the court proof of such motive is of no moment considering that the
guilt of the defendants has been established by sufficient and
satisfactory evidence.

The defense of alibi set up by the defense does not appear
to have any legal value not only because of the sufficient
identification of the defendants as the ones who actually committed the
act which led to the killing and wounding of the victims but because of
the inherent improbability of the story given by them in support of
their alibi. We don’t need to go into detail to show the
sufficiency of this averment for we are satisfied with the explanation
or refutation made by the Solicitor General in his brief. This
refutation convinces us that this defense of alibi is but a mere scheme designed to exonerate the defendants from liability. Considering that the defense of alibi
is the weakest that can be put up by an accused because of the easiness
with which it can be concocted, it must be supported by strong and
convincing evidence to be of some avail, though the rule is always to
discredit it if there is direct and positive evidence establishing the
identity of the accused. Such is the situation in the present case.

We agree with the trial court that the crimes committed are murder,
frustrated murder, and attempted murder, with the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, and that in the commission of said crimes
conspiracy on the part of the accused has existed and hence they can be
held responsible as principals for all the consequences of their
individual acts. While the proper penalty for murder is death and for
the other crimes is imprisonment within the limits pointed out in the
brief of the Solicitor General, however, for lack of the requisite
number of votes, we are affirming the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed
by the trial court with regard to the crime of murder. As regards the
crime of frustrated murder, the defendants should be sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, and for the crime of attempted murder, they should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 2 years 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 10 years of prision mayor, and with this modification, we affirm the decision appealed from, with costs against appellants.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.