PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PIO TEMPLONUEVO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Cipriano Tapia and Pio Templonuevo were convicted of the crime of
murder by the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes, for the killing
of Leopoldo Gonzalo. Each of them was sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties, and
to indemnity, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased victim
in the amount of P3,000.00. This is an appeal by Pio Templonuevo alone
from the judgment of conviction and from the sentence.

A close review of the evidence of record discloses that in the early
morning of December 8, 1953, feast day of the town of Virac,
Catanduanes, while Mamerto Balla, a cook hired for the occasion, and
Cipriano Tapia, his helper, were preparing breakfast in the house of
Jaime Templonuevo and his family, one Leopoldo Gonzalo, who just
arrived in town by sea from Tabaco, Albay, knocked at the door and
asked for the loan of a bolo with which to cut banana leaves. His
request was refused by the cook, Mamerto Balla, explaining that there
were only two bolos and both were then being used in the kitchen.
Dissapointed, Gonzalo went down. A maid of the Templonuevos then
suggested that Cipriano Tapia should lend one of the bolos; whereupon,
the latter followed Gonzalo downstairs. However, before anything could
be said by Tapia, Gonzalo angrily remarked, “putang ina mo” (probably
because of resentment), and an altercation ensued. What transpired
during this period was narrated by Mamerto Bala, who remained in the
kitchen. Hearing the commotion downstairs, he said, he peeped through
the window of the kitchen and from that position, saw Gonzalo
struggling with Cipriano Tapia and Pio Templonuevo; the latter struck
Gonzalo on the forehead with a piece of wood, rendering him
unconscious. Thereupon, Cipriano Tapia slashed the throat of the
helpless victim with a hunting knife. The lifeless body of the man was
carried away by the duo and dumped behind a pile of empty drums near
the Virac Electric Plant, a few meters from the house of the
Templonuevos.

An examination conducted on the spot at about 8:30 the same morning
by Dr. Macario Ballesteros, then Chief of the Emergency Hospital of
Catanduanes, revealed that death must have occurred at about 6:30 a.m.,
more or less, and that the deceased had a round, bluish discoloration,
of about 1 1/3 inches in diameter, in the middle superior region of the
forehead, and an incised, transverse, penetrating wound which
completely cut the throat till the posterior wall of the pharyngeal
cavity. Dr. Ballesteros also declared in his report that the contusion
found on the forehead and the incised wound in the neck were ante mortem lesions, homicidal in character (Exhibit “E”). This report was later confirmed by the doctor’s testimony.

The first point urged by the defense is the propriety of appellant’s
conviction upon the testimony of Mamerto Balla, whose declarations, it
is maintained, must be viewed with suspicion. Scrutinizing Balla’s
statements, we fail to see anything that would make us doubt his
veracity. He categorically stated that he saw appellant strike the
deceased on the forehead with a piece of wood, thus corroborating Dr.
Ballestero’s report about the contusions found thereon when Gonzalo’s
cadaver was examined. Balla related the incident without incurring in
material inconsistencies. His credibility, as far as the records
disclose, cannot be impugned. In fact, appellant could not attribute
anything about this witness that would have prompted the latter to
wrongfully incriminate him. The Jower court, who had every chance to
observe his demeanor during the trial, has said: “Mamerto Balla’s
affidavit and testimony are trustworthy, credible and believable and
true portents of truth”, and we find no reason to reverse this
pronouncement.

The defense assails Balla for his seeming hesitancy in that he
executed an affidavit about the incident only on December 12, 1953,
four days after the occurrence. This delay, however, Was ascribed by
him to fear of possible reprisal, and he so stated to Sgt. Amado
Baloloy of the Philippine Constabulary. At any rate, it is no sound
basis to destroy the otherwise credible declarations of this witness,
as to appellant’s participation, supported as it is by those of Tapia.

The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce conviction if it appears to be trustworthy and reliable (People vs. Zabala, 86 Phil., 251 and cases cited therein). In this case, it is corroborated by the nature and positions of the wounds.

The defense gives much emphasis to Cipriano Tapia’s owning that he
alone committed the offense in his written statement of December 17,
1953 (Exhibit “4-Tapia”). It is to be noted, however, that Tapia’s
previous affidavits (Exhibit “1-Tapia” and Exhibit “N”) had already
implicated Pio Templonuevo in the crime and the charge was reiterated
later, in another sworn declaration (Exhibit “5”), and in his testimony
in court as well. There is also evidence that what really prompted
Tapia to exculpate the appellant was money consideration (p. 26,
t.s.n., Batalla), and, in all probability, the desire to protect his
coaccused who is a relative of his employer.

The appellant’s alibi is that he was working on an auto
truck and its engine, some 115 meters away from Templonuevo’s house,
when the slaying took place; and that he only saw Gonzalo’s corpse
when, summoned by Mrs. Jaime Templonuevo, he chanced to pass by the
dead man.But he is contradicted by Mrs.Templonuevo’s denial of having
summoned the appellant; and the distance is not such as to completely
exclude the possibility of appellant’s participation in the heinous
deed. Further taking Balla’s positive testimony into account, the alibi carries no weight.

There remains the question of t appellant’s liability. The attack
on, and slaying of, Gonzalo was admittedly the sequel to a heated
dispute between the deceased and the two accused. No prearranged plan
between the latter is directly or indirectly shown, so that proof of
conspiracy is lacking. While appellant’s participation in the attack is
clearly proved, the doctor who performed the autopsy admitted that “el
golpe recibido no ha sido tan fuerte”; that there was no cranial
fracture, and the blow merely caused the deceased to fall unconscious,
thereby exonerating the appellant from direct responsibility for the
killing of the deceased. In truth, the death certificate (Exhibit
“2-Templonuevo) gives “profuse hemorrhage due to cut wound in the neck”
as sole cause of death. But as it is incontrovertible that the
appellant Pio Templonuevo, by rendering Gonzalo unconscious,
facilitated his subsequent slaying by Tapia, said appellant must be
deemed responsible as an accomplice in the killing. He cooperated in it
by previous or simultaneous acts albeit non-indispensable ones, as
Tapia could have killed Gonzalo with his bolo even if Templonuevo had
not intervened (R.P.C. Article 18, People vs. Cortes, 55, Phil., 143; People vs. Tamayao, 56 Phil., 587; People vs. Aplegido, 76 Phil., 571; Sentencias of the Tribunal Supremo of Spain, 24 May 1879 and 13 July 1900).

Was it murder or homicide? The lower court declared it to be murder
qualified by treachery, but the Solicitor General correctly points out
that the absence of conspiracy and the immediately preceding quarrel
belie the existence of treachery. Appellant, therefore, should be held
a mere accomplice to a crime of homicide. Liability is further
mitigated by provocation on the part of the deceased, who unwarrantedly
insulted appellant and his companion and thereby invited retaliation.

Pursuant to Article 52 of the Revised Penal Code, the accomplice of
a consummated homicide should be imposed the penalty next lower in
degree to reclusion temporal (penalty for the main offense). In this case, it is prision mayor
in its minimum degree, because of the extenuating circumstance.
Applying the indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposes upon
appellant Pio Templonuevo not less than four (4) years of prision correccional and not more than eight (8) years of prision mayor, plus the accessory penalties prescribed by law and the civil indemnity fixed by the court below.

So ordered. No costs in this instance.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.