THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO PINEDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Early in the evening of 5 November 1946, Justiniano Arcilla and
his wife Maria Arcilla were killed and buried in a common grave in the barrio of
Malonso, municipality of Baraban, province of Tarlac. Justiniano Arcilla was the
overseer of Tito Feliciano in his rice lands there. The police noticed the
disappearance of the spouses and suspecting that Lorenzo Pineda had something to
do with it brought him to the municipal building for questioning. As he
disclaimed knowledge of the spouses’ whereabouts he was released. About the end
of March 1947 a Huk runner by the name of Pablo Rivera fell into the hands of
the police and revealed that some people in the barrio of Malonso knew what
became of the Arcilla spouses. The police gathered the male inhabitants of the
barrio and told Rivera to point to the person who had information about the
whereabouts of the missing spouses. Rivera pointed to Dominador Wage. The
latter, Francisco Maninang and Andres Galang revealed to the police that in the
afternoon of 5 November 1946 while the tenants were threshing palay in the patio
not far from the Arcilla home, Lorenzo Pineda asked Justiniano Arcilla to give
him a ration of four cavanes of palay. Justiniano granted him one cavan only.
Pineda was disgusted with Arcilla because he was allowed one cavan only whereas
the others were given two. Pineda disclosed his resentment to Dominador Wage
whom he met that afternoon. Faustino Galang alias Romy, Miguel David
alias Peping, Bartolome Pasion alias Tomy, Horacio David and
Troadio Tamayo, the co-defendants of Pineda, stopped Dominador Wage and
Francisco Maninang, who were on their way home, and compelled them to dig a hole
in the sitio called Ocho in the barrio of Malonso with shovels furnished
them; and after digging the hole they were brought to a place 300 meters away
from it. They were guarded by Bartolome Pasion. Later on, about dusk, the house
of Pineda was surrounded by people among whom were Pineda and his co-defendants.
They brought the spouses down and tied their elbows on the back and led them to
the hole. With the butt of a carbine carried by Horacio David, Faustino Galang
and Troadio Tamayo struck blows on the heads of the spouses, as a result of
which they died. They were buried in the hole. Pineda and his co-defendants were
recognized by Andres Galang who was still in the patio threshing palay
and was dragged along by the malefactors to the place of the commission of the
crime. The latter, Francisco Maninang and Dominador Wage were warned not to
reveal what they had seen or else they would be killed including their families.
The revelation brought about the arrest of Pineda who made a clean breast of the
part he had taken in the macabre crime. This is set forth in an affidavit marked
Exhibit A. The dead bodies of the deceased spouses after exhumation were
identified by their children.

Two informations for murder were filed against Lorenzo Pineda
and his co-defendants who were still at large at the time Pineda was brought to
trial. He was found guilty and sentenced in each case to suffer reclusion
perpetua with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs, provided that the period of
imprisonment should not exceed 40 years, pursuant to article 70 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 217. From this judgment the
defendant has appealed.

There is no dispute that Justiniano Arcilla and Maria Arcilla
were killed.

The alibi set up by the appellant supported by the testimony of
his wife and of his son-in-law Benjamin Masiclat, to the effect that during the
whole evening of 5 November 1946 he did not leave his house, is not sufficient
to overcome the positive evidence for the prosecution which points to him as one
of those who took part in the killing of the Arcilla spouses. There was a motive
for the crime. He was to receive one cavan of palay for ration instead of two
that the other tenants like him actually received. It was he who to avenge the
discrimination committed by Justiniano Arcilla went to inform his co-defendants
about it (pp. 42, 53, t.s.n.). Two witnesses for the prosecution are appellant’s
relatives. Dominador Wage is his son-in-law (pp. 13, 14, 76, t.s.n.), and
Francisco Maninang is married to his niece (pp. 19, 28, t.s.n.). Asked whether
his son-in-law Dominador Wage had any grudge against him or entertained any
ill-feeling towards him, appellant swore that he did not (p. 84, t.s.n.). After
appellant’s arrest his wife sent for her son-in-law Wage to live with her in the
house (p. 15, t.s.n.). Appellant’s testimony at his trial on the third-degree
cure resorted to to wring from him the confession which appears in the affidavit
Exhibit A cannot be believed. His wife testifies that she did not notice
anything on his body (p. 92, t.s.n.) which might have been the result of
illtreatment. And this must be true, for if he really was maltreated in the way
he testified, he could not have talked to his wife the following day when she
went to the municipal jail to see him.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Tuason,
Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.