THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. PACIFICO CORPES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Leyte, finding the appellants, Pacifico
Corpes and Anatalio Borja, guilty of robbery with homicide and
sentencing them to the indeterminate penalty of from 17 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 20 years, reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased Godofredo Lim in the sum of two thousand pesos,
plus the amount robbed (P120), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay proportionately the costs. Like the appellants,
their co-accused (Ceferino Lloren) was also convicted and sentenced,
but the latter had escaped from the provincial jail one week after the
trial. Three other co-accused (Celestino Villamor, Ambrosio Fabular and
one John Doe) have never been apprehended.

According to Estelita Ocba who lived in the sitio of Lison,
barrio of Esperanza, municipality of Inopacan, province of Leyte, at
about midnight of May 19, 1948, she found it necessary to go to her
kitchen to prepare rice gruel. The kitchen was lighted by a wick lamp
and the living room by a lantern. Eyeing that the shutter of the
kitchen door was being pushed from the outside, Estelita woke up her
son (Santiago Lim) who was then sleeping in the kitchen with his wife
(Ulpiana Dadula). Whereupon Estelita rushed to her sleeping children in
the living room, her husband being then out in the sea fishing. After a
short while, three persons entered the house. One was appellant
Pacifico Corpes who pointed his revolver at Estelita; another was
Celestino Villamor who looked around the house; and the third remained
in the kitchen and could not be identified by Estelita. Finding the
trunk in the living room, Celestino Villamor forced it open and took
therefrom a wallet containing P120. As Estelita could not help shouting
for assistance upon seeing the act of Celestino Villamor, Pacifico
fired a shot at her. The bullet (which missed its target) hit
Estelita’s child (Godofredo Lim) who was asleep nearby and killed
instantly. The intruders then left in haste.

According to
Santiago Lim, he was awakened by his mother on the night of May 19,
1948, and, after being told that there were persons who wanted to enter
their house through the kitchen door, he proceeded to hold its shutter.
Fired upon from the outside, Santiago ran to the living room and,
after hearing another shot, he jumped out of the window and rushed
towards his neighbors who could not come to his aid because of fear.
Hiding behind a coconut tree, Santiago was able to observe that
appellant Anatalio Borja was looking up under the kitchen with a dagger
in his hand; Ceferino Lloren, Celestino Villamor, and appellant
Pacifico Corpes came out of the house through the kitchen door; and the
four of them afterwards left. Pacifico Corpes was armed with a
revolver, Ceferino Lloren with a hunting knife, Anatalio Borja with a
dagger, and Celestino Villamor with a small bolo.

Ulpiana
Dadula in turn testified as follows: At about midnight of May 19, 1948,
she was awakened by a shot fired near the place where she and her
husband were sleeping in the kitchen. She saw three persons in the
house, one of whom was Ceferino Lloren who knelt upon and choked her
and threatened her with a hunting knife if she would make an outcry.
The other, two intruders were Pacifico Corpes (with a pistol) and
Celestino Villamor who proceeded to the living room. Upon being
released after the trio had left hurriedly, Ulpiana went to the living
room where she found her mother-in-law (Estelita Ocba) crying and
Godofredo Lim (her brother-in-law) wounded on the abdomen and already
dead. She also found Estelita1s trunk open and her wallet gone.

The testimony of appellant Pacifico Corpes tends to show that he,
Ceferino Lloren and Anatalio Borja were serenading near a bridge in
Inopacan at about nine o’clock in the evening of May 19, 1948, when
Celestino Villamor and his companions arrived. Celestino asked Pacifico
and his two companions to come along and serenade in the sitio of
Lison. Pacifico and his companions at first refused to go on the excuse
that they had not eaten their supper, but as Celestino insisted and
threatened to take the guitar of Pacifico and his companions if the
latter would not go, they were compelled to join the party of
Celestino. On the way Celestino informed Pacifico that upon reaching
the place of Estelita Ocba, Celestino would stop by her house as he had
a date with her paramour (Ulpiana Dadula) whose husband was away that
night. As a matter of fact, when the party reached the house of
Estelita, Celestino and his companions (other co-accused who are still
at large) entered the same, while Pacifico and his companions (Ceferino
Lloren and Anatalio Borja) remained below. Shortly thereafter Pacifico
heard somebody say “Santiago, get your gun because there is a man who
is sleeping with your wife.” This was followed by the discharge of a
gun and by “Agoy, Inay, I am shot.” Seized by fear, Pacifico and his
companions fled towards their barrio, but Celestino and his companions
overtook them, informing that the husband of Celestino’s paramour was
in the house. Celestino alone had a revolver.

Appellant Anatalio Borja and Ceferino Lloren corroborated the
testimony of appellant Pacifico Corpes. The two other witnesses for the
defense are Toribio Borja (father of Anatalio Borja) and Enecita Josef
(mother of Pacifico Corpes) who testified that Estelita Ocba had
proposed to ask for the dismissal of the criminal case if the two
witnesses would pay P70.00 each.

We have no hesitancy in ruling that appellants’ conviction is
supported by ample evidence. The commission of the crime was testified
to by. three eyewitnesses against whom no motive for falsely testifying
has been imputed. There could be no doubt about the identity of the
appellants because the kitchen and living room of Estelita’s house were
lighted and they had previously frequented Estelita’s place during
barrio fiestas.

We cannot give credence to appellants1 pretense that they were
merely asked by Celestino Villamor to join the latter’s party, and that
they could not refuse because Celestino threatened to take appellants’
guitar if they would not join. In the first place, if the appellants in
fact wanted to evade the company of Celestino, they could have allowed
the latter to take their guitar, as it is not even hinted that they
could not get it back if the same fell into his possession. In the
second place, if the appellants really wanted to get rid of the company
of Celestino, they had had ample opportunity to leave as soon as
Celestino and his companions went into the house of Estelita.

Neither can we believe the allegation that Celestino had informed
the appellants that he was dated by his paramour (Ulpiana Dadula) on
the night in question, because, if it were true, he would have kept the
same as secret as possible or, at least, he would have been satisfied
with the help or company of the men of his confidence, without further
needing appellants’ presence. Moreover, if Celestino had such a date
with his paramour in her house, he alone would have gone up, unless it
be admitted that Celestino foresaw resistance on the part of the
inmates of the house. Again, it is noteworthy that in their
affidavits executed shortly after the commission of the crime, the
appellants made no reference whatsoever to the projected meeting of
Celestino and his paramour in the house of Estelita.

Upon the other hand, it ia very apparent that the concerted
testimony of the appellants and .their co-accused (Geferino Lloren) to
the effect that the authors of the crime were Celestino Villamor and
his two companions who are all still at large, was designed to
exculpate the appellants and incriminate those who have as yet not been
apprehended and therefore do not run the risk of being convicted.
Appellants’ imputation that Estelita Ocba offered to settle the case
for the small amount of P140,00, besides being flatly denied by
Estelita, is too irrational to be accepted. A mother normally would not
barter the life of her son for any amount, much less for an
insignificant sum. At any rate, it cannot be expected that she would
take the initiative towards extra-judicial settlement.

Appellants’ counsel has stressed the circumstance that the bullet
extracted from the body of the deceased Godofredo Lim was not proved by
positive evidence to be that of the revolver fired by appellant
Pacifico Corpes, The point is unimportant, because appellants’
authorship of the crime has been established by eyewitnesses whose
credibility is beyond question.

The solidary liability of appellant Anatalio Borja for both the
robbery and the homicide arises from the facts that, at the outset, he
was with his three companions who had gained entrance into Estelita’s
house through the kitchen door after firing a shot; that while his
companions were in the house, he posted himself below; with a dagger in
his hand; that he left the scene of the crime together with the trio
that raided Estelita’s house, all of which dearly point to a previous
conspiracy.

The Solicitor General recommends the imposition of the death
penalty upon the appellants in view of the presence of the aggravating
circumstances of band, dwelling and nighttime, without any mitigating
circumstance. For lack of necessary vote, however, said penalty cannot
be, meted out. The appellants are, therefore, hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and
its legal accessories, and to indemnify the Heirs of the deceased
Godofredo Lim in the sum of two thousand pesos and in the further
amount of one hundred twenty pesos (the money robbed), without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus the costs
proportionately. So ordered.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.