THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO SALADINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Together with Roman Tabios, Basilio Macalinao, one
Payabyab and six (6) other persons, whose names are unknown, appellant
Antonio Saladino is accused of kidnapping with multiple murders. It is
alleged in the amended information:

“That on or about April 12, 1943, in
the municipality of Laur, province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused Roman Tabios, Antonio Saladino, Basilio Macalinao,
one alias Payabyab, and six (6) other John Does, ail being private
individuals conspiring together, mutually aiding and abetting one
another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
carry away and kidnap one BERNARDO RIVERA, who has never appeared since
then and up to the present time, and with intent to kill, with evident
premeditation and treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, inflict stab wounds and several physical injuries on
the persons of MARIANO RIVERA, JUANA AQUINO, OLYMPIA RIVERA and
MARCELINO RIVERA, which caused their immediate death.

“That
the said crime was committed with the following aggravating
circumstances, to wit: (a) evident premeditation; (b) at night time;
(c) taking advantage of superior strength; (d) with the aid of armed
band; and (e) in an uninhabited place.”

After due trial, as regards Saladino only, for none
of his co-defendants were apprehended, the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which reads as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, the defendant Antonio
Saladino is sentenced to four reclusion perpetua for the murder of
Mariano Rivera, Juana Aquino, Olympia Rivera,and Marcelino Rivera; and
he is further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of each of the said
victims in the sum of P6,000.00. In accordance with Art. 70 of the
Revised Penal Code, the maximum duration of the defendant’s sentence
shall not be more than three fold the length corresponding to one
penalty, and in no case shall it exceed forty years. The defendant
shall pay 1/3 of the costs.”

It is not disputed that on April 12, 1943, at about
3:00 a.m. a group of armed men went to the house of Mariano Rivera, in
the barrio of San Juan, municipality of Laur, Nueva Ecija; that Marian
Rivera, his wife, Juana Aquino, and their children, Olympfe, Marcelino,
Lazaro and Cecilio, all surnamed, Rivera, were taken from said house;
that, when sunlight came, the corpses of Mariano Rivera, Juana Aquino
and Olympia and Marcelino Rivera were found, about 50 mater away from
their aforementioned house; and that the necks of said spouses were
slashed and their hands were tied, whereas Olympia was seriously
wounded on the breast and Marcelino had a bid wound on one shoulder.
According to the evidence for the prosecution, Cecilio Rivera,was,
also, found unconscious in said place, with a ghastly wound on the
nape. At about the same time, several armed man want to the neighboring
house, belonging to the spouses Pedro de Vera and Aurelia Rivera, and
took therefrom her brother, Bernardo Rivera, who was never seen
thereafter. The only question in this case is whether or not appellant
Antonio Saladino formed part of either group or both.

Cecilio Rivera testified that, while he was asleep
in the house of his aforementioned parents, where he lived, the
barking of dogs woke him up. Then he felt that someone was coming up
their stairs. As his mother lighted a lamp, two (2) persons, namely,
defendant Antonio Saladino and Roman Tabios, entered the house. There
were about ten (10) persons outside. Tabios bade Saladino to tie the
members of the Rivera family. Thereupon, Saladino laid his gun against
the wall and did as he was told. Cecilio was brought down, followed by
his parents and then his brothers and sister, Marcelino, Lazaro and
Olympia. He was taken by an unknown person to the open field, where he
was told to lie down face downward. Then his body became numb and he
lost consciousness. He came to about a week later, in the house of
Estanislao Domingo, in the poblacion of Laur, with wounds on the back
and on the nape. The scar on the latter appeared, during the trial
(December 5, 1946), to be 3 inches long and about 3/4 of an inch wide.

Aurelia Rivera stated on the witness stand that
Basilio Macalinao was the only person she recognized among those who
took Bernardo Rivera from their house in the evening of the occurrence,
whereas Pedro de Vera said that he could not establish the identity of
any of them.

Testifying on his behalf, Saladino denied any
participation in the commission of the crime charged and said that he
did not leave his house, about a kilometer from the scene of the crime,
in the evening of April 11-12, 1943. He, likewise,placed, on the
witness stand, the mayor of Laur at the time of the occurrence, Pedro
Aquino who asserted that he investigated Cecilio Rivera in the
municipal building on April 13, 1953, and that Cecilio then said that
he had not recognized any of those who killed his parents.

On rebuttal, Estanislao Domingo declared that when
he returned home on April 13, 1943, at noon time, he found therein
Cecilio Rivera with a big wound on the nape, and that Cecilio could not
speak for over a week. Moreover, Cecilio denied having been
investigated by mayor Aquino, or having told him that he (Cecilio)
could not identify any of the malefactors.

The lower court gave no credence to the evidence for
the defense and, to our mind, correctly. Apart from the fact that
appellant’s house was not far enough from the scene of the crime to
render it either impossible or improbable for him to have been there at
the time of the occurrence, he admitted that Cecilio Rivera had no
possible motive to make a false imputation against him, particularly of
an offense as grave that charged in this case. Neither could this be a
case of mistaken identify, for appellant was known to Cecilio Rivera
before the occurrence. Prior thereto they lived, and were neighbors,,
in the same barrio of Sapang Biclat.

Upon the other hand, the testimony of Mayor Aquino
to the effect that Cecilio Rivera told him, on April 13, 1943, that he
(Cecilio) did not know any of the malefactors, is patently incredible.
The bolo slash on Cecilio’s nape was so serious, that the malefactors
believed him dead and he could not speak for about a week. In fact,
Cecilio testified that he was unconscious during that period of time.
And this testimony must be true for, thirteen (13) years after the
occurrence, his scar was still 3 inches long and 3/4 of a centimeter in
width.

Appellant lays stress on the failure of the
prosecution to introduce the testimony of Lazaro Rivera, one of the
survivors of the Rivera family, who, according to his brother Cecilio
Rivera, was one of those taken from their house by the malefactors. The
defense deduces from this omission that, in all probability, his
testimony would have been adverse to the prosecution. If this were
true, however, appellant would have placed him on the witness stand.
Moreover, the record shows that at the time of the trial, December 5,
1956, Lazaro was 19 years of age, so that when the crime was committed
on April 12, 1943, ha must have been six (6) years old. This
circumstance explains, not only why he was spared by the assassins,
but, also, why the prosecution did not introduce his testimony. He was
evidently too young to remember, if not too afraid to notice with
precision, the pertinent phases of the tragic event that practically
obliterated the entire Rivera family.

The last argument of the defense is that it took
Cecilio thirteen (13) years to point an accusing finger at appellant
herein. This is not true. What happened is that appellant was tried,
and Cecilio took the witness stand, thirteen (13) years after the
occurrence. The crime took place during the occupation. For a number of
years after liberation, peace and order in Nueva Ecija, particularly,
in Laur, were far from satisfactory. The ambush of Mrs. Quezon and
members of her family in that region, is a matter of public knowledge.
Hence, when a policeman, whom Cecilio Rivera consulted about this case,
told him to take it up with the Constabulary, Cecilio relayed this
advice to his relatives, but, the latter disuaded him from taking said
course of action, owing to the state of insecurity still prevailing in
the locality. Later on, as the conditions improved, he reported the
matter to the National Bureau of Investigation. The result of its
intervention was the filing of the information herein.

Moreover, His Honor, the trial Judge, had the following to say about Cecilio Rivera:

“* * * The Court, however, had
carefully observed the manner in which this witness and the defendant
had testified, and is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Cecilio
Rivera had told the truth. His testimony was devoid of exaggeration or
improbabilities. He testified frankly and answered questions directly
and in straightforward manner. On the other hand, the defendant did not
Appear to be convincing on the witness stand, * * * There is no reason
why Cecilio Rivera should testify falsely against the accused. Cecilio
Rivera and Saladino were neighbors during the occupation in Sapang
Biclat and he could not have been mistaken as to the identity of
Saladino,”

We find in the record before us nothing that would
warrant interference with this finding, which is fully borne out by the
transcript of the stenographic notes taken during the trial.

We, likewise, agree with the lower court that the
facts surrounding the case indicate, beyond reasonable doubt, that, as a component part of the group, seemingly belonging to a
guerrilla organization, that killed four members of the Rivera family,
under circumstances indicating clearly a unity of purpose among the
members of said group, appellant is guilty of four murders—though not
of the kidnapping alleged in the information, the evidence being
insufficient to link him with the same—and was properly sentenced by
the lower court.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Baustista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Edencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.