THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO SIMBULAN AND RAYMUNDO YSIP, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants
were the two armed persons who, on the night of December 22, 1946, in
barrio Tulauc, municipality of San Simon, province of Pampanga, broke
into the residence of Jose Pineda and killed him. The direct testimony
pointing to the appellants as the men was given by the deceased’s young
son, Fernando, as eyewitness. Teodora Buco, Jose Pineda’s mother-in-law
and the only person with the deceased in the house besides Fernando,
died before the trial. Jose’s wife was convalescing in her daughter’s
house, not far away.

According to Fernando Pineda, who was eleven years old at the
time of the killing, someone called from outside the house at about
midnight announcing his presence. Jose Pineda was awakened, rose from
bed and lighted a kerosene lamp. Thereupon two men pushed or kicked the
frail door and entered. They were defendants Raymundo Isip and Pedro
Simbulan alias Smith. Once inside the house, Isip told Jose Pineda to
come downstairs because he had something to tell him but the latter made
an excuse saying that he had stomachache; and as Isip started to take
him outside by force, Pineda put his arms around a post in an effort to
resist. Foiled in his attempt, Isip told his companion to shoot Pineda,
and Simbulan did as told with his gun, killing Pineda then and there.
After the deceased fell, the two intruders walked down the stairs and
were joined in the yard by two other men who emerged from under the
floor of the house. Together the four malefactors left in the direction
of barrio Saluso, municipality of Apalit.

The case is very simple and lengthy discussion is unnecessary.
Did Fernando Pineda recognize the murderers? And if he did, did he
implicate the wrong men? All denials and pleas of alibi by the defense
are subordinated and must yield to the answers to these questions.

That the witness recognized appellants can scarcely them at close
range, and he had known them intimately for a long time, Raymundo Isip
being a resident of the barrio altho living temporarily in another
place, and Simbulan having frequented Tulauc during the occupation.
There could have been no possibility then of mistake on the part of the
witness.

The speculation that Fernando Pineda could have seen other men
but falsely pinned the crime on the defendants for reasons of his own,
has no plausible basis to back it up. His spontaneous mention of the
appellants to his mother and the Constabulary soon after the killing—at a
time and under the circumstances when no thought of prejudicing any
particular innocent persons could have entered his youthful
mind—precludes such theory. It should be noted at this juncture that,
after the four men departed, Fernando ran to his sister’s house, told
his mother, who had heard the shot, that his father was dead, and named
Smith and Raymundo Isip as the murderers; and to the Constabulary under
the command of a captain and the municipal policemen who came to the
scene of the crime on the same night to investigate, he promptly made
the same revelation of the killer’s identities.

For the rest we quote the trial court’s observation and comment
on Fernando Pineda’s veracity. Said the court:

“One cannot, indeed, refuse Fernando Pineda’s testimony without
being convinced of the boy’s sincerity and truthfulness. His lengthy
cross-examination, often repetitious, sometimes pointless, instead of
destroying his testimony, only made it clearer.”

The trial court found the appellants guilty of murder and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, jointly and severally to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P4,000, and each to
pay one-fourth of the costs. (Two other defendants were included in the
complaint, but one of them was still at large at the time of the trial
and the other was acquitted on grounds of insufficiency of evidence.)
The Solicitor General agrees with the verdict of guilty and that the
offense committed was murder but opines that in view of the presence of
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling without any mitigating
circumstance to offset it, the extreme penalty should be imposed. He
also recommends that the indemnity be increased from P4,000 to P6,000.

The necessary number of votes to inflict the punishment
recommend by the Solicitor General is lacking and so the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the lower court will stand. As to the
indemnity, the Solicitor General’s recommendation is concurred in by the
whole Court and adopted.

With the above modification, the appealed judgment is affirmed,
with costs of this against the appellants.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,
Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.