PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN BARTOLAY, SOFRONIO BARTOLAY, CARLOS PEJO, FELICISIMO BARTOLAY, AND JESUS BARTOLAY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal by five (5) accused-appellants, namely, Juan Bartolay, Carlos Pejo, Sofronio Bartolay, Felicisimo Bartolay and Jesus Bartolay, from the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Masbate, in its Criminal Case No. 4577, convicting
them of three (3) murders, qualified by abuse of superior strength, committed
in the persons of the brothers Elias, Renerio and Galicano Espenilla.

In each case, the Court sentenced all the accused-appellants to
life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), with
all accessory penalties prescribed by law, except as to appellant Juan Bartolay whom the Court gave the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, and imposed only a minimum of 10 years and
1 day of prision mayor and a maximum of
20 years of reclusion temporal. 
All were likewise sentenced to solidary
payment of P6,000 in each case, in favor of the corresponding heirs of the
victims.  The case against Supremo Bartolay, also accused
below, was dismissed, because he died during the trial.

A sixth accused-appellant, Periolo Villamor, withdrew his appeal, which was allowed by this
Court on 7 January 1970.^[1]

     The evidence adduced
by the prosecution and the defense concur  in establishing the facts that –

“October 5, 1963
started for Juan Bartolay, a resident of Cametobetohan, Monreal, Masbate, with a pious note.  It was a day he had chosen to have his child
christened.  He had chickens [sic,
(a chicken)] and tuba for his guests to celebrate the occasion and at 9:30
o’clock in the morning, he, with his child and Justino
Al­meniana, who stood as sponsor, went to the church
at the poblacion of Monreal.  They returned to Cametobetohan
after the event.  Lunch was served to the
guests and the party was still joint on at 2:30
o’clock in the afternoon.  By
this time, emphasis was more on drinking than on any­thing else.  A single glass was being passed around to the
guests which was filled and refilled with tuba. 
It was at this point of the revelry when ………. pandemonium broke loose.  …….. When the hostilities ended, the
three Espenilla brothers lay dead.  …………….  .

“Dr. Claro Caluya,
whose competency as a medico-legal expert was admitted, and who per­formed the
autopsy on the bodies of the deceased, submitted a report of his findings:

‘ON GALICANO ESPENILLA

‘1.   Contusion, right superciliary
arch, lateral portion, right temporal region and right lateral side of frontal
bone.

‘2.   Stab wound, stellate
shaped, 1-1/2 cm. in diameter, penetrating right thoracic cavity, at the level
of the third right inter­costal space, right mammary
line, with fracture of the 3rd rib anteriorly and
lacera­tion of the right lung.

‘3.   Incised wound, 9 cm. long 5 cm. deep, right midaxiliary line, at the level of the umbilicus.

“4.  Contusions, about 4 cm. in diameter, left
mammary line at the level of the 3rd intercostal
space, anteriorly.

‘ON ELIAS ESPENILLA

‘1.   Stab wound, 6 cm. long, penetrating thoracic
cavity at the level of the 8th left intercostal
space.

‘2.   Stab wound, 3 cm. long penetrating thoracic
cavity at the level of the 8th left intercostal
space, anterior axillary line, lacerating the heart.

‘3.   Stab wound, 3 cm. long, penetrating abdominal
cavity, at midaxillary line 2-1/2 inches abovelevel of ambicicus, with
evis­ceration of the omenturn.

‘4.   Incised wound, 9 cm. long, with linear
abrasion 6 cm. long, back, 4 cm. deep, at the left scapular region.

‘5.   Stab wound, 3 cm. long, 5 cm. deep, left is upraclavicular region.

‘6.   Incised wound, 5 cm. long, 3 cm. deep, left
elbow.

‘ON RENERIO ESPENILLA

‘1.   Stab wound, 3 cm. long, 2 cm. deep, at the
level of the 4th left intercostal space parasternal line.

‘2.   Stab wound, 2-1/2 cm. long, subcutaneous deep
at the level of the 5th left intercostal space, parastemal line.

‘3.   Stab wound, 2 -1/2 cm. long, penetrating left
thoracic cavity, with fracture of the 4th left rib, mid-axillary
line at the level of the 4th LICS.

‘4.   Stab wound, 7 cm. long, 6 cm. deep, at the
level of the 8th left intercostal space, left
anterior axillary line.

‘5.   Stab wound, 9 cm. long, right subcostal region with evisceration of the intestine.

‘6.   Stab wound, 5 cm. long, 8 cm. deep anterior
portion distal end of the right thigh.

‘7.   Incised wound, 5 cm. long, 3 cm. deep, postero-medial side, middle of left arm.

‘8.   Lacerated wound, 2 cm. long, right parietal
region, with contusion.

‘9.   Lacerated wound, 2 cm. long, right posterior
parietal region.

’10. Contusion, right temporal region.’

“On October 9, 1963,
Juan Barlolay surrendered a dagger and a bolo and
gave a written statement to the police, Exhibit ‘E’.  When the case was pending trial, a report was
made by the Provincial Warden through the Provincial Fiscal that the accused Supremo Bartolay^[2]
died in the Provincial Hospital
on August 28, 1964, at 8:45 in the morning.”^[3]

Juan Bartolay’s statement laid the
blame on his brother Supremo Bartolay
(Exhibit Folder, page 3) and the latter confessed to the killing of the Espenilla brothers in the statement Exhibit “2”
(Exhibit Folder, page 10).

The version of the prosecution as to the circumstances
surrounding the fight that ensued following the drinking spree and culminating
in the triple-death tragedy varies from that presented by the defense.

According to Urcosino Baconawa, the lone eyewitness for the pro­secution who testified
on said circumstances, the three Espenilla brothers
arrived at Juan Barlolay’s house at about 2:30 p.m. and were given food and drinks
(tuba).  Galicano
Espenilla burst into song and when he finished Carlos
Pejo challenged Elias Espenilla,
asking “Are you the brave one?” Elias gave a negative answer and went
down the house; but he was met by Carlos Pejo, who
stabbed Elias on the left breast with a dagger (Exhibit “C”).  Thereupon, the five Bartolays,
bearing clubs, with Periolo Villamor,
armed with a bolo, simultaneously fell upon Elias and attacked him.  On seeing this, Elias’ brothers, Renerio and Galicano Espenilla, went to his aid, but the five Bartolays, with Pejo and Villamor, pounced together upon Renerio
and Galicano and killed them (t.s.n.,
7 September 1964, pages
15-19).

Juan Bartolay and his brother in law,
Carlos Pejo, testified that during the baptismal
party, Juan was passing tuba around to the guests.  Elias Espenilla
objected to Carlos Pejo (who cooked the food)
drinking ahead of Periolo Villamor,
but disregarding the objection, Carlos drank the tuba anyway.  Forthwith, Elias boxed Carlos in the
face.  According to the latter, he was
first challenged by Elias, who asked Carlos if Carlos was the brave one from Bagacay.  When Carlos
denied it, his face was struck by Elias. 
Juan tried to pacify them, and made the two shake hands.  Elias then pressed hard the hand of Carlos,
and when the latter protested he was boxed a second time.  Carlos jumped out of a window; but Renerio and Galicano Espenilla went down and struck the fugitive, causing him to
fall un­conscious.  Juan followed and
stabbed Elias a number of times.  When
Elias’ two brothers tried to retaliate, they were hacked by Supremo
Bartolay, while Carlos Pejo
struck Renerio Espenilla
with a piece of wood (t.s.n., 10 May 1968, pages
39-43; 22 May 1968, pages 4-15).

Juan Bartolay further testified that
the prosecution’s lone eyewitness Baconawa had run
away when Juan stabbed Elias Espenilla; that Jesus, Felicisimo and Sofronio Bartolay had not attended the baptismal party, and that the
brothers Espenilla were known trouble makers.  These as­sertions appear uncontradicted.

The brothers Jesus, Felicisimo and Sofronio Bartolay all denied
attending Juan’s baptismal party, having stayed at their respective dwellings
some six (6) kilometers away from Cametobetohan (t.s.n., 22 May
1968, pages 15-18; 18-25; 26-31).

We agree with counsel de oficio
that it was error for the lower court to have accepted unqualifiedly the
version of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Urcosino
Baconawa.  His
declaration that Carlos Pejo insultingly challenged
Elias Espenilla appears contrary to the customary
hospitality of Filipinos:  the Espenilla brothers had been invited, not by the Bartolays but by the baptismal sponsor, Justina
Almeñana and Pejo had no
reason to provoke a guest.  In this
regard, the defense version of the challenge incident appears more
probable.  Moreover, Baconawa’s
assertion that all seven (7) accused jointly attacked and slew the three Espenilla brothers is not credible, and is seriously
infirmed by the autopsy findings.  Baconawa declared that Sofronio, Felicisimo and Jesus Bartolay
were armed with clubs; hence they could not have contributed to the death of
Elias Espenilla who died of stab and incised wounds,
without suffering any contusions. 
Similarly, Renerio Espenilla,
who suffered only one contusion in the temple, besides stab wounds, could not
have been set upon and hit by the three Bartolays who
were armed with clubs.  At most, one of
these three could have hit Renerio, but the evidence
fails to disclose who of the three hit him. 
Appellant Carlos Pejo also admitted that he
clubbed Renerio (t.s.n., 22 May 1968, page 8).  Similarly, Galicano
Espenilla’s corpse exhibited only two contusions, one
in the head and one in the chest, so that, at the most only two (assuming one blow
for each assailant) could have caused the contused injuries, but again the
record is blank to which the three Bartolay’s
above-named could have been the culprit.

The alibis of Jesus, Felicisimo
and Sofronio Bartolay are
supported by the testimony of Juan Bartolay that the
said three of his brothers had not been at his house on the fatal day.  While weak in themselves, yet when coupled
with the improbabilities and uncertainties of the prosecution evidence and the
absence of adequate roof of conspiracy, the alibis suffice to raise
reasonable doubts as to the responsibility of the three above-named
appellants.  In People vs. Fraga, G.R. No. L-12005, 31 August 1960, 109 Phil. 241, it
was held that “(t)he rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was
never intended to change the burden of proof of criminal cases; otherwise, we
will see the absurdity of an accused being put in a more difficult position
where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and weak than where it is
strong.”^[4]

Excluding Jesus, Felicisimo and Sofronio Bartolay, there remain
the appellants Juan Bartolay and Carlos Pejo (besides Supremo Bartolay, who died before the trial ended, and Periolo Villamor, who withdrew
his appeal).  Juan admitted having
stabbed Elias Espenilla repeatedly; while Carlos
testified that he did hit Renerio Espenilla
with a club and later Supremo Bartolay
stabbed Renerio also (t.s.n.,
22 May 1968, page 8).  Whether they also participated in attacking
the other victim (Galicano Espenilla)
remains unclear.  Galicano
could well have fallen victim to the other assailants not before Us now (Supremo Bartolay and Periolo Villamor).  While prosecution witness Baconawa
may have witnessed the combat between the accused and the deceased, the
confusion and excitement made his identification of the assailants of each of
the Espenilla brothers unreliable, as has been
previously shown.  Baconawa
certainly did not witness the entire episode, for, as he declared in his
affidavit to the police (Criminal Case Record Wrapper, page 3), “while
there was a commotion, I ran away because I was afraid”; and to the
question as to how he was able to know that the three victims were killed, he
answered, “At about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon I was informed by
other people”.

On the strength of the testimony of Baconawa,
the trial court found each and every one of the accused to have conspired to
kill the three Espenilla brothers, and found them
guilty of three murders.  Having found Baconawa’s testimony (that all the seven original accused
attacked jointly the victims) unreliable because such testimony appears con­trary
to the physical facts, revealed by the autopsy, We find the alleged conspiracy
unacceptable.  This Court has held, in
consonance with the Supreme Court of Spain, that to establish common
responsibility “it is not sufficient that the attack be joint and
simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants be animated by one and the
same purpose”, and that a conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the crime itself.^[5]
In the case at bar, the fracas arose spontaneously, the details are confused
and the parti­cipation of each assailant uncertain.  Juan Bartolay, by
his own admission, repeatedly stabbed Elias Espenilla
and the injuries received by the latter are consistent with his having been
attacked by Juan alone; nor is there adequate and clear evidence that Juan
attacked any of the other victims. 
Similarly, Carlos Pejo, upon recovering from
the blow received from Elias Espenilla, admitted
striking and felling down Elias’ brother, Renerio,
whom Supremo Bartolay
stabbed later on. Dr. Claro Caluya,
Jr., who conducted the autopsy, found that Renerio
died of cerebral hemorrhage (t.s.n., 10 February 1965, page 5).  It is not shown that Carlos turned on any of
the other Espenillas. 
In the absence of clear proof, We must give Juan and Carlos the benefit
of reasonable doubt, and hold them individually responsible for the injuries
inflicted by them.  Conse­quently, the
allegation of their taking advantage of superior strength is not warranted, and
in the absence of any other qualifying circums­tance, each can only be held
guilty of one homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.  For both gave themselves up to the Acting
Chief of Police Magdaraog, of Monreal,
Masbate, as certi­fied by the
latter on the back of the warrant of arrest (Record, page 8).

WHEREFORE, the decision under review is hereby modified in
part and reversed in part, as follows:

1.  Juan Bartolay
is found guilty of homicide, for the death of Elias Espenilla,
with one (1) mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender); he is, therefore,
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years
and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, with the corres­ponding
accessory penalties, and, to indemnify the heirs of Elias Es­penilla
in the amount of P12,000.00; he is, however, acquitted of the deaths of Renerio Espenilla and Galicano Espenilla, for lack of
proof of his guilt thereof beyond reasonable doubt.

2.  Carlos Pejo is found guilty of homicide, for the death of Renerio Espenilla, with one (1)
mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender), and is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal,
with the corresponding ac­cessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of Renerio Espenilla in the amount
of P12,000.00; he is, however, acquitted of the charge of causing the death of
Elias Espenilla and Galicano
Espenilla, for lack of proof of his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

3.  Sofronio
Barrelay, Felicisimo Bartolay and Jesus Bartolay are
acquitted, for lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, of the
deaths of Elias Espenilla, Renerio
Espenilla and Galicano Espenilla.

4.  In view of the foregoing
findings, it is recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment imposed upon
accused Periolo Villamor,
who withdrew his appeal, should be commuted by His Excellency, the President of
the Philippines, to a term of imprisonment similar to those imposed herein upon
Juan Bartoloy and Carlos Pejo,
with the indemnity to be paid by him to the heirs of Galicano
Espenilla, as fixed by the Court of First Instance.

No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1] Rollo, page 74.

^[2]
One of the seven (7) accused in the information.

^[3]
Decision, pages 1-4.

^[4]
Reiterated in People v. Bulawin, G.R. No. L-30069,
30 September 1969, 29 SCRA
710.  See also People vs. Pulmones, 61 Phil. 680, 688.

“It is true that frequently
the defense of alibi deserves little consideration and is easily fabricated
and is shown by the evidence to be untrue, but the defense of alibi is not
always false and without merit ……..”

^[5]
People vs. Caballero, 53 Phil. 585, 596; People vs. Tividad, G.R. No. L-21469, 30 June 1967, 20 SCRA 549; People vs. Vicente, G.R.
No. L-26241, 21. May 1969, 28 SCRA 247; and cases cited therein.