THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO BAUTISTA Y AQUINO, LEONARDO MACAPAGAL Y RUIZ, AND ROLANDO REBUTAR Y GONZALES, DEFENDANTS. ROLANDO REBUTAR Y GONZAL…

Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court of
Manila on February 13, 1970,
finding appellant Rolando Rebutar y Gonzales guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery and
aggravated by evident premeditation, and sentencing him to suffer the supreme
penalty of death.  Juanito
Bautista y Aquino and Leonardo Macapagal y Ruiz, who were
likewise found guilty of the crime and sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua, did not appeal from the judgment. 
Hence, the review refers only to the case of Rolando Rebutar
y Gonzales.

On the night of September
19, 1969, Crisanto Barredo
y Recto was stabbed and boloed by his assailants
inside the house of Teodora Gonzales de la Cruz at 1007
Batangas Street, Tondo, Manila.  The victim died as a result of hemorrhage,
shock due to multiple hacking wounds and stabbing wounds lacerating the lungs,
stomach, liver, intestines and right and left kidney (Exhibit “E”).

According to Dr. Angelo Singian,
Assistant Medico-Legal Officer of the Manila Police Department, he found the
following external and internal injuries on the body of the deceased:

“POSTMORTEM
FINDINGS

EXTERNAL INJURIES:

(1)         
A group of four contused lacerated wounds on the
right periorbital region.

(2)         
Incised
wound, left pinna.

(3)         
Superficial glancing hacking wound on the
lateral side of the right neck.

(4)         
Superficial small stab wound, right upper lip.

(5)         
Abrasion, right anterior shoulder.  Hacking wound on the upper anterior lateral
surface of the right arm.

(6)         
Stab wound on the right upper lateral chest midaxillary line measuring 2 x 1 cm. lace­rating upper lobe
of right lung.

(7)         
Penetrating stab wound on the right anterolateral chest anterior axillary
line lacerating upper lobe of the left lung and measuring 2 x 0.5 cm.

(8)         
& (8-a) Thru and thru superficial stab wound
on the right anterior chest, piercing thru the skin and soft tissues.

(9)         
Hacking wound on the right arm, a little below
wound No. (5).

(10)     
& (10-a) Thru and thru stab wound, medial
surface, right arm.

(11)     
A group of 3 penetrating stab wounds on the
lower right anterior chest, lacerating the liver and both kidneys, diaphragm,
and duodenum.

(12)      Two
superficial incised wounds, posterolateral right
forearm.

(13)     
Abrasions, right knee.

(14)     
Hacking wound on the left upper parietal region
of the head, cutting outer table of left parietal bone.

(15)     
Hacking wound on the left mastoid to upper nape
of neck cutting mastoid bone.

(16)      Hacking
wound on right scapula which is non-penetrating.

(17)     
Stab
wound below and lateral wound No. (16).

(18)     
Stab wound, non-penetrating, posterior chest
near midline.

(19)     
Stab wound, penetrating posterior chest slightly
to the left of midline lacerating upper lobe of left lung.

(20)     
Hacking wound, non-penetrating, right lower
posterior chest.

(21)     
Penetrating stab wounds posterior lumbar
lacerating right kidney.

(22)     
Penetrating stab wound postero-lateral
chest, left, lacerating the
diaphragm, spleen and duodenum.

(23)      Superficial
glancing hacking wound posterior surface, left
arm.

(24)     
Superficial
hacking wound below wound No.
23.

(25)     
Hacking wound postero-medial
surface distal portion left forearm.

INTERNAL FINDINGS:

RESPIRATORY SYSTEM:

Two stab wounds in the right lung and one in the left.

LIVER:

Three stab wounds, liver.

GENITOURINARY SYSTEM:

Stab wound, right & left kidney.

GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT:

Stab wound, stomach, duodenum and jejunum.

BONES AND JOINTS:

Cutting fracture, outer table of left parietal bone and right 6th
rib.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Hemorrhage and shock due
to multiple hacking wounds and stab wounds lacerating the lungs, stomach,
liver, intestines and right & left kidney.” (Exhibit “E”).

Dr. Singian
testified that wound No. 1 was caused by a blunt hard object such as the butt
of a gun; while the stab wounds Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 8-a, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22
might have been caused by sharp-pointed instruments, and the hacking wounds
Nos. 3, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24 and 25 by a bolo.  He declared that wounds Nos. 6, 7, 11 and 15
are fatal wounds.

Abelardo Liwanag,
22 years old, declared that he knows Juanito
Bautista, alias “Juanky“, “Narding” (Leonardo) Macapagal,
Reynaldo Ebes, alias “Boy Suman” and Rolando Rebutar, alias
“Bansoy“. 
At around 8:00 o’clock p. m. on
September 19, 1969, he and
his friend Crisanto Barredo,
alias “Magong“, were watching the TV
show on the ground floor of the house of Teodora de
la Cruz at Batangas St.,
Tondo, Manila.  While they were thus seated infront of the television set at about 8:30 p.m., four men, namely “Boy Suman“,
“Bansoy“, “Juanky”
and “Narding” suddenly entered the room.  “Bansoy“, whom he identified as appellant Rolando Rebutar, ordered them not to move.  Meanwhile, “Narding”
Macapagal, who was armed with an “open
knife”, stood as guard.  Juanito Bautista was holding a jungle bolo about 12 to 14
inches in length.  “Boy Suman” was armed with a “double-bladed
instrument” while “Bansoy” was holding
a revolver.  All of a sudden, Rebutar held Crisanto Barredo from behind by the neck.  As Crisanto Barredo struggled and was about to extricate himself from
the hold of Rebutar, the latter clubbed him with the
butt of his gun.  Thereafter, Macapagal grabbed and held the victim.  It was at this juncture that “Boy Suman” stabbed the victim.  He further declared that he saw Bautista hack
the victim twice with the jungle bolo although he was already lying on the floor. 
When “Boy Suman” attempted to stab
him, he ran up the stairs.  From the room
on the second floor, he peeped thru the slit on the floor and saw that the four
men “helped one another” in attacking Crisanto
Barredo.^[1] After a while, upon noticing that the
assailants had left the premises, he went down the house and saw Crisanto Barredo already
prostrate on the ground, 18 meters from the house.  The victim was gasping for breath.  Together with the assistance of the
neighbors, they got a tricycle, which they used in their attempt to bring the
victim to the hospital.

On the way, however, they met appellant Rebutar.  When they saw Rebutar
running towards them with a gun, they became scared and fled to the railroad
tracks.  In the meantime, they saw Rebutar pull the victim from the tricycle and place him on
the ground.

Normita Pangilinan,
24 years old, widow of the deceased Crisanto Barredo, declared that upon hearing her neighbor’s shouts
for help she went out.  Upon seeing her
husband wounded lying inside a tricycle, she raised the body of her husband and
cradled him on her lap.  According to
her, it was at that moment when appellant Rebutar
appeared and told her that her husband was already dead.  After saying this, Rebutar
removed the body of the victim from the
tricycle and then stabbed the victim with a jungle bolo.

Pat. Carmelito Valmonte
testified that he investigated Rebutar, Bautista, Macapagal, de la Cruz, Pangilinan
and Abelardo Liwanag; that Abelardo Liwanag and appellant
Rolando Rebutar voluntarily executed written
statements admitting their complicity in the crime (Exhibits “F” and
“G”); that although Abelardo Liwanag affirmed the veracity of his statement before the
Assistant City Fiscal (Exhibit “F”) Rolando Rebutar
refused to do so after he was advised by his lawyer; that Bautista and Macapagal refused to give any oral or written statements to
the police.  In his statement before the
investigator (Exhibit “G”), Rebutar
admitted that he and his co-accused were members of the Sigue-Sigue
Gang, while the victim, Crisanto Barredo,
was of the Bahala na Gang;
that he and his companions attacked Crisanto Barredo that night because of a previous physical
altercation between Crisanto and “Boy Suman” over a stolen bicycle.

Appellant Rolando Rebutar, while
admitting his presence at the
scene of the crime, denied any involvement therein.  The thrust of his defense is that it was Crisanto
Barredo who was the aggressor, claiming that upon Barredo’s arrival at the house of Aling
Doray, where he, Bautista and Macapagal
were watching television, Crisanto immediately mauled “Boy Suman“.  It was in retaliation of this attack that
“Boy Suman” drew his knife and stabbed Crisanto on the chest. 
Crisanto then ran out of the house pursued
by “Boy Suman“.  He did not know anymore what happened because
he did not follow them.  He also declared
that he was arrested at 1:00 p. m. on
October 19, 1969 by Pat. Valmonte but he claimed that he was told that he was being
apprehended for vagrancy.  He claimed
that he never made the state­ments contained in Exhibit “G” and that
he signed the statement because he was maltreated by Valmonte.  He claimed that Liwanag
implicated him in the crime because he and Liwanag
had a fight over the loss of some vegetables in the market.  He admitted, however, that their quarrel was
settled by Capt. Hernando of the police in Precinct No. 3.

Appellant’s claim of maltreatment was debunked by Pat. Carmelito Valmonte who explained
that they could not have maltreated the appellant in the investigation room
because during the investigation, the parents, wife and other relatives of
appellant Rebutar were allowed to be present.  He further declared that he was not able to
get any written statement from Bautista or Macapagal
because the two invoked their constitutional rights and refused to answer their
questions.

We are satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that appellant Rebutar voluntarily executed Exhibit “G”.  It discloses details about antecedent facts
which led to the incident of the 19th of September which only the perpetrators
of the crime could have known.  The
voluntary nature of the statement is further indicated by the presence of
mitigating assertions by appellant.  Prescinding, however, from Rebutar’s
extrajudicial confession (Exhibit “G”), the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses of the prosecution, Abelardo Liwanag and Normita Pangilinan, are by themselves sufficient to establish the
guilt of appellant.  According to the
trial court, Liwanag’s testimony is credible as it
“was given in a very clear, spontaneous, natural and straight forward
manner which are the earmarks of truth. 
His gesture, inflection of voice and demeanor on the witness stand,
especially in the cross examination to which he has been exposed further
strengthened the credi­bility of his testimony.” On matters of
credibility, this Court has accorded the highest degree of respect for the
findings of the trial judge because he had the opportunity to see, hear and
observe the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies.  The trial judge’s findings of fact shall not
be disturbed unless it appears from the record that facts or circumstances of
weight or influence were overlooked, their significance misinterpreted, or
there were inherent weaknesses in the supporting evidence.  Such is not the situation here.  On the contrary, the testimony of Liwanag that the victim was stabbed and boloed
by appellant and his companions finds support from the nature, character and
direction of the wounds found on the victim. 
The post mortem findings indicated that the victim
sustained no less than twenty-seven
(27) hacking wounds, stab wounds, incised wounds, abrasions and
contusions.  Five of the wounds were
located on the back of the victim.  The
fatal wounds were located on the right and left side of the deceased.  These facts confirm the declaration of Liwanag on the manner the assailants attacked the victim.

Appellant nevertheless contends that the prosecution was not able
to prove conspiracy.  It is fundamental
for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective. 
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one
performing one part and the other performing another part so as to complete it,
with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though
apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating
closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments, the Court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were
engaged in conspiracy.^[2]
Unlike evident premeditation, where a sufficient period of time must elapse to
afford full opportunity for meditation and for the perpetrator to deliberate on
the consequences of his intended deed, conspiracy arises on the very instant
the plotters agree, ex­pressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it.^[3]
In the case at bar, appellant Rolando Rebutar and his
companions, Juanito Bautista, Leonardo Macapagal and “Boy Suman“,
entered together the ground floor of the house of Teodora
Gonzales de la Cruz in Batangas St., Tondo, Manila, at 8:00 o’clock in the evening of September
19, 1969.  All of them were armed.  As appellant ordered Crisanto
Barredo and his companions not to move, Macapagal stood guard armed with a pointed fan knife.  Rebutar then held Barredo by the collar. 
As Barredo tried to extricate himself from Rebutar’s hold, the latter hit him with the butt of his gun
while Macapagal also held him by the neck.  At this juncture, “Boy Suman” stabbed the victim.  Bautista hacked the victim with his jungle
bolo while he was already lying on the floor. 
According to the witnesses, “Boy Suman“,
Macapagal, Bautista and Rebutar
helped one another in assaulting the
victim.  These circumstances sufficiently
show the evidence of conspiracy between appellants and his companions.  Considering the existence of conspiracy, the
claim of appellant Rebutar that he did not inflict
the fatal wound on the victim is of no moment. 
As a conspirator, he is equally responsible for the acts of his
co-conspirators.^[4]

It is evident from the record that the killing is qualified by
treachery.  The attack on the victim was not only sudden and
unexpected, but the fatal wounds appeared to have been inflicted when he was
held firmly by one of the accused and also after he fell on the ground.

We find tenable, however, the contention of counsel de oficio Alice
V. Pesigan that evident premeditation has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.  There is
no testimonial evidence as to how and when the assailants agreed to kill the
victim.  According to the extrajudicial
confession of Rolando Rebutar (Exhibit
“G”), “Juanky” Oding picked him up on the afternoon of September 19, 1969 for the purpose of
looking for Crisanto Barredo.  There is no iota of proof as to when the culprits agreed to kill the deceased.  There must be a basis for determining whether
the accused had sufficient time, between inception of the plan and its
fulfillment, dispassionately to consider and accept its consequences.  The circumstance of evident premeditation
must be established with equal certainty and clearness as the criminal act
itself.

WHEREFORE, the judgment, insofar as it finds
appellant Rolando Rebutar y Gonzales guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by treachery, is hereby
AFFIRMED, but the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua, in the absence
of any modifying circumstance.  The other
portions of the decision are hereby likewise AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., on official leave.

^[1]
t.s.n., p. 13, Session of January 21, 1970.

^[2]
People v. Geronimo, L-35700,
Oct. 15, 1973, 53 SCRA 246.

^[3]
People v. Monroy,
et al., L-11177, Oct. 30, 1958, 104 Phil. 759.

^[4]
People v. Santos,
et al., L-1820-21, June 27, 1949, 84 Phil. 97.