THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL ESTOCADA ALIAS “BOY ESTOCADA”, ANTONIO ESTOCADA, LUDOVICO ESTOCADA ALIAS “LODING”, ROQUE ESTOCADA, ALADINO ESTOCADA…

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Branch III, Mambusao, Capiz in Criminal Case No. 467, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court sentences the accused Rafael Estocada alias Boy Estocada,
Antonio Estocada, Ludovico Estocada alias Loding, Roque Estocada, Felicito Tolentino, Jr. and
Fernando Lata, each to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment (cadena perpetua),
notwithstanding the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of
each of the accused Rafael Estocada and Antonio Estocada, which is offset by one of the aggravating
circumstances, alleged and proven, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs
of the victim Dante Tupaz, in the amount of
P12,000.00, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
pay the costs.

“And as to the accused Aladino Estocada alias Dindin who is over
nine (9) but under fifteen (15) years of age but who, by the nature of his
participation, reveals that he had acted with discernment, he is hereby ordered
to be confined to the Welfareville Boy’s Reformatory,
Mandaluyong, Rizal,
pursuant to the provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.”^[1]

During the pendency of the appeal, the
appellants Felicito Tolentino,
Aladino Estocada, and
Antonio Estocada withdrew their appeal,^[2]
while the appellant Ludovico Estocada
died,^[3]
and the case against him was dismissed.^[4]
Subsequently, the case against appellant Aladino Estocada was dismissed by this Court in Our resolution^[5]
dated February 20, 1976.  Hence, only the appeals of appellants Rafael Estocada, Roque Estocada, and Fernando Lata
remains to be resolved.

The evidence for the prosecution
shows that during his lifetime the deceased Dante Tupaz
was the partner of Macario Luching
in the gambling business called “tombo-an”
or “cara y cruz”.^[6]

Sometime on April 4,
1968, during the barrio fiesta of Jagnaya, Jamindon, Capiz, Macario Luching put up his “tombo-an” in a place where many people played the
game, among whom was appellant Rafael Estocada.  During the game, the other players discovered
that Rafael Estocada put up a “doblon” or double faced coin, as a result of which,
the game was stopped.  When the deceased
Dante Tupaz arrived at about 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, Macario Luching
re­ported the matter to him; whereupon the deceased admonished Rafael Estocada not to put up a double faced coin ever, which
admonition the latter resented, and because of which he told the deceased,
“There will be a day for you that you will pay your indebtedness.”^[7]

In the morning of Holy Thursday,
April 11, 1968, Macario Luching again brought his
“tombo-an” to the door of the public market
of Mambusao, Capiz.  Many people joined and played the game.  Among them were the accused Rafael Estocada, Wenceslao Mesias, Bello Potato, Roque Vito, and Ticoy
Potato.  In the course of the game, the
other players dis­covered that Rafael Estocada had
again put up a “doblon” or double faced
coin.  Because of this, the other players
stopped playing the game.^[8]

Thereafter, Macario Luching left the place
and went to the house of the deceased Dante Tupaz and
reported to the latter what had happened. 
The deceased advised Macario Luching to continue the game but not to allow the accused Rafael
Estocada to play.^[9]
Macario Luching returned
and continued the game until noontime, when his nephew arrived and invited him
to have his lunch at the house of Macario’s brother,
which house faces the one of Rafael Estocada on the
same street.   Macario
agreed and after taking his lunch, he went to the balcony to take a rest.^[10]

Meanwhile, on the same day, April 11, 1968, at about noontime, Ernesto Bogo, a resident of Bo. Malocloc,
Ivisan, Capiz, arrived in Mambusao, Capiz “to collect
something from Macario Luching.”
After alighting from the jeep in front of the public market, he saw and heard
the accused Rafael Estocada telling his son, Aladino Estocada, “to go to Kapul-an and tell them that he (Rafael) has an enemy.”
After Aladino Estocada had
left-riding on a tricycle – Bogo inquired from Rafael
Estocada if the latter had seen Macario
Luching, which query the latter answered in the
negative.^[11]

Thereafter, Bogo left and went to look
for Macario Luching.  An hour later, he again saw Rafael Estocada who invited him to take lunch in his house, which
invitation Bogo accepted.  Upon arriving thereat, Bogo
saw the brothers of Rafael, namely, Antonio Estocada
and appellant Roque Estocada.  Later, Rafael
Estocada requested Bogo
to fetch the deceased for a drinking
spree at Rafael’s house.  So, Bogo
went to the house of the deceased and relayed the invitation through the
latter’s wife, after which Bogo returned to Rafael Estocada’s house.^[12]

Ernesto Bogo, who was at the balcony of
the house of Rafael Estocada,^[13]
Macario Luching, who was
then in the balcony of his brother’s house facing the house of Rafael Estocada,^[14]
and Tiburcio Kapunan, a
tricycle driver, who at the time of the incident was with his tricycle at the
crossing of Roxas Avenue Street and Sta. Catalina
Street,^[15]
saw the deceased arrive in a tricycle.^[16]
Upon alighting therefrom, appellant Fernando Lata embraced him from behind – putting his arms around the
upper part of the body of the deceased.  At this juncture, Felicto
Tolentino, Jr., stabbed the deceased in the stomach,
after which Antonio Estocada also attacked him and
hacked him with a bolo on the left side of the neck.^[17]  In
the process, appellant Fernando Lata was also hit on
the left side of his neck,^[18] thus releasing the latter’s hold on the
deceased,^[19] who staggered towards the sugar cane plants.^[20] Suddenly, Rafael Estocada,
Ludovico Estocada, and Roque Estocada, who were hiding
among the sugar cane plants, emerged. 
Rafael Estocada hacked the deceased with a
bolo on the back of the neck, followed by Ludovico Estocada and Roque Estocada who also hacked the deceased.^[21] When the latter fell to the ground, Aladino Estocada likewise hacked
him on the left foot.^[22] As a result, the deceased sustained ten (10) wounds on the different parts
of his body,^[23] which caused his death.

On the other hand, appellant Rafael Estocada
claims that he and he alone inflicted all the wounds which caused the death of
the deceased but claims he did so in self-defense.  Accord­ing to him, on April 11, 1968 at about 8:30 a.m. he was in the public market of Mambusao, Capiz, and played
“tombo” or cara y
cruz, which was then operated by the deceased and Macario Luching.  About twelve noon, the game was stopped
because of a quarrel between Felicito Tolentino, Jr. and four unidentified persons, who suspected
the former of having used a “doblon” or
double faced coin.  When the deceased
arrived, he confronted Felicito Tolentino,
Jr. as to why he was cheating.  The
latter answered: “Toto Dante, I did not make any trouble”, to which
the deceased retorted, “Look at this now, you see, no more persons playing
because you are abusing.  I am going to
stab you.  Womb of your mother.”^[24]

When the deceased attempted to draw his knife to stab Felicito Tolentino, Jr., Rafael Estocada rushed to the deceased and wrested the knife from
him, and in the scuffle the deceased suffered an injury on his palm.  Then the deceased ran to the house of Ticoy Potato, got a bolo and ran after Rafael.  While being pursued, he looked back and said,
“Toto Dante, I have no fault.” At this juncture, Judge Federico Andaya, who was at the balcony of his house, fired his gun
in the air as a warning to the deceased to desist from further aggression.  It was only then that he did.^[25]

Upon reaching his house, Rafael saw his wife, his children, and Felicito Tolentino, Jr.  His wife then inquired from him what was the
trouble between him and the deceased, and he answered that even if the latter
boxed him he did not mind it because the deceased was drunk.  At this juncture, his brother, Antonio Estocada and his sister, Consolacion
Estocada, arrived. 
Thereafter someone shouted, “You hide because Dante is here.”
He went inside the house, and then he heard a shot from a .22 caliber revolver,
after which his sister, Consolacion shouted,
“Help, Manong Tonio is
dead.  He was shot by Dante Tupaz.” After hearing another shot, he pushed his wife
and children aside, and got a bolo.  When
he opened the door, he saw his brother, Antonio Estocada,
lying flat with face downward on the floor. 
Thereupon, he got his brother’s bolo, unsheated
it and ran after the deceased, who fired at him but missed.  Then he hacked the deceased but instead hit
somebody who passed by.  The deceased
again fired at him, but he (Rafael)
continued to hack the deceased, hitting him on the leg, on the stomach, and on
the left side of the neck.  The deceased
then staggered near the well and fell down. 
While lying flat with his face upward, Rafael again hacked the deceased and
it was only then that the latter dropped his gun to the ground.  Thereafter, Rafael picked up the gun and wet
to his house where he saw his sister Consolacion Estocada holding in her arms their brother Antonio Estocada.  He gave to
Antonio the gun of the deceased, and his (Rafael’s) own bolo.  Then he went to the municipal building to
surrender.^[26]

For his defense, the accused Fernando Lata
testified that at about 1:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of April 11, 1968,
he left his house in order to go to the plaza to refresh himself, riding on his
bicycle.  Along the way, he stopped in
front of the house of appellant Rafael Estocada
because there were many children
gathered thereat.  Moments later, Lata heard somebody shout, “Hide, all of you.”
So, he pushed some of the children to the other side of the road, after which
he heard an explosion.  When he looked
back, he saw the deceased Dante Tupaz point his gun
at Antonio Estocada and shoot him, hitting the latter
on the breast.  At this point, Consolacion Estocada placed
herself between Antonio and the deceased, at the same time shouting, “Manong Dante, please don’t. 
Have pity.” Thereafter, Lata ran to the
deceased to pacify him, and to prevent Consolacion
from being shot by the deceased, he held the latter’s arms from behind, and
turned him to the left
side.  In that position Lata was hacked on the left side of his neck.  He staggered from the place wounded and was
brought to the Mambusao
General Hospital,^[27]
and later, to the Capiz
Emmanuel Hospital
for medical treatment and confinement for fourteen (14) days.^[28]
While in jail, appellant Rafael Estocada told him
that it was he (Rafael) who accidentally boloed him.^[29]

Appellant Roque Estocada did not take the
witness stand to testify in his own defense.

The trial court rejected the version of the accused and convicted
them of murder.  Hence, this appeal.

Appellant Rafael Estocada maintains
that he alone is responsible for the wounds inflicted on the deceased, but that
he did it in self-defense.^[30]
Moreover, he assails the trial court in
giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
claiming that they are false and rehearsed inasmuch as they are identical in
every detail.^[31]

We find these contentions
to be untenable.  As aptly observed by
the trial court, appellant’s version of the incident is infirmed by the
following circumstances:  firstly, the
autopsy report^[32]
does not show any wound on the left or right
palm of the deceased, which disproves the alleged attempt of the deceased to stab
Felicito Tolentino, Jr. and
the alleged wresting of the knife from the deceased by appellant Rafael Estocada; secondly, the defense failed to present Judge
Federico Andaya who could have corroborated the tes­timony
of appellant Rafael Estocada that the latter was
attacked and chased by the deceased, despite the fact that it previously
manifested its intention to do so.  Such
failure amounts to suppression of evidence which gives rise to the presumption
that said witness, if presented, would have given testimony adverse to the
defense; and thirdly, Patrolmen Alfredo Toledo and Conrado
Delfin, both members of the police force of Mambusao, Capiz, and who were on
detail at the public market at the time of the supposed quarrel between the
deceased, on the one hand, and appellant Rafael Estocada
and Felicito Tolentino,
Jr., on the other hand, positively testified that there was no such fight or commottion as claimed by appellant Rafael Estocada.^[33]

Besides, appellant’s
claim of self-defense is belied and negated by the number of wounds on the body
of the deceased and their location as shown in the autopsy report.^[34] Such wounds are indicative of aggression,^[35] and confirms the theory of the prosecution
that several persons assaulted the deceased.^[36] On top of that, it is highly unbelievable
that appellant, who claims that the deceased repeatedly fired a gun at him at
close range, was never hit.

Furthermore, his contention that the testimony of the principal
prosecution witnesses, namely, Ernesto Bogo, Macario Luching, and Tiburcio Kapunan, are false and^[37]
rehearsed because they are identical in every detail, is likewise devoid of
merit.  A cursory perusal of their testimony shows that, contrary to
appellant’s claim, their seeming similarity refers merely to the general details
of the incident, that is, as to the commission of the crime.  Their testimony is but a reiteration of what
they stated in their affidavits^[38]
executed before the Municipal Judge of Mambusao, Capiz on April 12, 1968, only one day after the incident in
question, before they could possibly fabricate
evidence against the herein appellants. 
At any rate, being all eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime, it
is not surprising that their testimony dovetailed in vital particulars.^[39]

On the other hand, appellant Roque Estocada, who did not testify in his behalf during the
trial, maintains that he was not present during the fight, thus setting up the
defense of alibi.  In support thereof, he
claims that Aladino Estocada
did not inform him of the alleged incident in the public market of Mambusao, Capiz.  Neither could he have known anything about it
since he lived in Kapul-an, Mambusao,
Capiz.^[40]

We find no merit in appellant’s contention.  Kapul-an is a sitio less than 1/2 kilometer from the poblacion of Mambusao where the
incident in question took place;^[41]
hence, the proximity of his place of
residence to the scene of the crime does not preclude the possibility that he
was at the place of the crime at the time it was committed.  For the
defense of alibi to pros­per, it is not
enough that the defendant was somewhere
else when the crime was committed, but he must likewise, demons­trate
that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.^[42] His alibi does not meet this requirement.

Besides, “the rule
is well-settled, to the point of
being trite, that the defense of alibi, which is easy to concoct, must be
received with utmost caution, for it is one of the weakest defenses that can be
resorted to by an accused and becomes worthless in the face of positive
identification by prosecution witnesses pointing to the accused as parteceps criminis.”^[43] The herein appellant having been
positively identified by the prosecution witnesses Ernesto Bogo,
Macario Luching, and Tiburcio Kapunan as one of the
participants in the commission of the crime, his defense of alibi must necessarily fail.

Appellant Roque Estocada,
likewise, assails the credibility of prosecution witness Tiburcio
Kapunan and Ernesto Bogo,
contending that their testimonies are inconsistent as to who hacked first the
deceased, pointing out that while the former testified that the deceased was
right away boloed by Roque Estocada, Ludovico, and Aladino Estocada,^[44]
the latter declared that Ludovico Estocada
boloed the deceased followed by Roque
Estocada.  He
also points to an alleged conflict in the testimony of Tiburcio
Kapunan that after the incident, he went home
immediately and did not fetch any passenger anymore, while in his affidavit^[45]
he stated that he fetched a passenger after the incident.^[46]
The alleged inconsistencies, however, refer only to minor and collateral matters that do not impair the credibility
of prosecution witness Tiburcio Kapunan
and Ernesto Bogo. 
The discrepancies signify that the two witnesses did not deliberately
pervert the truth in their narrations. 
The discordance in their testimonies on collateral matters heightens
their credibility and shows that their testimonies were not coached or
rehearsed.  Far from being evidence of
falsehood they could justifiably be regarded as a demonstration of their good
faith.^[47]

Nor do We find merit in the appellant’s claim that the failure of
the two prosecution witnesses to state what particular parts of the body of the
deceased were hit by Ludovico Estocada
and the herein appellant, negates their alleged presence at the place of the
stabbing incident.^[48]
Considering the fast occurence of the events, and,
the fear and excitement upon seeing the deceased being attacked by the
appellants, it was not unnatural for them to overlook what particular parts of
the body of the deceased were boloed by Ludovico Estocada and the herein
appellant, although they were able to recall what parts of the body of the deceased
were hit by the other appellants.  In any
event, this circumstance does not establish the fact that they were not present
at the time and place of the incident in question.

Moreover, the appellant Roque Estocada’s imputation of
bias to prosecution witness Tiburcio Kapunan and Macario Luching because the former is the nephew of Mauricio Tupaz, father of the deceased,^[49] while the latter is a family friend of
the deceased,^[50]
does not deserve serious consideration.  Mere relationship to the victim does not
impair the positive and clear testimony of witnesses.^[51]

There is, likewise, no
merit in appellant Roque Estocada’s
insistence that the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses should be
discredited because they did not notify or inform the wife or father of the
deceased of the stabbing incident immediately thereafter, and that Macario Luching despite his
friendship to the deceased did not volunteer to be a witness to the
case.^[52]
Their conduct immediately after the incident may be explained by the natural reticence of most people to
get involved in a criminal case.^[53] As was stated in the case of People vs. Delfin,^[54] “the initial reluctance of
witnesses in this country to volunteer information about a criminal case, and their
unwillingness to be involved in or dragged into a criminal investigation is
common, and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility.”

As to the appeal of appellant Fernando Lata,
We are not impressed by his pretense that he was a mere by stander at the time
of the incident and that his only purpose in holding the hands of the deceased
from behind was merely to prevent the latter from shooting Consolacion
Estocada, thus interposing the justifying
circumstance of having allegedly acted in defense of a stranger.^[55]
It would have been foolhardy and suicidal on his part to approach the deceased,
who, according to him, had already started firing his gun and had already in
fact shot the accused Antonio Estocada.  It should be noted that he was not related in
any manner to the Estocadas nor a close friend to
anyone of them.  There was, therefore, no
compelling reason for him to risk his life and act in the manner he would like
this Court to believe.  In the light of
the facts and circumstances of this case, We find that his defense is
untenable.

The findings and conclusions of the trial court on the
credibility of the witnesses are not be disturbed on appeal, unless there is
proof that said court, in making the findings, had failed to appreciate some fact
or circumstance of weight and substance that would have altered the results of
the case.  In the case before Us,
appellants failed in the exercise of that task. 
It results that their guilt had been established beyond reasonable
doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment as to appellants Rafael Estocada, Roque Estocada, and Fernando Lata is
hereby affirmed, with costs.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, and Aquino,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
p. 570, Record.

^[2]
pp. 84, 633, 826, Rollo.

^[3]
pp. 877-878, Rollo.

^[4]
p. 881, Rollo.

^[5]
The Resolution of this Court reads as follows:

“Considering the Special
Report of Mrs. Constancia G. Bolinao,
Officer-in-Charge, National Training School for Boys stating that the accused Aladino
Estocada who was committed to their custody, being
then a minor below 15 years of age, is now 21 years old and fully rehabilitated
with recommendation that the case against him be dismissed and that he be
discharged from the aforesaid school and turned over to the custody of his
mother, Mrs. Estrella Estocada,
as well as the comment of the Solicitor General stating that he has no
objection to the release of said accused as he in fact recommended in the
plaintiff-appellee’s brief, the acquittal of said
accused on the ground of reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the Court Re­solved
to DISMISS the case in so far as the accused Aladino Estocada is concerned and to ORDER his immediate RELEASE
from the National Training School for Boys, to the custody of his mother.”
(p. 909, Rollo.)

^[6]
p. 80, t.s.n.

^[7]
pp. 80-84, t.s.n.

^[8]
pp. 84-85, t.s.n.

^[9]
pp. 85-86, t.s.n.

^[10]
p. 86, t.s.n.

^[11]
pp. 12-15, t.s.n.

^[12]
pp. 15-18, t.s.n.

^[13]
p. 34, t.s.n.

^[14]
p. 86, t.s.n.

^[15]
p. 150, t.s.n.

^[16]
pp. 18-19, 86-87, 151, t.s.n.

^[17]
pp. 20-21, 87-88, 151-152, t.s.n.

^[18]
pp. 59-60, t.s.n.

^[19]
pp. 56-57, t.s.n.

^[20]
pp. 88, 153, t.s.n.

^[21]
pp. 23-25, 88-89, 153, t.s.n.

^[22]
pp. 89, 153, t.s.n.

^[23]
Exhibit “H”.

^[24]
pp. 202-204, t.s.n.

^[25]
pp. 204-205, t.s.n.

^[26]
pp. 206-211, t.s.n.

^[27]
pp. 314-318, t.s.n.

^[28]
pp. 335-336, t.s.n.

^[29]
p. 331, t.s.n.

^[30]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 795-796, Rollo.

^[31]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 788-794, Rollo.

^[32]
Exhibit “H”, p. 2,
Record, which shows that the deceased sustained the following wounds:

“1.  Wound No. 1, external from the nape downward
to the chin cutting the part of the ear lobe, the wound is about 9 inches long
and deep to cut the major vessels of the neck. 
And just 2 inches below wound No. 1 another incised wound, at the right
side of the base of the neck.  That is
about 4-1/2 inches long.  It involves
skin and subcutaneous tissues only.

2. 
Stabbed wound, from the dome of the skull down the front of the right
ear, about 6 inches long.  It fractured
the skull, from the dome of the skull is another wound that extends down the
forehead that is about 4-1/2 inches in length.

3. 
Stabbed wound, that extends from the right base of the neck to the
shoulder is about 4 inches in length involving skin and muscles.

4. 
Stabbed wound, penetrating 1-1/2 inches below and to the left of the umbalicus.

5. 
Stabbed wound, penetrating chest left at the level of the fifth interspace and 1 inch
in front at mid-auxiliary.

6.  Stabbed wound, left
side of the neck 1-1/2 inches below the ear about 5 inches in length.  It involves only subcutaneous tissues and
muscles.

7. 
Stabbed wound, at the right thigh involving skin and subcutaneous
tissues and muscles.

8. 
At the lateral side of left elbow are the two (2) superficial incised
wounds are almost parallel to each other, and about 1 inch in length.

9.  Stabbed wound, at the sacral
region in a 6 inches horizontal wood that cuts into the bone.

10. At the lateral side of the left foot in a penetrating wound from which extracted a piece of wood
that is about 2 inches in
length, but a quarter of an inch in diameter.”

^[33]
pp. 549-550, Record.

^[34]
In U.S. vs. Gonzales, 8 Phil. 443, this Court
con­sidering the ten (10) wounds inflicted on the deceased held that the
allegation of self-defense is “incredible because it is improbable.”

^[35]
People vs. Somera,
83 Phil. 548.

^[36]
People vs. Manzano, L-33643 & L-33644, July 31,
1974, 58 SCRA 250,
259.

^[37]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 788-790, Rollo.

^[38]
pp. 5-8, Record.

^[39]
People vs. Velez, et al., L-30038, July 18, 1974, 58 SCRA 21, 28.

^[40]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 547-550, Rollo.

^[41]
p. 273, t.s.n.

^[42]
People vs. Sarmiento,
L-26183, June 19, 1975, 64 SCRA 350; People vs. Alcantara, L-26867, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 813; People vs. Jamero, L-19852, 24 SCRA 207.

^[43]
People vs. Cortez, L-31106, May 31,
1974, 57 SCRA 308.

^[44]
Appellant’s Brief, p 551, Rollo.

^[45]
Exhibit 1, p. 5, Record.

^[46] Appellant’s Brief, p. 554, Rollo.

^[47]
People vs. Reyes, L-33154, Feb.
27, 1976, 69 SCRA 474 and
cases therein cited; People vs. Pajenado,
L-26458, Jan. 30, 1976, 69 SCRA 172.

^[48]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 552, Rollo.

^[49]
Ibid., p. 553, Rollo.

^[50]
Ibid., p. 558, Rollo.

^[51]
People vs. Reyes, supra;
People vs. Pajenado, supra.

^[52]
Appellants’ Brief, pp. 555-560, Rollo.

^[53]
People vs. Cariño,
et al., L-33608 Feb. 12, 1974, 55 SCRA 516.

^[54]
L-15230 & L-15979-81, July 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 911.

^[55]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 701-703, Rollo.