THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. POLICARPIO KATANGKATANG ET AL., DEFENDANTS, POLICARPIO KATANGKATANG AND GONZALO HEMBRA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Policarpio Katangkatang and Gonzalo Hembra were, together with four
unknown persons, accused of robbery in band with double homicide in the
Court of First Instance of Leyte. As the four unknown persons were not
apprehended, Policarpio Katangkatang and Gonzalo Hembra were tried
alone and, having been found guilty as charged and sentenced to death,
indemnity and costs, they have appealed to the Court of Appeals, but
because of the nature of the penalty, the case has been elevated to this
Court.

From the evidence for the prosecution it appears that on the
night of October 21, 1950, Luis Grana, his wife Victoria Cahinde, and
their two sons Juan and Crestituto were in their house in barrio
Villapas, Jaro, Leyte. With them were their guest Sotera Cañezo and her
three little children. At about 8 o’clock that evening those in the
house became aware of the approach of strangers, because of the barking
of dogs, and very soon heard footsteps outside and voices saying: “Padi,
Padi Luis, abrehi ako, tague sapi” (Compadre, Compadre Luis, let in,
give me money). As no one in the house gave reply, those below fired
shots in the air and tried to open the main door, but failing to do so,
they went to the door of the kitchen and opened it by cutting the rope
by which it was secured. Then two armed men, identified as the
appellants herein, entered. They had their faces covered with
handkerchiefs from the nose down. Addressing Luis Grana they asked him
for money, and when he refused, he was fired upon by the appellant
Policarpio Katangkatang. He was hit in the neck, but he did not die at
once. Seeing that further resistance was useless, Luis Grana got out
P200 from his pocket and handed it to the appellants, and thereafter
remarked: “Now I know that you were the same ones who had robbed us
before.” Believing obviously that he and his companion had been
recognized, Katangkatang shot Luis in the stomach, killing him.
Thereafter, the other inmates of the house were ordered to lie on the
floor face down, including Crestituto, who was already wounded. And as
soon as the latter had done so Katangkatang finished him off by stabbing
him five times in the back with a bolo. The intruders then asked for
more money and ordered Luis Grana’s other son, Juan (aged 16), to look
for more. Seeing his chance to escape, Juan stood up, jumped out of the
house and ran away, whereupon the intruders put out the light and left.

Both appellants put up an alibi.

Denying any participation in the crime, Policarpio Katangkatang
claimed that he was in his house in barrio Jupit (about 8 kilometers
from the scene of the crime) on the night in question and on this he was
corroborated by Fernando Hipe, a school teacher in that barrio, who
said that he was boarding in the house of this appellant though he had
his own house and family in another barrio about three kilometers away.
The trial court, however, thought it unlikely that this teacher would
pass the night in question (which was a Saturday) in another man’s house
when his own was not far away. And anyway it was not at all impossible
for this appellant to have slipped out of the house and gone to Luis
Grana’s place without his absence being noticed by Hipe, who was busy
preparing his lesson plan.

Gonzalo Hembra on his part also denied having participated in
the commission of the crime and testified that from 7 to 12 o’clock that
night he was at a dance in Jaro Elementary School together with a
friend, Norberto Lompa. The latter corroborated the testimony. But as
the Solicitor General points out, it is surprising that intimate friend
though he claims to be of this appellant, Lompay does not know whether
appellant is married or not; and that while Lompay could recall the date
of the dance he attended with this appellant, he could not remember the
dates of any of the other dances he attended that same month.

Though the defense claims that the robbery part of the charge
has not been established because of the confusion in the testimony of
the widow as to the source of the P200 taken by the appellants from the
deceased, we find that the handing of the money to the malefactors is a
clearly proven fact, and that the widow’s confusion may be attributed to
her ignorance and lack of schooling if not to a defective memory.
Moreover, no other motive has been proved or even suggested to account
for the killing of father and son in their own house that night.

The really important question for determination refers to the
identification of the appellants.

Appellants were identified by three witnesses: the widow
Victoria Cahinde, her son Juan Grana, and their guest Sotera Cañezo.
There is no question that all three were in the house that night and saw
appellants at close range. It is true that appellants had their faces
partly covered. But then there was light in the house and appellants
were familiar figures to the three, living as they did not far from them
and having been known to them for a long time. In the case of the
appellant Hembra, there is the further circumstance, admitted by him,
that he was a former sweetheart of the witness Sotera Cañezo. The
widow’s mistake in pointing to Katangkatang as Hembra and vice-versa may
indicate that she did not know them by name but does not necessarily
prove that she did not know them by face. And in any event, there is
still the clear and positive testimony of Juan Grana and Sotera Cañezo
respecting the identity of the malefactors even if that of the widow
should be doubted. The circumstance that the names of the perpetrators
of the crime were not immediately revealed to the authorities appears to
have been due to the survivors’ fear of reprisals which made them
withhold that information until they had moved to the poblacion
after the burial of the deceased and the end of the customary number of
days of prayer in their house in the farm.

After going over the evidence we find appellants guilty of
robbery with homicide. The defense is right in saying that the evidence
does not show that the crime was perpetrated by a band. And with the
exception of nocturnity, we are also with the defense in rejecting the
aggravating circumstances appreciated by the trial court. But as
nocturnity is not compensated by any mitigating circumstance, the
penalty impossable is still death. However, there is no sufficient vote
for the imposition of this penalty so that appellants can only be
sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Wherefore, reducing the penalty imposed below from death to reclusion
perpetua, the judgment appealed from is affirmed in all other
respects, with costs against the appellants.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor,
Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.