THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PURIFICACION PLATA LUZON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Automatic review of a death sentence with accessory penalties imposed
on January 29, 1972 upon
accused-appellant Purificacion Plata Luzon by the
Circuit Criminal Court, 7th Judicial District, Pasig, Rizal in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-746-Cavite, for the killing of Sancho Luzon.

The information for parricide filed by Assistant Provincial
Fiscal Candido P. Villanueva of Cavite alleges:

“That on or about February 14, 1971, in the barrio of Puting Kahoy, Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, together with MAXIMINO
MERCADO y SUAREZ alias ‘Mino‘, ‘Minong’, ‘Max’ and
‘Mike’, SALVADOR GALON y TROMPETA alias ‘Nonong‘, and
ROMEO SANTIAGO y MERCADO alias ‘Tabako‘, against whom
the corresponding information for MURDER is filed and one JOHN DOE alias ‘Rey‘ whose true identity is still unknown and who is still
at-large, after having conceived, deliberated and plotted with all the aforenamed individuals
to kill her husband Sancho Luzon, with whom she was united in lawful wedlock, in consideration of a price or promise of reward, conspiring,
confederating, acting jointly and mutually helping one another, with intent to
kill, and with evident premeditation and treachery, after bringing him with the
use of a motor vehicle to an isolated place within the said barrio of Puting Kahoy, one of them being armed with a bladed weapon and another with a lead pipe, suddenly
and without warning, while employing means, methods and forms in the execution
of the crime which tended directly and specially to insure its commission
without danger to the persons of the said accused, did, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, beat, wound and stab the said Sancho Luzon,
thereby inflicting upon him multiple mortal wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused his instantaneous death.”

On March 30, 1971, Maximino Mercado, Salvador Galon
and Romeo Santiago pleaded guilty and were sentenced accordingly. Appellant Purificacion Plata Luzon pleaded not guilty to the charge and, thereafter, trial with respect to her proceeded. After
trial, the lower court found Purificacion Plata Luzon
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide and sentenced her
“to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the heirs of the offended
party the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00),
to pay moral damages in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), and to
pay exemplary damages in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00);
and to pay the costs.” (p. 34, Rollo)

The People’s version of
the case appears in the appellee’s brief filed by the
Solicitor General, thus:

“Accused Purification Plata Luzon and deceased Sancho Luzon were husband
and wife. Sancho Luzon worked in Vietnam
as a technician of the Eastern
Construction Company. He came home to the Philippines
occasionally to visit his family
until January 23, 1971 when
he finally returned home. (t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1971, p. 21)

“While her husband was away, Purification Plata Luzon had
illicit relations with one Alejandro Oblea, Jr. The
affair began in 1968 (t.s.n., Dec. 15, 1971, p. 20)
and lasted up to the time Sancho Luzon was killed on February 14, 1971 (t.s.n., Jan. 18, 1972, pp. 4-5). The accused and Alejandro Oblea, Jr. frequented the
Jai-Alai Fronton on Taft Avenue Manila, and other gambling places. (t.s.n., May 13, 1971, pp. 3-5). They
rented an apartment at 185 Int. de la Fuente St., Sampaloc, Manila, and lived together as husband and wife. During the period of
extramarital affair, the accused assumed the name Mrs. Purita
Oblea. (Exhs.
‘F’, ‘F-l’, ‘F-2). It was as Purita
Oblea that the accused came to be known to Maximino Mercado, a betting usher at the Jai-Alai. (t.s.n., May 13, 1971, p. 3).

“On February 10, 1971, after leaving the Manila Fiscal’s Office together
with Maximino Mercado and Alejandro Oblea, Jr., the accused asked Mercado to see her in the
afternoon of that day. They met as agreed, in the course of which meeting the
accused told Maximino Mercado of her desire to have
her husband killed because of financial problems she was having with him. It
was only then that Maximino Mercado learned that
Alejandro Oblea, Jr. was not Purita
Oblea’s husband. The accused told Mercado that she
was willing to pay P5,000.00 to anybody who would kill
her husband. (Exh. ‘I’, pp. 1-2; t.s.n., June 9, 1971, pp.
19-20).

“The next day, February 11, 1971, the accused met Maximino Mercado, Boy Pamintuan,
Salvador Galon and two others at the 5th Avenue
Hotel. She reiterated her desire to have her husband killed. There was haggling
over the price, with the accused
insisting that she could afford
only P5,000.00. The other co-accused agreed to said amount. It was likewise agreed that ‘whatever (they)
will take from the husband, (that) is not included in the P5,000.00
after (they) have accomplished their mission.’ (t.s.n.,
May 13, 1971, pp. 8-17)

“The parties agreed that the accused would take along her husband the following afternoon
(February 12, 1971) to the corner of Antipolo and Abad Santos Streets in Manila on the pretext that they
would buy spare parts at the San Vicente Auto Supply. The others would way-lay
them there. (Exh. ‘E’; t.s.n., May 13, 1971, pp. 22-24).

“The conspirators, however, were not able to carry out their
plan to kill Sancho Luzon on February 12, 1971
because of the presence of policemen and mobile patrol cars in the vicinity of
the San Vicente Auto Supply. (Exh.
‘E’). Later in the day, the accused met Maximino
Mercado at the Jai-Alai and asked him to meet her the following morning,
February 13, 1971. (t.s.n., May 13,
1971, pp. 28-30). They met as arranged and Mrs. Plata Luzon expressed
disgust at the failure of the first plot. (t.s.n., ibid, p. 30). What happened later is fairly
set forth in the following
portion of the appealed decision:

‘They then devised another
plan to kill the husband of the accused and they agreed that the following
day, February 14, 1971, Mrs. Plata Luzon would bring along her
husband to Laguna de Bay on a pretext to buy a motor from a friend of ‘Rey.’ That Maximino Mercado,
Salvador Galon and Rey
would do the killing and that Mrs. Plata Luzon and her husband would wait for
them at Mandaluyong near the crossing of Shaw
Boulevard and Highway 54.

‘In the morning of
February 14, 1971, Maximino Mercado and Rey contacted Romeo Santiago, a nephew of the former and
asked him to hire an owner-type jeepney which they
will use in their plan to kill the deceased. (EXH.
‘G’). The jeep was hired and Santiago, Rey and
Mercado went to the latter’s house to eat their lunch and while there, they
were joined by Salvador Galon. After lunch, they rode
in the jeep and proceeded to Mandaluyong near the
crossing, and they arrived there at about 1:00 p.m. of February 14, 1971. After
waiting for about ten minutes, Mrs. Plata Luzon and her husband arrived (id;
See also t.s.n., Jan. 28, 1972, p. 23). They all got
in the jeep and proceeded on their way with Santiago
driving the jeep, the accused seated to his right and the deceased seated on
the right side of the accused, while Rey, Galen and Mercado
were seated at the back. (Exh.
‘F’; p. 42, t.s.n., May 13, 1971). While along the
Superhighway, the deceased gave money to Santiago
and they had the jeep filled with 10 liters of gasoline. (Exh. ‘G’).

“Unknown to the deceased, they were on their way to Cavite, instead of Laguna and when they reached Puting Kahoy, Silang,
Cavite, Rey ordered
Santiago to stop on the pretext of answering a call of nature and they all
alighted from the jeep. The accused, on the pretext of answering a call of
nature, walked ahead followed by Maximino Mercado. (Exh. ‘G’). The deceased, followed
by Rey and by Galon, walked
farther behind. When the accused was a little further ahead, on a pre-arranged
signal, Salvador Galon struck the deceased with a
lead pipe at the back. The deceased was stunned and as he was falling down, Rey stabbed him repeatedly, separately on the chest, nape
and stomach (Exh. ‘N’). Even
as the victim was already down, Rey kept stabbing
him, inflicting a total of nine (9) wounds (t.s.n.,
p. 3, May 12, 1971). When the victim was already dead, Rey
divested the body of its wrist watch, wallet and lighter.

‘Meanwhile, Santiago had already reversed the direction of the jeep
and Rey and Galon ran
toward and boarded the jeep. Maximino Mercado and Mrs.
Plata Luzon returned to the scene of the crime and upon seeing the body,
Mercado tried to convince the accused to come with them and return to Manila. But
the accused refused to go with them saying that she will pretend that she and
her husband were held-up and in the course of the hold-up, her husband was
killed by the holduppers. (t.s.n.,
pp. 46-47, May 13, 1971). Santiago, Rey, Galon and Mercado returned to Manila. They sold the wrist
watch and divided the proceeds equally together with the P50.00 taken from the
wallet after deducting the P20.00 as rental for the jeep. Mrs. Plata Luzon, on
the other hand, told her fabricated story to the authorities.’ (Exh. ‘F’) (Sen­tence
pp. 26-28, p. 221 Record. References to the transcript and to the
exhibits in brackets added).

“The crime was discovered and the accused-appellant Maximino Mercado, Salvador Galon
and Romeo Santiago were arrested and detained. On the basis
of their statements (Exhs. ‘E’, ‘I’, ‘N’, ‘O’,
‘P’, ‘G’), and with the active participation of Purificacion
Plata Luzon, Maximino Mercado, Salvador Galon and Romeo Santiago, and the assistance of some CIS
and PC Personnel who posed for the co-accused ‘Rey‘
and the deceased Sancho Luzon, a re-enactment of the
crime in all its material aspects was held on March 6, 1971 (pp. 20-22, t.s.n., March 6, 1971). Photographs were taken of the
re-enactment and presented (Exhs. ‘H’
to ‘H-17’) at the hearing of May 13, 1971. (t.s.n., pp. 51 et seq., May 13, 1971).”

Accused-appellant claims
that the trial court erred: (1) in giving full credence and weight to the
uncorroborated testimony of Maximino Mercado; (2) in
ruling that the issue of credibility of Mercado should be affirmatively
resolved in his favor since he pleaded guilty to the charge of murder to the
exclusion of other relevant factors; (3) in not finding as a fact that Maximino Mercado had been blackmailing the accused and had
demanded P10,000.00 from the accused, otherwise, he will implicate her in the
murder of her husband; (4) in not giving credence to the testimony of the
accused; (5) in failing to rule that the testimony of Mercado does not
constitute clear and convincing evidence on the alleged conspiracy; and, (6) in
not acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt.

As already stated, the
trial court convicted the accused-appellant for parricide. The main issue
raised by appellant in this case is the matter of credibility. The trial court
rejected the testimony of appellant that she had no participation in the
slaying of her husband and that they were robbed by her co-accused in an
isolated place and when her husband would not give them the money, they slew
him with a bladed weapon until he finally succumbed to death. On the other
hand, the trial court gave more weight and believed the testimonies of Maximino Mercado and Salvador Galon
who confessed their guilt in the killing of Sancho
Luzon and who pointed to Purificacion Luzon as the
person who engaged their services to kill the deceased on a promise of a reward
of P5,000.00. Hereunder is the testimony of Maximino Mercado:

“FISCAL:  (to the witness)

Q    What
else transpired?

A     When
Boy Pamintuan asked her ‘what do you like to happen’,
she said to intercept the money in going to Bicol and to have her husband killed.

Q    What
was the reply of Boy Pamintuan and the other
companions?

A     She
said ‘I would like to have my husband
killed and I am willing to pay what the amount you want.’ Boy Pamintuan answered ‘How much can you afford?’

Q    What
did Purificacion Plata answer?

A     Boy
Pamintuan answered ‘just in case, are you willing to pay P20,000.00?’

Q    What
else?

A     Mrs.
Purificacion Plata Luzon answered she could not afford that amount.

Q    What else happened?

A     Boy
Pamintuan said
to wait for him and he
will call a person and talk to him.

Q    Did Boy Pamintuan
call that person?

A     Boy
Pamintuan left and Mrs. Purificacion Plata Luzon gave him
P20.00 and told him to hurry up
and use the money for transportation fare.

Q    What
else?

A     It
did not take long Boy Pamintuan
returned with two men whom I did
not know.

ATTY. VILLASECA:

May I insert the answer of the witness ‘hindi nagluwat.‘

FISCAL:

(to
the witness)

Q    What transpired as soon as Boy Pamintuan returned with the two men?

A     They
talked about the amount to be paid for the killing of her husband and the two
men were the ones who answered. I heard the two persons were asking for P15,000.00 and Mrs. Purificacion
Plata Luzon answered she could not afford P15,000.00 and she said if they want
she can afford P5,000.00.

Q    What
happened next?

A     The other person asked Mrs. Luzon. ‘Does your husband bring
money whenever he goes out?’

Q    What
was the answer of Mrs. Luzon?

A     She
said whenever her husband goes out, he bring with him no less than P2,000.00.

Q    This
person who asked that question, was he one of the two persons brought by Boy Pamintuan?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And
then what else transpired?

A     After
they have talked again, the person answered ‘in that case, we will agree for P5,000.00 but whatever we will take from your husband, that is
not included in the P5,000.00 after we have accomplished our mission.’ After
they have agreed on the matter, they came now to the place where they will
carry out the plan. Mrs. Luzon was asked by the two persons where she would
like to execute the plan ‘kung saan ninyo barahin
namin ang inyong asawa‘ and where we can
see your husband.

Q    What did Mrs. Luzon answer?

A     Mrs.
Luzon told the men that in a week she will be collecting P10,000.00
showing an affidavit certifying that she will really collect P10,000.00. Then
she told us ‘If you like I will take along with me my husband and if you like
you can intercept us between Pasig and Taytay and we will make it appear as a hold up.’ (tsn. pp. 14–18, May 13,
1971)

x        x          x                      x          x          x

Q    That
place where Mr. and Mrs. Sancho Luzon alighted, do you know what place is that?

A     I
only know this time it is called Puting Kahoy.

Q    What
province is that?

A     I
understand it is in Cavite.

Q    What
town?

A     Silang.

x        x          x                      x
         x          x                      x          x         x

Q    Upon
reaching that place that is the time you said Rey
said to stop the jeep?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Who
alighted first?

A     Mrs.
Luzon requested her husband to alight first.

Q    You
refer to Sancho Luzon?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Who
alighted next?

A     Followed
by Mrs. Luzon.

Q    Who alighted next?

A     Rey. (tsn. pp. 43-44, May 13, 1971)

x        x          x                      x          x          x                      x          x          x

Q    What
happened?

A     When
we have gone far, about 120 meters away from the road, I heard a ‘kalatok.’ When I glanced back, I saw Salvador Galon holding a lead pipe in this position (witness demonstrating
by holding an imaginary lead pipe with both hands as if holding a baseball bat)
and I saw Mr. Luzon faced downward. So I ran towards Mrs. Luzon and Mrs. Luzon
was standing. I told her ‘let us go,’ when I heard that ‘kalatok.’
Mrs. Luzon answered me ‘never mind. Leave me here. I will take charge of
everything here and if the policemen arrive, I will tell them we were held up.’
I said ‘how is that. I know you will go with us. They have left already.’ She
said ‘go ahead. You leave me here and if the policemen arrive, I will tell them
we were held up and we will have him buried in Bicol.’
So I ran and took the shortcut thru the canefield. When
I went out of the road, I saw the jeep was already fifty (50) meters away from
me. So I shouted ‘wait for me.'” (tsn.
pp. 46-47, May 13, 1971)

Likewise, there is the
testimony of Salvador Galon as follows:

“Q   You
are the same Salvador Galon who pleaded guilty in
this case?

A     Yes, sir.

FISCAL MELENDRES:

Q    Now,
in connection with this case, you gave these statements: one on March 5,
another on March 6, and another one on March 8, is it not?

A     Yes, sir.

FISCAL
MELENDRES:

I
request, your Honor, that these statements be marked as Exhibit ‘N’, statement
of Salvador Galon dated March 5, 1971, consisting of 5 pages; Exhibit ‘0’, his statement dated
March 6, 1971, consisting of one page; and Exhibit ‘P’, another statement of
Salvador Galon dated March 8, 1971, consisting of two pages.

COURT:

Mark them.

Q    Now,
in Exhibit ‘0’, you were made to identify the person of Mrs. Luzon and you pointed to the person of Mrs.
Luzon. That is in question and
answer No. 6 of Exhibit ‘0’ and I request that the same be marked as Exhibit
‘0-1’.

COURT:

Mark it.

Q    Now,
will you point to her again if she is present?

A     Yes, sir. She is there. (Witness
pointed to a woman in black and who answered by the name of Purificacion
Plata Luzon.)

Q    In
Exhibit ‘P’, in answer to question No. 9, you identified a knife marked as
Exhibit ‘J-A.’ Can you identify that knife?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    I
am showing to you Exhibit ‘D’, is this the knife you are referring to?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    In question No. 10 of Exhibit ‘0’,
you pointed to a person who gave his name as Maximino
Mercado. Can you identify him again if he is now present?

A     Yes, sir that person with eyeglasses.
(Witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom who gave his name as Maximino Mercado.)

Q    How
is Maximino Mercado also
called?

 A    Mino and Max,
sir.” (tsn., pp. 1-2, June 28, 1971)

The Solicitor General in his brief aptly stated that “Conceding arguendo
the contradictions between the two sworn statements (Exhs. ‘E’ and ‘I’) of Maximino Mercado
and his testimony in open court, appellant can hardly draw comfort from it. It
is significant to note that both in
his sworn statements and in his
testimony in court, Maximino Mercado never wavered in
his claim that Purification Plata Luzon masterminded her husband’s killing (Exhs. ‘E’ and ‘I’; see t.s.n.,
pp. 14-15, May 14, 1971, t.s.n., p. 16, June 9,
1971). There may have been variations in certain details, but in the main,
Mercado’s statements in and out of court were consistent to the effect that it
was appellant who proposed the killing of her husband.”

Likewise, on the question
of Maximino Mercado’s credibility, the trial judge
who saw and was able to observe him in the witness stand was convinced that he
was telling the truth for, despite searching questions from defense counsel, Mercado never wavered in his claim that it was
appellant Purificacion
Plata Luzon who masterminded the killing of her husband.

Further, the testimony of
Mercado linking appellant in the slaying of her husband is confirmed by the written statements given by the other
accused, namely: Salvador Galon and Romeo Santiago (Exhs. “G”, “N”, “0” &
“P”). They disclosed that the plan to kill Sancho
Luzon took place at the 5th Avenue Hotel on February 11, 1971; that appellant told them about her
financial problem with her husband and her desire to have the latter killed and her willingness to pay a price for the same. It was on February
14, 1971 when Galon and Santiago met at the house of Mercado and, together with Rey, they waited for
appellant and her husband for the proposed trip to Laguna. When the two
arrived (appellant and her husband), they thereafter proceeded to Cavite where Sancho Luzon
was killed (Exhs. “G”,
“E” and “N”). On the other hand, appellant Purificacion Plata Luzon admitted her meeting with
Mercado at the 5th Avenue
Hotel. Thus, she testified on December 15, 1971, as follows:

“Q When you went in the hotel, were you with anybody?

A     The two (2) of us, I and Mang Mike.

Q    And
then what happened there?

A     When
we were already inside the hotel I saw
Mang Mike took off his shoes and polo shirt and told me we will rest. I did not like to
lie beside him because I was
nervous.

COURT:

Q    Where did you lie?

A     I sat on a chair, sir.

Q    While he was lying in bed?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    And you were lying on a sofa?

A     I was sitting on a chair, sir.

Q    You were watching him?

A     I often go to the comfort room to urinate.

ATTY.
VILLASECA:

Q    Why?

A     Because I was chilling when he told
me to go to the bed.

Q    After that what happened?

A     I told him I will go now. He told me, wait I will see if they are downstairs.

COURT:

Q    How
many minutes did you stay in that room
with Mang Mike?

A     About
35 minutes, sir.”

(tsn.
pp. 9-10, Dec. 15, 1971)

Besides, appellant
admitted having given money to Maximino Mercado on
different occasions, otherwise the latter would
tell her children that she has an affair with another man, Alejandro Oblea, Jr., as early as two years prior to the death of her
husband. This is her testimony on this point:

“ATTY. VILLASECA:

Q    Did
you give him other loan after that?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    When?

A     January
29, before we went to Bicol with my husband.

Q    How
much?

A     P200.00.

Q    When
did he ask again?

A     P50.00
on February 9. When he needs money very badly, he usually pass our house even in the middle of the night and ask
money.

COURT:

Q    Do
you mean to say Mang Mike has that power to pass by
your house even in the middle of the night to ask money from you? Has he an
influence over you?

A     Because
he told me that if I will not give him money he will tell my children that I
have a boy friend.

Q    That
is it you are being blackmailed by Mang Mike?

A     May be, your Honor.

Q    Because you really have a boy friend?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And that boy friend of yours is Mang Mike?

A     No, sir.

Q    Who
is this boy friend of yours?

A     Alejandro Oblea.

Q    Why
did you happen to fall in Love
with this man, Alejandro Oblea?

A     Because my husband is not always
around.

Q    That
means you are unhappy because your husband
is away, being a navy commander?

A     Sometimes, sir.

Q    And
your husband did not know anything about this thing?

A     He
does not know anything about this, sir.

Q    And
as a matter of fact you were afraid of your husband?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Since
when did you have relationship with this man, Alejandro Oblea?

A     In 1968, sir.

Q    That
was two (2) years prior to the death of your husband?

A     Yes, sir.” (tsn., pp. 19-20, December 15, 1971)

With these admissions in open court how can appellant now claim that she does not even know her
co-accused with whom she even
had a meeting at the 5th Avenue
Hotel on February 11, 1971.
Why did she deny knowing these persons who,
according to her, held them (she and her husband)
up? And, if it is true
that they were held up, why was she not injured or even touched by the alleged
robbers or even killed
considering that she would be the lone witness to the robbery? These
circumstances are inconsistent with her innocence and compatible with her
guilt.

 Finally, the findings of the trial
court on the relative credibility of the opposing witnesses will generally
not be disturbed but given high respect, unless it has been shown that the
lower court has overlooked or misconstrued certain facts of substance and value
which would affect the result of the case. Appellant failed to make such
a showing.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with
the modification that for lack of the necessary votes, appellant Purificacion Plata Luzon shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana,
Escolin, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., on official
leave.

De Castro, J., on sick leave.

Vasquez, J., on leave.