THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AORECIO LUMAYAG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

At about seven o’clock in the evening of April 12, 1959, in the barrio of
Gumagamof, municipality of Lala, Lanao del Norte, Pedro Lumayag was up in a coconut tree gathering tuba while his
wife, Luzviminda Pampilo,
was on the ground lighting him with the beam of a flashlight Suddenly he heard a
thud and a shout for help. Recognizing the shout to be that of Jose Pampilo, his father-in-law, he hurriedly went down from the
coconut tree, snatched the flashlight and, together with his wife, ran towards
the place where the shout came from. They heard the sound of hard beating and
the groaning of man. Pedro Lumayag then directed his
flashlight towards and saw Agrecio Lumayag, wearing a red shirt and maong pants, straddled over a person by the road with his
hands around the person’s neck. Agrecio thereupon
jumped and ran away towards his house about 300 meters from the scene.

Pedro Lumayag and his wife approached the person
lying face down and recognized him as Jose Pampilo,
who sustained injuries in the nape and bruises in the right cheek, and was
bleeding. One meter away from him was his hat and nearby were two empty bottles of liquor.

The spouses, upon verifying that Jose Pampilo was
already dead, forthwith reported the incident to the barrio lieutenant who, in
turn, sent a rural policeman to notify the chief of police. Pedro Lumayag and his wife, accompanied by the barrio lieutenant,
returned to the scene of the crime. They found the body of Jose Pampilo lying on its back with the hat on. The chief of
police, several policemen and the municipal health officer arrived later.

Acting upon the account given by Pedro Lumayag, the
chief of Police dispatched some policemen to summon Agrecio Lumayag. The policeman
found only Agrecio Lumayag’s
wife in his house but, upon further search, found him hiding in a nearby shack
armed with a bolo and a cane.

The policemen brought Agrecio Lumayag to the chief of police. Asked by the chief of police
whether or not he killed Jose Pampilo, Agrecio stated that he would answer
the question in the municipal building. Further asked what attire he had that
afternoon, he answered that he wore a red shirt and maong pants. The red shirt and maong pants were later taken by the chief of police from
Agrecio Lumayag’s house and
brought to the municipal building.

The municipal health officer, in a postmortem examination of the deceased,
found a fracture and contused wounds at the base of the skull, which may have
been indicted by a blunt instrument, and swelling on the right side of the face,
lower jaw and the neck.

In the municipal building that same evening the chief of police interrogated
Agrecio Lumayag but the
latter refused to make a statement and instead promised to do so the following
morning. No investigation, however, was conducted” next morning inasmuch as the
chief of police left for Iligan
City at about one o’clock in the morning and came back only at 5:30 in the afternoon. Agrecio Lumayag, upon being again
investigated by the chief of police, eventually confessed that he killed Jose
Pampilo with a cane called “bahi“. He also indicated the place where he threw the cane
when somebody focused at him a flashlight. A policeman scoured the area
indicated by Agrecio Lumayag
and there found the cane.

Subsequently, the provincial fiscal filed an
information in the Court of First Instance charging Agrecio Lumayag with the crime of
murder.

After entering a plea of not guilty and standing trial, Agrecio Lumayag was found guilty
by the trial court in its judgment of February 24, 1961, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, the Court declares, as is hereby declared, accused Agrecio Lumayag Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder as charged, penalized under Art. 248 with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery and nocturnity,
with the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a wrong he having been boxed
and physically injured by the deceased, which fact, although not immediate, is
considered by the Court as attenuating. He is, therefore, sentenced to suffer an
imprisonment of Thirty Years of reclusion perpetua
and to pay the costs of this present suit. He is further sentenced to
indemnity the heirs of the deceased SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P6,000), and in case of insolvency, no further subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed.”

Accordingly, the accused has appealed to this court.

For his defense of alibi the accused testified to the following: At about
four o’clock in the afternoon of
April 12, 1959 he and his
wife left Gufnagamof by truck for Baroy. From there they crossed
Pangil
Bay by banca to Tangub arriving at about
six o’clock in the evening. From the
time of their arrival, they stayed in Tangub,
particularly in the house of a quack doctor, Tranquilino Melbar, until
six o’clock in the morning of
April 14, 1959, during which
time appellant was treated by Melbar. They returned to
Gumagamof only on April 14, arriving there at about
eight o’clock in the morning,
accompanied by Melbar, to whom the accused promised to
give a rooster. Shortly thereafter, a policeman arrived and arrested the accused
for the murder of Jose Pampilo.

The trial court did not give credence to appellant’s alibi, observing that it
was improbable for appellant to have been able to travel to Tangub if he was really sick. It also found the testimony of
the quack doctor, in support of appellant’s alibi, unreliable.

Appellant’s afore-stated alibi cannot prevail in the face of the positive
testimonies of Pedro Lumayag and Luzviminda Pampilo definitely
identifying him as the very person whom they saw on top of Jose Pampilo’s prostrate body (People v. Ramos, L-17402-03,
August 31, 1963). Furthermore, the chief of police of Lala testified that on the night of the incident he caused
the accused to be apprehended and detained him in the municipal building for
investigation; that in the afternoon of April 13 the accused, still under
detention, confessed to having killed Jose Pampilo
with a cane called “bahi” which he threw away about a
hundred yards from the .scene of the crime. As stated, the cane was later found
in the very place indicated by the accused.

Appellant further questions mug the credibility of the testimonies of Pedro
Lumayag, Luzviminda Pampilo and the chief of police of Lala. He lays emphasis on the testimony of barrio lieutenant
Luis Ecat, who stated that Pedro Lumayag and Luzviminda Pampilo, in reporting, to him, could not identify the
killer. The record of this case discloses no sufficient motive on the part of
Pedro Lumayag, Luzviminda
Pampilo and the chief of police to testify falsely
against the accused. On the other hand, it has been shown by the defense that
the deceased was hated in the community, so that a feeling of hatred may have
influenced Luis Ecat. The trial court, at any rate,
did not believe him. Appellate courts as a rule desist from disturbing the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the latter is
in a better position to appreciate the same, having seen and heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying during the
trial. We find no reason to depart from this settled practice, since it has not
been shown that the trial court has overlooked certain facts of substance and
value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case (People vs. Curiano, L-15256-57, October 31, 1963).

Finally, appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty
of murder in spite of the failure of the prosecution to establish treachery and
nocturnity as qualifying circumstances. For the same
reason, the Solicitor General recommends a judgment for homicide instead of
murder. The information cites as qualifying circumstances “treachery, evident
premeditation and taking advantage of nocturnity to
better insure the commission of the offense”. As appellant points out, however,
these aggravating circumstances were not proved. While there is sufficient
evidence to establish the killing of Jose Pampilo by
the accused, there is none, however, to show that he acted with treachery or
evident premeditation or that he specially sought the advantage of night time to
facilitate the crime. We may therefore apply the doctrine laid down in U.S. v.
Banagale, 24 Phil. 69, to the effect that when the
details and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime are unknown,
and there appears no evidence in the case that may indicate the situation of the
victim when he was killed, or when it is not conclusively shown that the violent
death of a person attended by any of the qualifying circumstances specified in
Article 248, the crime must be classified as homicide, and not murder.

The record shows that on July 8,
1958, the deceased boxed the accused several times in the face, for
which the deceased was subsequently convicted of less serious physical injuries
by the justice of the peace court of Lala. The
deceased appealed to the Court of First Instance of Lanao and at the time the accused killed the deceased the
case was still pending therein. In view of the length of time, approximately
nine months, between the boxing incident and the killing of Jose Pampilo, it cannot be said that the second incident was an
immediate or a proximate vindication of the first Accordingly, the court a
quo should not have considered it as a mitigating circumstances under
paragraph 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, appellant is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide without any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, and condemned to suffer an indeterminate sentence of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor
as minimum to fourteen (14) years, and eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the cost. It is so
ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.