G.R. No. L-16714. January 31, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXENCIO MORADO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
PAREDES, J.:
of murder, qualified by evident premeditation and attended with the aggravating
circumstances of treachery and nocturnity and sentenced to suffer reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Faustino Laurio in the sum
of P6,000.00 and to pay the costs.
The records reveal that the Parents-Teachers Association of the school in
barrio Batuila, Baleno, Masbate, sponsored a benefit dance on July 20, 1957,
held at the school building. The illumination in the building reached also the
lawn thereof. The dance started at about 9:00 p.m. and an hour later, barrio
lieutenant Geminiano Palomar requested for an intermission to allow Ricardo
Albao, to speak. Albao had been watching the dance from a window of the school
house with Zorobabel Manlapaz and Prepedigno Adrias. When Adrias saw Faustino
Laurio (deceased) and Dionisio Bella sitting on the lawn outside the building,
he left his place at the window to join them. After sometime, Adrias noticed the
sudden arrival of accused Maxencio Morado who came running with a bolo in his
hand. Adrias shouted “Tino (referring to Faustino Laurio) tao”, at the same time
that Morado hacked or slashed Laurio on the neck. Alfredo Esquila, standing at
the corner of the school house and leaning with his elbows on the window sill,
heard the shout and immediately, turned his head to the right, just on time to
see Morado hacking Laurio who was in a squatting position. Scared, Esquila
jumped from the school house, passing through the window and told the persons
gathered there, that Laurio had been stabbed by Morado. After being wounded,
Laurio moved backward, followed by Morado, but fell dead at a distance of about
30 meters from the school house (Exh. 7). Adrias sought his brother Ventura in
the crowd and both went to notify the victim’s brother of the incident. It
appears that while Albao was delivering his speech, Palomar heard a scream
inside the school house about an “accident”. Taking a lamp he went outside the
school building to find what the shouting was all about While there he saw
Laurio already dead and ordered the rural policemen to report the accident to
the Chief of Police, Simeon Salazar, who went to the place with his men. Of the
30 persons found in the premises, only Adrias could state what actually
happened, giving his sworn statement before the Justice of the Peace during an
investigation held on July 21, 1957 (Exh. C). With his help, the Chief of Police
drew a sketch at the scene of the killing, Adrias indicating the positions of
the aggressor and the victim (Exh. D). In said Exhibit C, Adrias stated that in
the night of July 20, 1957, he and Laurio were squatting on the lawn, chatting,
when appellant, a friend since infancy, suddenly approached and slashed Laurio
on the neck, with a bolo.
Medical health officer Manuel Arevalo conducted a postfe mortem examination
of Laurio’s cadaver and found (1) a wound about 4 inches long and 1 1/2% inches deep
below the middle of the left mandible going traversely down to a point one inch
above the base of the right side of the neck, severing the skin, the ligament of
the larynx (adam’s apple) and the blood vessels and nerves of that region and
(2) a wound in line with the first wound, which nearly cut the upper right
clavicle, the superficial tissues and muscles of that area; which were inflicted
with a sharp instrument. The cause of death was hemorrhage due to the wound on
the neck (Exh. A).
The weapon used in the aggression was recovered from the possession of one
Potenciano de Morado. Accused Morado was arrested by the police the day after
the killing in Cagara, Baleno, at the house of one Romulo Morado, his relative,
half kilometer away from Batuila, the scene of the crime. Accused offered no
protest against his incarceration.
The defense is alibi Accused, 31, a first year high school student,
testified that during the night of July 20, 1957, he was in the house of Romulo
Morado, having arrived there at 6:00 o’clock in the evening, coming from his
coconut plantation, at which house he used to sleep whenever he went to his
farm, because his “camalig” had no walls and was not provided with mats. He took
supper at 8:00 o’clock p.m., went to bed, woke up at 7:00 on the following
morning and was starting to leave for the town at 9:00 o’clock the same morning,
when policemen arrested him. When investigated by the police, he pointed out
that Laurio (deceased) had several enemies, among whom were Iluminado Padre,
Juan Mingol and Cornelio Bajar. Accused was corroborated by Romulo Morado in his
alibi. Vicente Tualla, provincial warden, declared that a certain Faustino
Laurio had been confined in the provincial jail and served a sentenced of 4
months, for slight physical injuries (Exh. 1). The record of the CFI of Masbate
shows that on February 16, 1957, Faustino Laurio was charged in Criminal Case
No. 2594, with frustrated murder in which the complainant was Maxencio Morado
(Exh. F).
Predicated upon the above evidence, the trial court sentenced the accused as
heretofore recited. In his brief, appellant alleges that the trial court erred
(1) in giving credence to the testimony of Alfredo Esquila and (2) in taking
into account Exhibit F, record of Criminal Case No. 2594, when the same was not
admitted by the trial judge.
- The defense assails the testimony of state witness Alfredo Esquila. It is
argued that Esquila never executed any affidavit in connection with the case;
that he was not listed as a witness either in the complaint or information and
that Prepedigno Adrias who was, according to the P.C. the lone eye-witness and
listed in the information, was not presented, thereby giving rise to the
application of the rule on suppression of evidence. The rules do not make it a
condition precedent for a witness to give his affidavit first before taking the
stand. The procedure is adopted to safeguard the parties from recalcitrant
witnesses. The claim that Esquila’s name is not found in the list of witnesses
does not prevent the prosecution from placing him on the stand. He was noti
disqualified by law, he was included in the words “and others” found in the list
of witnesses mentioned in the complaint. “They may, however, call at the trial
witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information” (Sec. 1, Rule
112). The object of listing is to avoid the presentation of surprise witnesses
and to enable the defense to examine their record, morality and character. In
this particular case, the defense had all the opportunity to do so, since the
presentation of witness Esquila was deferred later when first placed in the
stand, and the defense had all the chances to test his credibility during bis
lengthy cross-examination. Esquila explaining his silence until he took the
stand, said that he went direct home after witnessing the attack, as he did not
want to be involved, which is indeed a natural reaction, of a rustic third
grader like him. Moreover, Adrias had already told the same matters that he
knew, when the former executed his affidavit. Upon learning, however, that
Adrias was no longer willing to take the stand, due to a subsequent quarrel
between his brother Ventura Adrias and Celedonio Laurio, brother of the
deceased, Esquila readily saw the necessity of his telling what he saw. It is
contended that Esquila was not in the schoolhouse that evening. As he was not
inside the dance-hall, which was crowded, no one would have naturally noticed
him. But from his vantage place, he was able to see Palomar, Albao (the
speaker), Zorobabel, and Gregorio and Adrias. In fact, Palomar, testifying for
the defense, named the same persons mentioned by Esquila, among the persons
present at the dance. Esquila could not have stated that the children of Palomar
and a certain Candoy were there and Zorobabel was one of the musicians, if he
was not present while the dance was going on—a statement which was not
contradicted at all. Esquila’s declaration that he exclaimed saying, that
Maxencio Morado had stabbed Faustino Laurio, was corroborated by Palomar who had
heard someone inside the school-house scream about an “accident”.
Because of the failure or refusal of Prepedigno Adrias to take the stand,
notwithstanding the fact that his name was listed as a state witness, the
defense now imputes a willful suppression of evidence. Appellant, however, was
free to present Adrias as his witness, to prove his claim that Adrias’ testimony
would have been adverse to the prosecution, but he failed to avail of the
opportunity, Since the evidence was also at the disposal of the defense, and it
would have the same weight against one party as against the other, the
presumption of suppression of evidence is inapplicable to the case at bar (III
Moran’s Rules of Court, 1957 Ed. p. 490). Moreover, the presentation of Exhibit
C (Adrias’ sworn statement), as part of the state’s evidence, shows that had it
not been for the reluctance of Adrias to declare, his testimony would have been
availed of by the prosecution. Adrias’ affidavit is objectionable because the
defense could not cross-examine the affiant. The trial court, nevertheless, was
not banned from taking judicial notice of parts of its record, like Exhibit C,
to satisfy its conscience. At any rate, even without Exhibit C, abundant
evidence appears on record to show the culpability of the appellant.
- With respect to the second assignment of error, the defense complains that
the trial court had taken into account Exhibit F, as State evidence, to show
motive, notwithstanding the failure of the record to point that it was admitted.
Manifestly, the defense has overlooked the records. The Minutes of the hearing
of August 7, 1958, show that Exhibit F was among those admitted and said
exhibit, which is the whole expediente of Criminal Case No. 2594. of the CFI of
Masbate, entitled “People vs. Faustino Laurio, et al.,” for Frustrated Murder,
is before us. But even granting, for purposes of argument, that Exhibit F was
not admitted, still the record reveals that the motive is vindictiveness and
retaliation on the part of the appellant. For it was disclosed that the deceased
had created enemies in his community because of his aggressiveness, among whom
was the appellant. Having no chance in a hand to hand fight with the deceased,
appellant attacked the latter in the manner and under the circumstances herein
described.
The defense of alibi, invoked by appellant, is so unreliable that it
can not be given credence. Supported, as it is, by the testimony of a near
relative, appellant’s story can not prevail over the positive, direct and
straightforward declaration of a truthful witness, who swore having seen the act
of and the circumstances surrounding the aggression. The trial court aptly
observed that witness Esquila’s declaration was not biased and fabricated and
gave full faith and credence upon his explanation and story; and as far as the
record is concerned, We can do no less.
Pending determination of the case, in this Court, a motion for new trial was
filed by appellant based on newly discovered evidence, accompanied by an
affidavit of one Maximo Salino, who stated that state witness Esquila on July
20, 1957, at 6:00 o’clock in the evening, was fishing with him (Affiant) and
Donato Espares, at Obo River, Baleno and slept in his house after a drinking
spree, until the following morning. It would appear, however, that the
so-called newly discovered evidence, which is nothing but a forgotten evidence,
if at all, would not alter the result of the case as presently found by Us. The
denial of the motion for new trial is, therefore, in order.
In view hereof, the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder, qualified by treachery which absorbs nocturnity, and there being no
modifying circumstance to consider, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against the appellant.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera,
Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.