THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RUFO DIZON AND TOMAS DIZON, DEFENDANTS, RUFO DIZON, APPELLANT.

DE JOYA, J.:

The two defendants in this case were accused of the crime of qualified theft
of large cattle, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, under the
following information:

“The undersigned, after having been duly sworn to, accuses Kufo Dizon and
Tomas Dizon of the crime of theft of large cattle, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 2d day of August, 1945, in the barrio of Tobuan,
municipality of Labrador, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this court,
the defendants above named conspiring and cooperating together and with intent
of gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously steal, get and
take away three (3) carabaos belonging to the owners, Genoveva Marayag and
Doroteo Dacono without the consent of said owners, valued at nine hundred pesos
(S900), Philippine currency. All contrary to law.”

When the case was called for arraignment, defendant Tomas Dizon pleaded
guilty to the charge, and was sentenced accordingly; and the case was tried with
reference to defendant Rufo Dizon, who was also found guilty and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty, ranging from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven
(11) days of prision correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight
(8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum, with
the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify, jointly and severally,
with his co-accused, Tomas Dizon, the complainants Genoveva Marayag and Doroteo
Dacono in the sum of nine hundred pesos (P900), and to pay one-half (1/2) of the
costs. Said defendant Rufo Dizon has now appealed to this court, assigning
several errors, the substance of which is that the trial court erred in finding
him guilty, notwithstanding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was
utterly insufficient to establish his guilt of the crime charged, beyond
reasonable doubt.

At the trial of the case, in addition to the two complainants Genoveva
Marayag and Doroteo Dacono, were also called to testify for the prosecution,
Serapio Aquino, chief of police of the municipality of Labrador, Pangasinan,
Manuel L. Fernandez, justice of the peace of the municipality of Labrador,
Pangasinan, Domingo Victorio, an acquaintance of the two complainants and of the
defendant and appellant, and Tomas Dizon, who had entered a plea of guilty in
this case in the court below.

The evidence adduced during the trial has fully established the following
facts:

That on August 2, 1945, the two complainants Genoveva Marayag and Doroteo
Dacono owned carabaos, which were pasturing in the barrios of Tobuan and Apoler,
municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan; that in the forenoon of that
day, said complainants noticed the disappearance of the three (3) carabaos
mentioned in the information, of the approximate value of P300 each, two (2) of
them belonging to complainant Genoveva Marayag and the other to complainant
Doroteo Dacono; that on that same day, August 2, 1945, Domingo Victorio, an
acquaintance of the complainants and of the defendant and appellant in this
case, met the latter with a companion, who happened to be defendant Tomas Dizon,
on the provincial road between the municipalities of Sual and Alaminos, Province
of Pangasinan, said appellant and his companion then bound for the municipality
of Mabini, Pangasinan; that when said witness met defendant and appellant and
defendant Tomas Dizon, the latter was riding on a carabao, driving two others,
while the defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon was riding on a horse; that said
witness noticed that said Tomas Dizon with the three (3) carabaos seemed to be
in a great hurry, while herein defendant and appellant stopped and alighted from
his horse, and on being asked by said witness why he had alighted from the
horse, appellant Rufo Dizon answered that it was because his horse was
frightened; and that the said witness, Domingo Victorio, fully recognized herein
defendant and appellant as well as the three carabaos led by his companion as
belonging to the two complainants, by their color, stature, general appearance
and the shape of their horns; that when the two defendants reached the
municipality of Mabini, Pangasinan, they sold the carabao belonging to Doroteo
Dacono to an unidentified party, and slaughtered one of the two carabaos
belonging to Genoveva Marayag, and sold the meat for thirty-eight pesos (P38)
which was equally divided between the two; while the third carabao belonging to
Genoveva Marayag was left by them, for safekeeping, with one Mariano Castro, a
brother-in-law of defendant Tomas Dizon, from whom it was recovered by the
authorities. That when said witness Domingo Victorio returned home, which was
about one (1) kilometer from Tobuan, Labrador, and learned that the complainants
were looking for their carabaos, he happened to inform one Guillermo Sison and
others having seen said carabaos being led away by herein defendant and
appellant Rufo Dizon and his companion, on the provincial road leading from Sual
to Alaminos; that during the search made by the complainants for said carabaos,
they learned of the information imparted by said Domingo Victorio, and reported
the matter to chief of police Serapio Aquino of the municipality of Labrador,
who conducted an investigation to verify said information; and being satisfied
with its correctness, said chief of police placed the two defendants under
custody for questioning, and in the course of the investigation, defendant and
appellant Rufo Dizon admitted verbally and in writing, in the presence of the
Mayor of Labrador, having taken said three carabaos, while pasturing, assisted
by his co-defendant Tomas Dizon, who happened to be his cousin, The written
admission was afterwards signed by defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon in the
presence of the justice of the peace, who also testified in this case.
Thereafter, the corresponding complaint was filed in the justice of the peace
court of the municipality of Labrador, Pangasinan, and when arraigned, defendant
and appellant Rufo Dizon admitted his guilt.

The case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, where
the information quoted above was filed, and when the case was called for trial,
defendant Tomas Dizon entered a plea of guilty, and, as already stated, he was
sentenced accordingly; and the trial proceeded with reference to defendant Rufo
Dizon, who, was also found guilty, and who has appealed to this court.

That the three (3) carabaos in question of the approximate value of P300 each
had been taken away, without the knowledge and consent of the complainants,
while pasturing, is an established fact; and with reference to the identity of
defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon and his companion, who were seen with the
three (3) carabaos by said witness Domingo Victorio on the provincial road
between Sual and Alaminos, the testimony of said witness, who had absolutely no
motive to testify falsely in this case, is conclusive; and it is fully
corroborated by the plea of guilty of said Tomas Dizon and the admissions made
by herein defendant and appellant verbally and in writing; and being a resident
in a neighboring barrio of Labrador, Pangasinan, and acquaintance of the
complainants and of herein defendant and appellant, and also an experienced
farmer familiar with said complainants’ carabaos, Domingo Victorio’s testimony
as to the identity of the three (3) carabaos in question as being the property
of herein complainants is unquestionable. Furthermore, his testimony with
reference to the three (3) carabaos has been fully and completely corroborated
by the testimony in court of the co-accused Tomas Dizon, who had pleaded guilty,
by the two complainants and by the recovery of the carabao, which had been left
by the accused, for safekeeping, with Mariano Castro, a brother-in-law of
defendant Tomas Dizon. The two complainants also testified that the three (3)
carabaos in question were reasonably worth three hundred pesos (P300) each.

The record of this case discloses that defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon is
a poor peasant; but poverty is not incompatible with honor. No one can deny the
dignity of labor and that honor lies in honest toil. The greatest Man in History
was the poorest. Not he who has little, but he who wishes more, is really poor.
Neither is poverty incompatible with honesty. And an honest man is said to be
the noblest work of God.

By the industry and perseverance of man, even the desert shall rejoice and
blossom as the rose. In this land of equal opportunities for all and special
privileges for none, where fertile lands abound, and where any industrious and
enterprising young man may acquire public lands for the mere asking, there is no
justification for robbery and thieving. The poorest and the humblest man can
earn an honest livelihood by tilling the soil and becoming a farmer, a noble
calling. The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility rests on
the possession and use and cultivation of land.

Robbery in all its forms is the greatest scourge in all agricultural
communities. It retards and discourages prosperity and progress; as it seems to
illustrate the truth, of the common saying that, although prosperity makes
friends, it also makes so many enemies. The foundation of every state is said to
be the education of its youth; and said evil, which is now more rampant than
ever, may still be remedied. Through education, it becomes easy to lead people
but difficult to drive;’easy to govern but impossible to enslave. And what
greater gift can our mentors offer the Republic than to teach and instruct, with
greater emphasis, the youth of the land in the ancient virtues of industry,
perseverance and the dignity of labor, coupled with proper respect for the
rights and property of others.

Defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon in this case complains that he was
convicted by the lower court, mainly on the strength of the testimony of his
cousin and co-accused Tomas Dizon. In this jurisdiction, a co-accused or a
co-dofondant, who has been found guilty or innocent in the same case, is always
a competent witness for, or against, any of his co-accused (United States vs.
Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil, 122, 170). An it has even been held that the
uncorroborated testimony of a co-accused, when satisfactory and convincing, may
be the basis for a judgment of conviction (United States vs. Wayne Shoup, 35
Phil., 56; United States vs. Remigio, 37 Phil., 610); although the better rule
is that to serve as a legal basis for conviction, the testimony of an accomplice
must always be corroborated by some other witness or evidence (People vs.
Asinas, 53 Phil., 59; People vs. Bantagan, 54 Phil., 834). And the testimony of
defendant Tomas Dizon, a cousin of herein defendant and appellant, as a witness
for the prosecution, as to the taking of the carabaos in question from the
municipality of Labrador to the municipality of Mabini, where defendants
disposed of them, has been fully corroborated by said witness Domingo Victorio
and by the chief of police and the justice of the peace, who testified as to the
admissions made by herein defendant and appellant as to their taking and
disposition of the carabaos in question, and his plea of guilty.

The testimony of said Tomas Dizon is worthy of consideration in this case,
although he has been found guilty of an ugly offense, after his spontaneous plea
of guilty. He who repents for his crime is almost innocent, as candor is a
compound of justice and the love of truth.

The admissions voluntarily made by herein defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon,
before the chief of police of Labrador, in the presence of the municipal mayor,
and which were ratified by him in writing before the justice of the peace of
said municipality, are competent evidence against him (United States vs. Lio
Team, 23 Phil., 64; United States vs. Corrales, 28 Phil., 362).

Defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon has not presented any evidence showing
that the witnesses for the prosecution have testified falsely against him; and
the absence of all evidence as to an improper motive actuating the principal
witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no
such improper motive has existed, and that their testimony is worthy of full
faith and credit (United States vs. Pajarillo, 19 Phil., 288; People vs. Be
Otero, 51 Phil, 201).

The defense of alibi set up by the defendant and appellant, alleging
that he was at home at the time of the commission of the crime imputed to him,
cannot merit serious consideration on the part of the court, not only because it
lacks satisfactory corroboration; but principally because it has been destroyed
by the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution. The defense of alibi,
to be successful, must be proved by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence,
which reasonably satisfies the court of the truth of such defense (United States
vs. Olais, 36 Phil, 828; People vs. Pili, 51 Phil., 965).

The guilt of the defendant of the crime of qualified theft of the three (3)
carabaos, reasonably worth three hundred pesos (P300) each, mentioned in the
information filed in this case, has been established beyond reasonable doubt;
and the penalty imposed by the trial court being in accordance with law, the
judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the sole modification that the
indemnity to be paid to the offended parties, is reduced from nine hundred pesos
(P900) to six hundred pesos (P600), as the carabao left by the defendants, for
safekeeping with Mariano Castro, has been recovered and restored to complainant
Genoveva Marayag; and in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, and those contained in article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code, in connection with the provisions of article 309 (3) thereof,
defendant and appellant Rufo Dizon is, therefore, hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty, ranging from two (2) years, eleven (11) months and eleven
(11) days of prision correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8)
months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor as maximum, with the
accessory penalties presci’ibed by law, to indemnify, jointly and severally,
with his co-accused, Tomas Dizon, the complainants Genoveva Marayag and Doroteo
Dacono in the sum of six hundred pesos (P600), and to pay the costs. So
ordered.