THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. FELIPE SACAYANAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
convicting defendant-appellant of kidnapping with murder (in Case No. 19636) and
kidnapping with frustrated murder (in case No. 19704), and sentencing him to
suffer reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal, for the
crimes charged; to indemnify the heirs of deceased victim Juan Galaraga, and the
other victim, Victor Alamar, in the sums of P6,000.00 and P5,000.00,
respectively; and to pay the costs.

It is uncontested that around midnight of June 17, 1952, a group of five
armed men converged on the house of the deceased Juan Galaraga, in barrio San
Pedro Apartado, Alcala, Pangasinan. Three of them went inside, one stayed at the
door, while another remained at the foot of the stairway. Rousing the occupants
of the house from their sleep, and ordering the male members of the household to
lie face down on the sala, they forcibly brought down with them the deceased,
Juan Galaraga, and his son-in-law Victor Alamar. Heading northward, and at a
distance of about 40 meters from their house, Juan Galaraga and Victor Alamar
were almost simultaneously fired upon by their captors, who hit Juan Galaraga
mortally (Exhibit “B”) and wounded Victor Alamar in the lumbar region (Exhibit
“A”), causing injuries that could have caused his death were it not for timely
medical assistance. Only appellant was arrested and charged; the others remain
at large.

The case hinges on whether appellant Felipe Sacayanan was sufficiently
identified as one of the group of aggressors. The record shows that defendant
appellant was pointed out by the prosecution witnesses as one of the men who, on
the night of June 17, 1952, forcibly brought down Juan Galaraga and Victor
Alamar from their house. Concepcion and Adriatico Galaraga, and one of the
victims himself, Victor Alamar, all testified to having recognized Felipe
Sacayanan when one of the intruders, lighting the way with a flashlight,
illuminated the face of defendant-appellant who was standing by the door.
Although the flashlight was directed downward, the floor on which appellant
Sacayanan stood was about 1/2 meter lower than the sala, bringing his face well
within range of the flashlight beam. Aside from this, the house was not exactly
engulfed in total darkness, because a lamp was lighted by Juana Picu, the wife
of the deceased Galaraga, though its dim light could not entirely penetrate the
surroundings. Felipe Sacayanan had been well known to both Concepcion and
Adriatico Galaraga long previous to the incident, defendant-appellant being the
cousin of their sister in-law (Exhibit “F-1”, Exhibit “H-1”). Upon the other
hand, one of the victims, Victor Alamar, had been close to defendant-appellant
when the latter’s face was lighted up on the way down from the house, and .was
at a vantage point for purposes of identification; and the circumstance that the
men conducted Alamar and the deceased Juan Galaraga for a distance of 40 meters
before shooting, gave Victor more than ample opportunity for closer observation.
According to the latter’s testimony, Felipe was the man walking behind and
somewhat to the left of the deceased Juan Galaraga, while he (Victor) followed
with two (2) men holding him by the arms.

Adriatico Galaraga did not reside in the house of his deceased father, Juan
Galaraga, but upon hearing the dogs bark, he went to the window and saw five men
on the way to his father’s house. He followed them, and upon reaching his
father’s house, hid himself under the kitchen, behind one of the posts. From
there, at a distance of less than three meters, Adriatico saw two men at the
stairs, one of whom he recognized as Felipe Sacayanan when his face was lighted
by the electric torch borne by one of those coming down the house. Upon
verifying from his sister Concepcion that his father and his brother-in-law had
been taken, Adriatico sounded the alarm by pounding on a “colloong” (a wooden
trough for pounding palay) ; but the alarm was answered by a volley of shots.
Neighbors rushed to help but arrived to see Juan Galaraga dead and Victor Alamar
grievously wounded.

For her part, Concepcion Galaraga (Victor Alamar’s wife) was right in the
sala from where the flashlight was beamed in the direction of Felipe Sacayanan,
who was standing at the door, thus being likewise afforded a reliable view of
the person of the accused due to her relative proximity. The witnesses asserted
that the raiders wore hats, but their faces were neither covered nor
painted.

As correctly observed by the trial court, the killing was not without motive.
A land dispute appears to exist over a tract of land between the Pindangan
Agricultural Corporation to which the deceased, Juan Galaraga, belonged, on one
hand, and on the other, a certain “Union” or association of claimants, of which
Simplicio Sacayanan, the father of Felipe, was a member. The Galaragas and the
Sacayanans thus were ranged on opposing camps of the controversy, and the bone
of contention between the two families, in particular, was a parcel of about
several hectares forming part of the disputed area. It is on record that at
around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of June 14, 1952 (three days before the
killing), .while the deceased Juan Galaraga and Victor Alamar were plowing the
disputed land, Simplicio Sacayanan, defendant appellant’s father, in a state of
agitation, appeared and addressed words of warning to the two. Brandishing a
long bolo in a belligerent mood, he said-

“Why did you plow again this land? How courageous you are and as if you have
no shame. Why did you continue plowing when I have already prohibited you to
plow this land?” (t.s.n. Abalos, P. 35).

and after admonishing the two that something will happen if they persisted,
Simplicio Sacayanan left the premises, ominously muttering under his breath.
Despite the warning, Juan Galaraga and Victor Alamar plowed the field again the
following day. The foregoing explains why one of the five men, addressing Juan
Galaraga before the latter was shot, demanded “Why is it old man that you are
plowing land which is not yours?”; to which the deceased could only meekly
reply, “No, my son.” The land dispute was certainly a sufficient motive. Men
have been driven to as much, if not greater, lengths in the struggle for a piece
of land, and while appellant was not directly involved, he stood up to
ultimately benefit by whatever success his father attained in the dispute.

Much stress is placed on the alleged failure of the family of the victims to
name any of the malefactors to different investigators immediately after the
killing. We see no error in the trial court’s acceptance of the explanation
given by the family of the victims that they feared for their own safety; that
they were then very much worried and in deep grief; and they did hot want to
expose themselves to further trouble at a time when their deceased father had
not yet even been interred. Fear and confusion, compounded by their distraught
condition arising from grief, explains their immediate reactions to their
misfortune. The fear was understandable, considering that their house was
situated in a relatively inaccessible barrio, about 6 to 7 kilometers from the
town proper and from the nearest post of peace officers, much too far for
effective rescue against any attempted reprisal. The defense witnesses, includ-
ing Julian Domingo of the Philippine Constabulary (who investigated the
following day), admitted that the family were in an obviously distressed state
of mind after the. killing; according to Julian Domingo, questions had to be
repeated many times before the family could give their answers, which were made
slowly and in attitudes of grief.

In particular, Victor Alamar, hovering between life and death in those
instances he was allegedly queried on the identity of his assailants, could not
have been in a fully sensible state. We are more prone to believe the testimony
of one of the defense witnesses, Maximo Ablao, that when Victor Alamar was asked
by Tagama about the identity of the culprits, the former “was not able to tell
anything” (66, t.s.n., Rollolazo), At any rate, only four days after the
killings, or on June 21, 1952, Concepcion and Adriatico Galaraga revealed that
Felipe Sacayanan was in the group of 5 men (Exhibit “F-1”; Exhibit “H-1”), a
lapse of time ,which does not seriously militate against their credibility under
the facts shown.

The testimonies of Macario Fronda and Casimiro Cabreros that they heard
Policeman Antonio Aquino coaching the family of the victims (to point to Felipe
Sacayanan as the man they recognized, impresses us merely as a desperate attempt
to breach the damaging evidence of defendant-appellant’s culpability. As
narrated, its details are so self-contained as to permit of concoction. Fronda
admits that he could not remember other investigations that took place in the
municipal building, much less the details thereof, in the same way that he
remembers the investigation that was conducted by Aquino. Queer also is his
claim that the following day after his release on July 2, 1952, without any
showing of special relationship between him and Felipe, he (Fronda) went to
Felipe’s house and allegedly told him what he heard, while admitting that it was
only sometime on May 26, 1957 that Felipe told him that he (Felipe) was being
accused in the case.

The defense of alibi, that Felipe was in his house the whole evening
up to morning time due to a stomach trouble, was correctly disregarded by the
lower court. It is strange that Marcelo de los Santos, who had no medical
training or experience, should be called by Teodora Sacayanan to treat her
husband, and that Santos did not exert any effort to fetch his niece .who lived
only a very short distance .away. Moreover, according to Santos, he and Dionisio
Tadeo were together in going to Felipe’s house; while Tadeo’s testimony is to
the effect that he proceeded to Felipe’s house earlier than Santos. Also, since
Santos and Tadeo left between 11:00 to 12:00 p.m., it was not physically
impossible for defendant-appellant to have gone to San Pedro Apartado to
accomplish his purpose. He could have made it in 30 minutes by vehicle. Finally,
Felipe’s father and mother were living right there in San Pedro Apartado, where
defendant appellant was known to have paid visits prior to June 17, 1952, which
renders his alibi still weaker and more unreliable.

It was error for the trial court to convict the accused of the complex crimes
of kidnapping with murder (in Case No. 19636) and kidnapping with frustrated
murder (in Case No. 19704). The victims had been taken only about 40 meters from
their house when they.were shot. Nothing was said or done by the accused or his
confederates to show that they had intended to deprive their victims of their
liberty for some time and for some purpose. There was no appreciable interval
between their being taken and their being shot from which kidnapping may be
inferred (see People vs. Remalante, 92 Phil., 48; 48 Off. Gaz., [9]
3881). The crimes committed, therefore, were murder and frustrated murder,
qualified by treachery. Abuse of superior strength and nighttime are absorbed by
treachery.

Pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, defendant-appellant should
be sentenced for the murder (in Case No. 19636) to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, the medium degree of that provided by law.

No period was fixed by the trial court in imposing the penalty for frustrated
murder. Pursuant to Article 248 in connection with paragraph 3, Article 61 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for frustrated murder (Case No. 19704) is
prision mayor maximum (14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4
months), the same to be imposed in its medium period, or reclusion temporal
minimum (12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 3 months), as per paragraph 4,
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
as amended, defendant-appellant should be sentenced for the frustrated murder to
an indeterminate penalty of six, (6) years of prision correccional as
minimum, and not more than 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
maximum.

Wherefore, the decision under appeal is modified as above stated, and
affirmed in all other respects. Costs against defendant-appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.