G.R. No. L-29667. November 29, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ESTEBAN YU, ANTONIO NOVILLA, FELIPE VILLAFUERTE AND TEOTIMO PAALA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
AQUINO, J.:
Esteban Yu and Antonio Novilla appealed
from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte,
Carigara branch, convicting them of murder and
sentencing them, respectively, to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one
day of prision mayor to seventeen
years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal and ten
years and one day of prision mayor to
fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal
and to pay solidarily to the heirs of Cipriano Velarde an indemnity of
four thousand pesos (Criminal Case No. 839).
Felipe Villafuerte and Teotimo Paala also appealed from
the same decision wherein they were convicted as accomplices in the said crime
of murder and were each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four years,
two months and one day of prision correccional to eight years and one day of prision mayor and to indemnify the heirs of
the victim in the sum of two thousand pesos.
The judgment of conviction was based on the following facts:
At about three-thirty in the afternoon of February 12, 1956, a quarrel arose inside the
cockpit in Alangalang, Leyte,
as a result of the decision of Cipriano Velarde (the referee) that the match between the roosters
of Diosdado Yu and Nicolas Jamora
was a draw (tabla o patas).
Not satisfied with that decision, Esteban Yu insisted that his
brother’s rooster should win because it was still alive. Because Velarde
stood pat on his decision, Esteban Yu testily said: “If that is the case, it would be better
that the match would be between persons”.
Upon hearing that ominous remark, Alfonso Yu stood up and said: “I will start it”. He approached Velarde
and struck him with a knife. Then, the
brothers, Esteban Yu, Alfonso Yu, and Diosdado Yu,
assaulted Velarde, causing the latter to jump to a
corner and to run away.
A policeman, who was inside the cockpit, fired his gun into the
air in order to stop the commotion. Velarde was able to get out of the ring. Esteban and Diosdado
followed him. When he reached the door,
Felipe Villafuerte stabbed him at the back. Velarde continued
running after he was stabbed by Villafuerte but Teotimo Paala met him and stabbed
him. Although wounded, Velarde continued to run.
He was stoned by Antonio Novilla who hit him
on the left side of the forehead.
When Velarde stopped, Novilla approached him and struck him on the head with a
piece of bamboo three inches in diameter, causing him to spin around and fall
into a kneeling position. At that
juncture, Esteban Yu, Alfonso Yu, Diosdado Yu, Felipe
Villafuerte, Teotimo Paala, Jovito Villafuerte,
Antonio Novilla and Tomas Soldao
surrounded him and continued to assault him.
After inflicting multiple injuries on Velarde,
the assailants dispersed and left him prostrate on the ground.
Thereafter, Sinforosa Yu, the wife of
Esteban Yu, arrived and, seeing Velarde’s legs still
moving, she stabbed him at the base of the neck saying: “How long will it take you to die, you
son of the bitch. If I ever meet a
relative of yours, I will kill him”.
Velarde died on the spot. A postmortem examination conducted by the
municipal health officer revealed that Velarde
sustained seventeen wounds on his head, face, neck, body and arms. Some wounds were serious. Death was due to hemorrhage and cerebral
concussion. The wounds are described as
follows (Exh. A):
“CERTIFICADO MEDICO
“A QUIEN CORRESPONDA: –
“El infrascrito, Dr. Emilio de Veyra, medico, Oficial de Sanidad Municipal, con residencia
en el municipio de Alangalang,
Leyte, a instancias de la Oficina del Jere de Policia de la localidad, a como las 7:00 p.m. del 12 de Febrero,
1956, y en uno
de los edificios del municipio (anteriormente – Dispensario Publico), examino el cuerpo del que, segun informacion
dada por el hermano del occiso Dionisio Velarde, fue en vida Cipriano Velarde,
varon, casado, en sus 47 años de edad, con 5 pies y 5 pulgadas de estatura y una constitucion fisica muscular, que ya era cadaver desde hacia unas tres
horas, poco mas o menos; y el resultado de cuyo examen es como
sigue:
“1. – Craneo:
“(a) A tres traveses de dedo por encima de la ceja derecha, en la region
frontal, se hallo una hinchazon
del tamano de un huevo de gallina y una depresion
alargada por detras de ella con 2-1/2 pulgadas de longitud en posicion vertical de arriba-abajo
y de dentro-afuera.
“(b) En la parte mas alta de la region occipital
se encontro una contusion irregularmente ovalar de 2 pulgadas con 2-1/2 pulgadas de diametros en posicion oblicua de arriba-abajo y de derecha a izquierda, descansando sobre craneo en fractura compuesta. – Herida de caracter gravemente mortal.
“2. – Cara:
“(a) En el lado izquierdo y al nivel del pomulo de esta region se encontro una herida
cortante en forma de luna
en 4.o creciente con la concavidad
mirando hacia abajo y 1-1/4 pulgadas de cuerda, con levantamiento de colgajo de piel, sin interesar el hueso subyecente. – Herida leve.
“(b) Por debajo de la precedente (2-a) se
hallo otra herida cortante de 2-1/2 pulgadas de longitud y 1/4 de pulgada de abertura en situacion oblicua de arriba-abajo y de dentroafuera llegando hasta como un traves
de dedo por debajo de la oreja izquierda; no interesando mas que la piel
y tejido cecular subcutaneo. – Herida leve.
“3. – Cuello:
“(a) Un poco por encima
de la articulation esterno-clavicular derecha se encontro una herida punzo-cortante
ligeramente oblicua de arriba-abajo y de dentro-afuera
de 1 pulgada de longitud,
1/2 pulgada de abertura y 1-1/2 pulgadas
de profundidad siguiendo una direccion fuertemente
de arriba-abajo y
ligeramente de delante-atras
cortandose la arteria carotida primitiva derecha en su portion inicial. – Herida extremadamente grave.
“(b) Un poco por fuera de la precedente (3-a) se hallo otra herida punzo-cortante en situacion ligeramente oblicua de delante-atras y francamente de dentro-afuera con
7/8 de pulgada de longitud,
sin separacion de sus labios y 1-1 /2 pulgadas de profundidad con direccion francamente vertical y muy ligeramente de dentro-afuera cortandose la arteria subclavia derecha. – Herida de caracter grave.
“4. – Tronco – Aspecto
anterior:
“(a) Al nivel del 3.er espacio intercostal izquierdo y a 4 traveses de dedo a la izquierdo del esternon se encontro otra herida punzo-cortante
oblicuamente situada de arriba-abajo y
de dentro-afuera con 1-1/8 pulgadas
de longitud y 5/8 de pulgada
de abertura y 2-3/4 pulgadas
de profundidad siguiendo una direccion de delante-atras, un poco de arriba-abajo y ligeramente de fuera-adentro interesando importantes troncos sanguineos pulmonares izquierdos. – Herida altamente grave.
“(b) Sobre la union de los dos-tercios superiores con el tercio-inferior
del esternon (exactamente
al nivel de la 5.a costilla)
se encontro otra herida punzo-cortante transversal
de 3 pulgadas de longitud
con 3/4 de pulgada de abertura
cuya extremidad externa derecha penetro por debajo
de la 5.a costilla a una profundidad de 1-3/4 pulgadas siguiendo una direccion
de dentroafuera, de arriba-abajo
y ligeramente
de delante-atras interesando
la masa pulmonar. – Herida mas
o menos grave.
“(c) Hacia el lado externo izquierdo
del epigastrio, a dos traveses
de dedo por fuera de la linea media y un poco mas de un traves de dedo por debajo del reborde costal izquierdo, se
hallo otra herida punzo-cortante, en posicion francamente vertical, de 1-5/8 pulgadas
de longitud con 1-1/2 pulgadas
de abertura eviscerando tres asas del intestino
ileon, el cual fue atravesado en dos regiones. – Herida
grave.
“5. – Tronco – Aspecto
posterior:
“(a) Por encima del tercio externo de la espina del omoplato derecho se hallo otra herida punzo-cortante
en posicion oblicua de arriba-abajo y de dentro-afuera
de 7/8 de pulgada de longitud
con 1/4 de pulgada de abertura
y una profundidad de 3 pulgadas siguiendo la direccion de arriba-abajo, de atras-adelante y ligeramente de fuera-adentro interesando partes blandas de la region y el vertice del pulmon derecho. – Herida grave.
“(b) Por debajo de la extremidad interna de la espina del omoplato derecho otra herida punzo-cortante
en posicion oblicua de arriba-abajo y de fuera-adentro
con 3/4 de pulgada de longitud
y 1/8 de pulgada de abertura
con una profundidad de
1-1/2 pulgadas siguiendo la
direccion fuertemente de arriba-abajo y ligeramente de dentro-afuera no interesando mas que partes
blandas de la region rasando
la susperficie de la escapula.
– Herida menos grave.
“(c) Por debajo de la parte media de la espina del omoplato izquierdo otra herida punzo-cortante en V con el
angulo mirando hacia adentro y ligeramente hacia abajo con 3/4 de pulgada de longitud y 1
pulgada de abertura la rama superior, y 1-5/8 pulgadas
de longitud con 5/8 de pulgada
de abertura la rama
inferior con una profundidad
de 1/2 pulgada con direccion
fuertemente de fuera-adentro,
ligeramente de arriba-abajo
e imperceptiblemente de atras-adelante,
no interesando mas que partes blandas
de la region sin poder atravegar
el hueso omoplato mas que rasandolo.
– Herida menos grave.
“(d) Al nivel de la union
de la derma con la undecima vertebras dorsales se hallo otra herida punzo-cortante en posicion transversal de 1-1/4 pulgadas
de longitud con 3/8 de pulgada
de abertura y una profundidad de 2 pulgadas con la direccion de arriba-abajo, de atras-adelante y ligeramente de dentro-afuera interesando partes blandas de la region e hiriendo la cara posterior del riñon izquierdo en su portion superior. – Herida de mucha gravedad.
“6. – Tronco – Lado
derecho:
“Por debajo
del reborde costal, en la linea
axilar media, se hallo otra
herida punzo-cortante en posicion oblicua de arribaabajo y de delante-atras
con 1-7/8 pulgadas de longitud
y 7/8 de pulgada de abertura
con una profundidad de
1-1/2 pulgadas siguiendo una direccion horizontal ligeramente de atras-adelante atravesando la pared toracica de
la region cortando a este nivel en 1/4 de pulgada el borde libre del higado. – Herida altamente grave.
“7. Tronco – Lado
izquierdo:
“(a) A cuatro traveses de dedo por fuera del borde
inferior del omoplato izquierdo,
en la linea axilar
posterior, se encontro otra
herida punzo-cortante en posicion oblicua de arriba-abajo y de delante-atras
de 7/8 de pulgada de longitud
y 1/4 de pulgada de abertura
con 1-3/4 pulgadas de profundidad
siguiendo una direccion de arriba-abajo, ligeramente de atras-adelante y francamente de fuera-adentro hiriendo el pulmon. – Herida grave.
“(b) A dos traveses de dedo por delante
y por debajo de la herida precedente (7-a) se hallo otra herida punzo-cortante
en posicion mas o menos transversal de 1 pulgada de
longitud con 3/8 de pulgada
de abertura y 1-3/4 pulgadas
de profundidad siguiendo la
direccion francamente
horizontal y ligeramente de delante-atras
interesando la masa pulmonar a este nivel. – Herida grave.
“8. – Antebrazo izquierdo:
“Hacia el tercio
superior de la cara dorsal se hallo otra herida cortante
en posicion oblicua de arriba-abajo y de
fuera-adentro con 2-1/4 pulgadas
de longitud y 1 pulgada de abertura y 1-1/4 pulgadas de colgajo de masa musculo-cutanea en
forma de medialuna con la convexidad
mirando hacia abajo y afuera. – Herida menos grave.
“Expuesto lo arriba,
salvo error involuntario, saco las siguientes conclusiones:
“I. – Que el occiso ha debido de haber muerto
a consecuencia de hemorragias
y conmocion cerebral;
“II. – Que el agente vulnerante que origino las
lesiones 1-a y 1-b debe de
ser un instrumento romo, mas o menos
duro de consistencia, que haya chocado
contra las regiones afectadas bajo el impulso de una fuerza mas o menos
considerable;
“III. – Que el agente vulnerante que debio originar
las heridas 2-a, 2-b y 8 debe de ser un instrumento
cortante;
“IV. – Que el agente vulnerante que origino las
heridas 3-a, 3-b, 4-a, 4-b, 4-c, 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d,
6, 7-a y 7-b debe de ser in instrumento
punzo-cortante de tamano variado.
“Despues
de todo lo arriba dicho, firmo el presente aqui en Alangalang, Leyte, hoy a 29 de Febrero, Año del
Señor de 1956.
(S) Emilio de Veyra
(T) EMILIO DE VEYRA M. D.”
On February 16, 1956
the chief of police filed in the justice of the peace court of Alangalang a complaint for murder against Esteban, Alfonso,
Diosdado and Posing, all surnamed Yu, and against Paala, Felipe Villafuerte, Jovito Villafuerte, Novilla and Tomas Soldao. The complaint was based on the sworn
statements of Aurea Velarde
and Marciano Udtohan, who
were eyewitnesses.
The case was elevated to the Court of First Instance where on May 22, 1956 an assistant provincial
fiscal filed an information for murder against the
same persons.
At the trial, defendant Paala testified that he was in the cockpit in the afternoon
in question; that he heard gunshots, and, at the suggestion of his companion,
Roman Francisco, he picked up his cock and went to the marketplace; that
later Esteban Yu and Alfonso Yu, wounded and staggering, passed by; that he
gave his cock to Roman Francisco and helped Alfonso Yu until they reached the
store in front of the municipal building; that he did not wound Velarde, and that he was implicated in the crime because
the relatives of Velarde were angry with him for
having aided Alfonso Yu.
Defendant Felipe Villafuerte in his
testimony admitted his presence in the cockpit at about two o’clock in the afternoon on the occasion already
mentioned. He said that while in the
cockpit, he was informed by Gregorio Denalo that he
had to go home because his wife was going to deliver and in fact she delivered
at about four o’clock that afternoon (Exh.
1-Villafuerte which refers to a child named Rey
Manuel Barola, fathered by Felipe Barola); that he did not participate in the
killing, and that he was implicated by Miguel Demeterio
and Aurea Velarde because
he had a standing feud with those prosecution witnesses.
Defendant Esteban Yu testified that in the afternoon in question
he was in the cockpit; that after Velarde declared
the match to be a draw, he (Esteban) went out of the ring; that somebody
shouted that there was a fight between Velarde and
Alfonso Yu; that he approached them and told them not to quarrel because they
could settle their differences; that Velarde and
Alfonso Yu, both armed, were already wounded when he arrived inside the ring;
that they did not heed his plea not to continue fighting; that Velarde lunged at him and wounded him in the infra-clavicular region; that after Velarde
hit him in the acromial region, he used his fan knife
to defend himself and he and Velarde fought, and that
after the fight he was brought to the provincial hospital for the treatment of
his five wounds (Exh. 4). His brother, Alfonso, was later killed by
Andres Velarde, the son of Cipriano.
Defendant Novilla denied having taken
part in the killing of Velarde. He said that he was in the cockpit in the
afternoon in question playing hantak and
that after hearing the two shots, he went
home.
After a protracted trial before three judges, the aforementioned
judgment of conviction was rendered.
Tomas Soldao, Diosdado
Yu and Jovito Villafuerte
were acquitted. Sinforosa
V. Yu was found guilty of an impossible crime.
She was fined two hundred pesos.
She did not appeal. Alfonso Yu
died before the trial.
The appeal was made to the Court of Appeals. The Solicitor General in his appellee’s brief recommended that appellants Yu and Novilla be each sentenced to reclusion perpetua and that the same penalty be imposed upon Paala and Felipe Villafuerte who
should be regarded as co-principals, and not merely accomplices, because there
was a conspiracy among the assailants to kill Velarde.
The Court of Appeals, through Justice Capistrano, in its decision
of May 15, 1968 affirmed the lower court’s decision as to Paala
and Villafuerte but held that the penalties imposable
upon Esteban Yu and Novilla as co-principals in the
crime of murder should be death for Yu because of the aggravating circumstance
of recidivism and reclusion perpetua
for Novilla.
Hence, their appeal was certified to this Court in accordance with
section 17(4) of the Judiciary Law.
The appellants filed a motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals, again through Justice
Capistrano, in its resolution of September
14, 1968, concluded that it erred in deciding separately the appeal
of Paala and Villafuerte
(the alleged accomplices). It resolved
to certify the whole case to this Court in view of the provision of section
17(4) that offenses, which, though not punished with death or reclusion perpetua, arose out of the same occurrence or were
committed by the accused on the same occasion as the more serious offense, fall
within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
The appellants in their first and second assignments of error
contend that the lower court erred in rendering a joint decision although Tomas
Soldao was tried separately and that the trial court
used against the appellants the evidence introduced at Soldao’s
trial.
That contention is not well-taken. The trial court rendered only one decision
because the prosecution’s evidence in Soldao’s trial
was the same evidence which was presented in the trial of the four appellants
and the other two accused.
The prosecution witnesses, namely, Doctor Emilio de Veyra, Sergio Vergara, Aurea Velarde, and Miguel Demeterio, who testified at the trial of defendants
Esteban Yu, Diosdado Yu, Sinforosa
V. Yu, Felipe Villafuerte, Jovito
Villafuerte, Antonio Novillo
and Teotimo Paala, were
also presented at Soldao’s trial.
Soldao presented as his own witness
Patrolman Pascasio Marmita. This witness did not testify at the trial of
the other seven defendants. Appellants
surmise that the trial court used Marmita’s testimony
as a basis for acquitting Soldao, Diosdado
Yu and Jovito Villafuerte
and that that action of the trial court unduly prejudiced the appellants.
Appellants’ surmise is not an argument that justifies their
acquittal. The lower court’s exoneration
of the three defendants is not under review.
What is in issue is the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to
establish appellants’ culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s failure to render separate
decisions, one for Soldao’s case and another decision
for the case against the seven defendants, has no crucial bearing on the
resolution of that issue.
Appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in appreciating
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superiority cannot be taken
seriously. There were several assailants
who literally ganged up on Velarde. He had to flee because he could not cope with
the successive and simultaneous assaults of his assailants. Even the armed policeman, who was present at
the scene of the fight, could not break up the fight because Velarde had several adversaries. All that the policeman could do was to fire
his carbine in to the air.
There was a marked disparity between the strength of the victim
and the strength of the aggressors who, at the last stage of the fight,
surrounded their quarry, wounded him repeatedly and left him only when he was
sprawled on the ground.
Evidently, the appellants and their companions cooperated in
such a way as to derive advantage from their combined strength and to insure
the victim’s death (People vs. Elizaga, 86 Phil. 364, 383).
Hence, abuse of superiority was correctly appreciated in this case.
Appellant Esteban Yu contends that the trial court erred in not
holding that he acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative. That contention is predicated on circumstances which are not credible. Esteban Yu’s version is that while Velarde and Alfonso Yu were fighting, he (Esteban)
intervened and that Velarde lunged at him and wounded
him in the infra-clavicular region. That version is difficult to believe because
if Velarde was already fighting Alfonso Yu or was
already occupied with the task of warding off the blows of Alfonso Yu, who was
armed, it could not be expected that Velarde would
take the initiative of assaulting Esteban Yu.
It is simply unbelievable that Velarde would
initially commit an unlawful aggression against Esteban Yu.
What is believable is that Esteban Yu was the aggressor and that Velarde wounded him because it was Velarde
who was acting in self-defense. He was
defending himself against the combined assaults of Alfonso Yu, Esteban Yu and Diosdado Yu, Velarde
had no score to settle with Esteban Yu.
There was no motive for Velarde to assault
Esteban Yu. If Velarde
assaulted Esteban Yu, it must have been because Esteban Yu provoked him and
placed Velarde’s life in jeopardy.
Certain contradictions were pointed out by the appellants in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Those discrepancies do not destroy the probative value of the
declarations of the eyewitness, Patrolman Vergara,
and the bystanders, Marciano Udtohan,
Aurea Velarde and Miguel Demeterio. Their
testimonies are consistent in pointing to the appellants and their companions
as particeps criminis
in the killing of Velarde.
As the appeal throws the whole case open for review, it becomes
necessary to pass upon the Solicitor General’s contention that the trial court erred
in holding that there was no conspiracy among the appellants and that their
liability is individual and separate.
To establish a conspiracy, it is not essential that there be
proof as to a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient that the malefactors acted
in concert to attain the same objective.
(People vs. San Luis, 86 Phil. 485, 497).
As a rule, the concurrence
of wills, which is the essence of conspiracy, may be deduced from the
evidence of facts and circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the
parties cooperated and labored to the same end (People vs. Macul,
86 Phil. 423, 426; People vs. Carbonel, 48 Phil. 868,
875).
“Conspiracies need not be established by direct evidence of
the acts charged, but may and generally must be proven by a number of
indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances which vary according to the
purposes to be accomplished. If it is
proven that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy
may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is
proven.” (People vs. Colman, 103 Phil. 6, 15, citing 5 R.C.L. 1088 and
Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 4th Edition, revised by Niblack,
sec. 773, pp. 1402-1403).
On the other hand, if there is no express nor
implied conspiracy among two or more persons taking part in the commission of
the crime, that is, no community of purpose or design, then their liability is
regarded as individual or separate and not joint or collective. Thus, it was held that “where it does
not appear that the aggression
against the injured party was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the
aggressors, each one of them is individually responsible for his acts and for
the damage caused thereby to the injured party” (U.S. vs. Solis, 4 Phil.
178).
Concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime and the
form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person inflicting the
fatal wound may determine complicity where it would not otherwise be evident
(People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38, 54; People vs. Ibañez, 77 Phil. 664, 666).
Applying the foregoing rules to the instant case, we hold that
the assaults or injuries perpetrated in concert by the four appellants against Velarde, as declared by the prosecution eyewitnesses,
reveal a conspiracy and a tacit understanding to encompass Velarde’s
death. They were co-principals in the
murder. Appellants Paala
and Villafuerte were not mere accomplices. They were principals by direct participation.
The evidence shows that Esteban Yu is a recidivist. He was convicted of homicide in 1940 and he
was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal (Exh. B).
In this case, there being no mitigating circumstances in his
favor, the penalty that should be imposed on him is death (Arts. 64[3] and 248,
Revised Penal Code).
Esteban Yu was fifty-six years old when he testified in 1962 (207
tsn). An agent
of the National Bureau of Investigation reported that in 1972 Yu was already
seventy years old. The death penalty
cannot be imposed upon any person over seventy years of age. It should be commuted to reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in
article 40 (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code).
Hence, the death penalty cannot be imposed upon Esteban Yu.
Appellants Yu and Novilla filed a
motion dated June 5, 1977
for the withdrawal of their appeal. They
alleged that because of their poor health they had opted to serve the minimum
terms of the indeterminate sentence imposed by the trial court and that they
would later request that they be allowed to go on parole.
The Solicitor General opposed the motion. The withdrawal of an appeal after the case
had been submitted for decision is discretionary in the court (People vs. Aleta, L-40694, August 31, 1976, 72 SCRA 542, 557; People
vs. Madrigal-Gonzales, 117 Phil. 956, 966).
After a conscientious study of the record, we found that the ends
of retributory justice would be frustrated by
allowing the withdrawal of the appeal.
Hence, the motion for the withdrawal of the appeal was denied in the
resolution dated November 17, 1977.
WHEREFORE, the trial court’s holding that the crime
committed is murder is affirmed. Its
judgment is modified in the sense that appellants Teotimo
Paala and Felipe Villafuerte
are adjudged as co-principals and co-conspirators of appellants Antonio Novilla and Esteban Yu and each of the four appellants is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to
pay solidarily the heirs of Cipriano
Velarde an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos and the
costs. In Yu’s case, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua carries with it the accessory
penalties for the death penalty as provided in article 40 of the Revised Penal
Code.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Concepcion, Jr.,
Martin, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero,
JJ., concur.
Ruiz Castro, J., in the result.
Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., took no part.