THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEONORA TELLEDO AND BUENAVENTURA TIMBREZA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The Court of First Instance of Abra found the defendants Leonora Talledo and
Buenaventura Timbreza guilty of murder and sentenced them both to reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Gregorio Preza
in the amount of P2,000 with the accessories of the law and to pay the costs. To
reverse the judgment of conviction, the two accused have brought the case here
on appeal.

On July 9, 1946, at about 8:30 p.m., Gregorio Preza and Adriano Billen on
their way to attend a meeting in the house of the barrio lieutenant of
Quimalaba, Dolores, Abra, stopped at the house of Juan Timbreza. Before reaching
said house Billan in passing by the house of appellant Leonora, was requested by
her to ask Gregorio to come to her house because she wanted to see him. When
informed of this desire of Leonora, Gregorio left the house of Juan Timbreza and
repaired to Leonora’s abode. Upon entering her door he was shot in the stomach
by a man who was hiding behind the panel of the door. Gregorio immediately
unsheathed the bolo he was carrying and attacked his assailant, hitting him four
or five times. His assailant fled from the house; so did Leonora. Gregorio then
shouted for help, in response to which, Billen came. He found Gregorio still in
the house of Leonora. He asked Billen to help him because according to him
Leonora had him shot, at the same time expressing the opinion that his assailant
was “if not Alejandro Talledo, Venancio Talledo; if not, the one who was boloed
by him.” (testimony of Billen) From the house of Leonora, Gregorio with the help
of Billen was able to walk to and go up the house of his mother-in-law about 150
meters away, where the Justice of the Peace took from him a written statement
(Exh. F) with its translation (Exh. F-1) at about midnight. Four hours later,
that is to say, at 4 o’clock the following morning he died of his gunshot
wound.

In his statement (Exh. F), Gregorio told the Justice of the Peace that he
supposed that it was Venancio Talledo who shot him but that to be sure, his
attacker may be identified by the bolo wounds inflicted on him by Gregorio. He
further stated that he maintained amorous relations with Leonora who called him
to her house that night; that upon meeting her at the door of her house, she
pleaded with him, asking that he pity her and that he should comply with their
agreement; that it was then that he was shot from behind the door, after which
he attacked his assailant with his bolo.

Acting upon the information contained in this written statement, as well as
that given by Billen, the police contacted Venancio Talledo but finding that he
bore no wounds, they continued their search until they found the appellant
Buenaventura Timbreza who had fresh bolo wounds on his head, arms, and hands and
who readily admitted that the wounds were inflicted by Gregorio. He was arrested
and during his confinement and investigation, he made written statements (Exhs.
H and I) ratified before the Justice of the Peace of Dolores in which he
admitted having fired the shot that killed Gregorio in pursuance of Instructions
given to him by Leonora who even gave him the gun (paltik) and who promised him
that he would not in any way be implicated in the case; and that she promised to
pay him for shooting Gregorio.

When questioned by the police, Leonora made an elaborate statement which she
even ratified before the Justice of the Peace, to the effect that on the night
in question, while she was sleeping, the deceased came up to her house, kissed
her, seized her hands and pulled her up to her feet and took her to the door
where he tried to abuse her; that she wanted to cry out for help but that
Gregorio threatened her with his gun; that finding that it was impossible to
physically resist the intruder, she adopted another strategy and spoke to him in
a gentle and conciliatory manner, caressed him and took hold of his hand that
was holding the revolver and succeeded in maneuvering said hand as well as the
gun until the end of the barrel pointed to Gregorio’s body at which instant, she
pressed the trigger and shot him. She further stated that Gregorio had been
courting her for about six months and that she rejected his advances because he
was a married man.

At the trial however, Leonora claiming that the contents of her statement
were false and had merely been taught her by the Chief of Police, told a
different story, namely, that the deceased came up the house and tried to rape
her; that she shouted for help and evidently one person came to her aid; that
not long after her cry for help, she heard a noise at her door and Gregorio
evidently hearing the same noise, got up from her bed and went to the door, and
that soon thereafter she heard the shot that wounded Gregorio. Then she jumped
down from the house and ran to the house of her uncle Quintin Talledo.

On the witness stand, Timbreza abandoning the story told by him to the police
as contained in his affidavits (Exhs. H and I), even claiming that he signed
said affidavits to avoid suffering and further pain when the police pressed his
wounds, told the court something else, evidently to fit into the mental picture
of the event given by Leonora at the trial. He said that hearing the shouts for
help of Leonora, he went up her house unarmed; that at the door he was
immediately attacked by Gregorio with a bolo; that he retreated until the two
men reached the kitchen porch (batalan) where Gregorio pressed his bolo attack;
that during this unequal struggle, Timbreza saw something gleaming, fall from
the waist of Gregorio; that he stopped in his efforts at defense, stopped and
picked up the object which happened to be a paltik and held it in his
hand; and that when Gregorio struck another bolo blow, his hand was hit causing
the gun which he was holding to explode or fire.

We agree with the Solicitor General that this story is quite fantastic and is
incredible. We are satisfied that the version given by Timbreza to the police as
contained in his affidavits is the correct one; and that the trial court
committed no error in accepting said affidavits as competent evidence, having
been made voluntarily by the affiant. As to Leonora’s story told in court, we
equally reject it as did the trial court as not true. People do not usually go
up other’s houses at about 8:30 in the evening to rape women Inmates therein,
especially, in a neighborhood where the houses are near each other, and much
more when there are other people in said houses, as was true in this case,
because Leonora’s mother-in-law was lying down near her that night. There were
houses near that of Leonora, and those of her brother and of her uncle were
quite near, both within calling distance, but strange to say, despite her
alleged desperate cries for help, neither one of them responded.

Counsel for the appellant questions the propriety of the admission of the
statement of Gregorio (Exh, “F” and its translation Exh. “F-1″), claiming that
there is no proof that at the time of making the statement, Gregorio believed
that he was going to die, this, because when asked by the Justice of the Peace
whether or not he believed that he was going to die, he answered:”May be,
Judge.” Examining the original statement (Exh. “F”), we find that the phrase
used by Gregorio in his native dialect was “cas la casta”. Said phrase may be
translated into “may be” as was done in Exh. F, But it may equally mean “so it
seems” or “most probably” or “I believe so”. Considering the fact that Gregorio
was being questioned, apparently by a superior in the social scale, and a
Government official at that, we may regard his answer “cas la casta” as a
positive belief and assurance but expressed modestly, mildly and courteously by
a humble barrio resident to a Judicial officer. We therefore find as did the
trial court that at the time Gregorio made his statement, he was conscious of
his impending death. Moreover, the fact that Gregorio died four hours later,
shows that his wound was not only fatal but that he must have been in a critical
condition at the time of making the statement as further testified to by the
Justice of the Peace who described the physical condition and appearance of
Gregorio at the time as he was slowly bleeding to death due to the apparently
unchecked flow of blood from his wound. The doctor told the court that Gregorio
died of hemorrhage. Three pellets had plowed thru the stomach, spleen and the
large and small intestines.

Furthermore, even without this dying declaration, we have the spontaneous
statement made by Gregorio to Billen, as the latter came to his aid in response
to his cry for help, describing the person who shot him as one who must have
sustained several bolo wounds and implicating Leonora as the person who had him
shot. Said statement is admissible as part of the res gestae.

Considering all the evidence in the case, together with the circumstances
surrounding the same, we are satisfied that Gregorio a married man and Leonora
had been maintaining amorous relations; that possibly Leonora became
dissatisfied with her disadvantageous and precarious situation or that Gregorio
did not live up to a promise or agreement, vital to her interests and so she
induced and employed her co-defendant Timbreza to shoot him when he came up to
her house in response to her summons. Both appellants are clearly guilty of
murder, Leonora as principal by induction and Timbreza as principal by actual
participation, the killing having been committed with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.

Some members of the tribunal believe that because of the alleged existence of
some aggravating circumstances, such as premeditation, consideration of a price,
reward or promise, and the use of craft, the penalty of death should be meted
out to the appellants. Other members however, are of the opinion that the
evidence as to the existence of such alleged aggravating circumstances is not
strong, much less conclusive. For instance, the alleged planning of the killing
and the promised reward described in the affidavit of Timbreza even if all true,
cannot be considered against his co-defendant Leonora for the reason that an
extra-judicial admission or confession is admissible only against the one making
it. Neither may the supposed aggravating circumstance of price or reward be
considered against Leonora for the reason that it was not she who committed the
crime in consideration of said price or reward. Besides, these aggravating
circumstances with the exception of that of premeditation were not alleged in
the information, and were not mentioned or discussed in the decision appealed
from, neither were they considered by the Office of the Solicitor General for
purposes of increasing the penalty imposed by the trial court. All that the
Solicitor General asks for, is the confirmation of said decision. Furthermore,
considering the case as a whole, some Justices believe that the appellants will
be sufficiently punished with the imposition of the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. This, aside from the fact that because of lack of sufficient
votes, the extreme penalty of death cannot here be imposed.

Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby
affirmed with costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes,
and Torres, JJ., concur.