G.R. No. L-23558. August 10, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO CONSTANTINO, GREGORIO CONSTANTINO, HILARION CONSTANTINO AND FAUSTO CONSTANTINO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
This is an appeal from a
judgment of conviction. The appellants –
Marcelo, Gregorio, Fausto and Hilarion,
all surnamed Constantino – were charged with murder
for the death of one Carlino Perdido. The Court of First Instance of Cagayan,
after trial, found all of them guilty as charged and imposed on each life
imprisonment and indemnification of the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
P6,000.00.
The prosecution’s version
of the facts, which the lower court upheld, is as follows: One Sabas Constantino was stabbed in Barrio Santor,
Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, on June 24, 1963. Sabas is closely
related to the appellants, being the brother of Fausto
and Gregorio, the nephew of Marcelo, and the cousin of Hilarion. The suspected assailant was Inocencio Romaguera who happened
to be the brother-in-law of the decedent, Carlino Perdido. Inocencio Romaguera fled after
the stabbing and he still remains at large.
At about 10 o’clock in the evening of June 27,
1963, appellant Marcelo
went with a group to the house of the deceased, looking for Inocencio. Encarnacion Perdido, sister of the decedent who was in her house just
12 meters away, heard Marcelo threaten the deceased by saying first, “if
you are not going to bring out your brother-in-law, I will pierce you” and
then, “if you are going to involve yourself in this case, you will be a
victim.” When these statements were made, Marcelo was at the foot of the stairs of Encarnacion’s
house, and was about 2-1/2 meters away from her. Thereafter, she talked with the decedent and
confirmed that it was Marcelo who uttered those remarks.
Early the following
morning, June 28, 1963, before taking breakfast, the decedent left
the house to see his plants and to gather vegetables in the field, despite the
admonitions of his wife, Florentina Romaguera, not to
go out in view of the incident
the night before. When he did not
return, Florentina went out to look for the decedent
and failing to find him, she reported his absence to Barrio Lieutenant Ignacio
de la Cruz. The latter, in turn, sought
the aid of Sanchez Mira Police Chief
Damaso Dumlao who sent
policemen Dominador Valdez and Tito Mangligot to Barrio Santor to
investigate.
The two policemen arrived in Barrio Santor
late that evening and early the next day, June 29, 1963, they started looking for the decedent,
together with the Barrio Lieutenant, Quirino Callo and other barriomates. At around 10 o’clock that morning, they came upon the dead body
of the decedent near the creek, south of Barrio Santor. The cadaver bore multiple stab wounds. The post mortem examination (Exhs. M & M-1) conducted by Dr. Herman Asanias that very morning showed the following wounds, to
wit:
“(1) Wound, stab, neck, above medial third of Clavicle left, 1
1/4 inch long, directed downwards.
“(2) Wound, stab, neck, left, lateral, 2 inches deep and 1 1/2
inch long.
“(3) Wound, stab, infrascapular region,
left 1 1/3 inch long.
“(4) Wound, stab, infrascapular region,
left, below and medial to wound No. 3, 1 1/2 inch long.
“(5) Wound, stab, about 2 inches below wound No. 4, 1 1/3 inch long.
“(6) Wound, stab, about 2 inches below the left axilla,
1 1/2 inch long, penetrating.
“(7) Wound, stab, hypochondriac region, left, along the anterior axillary line, 1 1/2 inch long, penetrating.
“(8) Wound, stab, lumbar region, left, located along the posterior axillary line, 1 inch long, penetrating.
“(9) Wound, stab, lumbar region, left, located along the mid-axillary line 1 1/2 inch long, penetrating.
“(10) Wound, stab, lumbar region, left, along the anterior axillary line, on level with the navel, 1/2 inch long,
penetrating.
“(11) Wound, stab, arm, left, middle third, lateral, 1 inch long.
“(12) Wound, incised, forearm, left, upper third, lateral, 2 inches
long.
“(13) Wound, incised, forearm, left, upper third, posterior, 3 inches long above wound No. 12.
“(14) Wound, incised, palm, below left thumb, 1 inch long.
“(15) Wound, incised, forefinger, left, posterior.
“(16) Wound, contused, thigh, right, middle third, anterior.”
Dr.
Asanias established the approximate time of death as
of the morning of June 28, 1963 and the cause thereof, as severe hemorrhage
secondary to multiple stab wounds.
Acting upon information linking the appellants to the death of
the decedent, the two policemen went to arrest them that afternoon and brought
them to the municipal building for investigation. Returning to Barrio Santor to look for the possible weapons used, Valdez
got from Hilarion’s mother his blood-stained bolo (Exh. B) and a blood-stained shirt (Exh.
C). Mangligot,
on the other hand, obtained from the house of Gregorio a blood-stained bolo (Exh. F) and a blood-stained calendar leaf (Exh. G).
Said appellants were pinpointed due to the presence of Quirino Callo and two young boys,
Benjamin Balicat, age 12, and Nonito
Salmazan, age 13, who were all pasturing their carabaos, in the fields near the scene of the killing. The three gave sworn statements before the
Municipal Mayor who conducted a preliminary examination on June 29, 1963 in the absence of the Municipal Judge, and on July 1, 1963, they re-subscribed their
affidavits before the Municipal Judge.
Balicat testified that in the early
morning of June 28, 1963 he saw the four appellants, all armed with bolos,
following and then chasing the decedent towards the creek south of Barrio Santor. Shortly
afterwards, he again saw the four coming from the same direction and going homeward,
with Hilarion, Fausto and
Gregorio holding blood-drenched bolos. Salmazan and Callo declared that
they saw the four appellants that morning coming from the same direction where
on June 29, 1963, the dead
body of Carlino Perdido was
found. Of the four, only Hilarion and Fausto had their
bolos unsheathed.
Appellants impute to the trial court, as first error, its having
relied upon the prosecution witnesses and in not upholding their allegedly
credible defenses. According to them
what really happened was this: Fausto and his brother Gregorio were in Dugo,
Cagayan from June 26 to June 28, 1963 together with their father and
brother-in-law who brought Sabas Constantino
to the Camalaniugan
Emergency Hospital
for treatment. Marcelo was in his house
in Barrio Santor the whole morning of June 28, 1963. Hilarion killed the
decedent, but only in self-defense.
The defense of Fausto, Gregorio and
Marcelo is, therefore, alibi.
But it is too well settled that alibi can not overcome the
positive identification of the accused unless the prosecution witnesses are
unreliable or unworthy of credence – which is primarily for the trial court to
determine[1] –
and the accused’s presence in some other place is
clearly and convincingly established.
Here, the lower court gave much credence to the prosecution
witnesses, especially to the youthful Balicat and Salmazan. We see no
cogent reason to reverse it. These two
immediately gave their sworn declarations[2]
to the authorities upon the discovery of the crime on June 29, 1963.
It would have been quite hard for them to concoct a falsehood within so
short a time. The records disclose that
on July 31, 1963, both made
written declarations (Exhs. 11 and 12) somewhat at
variance with their previous affidavits.
However, the lower court rejected these declarations on the finding that
they were prepared under suspicious circumstances as evidenced by the fact that
Exh. 11 bears thumbmark
imprints whereas the affidavits found on pp. 15 and 16 of the Records bear the
signature “Benjamin Balicat” (Exh. P[16]). In
addition, We also note that Exhs. 11 and 12 were not
sworn to and what is more, altho counsel for
appellants had them all the while, they were never presented to the two boys
for explanation during the trial.[3]
The flaws and defects in the testimonies of the principal
prosecution witnesses raised by appellants are too insubstantial to merit serious
consideration. The relationship of Balicat, Callo and Encarnacion Perdido to the
decedent does not necessarily vitiate their otherwise credible testimonies.[4] Balicat’s presence near the scene of the crime on the
morning of June 28, 1963 is established not only by his testimony in court but
also by his sworn affidavit and the statement (Exh.
11) taken by appellants’ counsel. Salmazan’s statement that Balicat
told him about the chasing of the decedent by the appellants is hearsay to
prove the chasing but as Balicat himself testified that he told the former about it,
that merely corroborates the fact that the two boys talked about the incident.[5]
However, Salmazan is himself an eye-witness to the
fact that appellants came from the place where the dead body of the decedent
was found. Appellants also cite a
portion of the testimony of the decedent’s widow showing that it was stormy and
rainy in the morning of June 28, 1963
but they have conveniently omitted her succeeding statement denying that it was raining hard that morning.[6] Lastly, we can draw no suspicious inference
from the fact that Quirino Callo
did not immediately denounce appellants before the authorities on June 28, 1963 since
he did not actually see them
kill the victim but only saw them 300
meters away from the scene of
the crime.
The alibi set up by appellants Fausto and Gregorio is not convincing. Altho they claimed
that in the early morning of June 28,
1963 they were still in Dugo, Cagayan, 70 kms. away, they have failed to prove that
it was physically impossible for them to have been at the scene of the crime.[7]
It was not impossible for them to have gone back to Barrio Santor
on the evening of June 27 since
they had nothing more to do in Dugo, assuming they
really went there. In fact, two
witnesses saw them in Barrio Santor that very evening
– policeman Mangligot while patrolling there, and Fausto’s own wife who said on direct examination that he
slept at home on the night of June 27, 1963.[8]
The only non-relative who would corroborate the alibi of Fausto and Gregorio is Francisco Salvador who testified
that in the morning of June 28, 1963
he saw the two with their father, Ignacio, in the motorboat while crossing the Cagayan River. This cannot overcome the positive identification
made by the three prosecution witnesses who had no evil motive against the
appellants. Salvador’s
testimony is comparatively weak since it does not appear that he conversed at all with Fausto
and Gregorio. Moreover, it is highly improbable that Salvador
could still remember Ignacio Constantino whom he met two years before, while on a hectic campaign trail, at night, and
for a very short time only.
Marcelo’s uncorroborated alibi
cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the
prosecution witnesses for stronger reasons since on the morning of June 28, he
was at home in Barrio Santor, not more than 2 kms. away from the scene of the crime. He was too near to altogether preclude his
guilt.
Hilarion admits having killed the
decedent but insists that it was in self-defense only. According to him, while attending a benefit
dance in Barrio Santor sometime in June, 1963 but the exact date of which he could not place, he had an
altercation with the decedent wherein he knocked down the latter. The decedent then threatened to kill him and
in the early morning of June 28, 1963, while he was alone mending the gaps in their rice paddies, the decedent came, stabbed him suddenly, hitting
him below the right elbow, and then chased him to the creek. But there, he was able to hold the decedent’s
hand and then stabbed the latter successively on the left side. This plea of self-defense is belied and negatived, however, by a number of reasons. First, is the nature, number
and location of the decedent’s wounds.[9] Hilarion’s version cannot explain the three
wounds at the back and the other wound in the neck – directed
downwards – of the decedent. The medico
legal officer moreover stated that more than one weapon was used. Secondly, the alleged bolo used by the decedent
was not presented nor was its non-presentation explained.[10] Third, Hilarion’s
silence and failure to immediately report to the authorities the alleged attack
upon him by the decedent shows that he was not really innocent.[11] Had he done so, he could have easily shown
to them the wound allegedly inflicted by the decedent which must still have
been fresh by then.[12] He had ample opportunity to do so in the
investigation conducted on June 30, 1963. Lastly,
the decedent had no motive to assault him.
For, contrary to Hilarion’s claim, no benefit
dance was held in Barrio Santor in the month of June,
1963, as established by Police Chief Damaso Dumlao who keeps a record of all the permits therefor, and Barrio Lieutenant de la Cruz. The supposed altercation between Hilarion and the decedent thus appears to be a mere
fabrication.
Appellants next assail
the imposition by the lower court of a uniform penalty for all of them in the
absence of direct proof of conspiracy.
There were however sufficient facts and circumstances which impliedly
showed conspiracy.[13] In this connection, We deem it sufficient to
quote from the decision of the trial judge:
“As a whole, the circumstances that the accused with bolos
chased Carlino Perdido,
that afterwards they returned walking with Hilarion Constantino and Fausto Constantino holding their bolos with bloodstains while
Marcelo and Gregorio Constantino had their bolos
tucked at their waists; that the body of Carlino Perdido was found later on in the place where these accused
came from; that the bolos, Exhibits B and F,
with bloodstains were found in
the homes of Hilarion and Gregorio Constantino, respectively; that Marcelo Constantino
made the threats on the night of June 27, 1963 to Carlino Perdido and that the
calendar sheet, Exhibit G, with bloodstains, was found in the house of Gregorio
Constantino, all these point conclusively, to the
participation of the accused in the death of Carlino Perdido and show their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“The motive on the part of the accused to kill Carlino Perdido is because they
wanted to avenge on Carlino Perdido
the death of their kin, Sabas Constantino,
who was allegedly killed by Inocencio Romaguera, a brother-in-law of Carlino
Perdido. They
suspected that the disappearance of Inocencio Romaguera was made so by Carlino Perdido, thus Marcelo Constantino
threatened Carlino Perdido
to produce the body of Inocencio Romaguera
otherwise he would be liquidated.”
The last error alleged is the failure of the lower court to
appreciate certain mitigating circumstances in favor of appellants. Again, We see no error. Incomplete self-defense and unlawful
provocation by the decedent can not be considered in Hilarion’s
favor since his version of the decedent’s aggression is pure fabrication. There is neither passion and obfuscation nor
proximate vindication of a grave offense since the killing of the decedent was
four days after the stabbing of appellants’ kin.[14]
Moreover, it is doubtful if vengeance can be considered as a lawful sentiment.
The trial court correctly sentenced the four appellants to life
imprisonment. The penalty for murder[15] is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death. Superior strength
properly qualifies the killing to murder.
For want of proof, treachery and evident premeditation must be brushed
aside. There being no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in the medium period, or life
imprisonment.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction is
affirmed in toto.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
People v. Villalba, L-17243, Aug. 23, 1966.
[2] See Records, pp. 15-16; Exh.
H (3) and Exh. K (5).
[3] See Sec. 16 of Rule 132, Rev. Rules of Court.
[4]
People v. Villalba, supra; People v.
Bautista, L-17772, Oct. 31, 1962; People v. Valera, L-15662, Aug. 30, 1962; People v. Asmawil,
L-18761, Mar. 31, 1965.
[5] People v. Arsi,
L-20986, Aug. 14, 1965.
[6] See TSN, Vol. I, p. 122.
[7] See People v. Linde,
L-10358, Jan. 28, 1961; People v. Argana,
L-19448, Feb. 28, 1964.
[8] TSN, Vol. I, p. 211.
[9] People v. Gonzales, 8 Phil. 442; People v. Gustahan, 47 Phil. 367; People v. Tolentino, 54 Phil. 77; People v. Cabajan, 56 Phil. 83; People v. Somera,
83 Phil. 548; People v. Salatambos, L-11283, May 29, 1959; People v. Santella,
L-16665-66, Apr. 23, 1962.
[10] People v. Tolentino,
supra; People v. Berio, 59 Phil. 533; People v. Ragsac, 61 Phil. 146;
People v. Lahisig,
L-12122, May 30, 1959.
[11] People v. Lacson,
83 Phil. 374; People v. Pulido, 85 Phil. 695; People v. Aporado, L-11076, May 29, 1959.
[12]
People v. Ramirez, 89 Phil. 304.
[13] People v. Mahlon,
92 Phil. 883; People v. Monadi, 97 Phil.
575; People v. Mitra, L-13339,
June
30, 1960.
[14] See People v. Aguinaldo,
92 Phil. 583.
[15] Art. 248, Rev. Penal Code.