THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO ALBAPARA Y BORDEOS, CONRADO REYES Y BARTOLOME AND LUIS OBSUM Y JORDAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

A strike had been going on for some time at the Pier-Area, South
Harbor, Manila,
as a result of a labor dispute between the union and management of the Manila
Port Service.  In the course of several
attempts to settle the dispute, the Bureau of Customs took over the operation
of the arrastre service for the duration of the
emergency.  The striking unionists were
not satisfied, as only some of them were recalled and strike-breakers or
“scabs” were hired.  So the
strike continued.

At about 4:00 A.M. of July 8, 1963, four jeepneys
arrived in front of the Pier’s Gate 1, carrying “scabs”.  The “scabs” then entered thru the
gate.  Several minutes later, around 20
to 50 strikers arrived in front of Gate 1. 
Upon their order, the jeepneys left.  The strikers then congregated in front of the
gate.  This put on alert the 5 policemen
assigned to Gate 1 to maintain peace and order.^[1]

Another jeepney (Plate No. S-16002)
arrived, at 4:25 or 4:30 A.M., in front of Gate 1, with twelve male
passengers or “scabs”.^[2]
The strikers encircled the jeepney.  A few moments later, explosions in and around
the jeepney oc­curred.^[3]
As a result of the incident, two of the passengers, Edgardo
Ago and Encarnado Gonzales, were fatally wounded.^[4]
Another passenger, Eleuterio Ronquillo,
was seriously injured.  Passenger Ambrosio Malinis and the driver, Angelito Camia, also sustained
physical injuries.  All of them were
rushed immediately to the Philippine General Hospital.^[5]

The report^[6]
of the doctor showed that Ago had multi­ple extensive lacerations of the
right axilla and right chest; laceration of the right
axillary vessels, vena cava, collapsed; laceration of
the upper lobe of right lung; intrapulmonary hemorrhage of right lung; hemothorax, 400 cc. recovered blood, right; and that the
cause of death was shock and intrapulmonary hemorrhages due to blasting
injuries of chest and arm.

As to Gonzales, it stated:^[7]
Severe lacerations of left arm, amputated at PGH; extensive contused abrasions
on left chest; intrapulmonary hemorrhage of left lung; complete fracture of
left humerous and simple fracture of 3rd rib on left;
and that the cause of death was shock and intrapulmonary hemorrhage due to
blasting injuries of the chest, left arm, and fracture of humerus
and rib.

The report^[8]
on Ronquillo showed that he sustained:  Third degree burns, lateral aspect of right
thigh; abra­sion of right chest; fracture of femur, right lower third; and
stated that an operation was performed on him, including skin grafting, and
that his injuries required medical attendance of at least three months.

Regarding Malinis, the doctor
found^[9]
that he suf­fered multiple abrasions on the left upper arm, requir­ing medical
attendance of from 4 to 6 days.

And Camia, the driver, was
reported therein to have suffered a non-penetrating wound, caused by an
ice-pick, on the right suprascapular area and
right sub-axillary area, requiring medical attendance
of from 4 to 6 days.

After the explosions, the policemen on duty arrested on the spot
three of the strikers, namely, Rodolfo Albapara, Conrado Reyes and Luis ?????.^[10]
An information was later, on July 10,
1963, filed by the Fiscal against them, in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, for double murder with multiple frustrated murder.

At the trial, following the plea of not guilty of the defendants,
the prosecution called on five witnesses, i.e., three policemen
and two doctors.  The defense presented
nine witnesses, viz., the three accused and two witnesses each to
corroborate their respective testimony.

A decision was then rendered on July 7, 1965, finding the defendants guilty of double
murder with multiple frus­trated murder, and sentencing each of them to suffer reclu­sion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of each of
the deceased, jointly and severally, in the sum of P5,000.00, and to pay the
proportionate amount of the costs.

Appeal by defendants was taken directly to this Court.

The prosecution’s evidence, upheld by the Court a quo,
rests on the testimony of Patrolmen Segundo Marquez and Emmanuel Lalisa of the Manila Police Department.

Patrolman Marquez testified substantially as follows:

Five policemen, including him, and a sergeant, were assigned to
the strike area at the pier to maintain peace and order.^[11]
They were on night duty from 11 P.M.
of July 7, 1963 to 7:00 A.M. of July 8, 1963.  At
about 4:00 A.M. of July 8, 1963, while he was in front of
Gate 1, he noticed the sudden appearance therein of about 20 strikers who did
not carry any placard.^[12]
Shortly later, a passenger jeepney, plate No.
S-16002, with 12 male passengers, arrived in front of Gate 1.  At this time, he did not yet know the
driver’s name nor the names of the passengers, except the fact that they were
“scabs”.^[13]

As the “scabs” were alighting from the jeepney, six bombs exploded in and around the jeepney, 4 of them successively and the other 2 with
one-minute intervals.^[14]
The bombs exploded inside the jeepney and there were
still about 10 passengers inside.  The
others had already alight­ed and entered the gate.^[15]
The bombs which exploded in­side the jeepney came
from the strikers around the jeepney.

After the first bomb exploded, he was able to cover in front of
the jeepney.17
After that, he raised his head to see who threw the bomb and as he did so and
looked, he saw Obsum hurling one of the bombs inside
the jeepney.18
After covering from the next explosion, he picked up Obsum.19
Then he told the jeepney driver to take out the
jeepney.20
After the jeepney moved out of Gate 1, the accused
Rodolfo Albapara threw another bomb inside the jeep­ney, the sixth and last bomb.21

Patrolman Lalisa testified that:  He was one of the 5 policemen assigned to
Gate 1.  About 4:30 A.M. of July
8, 1963, there was a clash between the “scabs” and the
strikers of the Arrastre Service.22
In that clash the strikers threw bombs at the “scabs” inside the jeepney driven by Camia, parked
in front of Gate 1.23 Patrolman Marquez and he were then
at the back of the jeepney.24 Six bombs were thrown successively
inside the jeepney from the back.25
Reyes, he saw, threw the third bomb.26 And the jeepney
was then loaded with passengers, who scampered.27 Some were able to escape but the
others were badly injured, like Ago and Gonzales, who were taken to the
Philippine General Hospital and thereafter died.28 Also, he later learned that Camia, the driver, sustained a stab wound at the back.29

All the three accused, in testifying, denied having thrown any
bomb.

According to Obsum he, as picket
leader,30
merely approached the driver in the jeepney and told
him to leave.31
Then Patrolman Marquez came in front of the jeep and collared him.32
When he asked the policeman why he was being arrested, Marquez replied:  “Why are you starting, why are you
holding the jeepney back.”33
And he answered that they were on picket. 
An explosion then occurred in front on the outer right side of the
jeepney34
while he was being held on the collar by the patrolman, at the left (front)
side.  They both stooped low;35 a
se­cond explosion, inside the jeepney, followed.36
After­wards, Marquez stood up, and, the policeman still holding him, they
zigzagged towards the seawall, as more explosions came.37

On reaching near the seawall, Marquez nabbed Rodolfo Albapara, asking him: 
“You threw the bomb, did you not?”38
The policeman then marched the two of them towards the po­lice jeep which had
now arrived, and they were taken to Precinct 4 where they were detained and
their personal data taken.39

Said testimony of Obsum was
corroborated by that of defense witnesses Roseliano
Carrillo40
and Alejandro Masangke,41 his fellow strikers at the scene.

Albapara testified that on the day in
question he had been sleeping near the seawall since 1:00 or 2:00 A.M.42
At about 4:00 A.M. he was awakened by
sounds of explosion in front of Gate 1, some 10 arms length from where he was.43
Standing up, he took hold of the placard he was lying on to join the picket
line.  As he approached, he saw a jeep
making a turn and when it came near him, someone in it hurled a piece of wood
at him but missed.44 So he hit the jeep with the
placard he had.45
A policeman – Marquez – then grabbed him from behind.46
At this time, he saw Obsum being held by Marquez
already.  Obsum
and he were brought to the police jeep.47

Rosalina Go and Salvador Abacan,48 food and cigarette vendors,
respectively, in the pier area, corroborated Alba­para’s
testimony.

Finally, accused Conrado Reyes
testified that between 4:00 and 4:30 A.M., July 8, 1963, he and 20 others were going from their Union
building to Gate 1 of the pier to picket.49 A group of policemen, who were on
their way, or­dered them to line up and raise their hands.  Then they were searched from the armpit down
to the feet.50  After this, they were allowed to proceed.51

When they came to the picket line, a jeepney
loaded with passengers tried to break in, but they stopped it.52  As he was beside the jeep on the right, a
person alighted and struck him with a piece of wood but he blocked it with the
placard he was holding.53 And as he boxed the man in the
face, Patrolman Lalisa arrested him and brought him
out of the picket line towards the dockyard’s corner.54

On their way, Lalisa and he heard
successive explosions and they leaned against the side of the Dockyard Cafe.55
They were then about 8 to 10 full armslength from
where the explosions came.56 Afterwards, Lalisa
took him to the police jeep, following his explanation that he only boxed the
man because the latter hit him with a piece of wood.57

Corroborating Reyes’ testimony were Teodoro
Silverio58
and Jose Navarro, Navarro,59 fellow strikers of his.

The present case involves a question of identification.  Did each of the accused in fact throw one of
the six bombs that exploded and caused the death of Ago and Gonzales and
physical injuries of Ronquillo and Malinis?  Patrolman
Marquez positively testified to having seen the accused; Obsum
and Albapara, and Patrolman Lalisa,
the accused Reyes, each throw one of said bombs.  This accusation, as stated, is denied by the
accused, who ad­duced witnesses in support of their own version of the
occurrence.  The resolution of the
question depends, there­fore, on credibility.

And the rule, with few exceptions, in this regard, is that the
trial court’s judgment as to the credibility of witnesses should be accepted on
appeal.  Appellants contend the exception
obtains here.

Appellants thus argue that the testimonies of Patrol­men Marquez
and Lalisa not only did not corroborate each other,
but suffered too many contradictions to gain cre­dence, much less to convict
beyond reasonable doubt.

Specifically, appellants point out the following:  (1) Patrolman Marquez stated that of the six
explosions, four were inside the jeepney and two were
outside; Patrolman Lalisa said all six explosions
were inside the jeepney.  (2) Patrolman Marquez said he was in front of
the jeepney, to the left and Lalisa
was on the right side.  Patrolman Lalisa testified that Marquez and he were at the back of
the jeepney when the bombs were thrown.  (3) Patrolman Marquez attested that two of
the passengers had alighted from the jeepney when the
explosion started; Pa­trolman Lalisa observed that
none of them had alighted until after the first explosion.  (4) Patrolman Lalisa
saw heavy smoke come from inside the jeepney;
Patrolman Marquez made not mention of smoke. 
And (5) Patrolman Marquez allegedly testified that Reyes threw a bomb
after Obsum threw the first bomb; Patrolman Lalisa testified that several explosions inside the jeepney occurred before Reyes threw a bomb.

The discrepancies in the accounts of Patrolmen Mar­quez and Lalisa as to their relative positions and as to the precise
source of all the explosions are such in nature that do not impair their
credibility.  Considering the fast
occurrence of the events, it is not unusual for them to retain individual
impressions as to their relative positions when the explosions occurred.  And moreover, they were not observing each
other, but the strikers, as they were intent on determining who threw the
explosives or from where or whom the trouble was coming.  As to the source of the explosion, what
matters is that even in the midst of the rapidly transpiring events, the two
policemen are agreed that at least four of the explosions came from inside the jeepney.  The
foregoing certainly does not unfavorably affect their testimony that they saw
the accused, as aforementioned, throw one each of the bombs that exploded
inside the jeepney. 
Differences in details serve to enhance rather than destroy credibility
of wit­nesses.  They may not have seen
everything but definitely they have seen the facts they have testified to.

The same is true as to the point of whether two pas­sengers had
alighted before the explosions started. 
This in no way renders the substance of their testimony unwor­thy of
belief or reasonably doubtful.  Such
unimportant differences are to be expected in the nature of observing abnormal
situations in rapid sequence.

Regarding the existence of smoke, there was no
contradiction.  Simply because Marquez
did not mention it does not amount to his saying, even impliedly, that there
was none.

And the last alleged contradiction is not supported by the
record; Patrolman Marquez testified that Obsum threw
the fourth (not the first) bomb;60 he did not claim having seen Reyes
throw a bomb; so his testimony does not go against Patrolman Lalisa’s statement that several ex­plosions had occurred
before Reyes threw a bomb.

Appellants would also discredit Patrolman Marquez’s testimony for
self-contradictions.  This patrolman, it
is argued, described that Obsum swung his hand, but
later said he did not swing it but “put it inside” the jeepney.  And still
later he said that by “it” he meant “something”, not the
hand.  And that he went on to say that he
saw Obsum throw something, not holding it, out
later he said he was holding it.61 The record shows, however, that Pa­trolman
Marquez testified that he saw Obsum throw something
inside the jeepney that immediately exploded therein;
that he saw an object come out from Obsum’s hand
towards the jeepney.62 The substance of the testimony is
clear:  he saw Obsum
throw something inside the jeepney.  A split-second thereafter something exploded
inside the jeepney. 
And thereupon he seized Obsum.  As to the con­tention that Patrolman Marquez
said the object thrown was a firecracker, the record shows that he said its
explosion sounded like that of a bawang
firecrackers;63 he did say not it was a
firecracker.

Patrolman Marquez, it is also claimed, indulged in inconsistency
as to Albapara; first, he said he saw Albapara throw a bomb inside the jeepney
after the jeepney was moved out of Gate 1;64
on cross-examination, he said it was while the jeepney
was moving out of the pier.65

The point is a matter of semantics – the difference bet­ween
“was moved out” and “was moving out” – and at most refers to a
minor detail not destructive of the import of the testimony.

Appellants further argue that it was physically impossible for
anyone outside to throw a bomb inside, as the jeepney
was fully packed with twelve passengers, thereby leaving no space for the bomb
to pass thru.  As testified to by
Patrolman Marquez, however, some of the passen­gers had already alighted from
the jeepney when the explo­sions started.66

Also, it is contended that the bombs could not have come from the
strikers because they were frisked before entering the pier area.  This is not true of them all.  For Obsum himself
testified that on that occasion he was not frisked when he entered the area.67

Contrary to the claim that accused were not arrested for having
thrown bombs, even Obsum stated, as noted earlier,
that Patrolman Marquez asked Albapara, upon arrest­ing
him, why he threw the bomb.

And, finally, the aforesaid prosecution witnesses had no reason
to falsely impute on the defendants the commission of so grave an offense as
murder.

No evidence, however points to any of the accused as responsible
for the stabbing of driver Camia with an
ice-pick.  As to frustrated murder of Camia, therefore, defendants should be acquitted.

The penalty for double murder and frustrated multiple murder (on Ronquillo and Malinis), should be
death, since the penalty for murder of reclusion temporal maximum
to death, in a complex crime such as this, is to be imposed in its
maximum.  For lack, however, or the
necessary majority of eight votes to impose the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is imposed.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified to
acquit defendants-appellants of frustrated murder of Camia,
in all other respects, it is affirmed. 
No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
TSN., 2-A – 4.

^[2]
TSN., 5.

^[3]
TSN., 6; 118-120.

^[4]
TSN., 11.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Exh. A, Record, p. 165.

^[7] Exh. B, Record, p. 171.

^[8] Exh. C, Record, p. 176.

^[9] Exh. D, Record, p. 177.

^[10]
TSN., 35.

^[11] TSN.,
2-A.

^[12]
TSN., 2-A – 4.

^[13]
TSN., 5.

^[14]
TSN., 6.

^[15]
TSN., 7.

16 Ibid.

17 TSN., 8-9.

18 TSN., 8.

19 TSN., 10.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 TSN., 118.

23 TSN., 119.

24 TSN., 120.

25 Ibid.

26 TSN., 122, 128.

27 TSN., 123.

28 Ibid.

29 TSN., 124.

30 TSN., 161.

31 TSN., 166.

32 Ibid.

33 TSN., 166.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 TSN., 166-167.

38 TSN., 167.

39 Ibid.

40 TSN., 174-178.

41 TSN., 201-203.

42 TSN., 207.

43 TSN., 208.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 TSN., 204-206.

49 TSN., 196.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 TSN., 197.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 TSN., 198.

58 TSN., 183-187.

59 TSN., 191-193.

60 TSN., 92.

61 TSN., 60-61.

62 TSN., 63.

63 TSN., 30, 50.

64 TSN., 10.

65 TSN., 54.

66 TSN., 7.

67 TSN., 163.