PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMON LAGUERTA AND RANIE LAGUERTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Antonio Hilis (or hereafter Hilis), an able bodied laborer, was slain at 7:30 in the morning of July 9, 1992 in Brgy. Incarizan, Magallanes, Sorsogon.  The cause of his death was attributed to “Hypovolomic Shock secondary to Multiple Hack Wound”, and which wounds were listed and described as follows:

External Finding:

1. Hacking wound left face from the nose extending to the left anterior auricular area 12 cm., length bone depth.
2. Hacking wound left frontal area extending to the postero temporal area 13 cm., length bone depth with left temporo parietal fracture.
3. Incised wound right neck 10 cm., length subcutaneous depth.
4. Hacking wound right neck 10 cm., length subcutaneous depth.
5. Incised wound 20 cm., length skin depth anterior left chest.
6. Incised wound 18 cm., length muscle depth right lower quadrant, muscle depth.
7. Hacking wound left back (paravertebral) area 10 cm., length  muscle depth.
8. Hacking wound 18 cm., length left paravertobral extending to the right lower paravertobral area muscle depth, fracture of the vertebrae level of T8 with penetraring wound left lung cavity.
9. Hacking wound 15 cm., length transverse lumbar area  level  of L4  muscle depth  with fracture  of the  lumbar vertebrae.  (Exh. “A”, p. 4, record)

Though still in extremis when being brought to town, Hilis was soon dead.

Made to answer for the slaying of Hilis, the brothers Ramon Laguerta y Escober (or Ramon) and Ranie Laguerta y Escober (or Ranie) were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon with Murder, defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That on or about the 9th day of July, 1992 at about 7:30 o’clock in the morning at Barangay Incarizan, Municipality of Magallanes, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and with the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-meditation, conspiring, and mutually helping one another, armed with boloes, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, attack, assault and hack one Antonio Hilis, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds on the different parts of his body, which caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal heirs.

Contrary to law. (Information, p. 31, record)

Both accused pleaded Not Guilty.  At the pre-trial conference nothing appreciable was stipulated, and trial ensued.

The prosecution presented the following: the eyewitnesses  Tomas Deuda, Jose Llamado, and Gary Deuda, Prov. Health Officer I Dr. Wilhelmo Abrantes, Cynthia Dizon, the victim’s mother Marina Hilis, Brgy. Capt. Winefreda del Rosario, government employees Alfredo Bausa and Brenda Lee, kagawad Fernando Laguerta, and police investigator SPO4 Rodrigo Rambacal and Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G” and “H”.

Tomas Deuda, Jose Llamado and Gary Deuda corroborated in giving eyewitness accounts of the incident.  On July 9, 1992, at about 7:30 in the morning, they together with Hilis, Antonio Buban and Wilfrando Lacosta were extracting the meat from coconuts for kiln drying in the farm of Tomas Deuda at Incarisan, Magallanes, Sorsogon.  The brothers Ramon and Ranie arrived holding bolos and went after Hilis who tried to run.  Ranie blocked his way and Ramon caught up with him and hacked Hilis on the back with his bolo.  Ranie also hacked him on the back.  Hilis fell on his knees and Ramon hacked him on the head.  Hilis rolled on the ground moaning while Ramon and Ranie kept on hacking him.  Ramon and Ranie then ran towards the barangay proper, while those who were there arranged for Hilis to be brought to a hospital and report the incident to the authorities.

Hilis was already dead when brought before Dr. Wilhelmo Abrantes, the Provincial Health Officer I.  An autopsy was conducted, the result of which are stated in the Medical and Death Certificates (Exhs. “A” & “G”).

Fernando Laguerta, a kagawad, said that minutes after the incident Ramon surrendered his person and bolo (Exh. “C”)  to him, and he took him to SPO4 Rodrigo Rambacal who in turn brought this accused into police custody.  The bolo was kept and identified in court by Alfredo Bausa and Brenda Lee.  Marina Hilis testified on the civil claims for her slain son who was survived by two children with his common-law wife Gina, who has since left.

Brgy. Capt. Winefreda del Rosario testified that a day before the incident, Adela the wife of Ramon complained that Hilis had filled with stones the well from which they were drawing their drinking water.  She had called them for a conference on that fateful day.  The incident is reflected in the barangay logbook (Exhs. “H”).

Ramon claimed self-defense, while Ranie set  up denial and alibi.  Ramon testified on the events and his wife Adela told of the prelude.  Ranie testified on his separate defense where he was corroborated by his wife Maritess and their neighbor Pedro Balala.   They presented Exhibits “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, and “6”.

Adela Laguerta testified that the day before the incident she and her daughter saw Hilis fill with big stones the well from where they drew their water.  She reported this to Brgy. Capt. Winefreda del Rosario who scheduled them for a conference and sent representatives to see the place, and they confirmed that her report was true.  Later she had a chance to talk to Hilis about this, but he got angry and threatened her by unsheathing half-way his bolo.

Accused Ramon Laguerta testified that in the morning of July 9, 1992 he was to fetch water and to take a bath in the well on the land administered by Tomas Deuda, but he was told by his daughter not to go there anymore because Hilis had filled the well with stones.  Nonetheless he went there to verify, and found this true.  So he left to return home and to report the matter to the Barangay Captain when going downhill he met Hilis and asked him why he did it.  Hilis was already holding a stone and he threw it at Ramon but missed because he ducked.  Seeing that Hilis was unsheathing his bolo and was half-way at it, Ramon pulled out his own bolo and hacked him. He continued hacking him and Hilis fell to the ground.  After that, Ramon surrendered to kagawad Fernando Laguerta together with the bolo, and he was brought to the police station at the poblacion of Magallanes and yielded by Fernando Laguerta to the police. He was then placed in a cell.

Ramon identified the affidavit (Exh. “5”) executed on January 28, 1994 by the wife of Hilis, Gina, attesting that she was not anymore interested in this case and acknowledging that the amount of P10,000.00 was given to her.  Although the widow was not anymore interested in pursuing the case, it was Tomas Deuda who was assiduous in its prosecution for reasons he does not know.  He denied the incriminating testimonies of Tomas Deuda, Jose Llamado and Gary Deuda.

Accused Ranie Laguerta, interposing the tandem defenses of denial and alibi, said that he was not present when the incident happened as he was in his house together with Pedro Balala and Roberto del Rosario getting ready for a trip.  They were going to the mountain to make copra in the coconut plantation of Ramon Laguerta.  On their way they met Ramon who had a bolo in his hand and said he was going to surrender because he killed Hilis.  Because of that, they went home instead.  This was corroborated by his wife Marites and their neighbor Pedro Balala.

Weighing the versions and proofs submitted, the trial court found for the prosecution and rendered judgment disposing that:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the both accused Ramon Laguerta and Ranie Laguerta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder defined and penalized under Art. 248, par. 1 of Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences each to suffer the following penalty, to wit;

Accused RAMON LAGUERTA, there being a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and after applying the Indeterminate Sentence  Law, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment from Ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, to Seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal while accused RANIE LAGUERTA, there being no mitigating circumstance in his favor and the crime of murder being committed in conspiracy as alleged in the information, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA.

They are also sentenced to indemnify the heirs of Antonio Hilis in the mount of P50,000.00 in solidum and to pay the costs.

Considering that both of the accused are bonded, their bail bond are hereby cancelled and they are to be committed to the National Penitentiary.

SO ORDERED.  (Decision, pp. 508-509)

Both accused appealed, and in asking for a reversal assigned that the trial court committed the following reversible errors:

on the part of RAMON LAGUERTA:

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING AGAINST HIM THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CREDIT HIM THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS TO NATURALLY HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION AND COMMITTING THE ACT IN THE IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY.

on the part of RANIE LAGUERTA:

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONY OF TOMAS DEUDA, FINDING CERTAIN ESSENTIAL ASPECTS THEREOF AS FACTS WHEN THEY ARE NOT, AND IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS CORROBORATED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY JOSE LLAMADO AND GARY DEUDA WHEN IT WAS NOT, THUS LENDING THE SAME PROBATIVE VALUE IT DID NOT DESERVE, CONSEQUENTLY PRONOUNCING HIM EQUALLY GUILTY AS HIS CO-DEFENDANT.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IGNORING, DISCARDING, OR OTHERWISE DISMISSING, FACETS OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, THEIR IMPORT AND LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, AND PROBATIVE WORTH, ALL POINTING TO HIS INNOCENCE, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, TO A REASONABLE DOUBT ON HIS GUILT. (Appellants’ Brief, pp 49-50, rollo)

The fact and circumstances of the death of Hilis was not only clearly proven by the prosecution, but was also admitted by Ramon when he claimed self-defense.  One who invokes self-defense perforce admits the killing and the responsibility therefor.

Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying circumstance.  He must show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger. With clear and convincing evidence, all the following elements of self-defense must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense (Cabuslay vs. People, G. R. No. 129875, Sept. 30, 2005).

The uncorroborated testimony of Ramon failed by a long shot to convince that he killed Hilis only in self-defense.  Ramon naturally was in a bellicose mood for Hilis had the folly to cover with stones and dry up the well that was the only source of water of the family of Ramon.  Under the admitted circumstances, it is unlikely that it would be Hilis rather than Ramon who would be the aggressor and commence the fight.  It is improbable too that Hilis threw a stone but missed or that he tried but failed to complete unsheathing his bolo.  It could not be that Ramon was only reacting to his aggression but still cleanly beat him to it.  Ramon was unscathed, while Hilis suffered nine (9) grievous hack and incise wounds on his head, neck and torso.  The nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim belie the assertion of self-defense since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend. The number of wounds was established by the physical evidence, which is a mute manifestation of truth and ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence (People vs. Pateo, G. R. No. 156786, June 3, 2004).   The self-defense claimed by Ramon has to be rejected.

Likewise the tandem defenses of denial and alibi set up by Ranie, must also fail. Three (3) eyewitnesses testified on the presence and participation of Ranie in the felony, and it has not been shown that any of them had a motive to falsely implicate him in a grievous charge.  When there is no evidence indicating that the principal witness for the prosecution was moved by improper motive the presumption is that he was not so moved and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit (People vs. Roque, G. R. No. 138954, Nov. 25, 2004).

On the other hand the defenses proffered by Ranie are referred to ad nauseam as the weakest of defenses in criminal cases.  The well-established rule is that denial and alibi are self-serving negative evidence; they cannot prevail over the spontaneous, positive and credible testimonies of three (3) eyewitnesses who pointed to and identified Ranie as one of the two of the malefactors (People vs. Bulan,       G. R. No. 143404, June 8, 2005).  Alibi is a defense that places the defendant at the relevant time and in a place different from the commission of the crime, so removed therefrom as to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party. The accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, he must also convincingly demonstrate the physical impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the time of the incident (People vs. Macapal, G. R. No.155335, July 14, 2005).  On the contrary, Ranie and his witnesses placed him so proximate in time and place to the felony as to render the defense of alibi inutile.

Thus it was correctly found that Ramon and Ranie killed Hilis without justification.  But the trial court erred in finding them guilty of Murder as charged, and in the process wrongly applied the rules of graduation of penalties and the Indeterminate Sentence Law too.

The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure was promulgated by this Court and became effective on December 1, 2000.  Section 8 of Rule 110 requires that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances if they are to be appreciated (People vs. Ave, G. R. Nos. 137274-75, Oct. 18, 2002).  Going over the criminal Information, there is nothing in it which states any of the aggravating circumstances which would qualify the felony to Murder with the specificity required by the constitution or laws for the proper information of an accused.  For that matter, there is no specification either of even any of the ordinary aggravating circumstance.  Ramon and Ranie therefore can be convicted at most only of Homicide, but not of Murder.

WHEREFORE,  the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED but with these MODIFICATIONS:  (1)  the felony of which they are convicted is instead Homicide as defined and punished under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and (2) considering the absence of an  aggravating circumstance, they are meted indeterminate prison sentences as follows:  (a) for RAMON LAGUERTA, taking in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, a term ranging from Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day as maximum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day as minimum, and (b) for RANIE LAGUERTA, a term ranging from Fourteen (14) Years Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day as maximum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day as minimum.

SO ORDERED.

^*Lampas Peralta and Romilla-Lontok, JJ., concur.

---

^* Acting member per Office Order No. 154-06-RTR