G.R. No. L-14077. March 31, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TEODULO RIVERAL, JUAN ROMENA, SILVESTRE ADVINCULA, ALFREDO ROMENA AND FERMIN REDULME, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
BENGZON, C.J.:
Court of First Instance finding Teodulo Riveral and Juan Romena guilty
as principal, and Alfredo Romena, Silvestre Advincula and Fermin
Redulme guilty as accomplices, of the crime of murder.
The case began with an information charging that said defendants had
unlawfully shot and killed Vitaliano Argel on October 28, 1951, in San
Vicente, Ilocos Sur.
Upon arraignment, all of them pleaded not guilty. But after hearing
the evidence, the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction,
sentencing the principals to Reclusion Perpetua, and to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Vitaliano Argel, in the
sum of P3,000.00 etc., and sentencing Alfredo Romena, Silvestre
Advincula and Fermin Redulme, as accomplices, to an indeterminate
penalty of six years and one day of Prision Mayor as minimum, to twelve
years and one day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, plus the
accessories of the law, etc.
Facts.—We have carefully reviewed the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, Daniel Baltazar and Petronio Rigunay, the
principal evidence on which appellants’ conviction rested. Their
narration, tallying on the essentials, appears to be coherent and
convincing. According to them, at about 4:00 in the afternoon of
October 28, 1951, with Petronio Rigunay at the wheel, Daniel Baltazar
and Vitaliano Argel went in a Jeep to campaign in Barrio Ermita, San
Vicente; that Rigunay was candidate for mayor; that on their way to
Ermita, they passed by the houses of accused Teodulo Riveral, Juan
Romena and Silvestro Advincula in Barrio San Sebastian; that Teodulo
Riveral and Juan Romena were at the time in their front yards, while
Silvestre Advincula was in his own house looking out of the window;
that on their return, the trio were seated exactly as they were on
their way to Ermita; that as they approached the isolated section of
the barrio road, near the place where it forked with another road to
Bo. Mindoro, they saw the accused Teodulo Riveral and Juan Romena both
armed with a carbine and a pistol respectively, standing a few meters
from the junction; that after they had passed said armed men, with
their jeep running slow (because of the bad condition of the road),
successive gun reports fell upon their ears; that as Petronio looked
back, he saw Teodulo Riveral who had a carbine and Juan Romena, Alfredo
Romena, Fermin Redulme and Silvestre Advincula, all armed firing at
them; that as Petronio stepped on the accelerator, additional shots
came from the direction of the gun holders; that because Petronio lost
control, the vehicle swerved to the right side of the road and fell
into a ditch; that Daniel and Vitaliano Argel sought cover from the
rain of bullets; that Vitaliano was fatally hit; that when the jeep
fell into the ditch, Petronio Rigunay and Daniel Baltazar jumped
therefrom, sought cover behind the jeep and observed the five armed
accused who continued firing at them; that even as the five accused
kept firing at them, Petronio Rigunay dropped into the canal and
followed its course northwards; that after quite a distance, he got out
and, zigzagging he ran to his house; that Daniel likewise managed to
escape unhurt.
Defense of alibi.—As is ordinarily the case, the defendants
pretended they were somewhere else when the shooting took place. Their
evidence tended to establish different alibis, namely,
Silvestre Advincula: At 3:30 o’clock that afternoon of
October 28, 1951, he and his children left Barrio San Sebastian for
Vigan where his children were studying. They arrived in Vigan at about
4:00 o’clock in a calesa. There he waited for his wife who had gone to
Narvacan with her niece to attend a novena. His wife and niece arrived
in Vigan at about 5:00 o’clock, and together, they all returned to Bo.
San Sebastian in a calesa.
Urbano Riduca, a neighbor of Silvestre Advincula, corroborates the
latter’s story that he rode a calesa for Vigan about 3:30 that
afternoon. Urbano even gave Advincula P1.00 to buy some batteries for
him. It was after Advincula had left with his children that Riduca
heard the loud reports followed by successive gun shots.
Florencio Ribianes, another neighbor of Silvestre Advincula, also
said that he saw the latter in a calesa with his children; he saw
Urbano Riduca give Silvestre P1.00 for batteries.
Alfredo Romena: In the afternoon in question, he played
mahjong continuously from 1:00 o’clock until about 5:30 p.m. with his
aunt Catalina Ruaro, his sister Magdalena Romena, and Marina Rubianes.
At about 5:30 p.m., they saw Eusebio Redulme walking a little bit fast
by their place. Said Eusebio informed them that something had happened
(the shooting). Magdalena Romena and Catalina Ruaro corroborate
Alfredo’s alibi.
Fermin Redulme; He had been a permanent resident
of San Narciso, Zambales since 1946 and returned only to Bo. San
Sebastian, on the morning of October 28, 1951, aboard a freight truck
up to Narvacan. From the latter place (Narvacan), he took a jeep to
Vigan where he ate his lunch. Thereafter, he boarded a calesa for Bo.
San Sebastian. On his way (and while passing Bo. San Vicente), he saw
Gregorio Reyes who informed him of a political meeting at San Sebastian
that afternoon. Upon reaching San Sebastian, he unloaded his valise in
the house of his cousin, Florencia Redulme, and from there proceeded to
the house where his sick mother was staying. While in the said house,
Gregorio Reyes, with Gorgonio Rosal and Teodoro Navarrete came in a
jeep which took them to the political meeting place. While still on
their way, they heard gun reports about 4:00 o’clock that afternoon of
October 28, 1951. They all went down from the jeep upon reaching their
place of meeting. And there, they saw Placida Diego pass by, telling
them that VitaIiano Argel was dead. He also saw Petronio Rigunay and
Daniel Baltazar running one after the other to the gates of their
respective houses which were adjacent to each other.
Gregorio Reyes and Gorgonio Rosal corroborate this story.
Juan Romena: He spent the whole morning of October 28, 1951
taking passengers in his calesa in Vigan. At noontime, he went home to
San Sebastian. At about 4:00 p.m. he dressed up to attend the political
meeting for their candidate Fermin Tabanda in front of the barrio
chapel (in San Sebastian). While thus dressing up, be heard a gun
report followed by other gun reports. Immediately, he and his wife
looked out of their window and saw Eusebio Redulme pass along the road.
Later they saw, coming from the opposite direction, Petronio Rigunay
who was running and firing his revolver into the air. Not long
afterwards, they saw, also coming from the same direction, Daniel
Baltazar following Rigunay. Because of the excitement, Juan and Eusebio
Redulme went into his yard, and they talked.
Eusebio Redulme supported Juan Romena’s story. He even stated that
when Petronio Rigunay met him (Eusebio), Petronio stated, “Please
Sonny, if someone is pursuing me, stop him.”
Teodulo Riveral: At about 11:00 a.m. on October 28, 1951, he
went to San Vicente to request Mayor Fermin Tabanda to get him a
recommendation for employment from Congressman Floro Crisologo. He did
not find Mayor Tabanda. Instead, he met Carlos Rillanos who, upon his
invitation, accompanied him (Riveral) to the house of Congressman
Crisologo, where they lunched. As the latter was leaving for a meeting
in the town of Cabugao, he told Riveral to just wait in the house until
his return so that they could attend together the meeting in San
Sebastian that afternoon. At about 4:00 p.m., he saw Restituto
Reclusador and Gregorio Ridor in the Congressman’s house. As he
(Riveral) could no longer wait for the Congressman, he and Rillanos
left for San Vicente aboard a calesa. From the poblacion, he walked to
his barrio, arriving at his place about dusk. On arrival, his wife
informed him that Vitaliano Argel had been killed. At once, he went to
Segundino Lucero, a neighbor, to inquire for more details about the
incident.
Gregorio Ridor and Restituto Reclusado corroborate Teodulo Riveral’s alibi.
Motive.—The evidence established the motives of appellants in
committing the crime. Acute political rivalry was the principal cause.
Petronio Rigunay was then the opponent of Fermin Tabanda, for the
office of mayor of San Vicente, Ilocos Sur. And all the herein accused
were the leaders and staunch supporters of Tabanda. The election was a
few days off. Moreover, the accused Teodulo Riveral is related to Juan
Romena by affinity, and the latter (Juan Romena) is a relative of the
accused Alfredo Romena. A brother of defendant Alfredo Romena, one
Mariano Eomena had allegedly been killed by a brother of Petronio
Rigunay, (Tomas Rigunay). The son of the accused Fermin Redulme had
been allegedly shot at (but missed) by a brother of Petronio Rigunay,
The contention that as the prosecution witnesses were affiliated
with the political party opposing that of the accused, their
testimonies had to be biased and partisan has no merit, considering
that the said witnesses immediately after the commission of
the crime reported the incident to the Constabulary and in the
extra-judicial declaration taken by the P. C. on the next day, they
candidly pointed to all the appellants as the assassins.
Considering that the attack occurred in the barrio of San Sebastian
where his opponent was scheduled to hold a meeting, it is very likely,
as stated, that Rigunay’s death was motivated by violent partisan
feeling, the accused here being followers of said opponent.
Comment on alibi.—It is trite, but true, that alibi as
defense is weak, where the prosecution witnesses positively identify
the accused. And in this case, this Court also observes:
As to accused Teodulo Riveral: His witnesses Gregorio Ridor and
Restitute Reclusado tried to corroborate his alibi by fixing 4:00 p.m.
as the time when they met him in the house of Congressman Crisologo at
Vigan. But Vigan is only about seven kilometers from the scene of the
crime, which was accessible by motor car. So it is not impossible for
the said accused to be at Vigan at 4:00 p.m. and yet be at the place of
the ambush at about 4:30 p.m.
As to accused Juan Romena and Alfredo Romena: Their houses were
barely 200 or 300 meters away from the place of ambush. They could have
easily gone there.
As to accused Silvestre Advincula: He is a close neighbor of all the accused.
As to accused Fermin Redulme: Being allegedly a resident of
Zambales, it was rather unusual that ho should be in San Vicente on the
afternoon of the ambush. His alibi is corroborated by the testimony of
political affiliates which should be received with some reservation. He
himself admits he was near the place when the shooting occurred.
In other words, all of the accused could have been at the fatal sitio
at the moment of assassination. So it is not improbable that, as the
prosecution showed, all of them took part in the ambush.
With respect to the contention that mere presence at the scene of
the crime is not sufficient to prove complicity in the execution
thereof, it must be observed that this crime was committed in an
isolated part of the barrio road from San Sebastian to Ermita, with
trees, shrubs and thick bamboo clumps shrouding the place. Appellants
were seen at the intersection of the road, armed, ready and waiting for
their prey. It is highly improbable that accused Silvestre Advincula,
Fermin Redulme and Alfredo Romena were with the said appellants,
Teodudo Riveral and Juan Romena, without being aware of the criminal
intention of the latter. Their presence there with the armed men
evinced culpable association which crystallized into action when they
fired at Petronio Rigunay, Vitaliano Argel and Daniel Baltazar. That
way, Fermin, Silvestre and Alfredo participated in the ambush by
simultaneous acts. They helped in the commission of the offense not
only by way of moral aid but also through material assistance.
However, lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, that creates the
doubt whether they had acted as principals or accomplices in the
perpetration of the offense, impels, this Court to resolve in their
favor the question, by holding like the court below, that they were
guilty of the “milder form of responsibility” [1]; i.e., guilty as mere accomplices.
WHEREFORE, there being no question as to the penalty to be imposed
upon the offenses thug committed by these accused-appellants, we
hereby, as we must, affirm the appealed decision in toto, with costs.
SO ORDER.
Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla J., took no part.
[1] People vs. Tamayo, 44
Phil. 38.People vs. Bantagan, 64 Phil. 834. People vs. Tangbaoan, et
al. G.R. No. L-5113, Aug. 31, 1953.