THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LUCIANO GARCIOLA, ACCUSED AND APPELLANT.

According to the witnesses for the prosecution in the afternoon of
February 22, 1946 Carlos Cale was seen running towards the house of his
mother in Barrio Badiang, Jaro, Leyte. He was pursued by Gaudencio
Garciola and Pablo Garciola, who having found the door closed after
Carlos had entered, tried vainly to force it open, A few minutes later
the accused Luciano Garciola, the father of the Garciolas, arrived,
bolo in hand. Being a barrio lieutenant he ordered the fugitive to open
up saying “Carlos, beware I am a peace officer.” Upon hearing this, and
believing he would not be harmed, Carlos Cale opened and appeared at
the window. In a flash Luciano stabbed him on the right chest with his
bolo, inflicting a deep wound that penetrated the thoracic cavity.
Brought to the hospital without unnecessary delay, Carlos Cale died
five days later due to excessive internal hemorrhage.

In August, 1947 the prosecution presented its witnesses. For
reasons that do not appear, the accused began introducing his evidence
in February 1949. In the meantime Pablo Garciola died. The line of
defense then was that Pablo Garciola had wounded and killed Carlos Cale
under the following circumstances:

That day Carlos Cale while plowing on the field hit the post of
Simplicio Capatoy’s house. Gaudencio Garciola reprimanded him for it.
Resenting the interference, Cale picked a stick and hit Gaudencio on
the head. Pablo who was behind his brother, rallied to his aid and
stabbed Cale.

This unlikely version was rejected by the trial judge. It was
obviously an eleventh hour attempt at exculpation by “passing the buck”
to a dead man. It.was not shown that Capatoy’s connection with the
Garciolas called for such heated denunciation and defense as to cause
the loss of one man’s life. The stick was not even submitted in
evidence if only to lend plausibility to the retaliation story.

On the other hand the eyewitnesses (Marcela Juliano and Benita
Morfe) have no motive whatsoever falsely to attribute the death to
Luciano Garciola, who, by the way, is a relative of Benita. And this
defendants alibi turned out to be inadequate. His account was that on
February 22, 1946, he proceeded to the poblacion summoned as “barrio
teniente” by the municipal mayor for a meeting of barrio lieutenants,
and ate his meal in the house of Vedasto Samson returning home on the
next day. But Vedasto Samson did not testify to corroborate his story.
And he presented Exh. 1 supposedly the order of the mayor calling him
to the meeting. Yet the exhibit is dated February 20, 1949.

True there is in the stenographic notes a statement by defendants
counsel that the accused desisted from presenting Vedasto Samson, since
his testimony “would only be corroborative.” However such statement can
not take the place of declarations under oath made in court by the
witness himself, inasmuch as the other party is entitled to
cross-examine him.

The offense is murder, qualified by treachery as set out in the
amended information. The Solicitor-General points at two aggravating
circumstances to wit: taking advantage of public position and dwelling.
Probably defendant’s act in mentioning his office was a part of the
scheme to catch the victim unawares. It may therefore be considered as
imbibed in the element of treachery. Anyway there are not enough votes
to impose the capital punishment.

Therefore the appealed decision will be modified in the sense that
appellant shall be imprisoned for life. He shall indemnify the heirs in
the amount of 2,000 pesos fixed by the lower court. Furthermore he
shall pay costs in both instances. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Jugo, JJ., concur.