PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF and APPELLEE, VS. ORLANDO TANIA ALIAS LORING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS and APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of
Cagayan against Orlando Tania, Ricardo Tania, Teofilo de la Cruz and
Servillano Mata, convicting them of the crime of robbery in band with
homicide and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 2:00 o’clock in
the early morning of August 15, 1959, while the spouses Gregorio Unida
and Petronila Taloza were sleeping with their five children in their
house at barrio Balza, municipality of Buguey, Cagayan province, they
were awakened by some people demanding that they open their door. Upon
being asked by Gregorio as to their identity, somebody among the group
answered, “Just open it if you want to live.” To make good this threat,
the malefactors inserted the muzzles of two guns into the holes of the
doorshutter. Feeling helpless and frightened, Gregorio opened the door.
Whereupon, Servillano Mata and Orlando Tania, armed with guns, and
Teofilo de la Cruz, holding a bolo, entered the house, while Ricardo
Tania, also carrying a long bolo, guarded the door. Aiming their guns
at Gregorio, Servillano Mata and Orlando Tania ordered him to lie down
face downward. bling with fear, Petronila called for help but she was
warned to keep quiet otherwise she would be killed. As Gregorio was
lying on the floor, Petronila asked the intruders whether they would
kill her husband but they said they would not, provided they were given
some money Petronila then told them to just search anything in the
house. They demanded for the place where the money was kept. Servillano
Mata, with a small flashlight on hand ransacked the trunk found in the
living room and took therefrom the sum of P60.00.

Hearing the screams of Petronila, Teofilo Unida, a neighbor and uncle
of Gregorio, went to the scene of the robbery but was driven away by
the malefactors. After Teofilo ‘had left, Gregorio’s father, Melecio
Unida, also came posthaste and reaching the upper rung of the stairway,
he was fired at five times by Orlando Tania. As a consequence, Melecio
fell, Petronila rushed to his father-in-law who then lay prostrate but
was still able to tell her that Loring Tania was the one who shot him.
After the shooting, the culprits speedily ran through the stairway and
escapedo The wounded Melecio who was in a serious condition was
afterwards taken by relatives and neighbors to the house of Dr.
Fortunato Tacuboy, Jr., in the poblacion of Buguey, where he expired
ten minutes after arrival.

The postmortem examination report
submitted by Dr. Tacuboy shows that Melecio Unida’s death was caused by
hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds found at the hypogastric region, at
the left lower third of thigh, at left knee, at the upper third of left
leg, and at the upper third of the right leg.

That same
morning, Gregorio went to the police department of Buguey. He reported
the incident to Chief of Police Mariano Foronda pointing to the accused
herein as the perpetrators of the crime. Gregorio’s wife also made the
same disclosure to the Chief of Police. The couple, however, were
advised not to divulge the information to anyone so as not to give the
assailants a chance to escape.

Gregorio Unida declared that subsequent to the date when he reported
the incident to the Chief of Police, he was investigated by Sgt.
Pastores and he told the latter that he knew the names of the robbers
but did not disclose them in view of an instruction by the Police Chief
to that effect. His affidavit about the incident was taken only on
August 25, 1959 after the burial of his father and the termination of
the novena prayers.

Chief of Police Foronda testified that
after receiving the report about the killing and robbery, he, with two
other members of the police force of Buguey went to barrio Balza, where
the crime took place, for an ocular inspection of the premises thereof.
He found four slugs in front of the house, four empty shells west of
the house and bloodstains. He was then told by Petronila Taloza that
the herein accused were the ones who committed the crime.

After the arrest of the accused, Foronda tried to investigate them but
they told him they would just testify in court. The Police Chief also
testified that despite the fact that he was told the names of the
malefactors, he did not place them in the police blotter to prevent
them from escaping.

The accused set up alibi as their
defense. The lower court has clearly summarized the evidence for each
of the accused, as follows:

“Defendant
Orlando Tania denied the charge imputed to him. Testifying in his
defense, he declared that on August 15, 1959, he was in Sinigpit,
Gonzaga, with his father, mother, brother Ricardo Tania and Alberto
Ponce. He commended to live in Sinigpit in 1958 when he occupied a
public land which he, his parents and brother cleared. According to
Orlando Tania, Sinigpit is accessible to the national road by a trail
and one has to cross several rivers and travel a distance of less than
10 kilometers before reaching the national road. He testified also that
he went to Buguey for the last time on August 9, 1959. On August 27,
1959, Sgt. Urbina with two members of the police force of Buguey went
to Sinigpit to confiscate his .22 caliber rifle. He was brought to the
PC detachment in Aparri with his brother Ricardo. On arriving at the PC
detachment, Sgt. Pastores told Sgt. Ursulum that he was one of the
robbers that entered the house of Gregorio Unida but on hearing what
Sgt. Pastores said, he denied having entered the house of Gregorio on
the night of August 15, 1959. When he was brought to Buguey, for
arraignment on September 9, 1959, his co-defendant Teofilo de la Cruz
told him that he heard Chiaf of Police Mariano Foronda instructing
Petronila Taloza to indicate him as one of the robbers that entered the
house of Gregorio Unida on August 15, 1959. He could not, however, give
any reason why Chief of Police Foronda implicated him in the robbery as
he said that his relation with the Chief of Police Foronda is cordial
and friendly. Defendant Orlando Tania testified also that he was born
in Dalaya Norte and has grown up in that place and that Dalaya Norte is
an adjoining barrio of Balza.

“Defendant Ricardo Tania
similarly denied the charge against him. Testifying in his behalf, he
said that on the night of August 15, 1959, he slept in their house at
Sinigpit, Gonzaga, where he began to live since he arrived from Manila
in April, 1958. On August 15, 1959, he woke up at 4:00 o’clock to cook
food. He slept in the annex of their house with Orlando Tania and
Alberto Ponce while his parents and sisters slept in the main building.
According to him, the barrio of Sinigpit, Gonzaga, Cagayan, is about 10
kilometers from the national road and one has to cross several rivers
before reaching the national road and from the national road to Balza,
the distance is 30 kilometers. On August 27, 1959, Sgt. Urbina and two
members of the police force of Buguey went to their house and took him
and his brother Orlando and the .22 caliber rifle licensed in the name
of Orlando, They went with Sgto Urbina and the two policemen as they
were threatened if they did not go with them. At night time, they slept
in the house of barrio lieutenant of Mag-rafil, Gonzaga, and, on the
following day, they took their breakfast in the house of Mayor Costales
of Buguey where they took their lunch. From the house of the Mayor,
they were brought to the PC detachment in Aparri where they were
investigated about the robbery in Balza, Buguey, but they denied having
gone to the house of Gregorio Unida. He denied also having had in his
possession any gun and that the .22 caliber rifle that Sgt. Urbina and
the two policemen of Buguey took from their house is licensed in the
name of his brother Orlando.

“Defendant Teofilo de la Cruz, testifying in his defense, declared that
on the night of August 14, 1959, he slept in his house in Dalaya Norte
with the members of his family. In the morning of August 15, 1959, he
was arrested and brought to the municipal building of Buguey because of
a charge against him for qualified theft. After he pleaded guilty, he
was sentenced to 7 days imprisonment and he was released after serving
the sentence. On August 24, 1959, he and Servillano Mata saw the Chief
of Police of Buguey. In fact, he went to the office of the Chief of
Police to find out why he was needed. On August 25, 1959, at about 2
o’clock in the afternoon, he and Servillano Mata were asked to line up
with 4 detainees, to G. R. No. L-18514 wit: Feliciano Arellano, Gil
Arellano, Ruben Arellano and Crisostomo Abella in front of the stairway
of the municipal building of Buguey. After they lined up, Chief of
Police Foronda called Petronila Taloza and another woman to identify
them but Petronila and her companion were not able to identify anyone
of them. Even then, he and Servillano Mata were asked to wait for the
Chief of Police. While he was waiting in the municipal building, he
overheard the Chief of Police tell Petronila Taloza to indicate him and
Servillano Mata as the companions of the Tania brothers who robbed the
house of Petronila. Then, Chief of Police Foronda, Petronila Taloza and
another woman went westward apparently proceeding to the house of Atty.
Agustin Re-ininajes or Judge Federico C. Labio of Buguey. As a motive
why the Chief of Police told Petronila Taloza to indicate him as one of
the robbers, he said thatChief of Police Foronda had a grudge against
him because Chief of Police Foronda once asked him to let his wife sign
a receipt of indebtedness in favor of Mrs. Talla but he did not comply
with the request. The testimony of the defendant Teofilo de la Cruz is
that he did not leave their house on the night of August 14, is
corroborated by his wife Eusebia Doniego.

“Defendant Servillano Mata denied also the charge imputed to him
testifying in his behalf, he said that on August 14, 1959, he was
arrested in Dalaya Norte by Placido Tabag and Pablo Taba-co. At the
time he was arrested, the policemen did not show to him a warrant of
arrest. He was brought to the house of David Rates where he saw Teofilo
de la Cruz and another policeman. He and Teofilo de la Cruz were
brought to Centro Buguey arriving in the municipal building at about
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. When he was arrested, Policeman Tabag
told him that the Chief of Police sent Policeman Tabag and Tabaco to
fetch him as the Chief of Police wanted to talk to him about his case
for frustrated murder. Whey they arrived in the municipal building,
they waited for the Chief of Police but they were not able to see the
Chief of Police so they passed the night in the municipal building. On
the following day between 7:00 o’clock and 8:00 o’clock in the morning,
they saw the Chief of Police whom they asked why they were called but
the Chief of Police advised them to wait on the same day, Teofilo de la
Cruz left for Aparri and he in turn went to the house of Eustaquio
Sala, At 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the Chief of Police arrived in
the municipal building. He ordered 4 detainees to line up with him and
Teofilo de la Cruz. When they have lined up, the Chief of Police asked
Petronila Taloza to identify among those who lined up the robbers that
entered their house but Petronila said that not one of them went to her
house to rob on the night of August 14, 1959, as according to
Petronila, she could not recognize anyone of the six persons that lined
up. Thereafter, the foujr detainees were returned to jail while he and
Teofilo de la Cruz safe on a bench found near the door of the office of
the Chief of Police. The two women fehora the Chief of Police asked to
identify the robbers among the six persons “entered the office of the
Chief of Police and Servillano Mata heard the Chief of Police instruct
Petronila to indicate two persons as the companions of the other two
whom they were going to take as the robbers that entered the house of
Petronila but Petronila said that she could not identify them. However,
the Chief of Police said that Petronila should not worry as he was
supporting her. Then the two women with the Chief of Police left and
proceeded westward. On the same afternoon of August 25, 1959,
Servillano Mata saw Mayor Felimon Costales investigating Benito Doniego
about the robbery but he was not able to know the result of the
investigation as he went home hurriedly. According to Servillano Mata,
he was charged with robbery by the Chief of Police as he was not able
to pay in full the amount he promised to give the Chief of Police in
connection with the case filed against Casimiro Pascua in 1953 which
was investigated by the Chief of Police jointly with Sgt. Eusebio
Pastores. In fact, when the Chief of Police tried to collect the
balance of P50.00, as he was only able to give P50.00, he said that he
could not pay that amount and the Chief of Police became angry and
insulted him. He said that he could not have committed the robbery at
the early dawn of August 14, 1959, as he was in his house.

The above exculpatory declarations were corroborated by other witnesses.

Marcela Doniego, mother of Orlando and Ricardo Tania confirmed the
declaration of her sons that they all slept in their house at Sinigpit,
Gonzaga, Cagayan, on the nights of August 14 and 15, 1959. As pointed
out by the Solicitor General, this witness, however, admitted that
their house in the barrio of Sinigpit is more or less temporary and
that their land in said barrio is hardly tillable. She admitted further
that their house in Dalaya Norte (a barrio contiguous to Balza where
the crime was committed) is made of strong materials—galvanized roofing
and wooden wall.

Another corroborating witness, Eusebia
Doniego, the wife of accused Teofilo de la Cruz, asserted that her
husband was asleep in their house at Dalaya Norte during the occurrence.

Feliciano and Gil Arellano, detention prisoners in the municipal jail
of Buguey, Cagayan, testified that they were among those made to line
up with the accused-appellants Servillano Mata and Teofilo de la Cruz
on August 25, 1959 and they heard Petronila Taloza and another woman
say that the culprits they were looking for were not among those who
formed the line. But these witnesses admitted on cross-examination that
they were together with Mata and de la Cruz in the municipal and
provincial jails, so that they must have been friends of the said
accused.

Placido Tabag, a policeman, stated that he accompanied the Chief of
Police to the scene of the crime but Gregorio Unida and Petronila
Taloza therein declared that they could rot identify the malefactors.
He admits, however, that it was not he himself, but the Chief of
Police, who interrogated the said inmates of the house about the crime.

Sgt. Pastores, a Philippine Constabulary soldier sent to assist the
police authorities in investigating the crime, declared that the son
and daughter-in-law of the deceased rare not able to tell him the names
of the assailants.

The lower court disbelieved the
narrations of the witnesses supporting the common defense of alibi in
view of the positive testimony made by Gregorio Unida and Petronila
Taloza that these four accused were the ones who broke into their house
in the early morning of August 15, 1959.

In this appeal, the
attorney for the defense impugns the judgment of conviction pointing
out to a number of errors committed by the lower court in its
appreciation of the evidence.

Appellants first of all
contends that the testimony of Dr. Tacuboy that the victim could not
longer talk coherently at the time he received the gunshot wounds
belies the claim of Petronila Taloza that her father-in-law was able Co
tell her who shot him. It should be remembered that the stricken man
was examined by said doctor some three or four hours already after he
received the wounds. The doctor’s testimony, therefore, which is a mere
opinion as to the ability of the victim to speak, would not
conclusively disprove Petronila’s statement.

Appellants also consider improbable for Petronila to have had the
courage to go near the victim and talk to him after he was shot, while
the latter’s own son Gregorio could not do so. Again, we do not agree
with the appellant, As aptly observed by the Solicitor General, it is
not easy to draw a hard and fast rule as to how a person would react
under such an unusual situation. While one might preserve his
equanimity and perform what is expected of him, others might get
frantic and powerless to move to the victim’s rescue.

Appellants next contend that it is not in accordance with human nature
to rob friends without the robbers concealing their identities. This
argument suffers from some inaccuracy o There is no clear showing that
the culprits were friends of the couple Gregorio and Petronila. And it
is to be noted that after being told by Petronila to just search
anything, and after asking her where the money was kept, the robbers
put out the light. In other words, the robbers later thought of
darkening the place to cover their identities, using only a flashlight
in locating the money that was kept inside the trunk.

Lastly, the accused
appellants state that it took the couple a long time before they
complained the matter to the authorities. This is not exactly true8 As
earlier stated, Gregorio Unida, that very day of the killing and
robbery, reported immediately to the Chief of Police but was, however,
admonished by the latter not to spread the information to prevent the
culprits from escaping. This must be the reason behind the testimony of
the two constabulary men that when they interviewed the son and
daughter-in-law of the deceased they did not mention the names of their
assailants.

The rule is well established that where the
issue in a case is the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts do
not generally disturb the findings of the trial court, the judge
thereof being in a much better position to decide the question, having
seen and heard the witnesses himself and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying, unless it is shown that it has overlooked certain
facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the
result of the case. (People vs. Berganio, et al., G. R. No, L-10121, December 29, 1960, and cases therein cited)

In conclusion, We are convinced of the guilt of the accused. As pointed
out by the Solicitor-General, we note further that the crime was
aggravated by the circumstances of dwelling, night time and band, and
there being no mitigating circumstance to offset them, the penalty
prescribed under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code—reclusion
perpetua to death—would be imposed in its maximum. For lack of the
sufficient votes for the imposition of the death penalty, however, We
are hereby affirming the decision appealed from in all respects.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.