PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN AYONAYON AND GASPAR ACERADOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Sur, Hon. Felix Q. Antonio, presiding, finding Juan Ayonayon
arid Gaspar Acerador guilty of murder, for killing of Florentino Lazo
and Jose Lazo and, frustrated murder, for the wounding of Genoveva
Lazo, and sentencing each of them to death for the crime of murder, and
to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years of prision mayor as
minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal
as maximum, for the frustrated murder, with the proper indemnities and
the accessories of the law, and to pay each his proportional part of
the costs.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that on August 5, 1959, while
Florentino Lazo and members of his family, namely, his wife, Juana
Resuello, his children, Jose Lazo, 25 years, Pergentino Lazo, 17 years,
Genoveva Lazo, 21 years, Samuel Lazo, 7 years, and Juan Lazo, 12 years,
were taking their supper around a low table in the bamboo kitchen of
their house at barrio Namalpalan, Municipality of Magsingal, Ilocos
Sur, their two dogs suddenly started barking and running to and fro,
below and near the house. Genoveva Lazo called the attention of her
father to the unusual behavior of the dogs and commented that there
must be some persons on the ground. So she stood up and peeped thru the
window of the kitchen and saw a man dressed in dark green fatigue
clothes, standing on the ground on the opposite end of the kitchen,
peeping at the southwestern part thereof in a semi-stooping position,
with his gun pointed thru the corner of the kitchen. The kitchen door
was about lour feet eight inches from the ground. The wall of the
kitchen was made of bamboo split and flattened as in “sawali”. She
heard a burst of gunfire (parac-pac-pac) and she felt that she was hit
on her left shoulder. She fell to the floor of the kitchen wounded, and
lying flat on the floor hid herself near the stove.

With the first burst of the gunfire Jose Lazo was also hit and he
fell dead on the floor of the kitchen. Pergentino Lazo, upon observing
the gunfire and what had happened to his brother and sister, he
promptly ran away from the kitchen, crossing the batalan that
separated the kitchen from the sala, and to the sala towards a side
beside a wardrobe. Here, behind the wardrobe, he hid himself. From this
position,, behind the wardrobe, he heard gunfire from the batalan
near the stairs of the house, and as he directed his eyes to the place
where the gunfire came from, he saw through the opening of the window
just above the stairs, the accused Juan Ayonayon and his companion, the
other accused Gaspar Acerador. From the top of the stairs, the accused
fired at his father who had run to the sala, but who fell down on the
other side opposite the wardrobe.

Juana Resuello, got her two minor sons in her arms, Juan and Samuel,
and tried to run away from the kitchen also. It so happened, however,
that her husband Florentino was already ahead of her and was already
crossing the batalan that separated the kitchen from the sala, running to escape from the gunfire.

As she was about to cross the batalan to the sala, she saw
towards the left the two accused Juan Ayonayon and Gaspar Acerador. At
that time, Ayonayon was already on top of the stairs, while his
companion was on the last rung of the stairs.

The prosecution also proved that, that same evening, upon receipt of
news of the murders in the barrio of Namalpalan, a group of
Constabulary soldiers stationed in the poblacion, together with the
municipal health officer and others, went to the scene of the murders.
The soldiers found .30-caliber empty shells on the ground near the
kitchen, also on the batalan above the stairs. They also found
that the walls of the kitchen and a wall of the sala was pierced by
bullet holes. The dead body of Florentino Lazo was found lying on the
floor of the sala, and that of Jose Lazo also in the kitchen, both of
them riddled with bullets. Genoveva Lazo was found near the stove.
Pergentino Lazo, upon being questioned by the Constabulary sergeant,
gave details of the incident, also already described by the witnesses
for the prosecution, and pointed to the two accused herein as the ones
responsible for the assault.

It is also shown that paraffin casts were taken of the hands of both
accused and the casts, upon examination in the National Bureau of
Investigation, had positive traces of nitrate.

Various slugs were extracted from the body of the deceased Jose Lazo
and another was also extracted from that of Genoveva Lazo, and these,
upon examination, were found to have been fired from a semi-automatic
or an automatic .30-caliber carbine, from the same gun firing the empty
shells.

It was further shown that upon learning who the assailants were, as
per information by Pergentino Lazo, two soldiers went to the house of
accused Gaspar Acerador. He was not in his house and as he was then
wearing undershirt and drawers, he had to be taken to his house so he
could put on his clothes, before being brought to town for
examination. The constabulary men who accompanied him to his house saw
that a green fatigue suit and poncho were hanging on the wall.
On the other hand, Juan Ayonayon was arrested by a Constabulary captain
and his company that same evening in the house of Marcelino Uberita in
Santo Domingo, about seven kilometers from Magsingal.

As possible motive for the crime, it was shown that accused Gaspar
Acerador had been accused of the murder of Pablo Resuello, the brother
of Juana Resuello, wife of Florentino Lazo, the deceased. On the other
hand, Florentino Lazo used to drive a carromata where Hipolito
Peralta, who was accused of the murder of a relative of a cousin of
Ayonayon, usually rode in going to court. While nobody could testify as
to the motive of the murder, it is apparent from these circumstances
that enemity must have existed between Florentino Lazo and his wife
Juana Resuello on one hand, and the accused Gaspar Acerador and Juan
Ayonayon, on the other.

The defenses presented by the accused are alibis testified to by
their respective relatives. Juan Ayonayon stated that at about 6:00
o’clock in. the evening of the day in question, he was in the house of
his cousin Engineer Uberita in Santo Domingo, with whom he was living
then. But the barrio of Santo Domingo is only seven kilometers from the
house of the Lazos, the victims, and he could easily have gone from his
place of residence to the house of the Lazos in 10 minutes by jeepney.
For his part, Acerador was living in a barrio of Panay, which is only a
kilometer away from the scene of the crime. The fact, therefore, that
the relatives of the accused stated that they were in their respective
houses around 6:00 o’clock in the evening of the day of the crime, does
not discount the possibility that the accused themselves had actually
gone to the house of their victims at about the time of 6:00 o’clock in
the evening. It must be noted that the time given was merely a
calculation, and what may have been considered by one witness as six
o’clock may actually have been 5:30, etc. So that the defenses of
alibis appear to Us as of very little weight or value, especially in
view of the fact that the witnesses for the prosecution clearly
identified the accused, such identification being positive and
immediate because given as soon as the officers of the Constabulary
arrive.

We will now proceed to the principal issue, namely, whether the
three witnesses who testified to having identified the accused were
really in a position to and did actually identify them. The first
witness was Genoveva Lazo who said that she peeped out of the window
and saw the face and figure of a man who later she identified as Gaspar
Acerador. The description that she gave at the trial coincides with the
physical features that the court saw in the person of the said accused
at the time of the trial. Gaspar Acerador was also identified by the
wife of the deceased,’ Juana Resuello, who declared that Acerador was
seen by her on the last rung of the stairs leading to their batalan.
Pergentino Lazo also identified both accused when, looking thru the
window near the stairs, he saw them firing their guns at the deceased
Florentino Lazo.

With respect to Juan Ayonayon, his identification by Juana Resuello is beyond question. As Juana was going to cross the batalan, she saw Juan Ayonayon already on the batalan
and was about to speak to him. He, Ayonayon, was known to her,
consequently, the identification was prompt and immediate. It is a fact
that when one meets a person known to him, identification takes place
at first sight, so the testimony of Juana Resuello that she identified
Ayonayon, who was known to her, should be accepted. The same fact of
identification is true as to the other accused Gaspar Acerador,
also known to Juana Resuello.

As to the testimony of Pergentino Lazo, which testimony is being
attacked, it is to be noted that he saw the two accused while the
latter were already on the batalan. From the diagram of the
house. We note that place where the accused were standing, while firing
at the deceased Florentino Lazo, was visible through a window from the
place beside the aparador where Pergentino Lazo had stationed
himself. But the fact that Pergentino Lazo, when the officers came in
the same evening, declared to the Constabulary officers that the
assailants were Ayonayon and Acerador, this readiness, shows that he
was able to positively identify them at the time of the assault, the
accused being known to him.

Counsel for Acerador argues that since at the time of the assault,
which was 6:00 o’clock in the evening, it was already dark, the accused
could not have been identified by Genoveva Lazo, Juana Resuello or
Pergentino Lazo. We checked the time when the sun set on August 5, 1959
and We have been informed that the sun set on that date at about 6:38
in the evening, which shows that at 6:00 o’clock, the surroundings of
the house where the victims were shot, were not yet dark. The use of a
kerosene lamp inside a house does not mean that. outside the house,
where the assailants were seen, was also dark. The inside of a house is
necessarily darker than the outside; so the use of a kerosene lamp
while the inmates are taking supper, does not mean that persons outside
cannot be identified from within the house.

Capital is made of the fact that the witness Genoveva Lazo said that
during the day there were stars. She did not say that during the
daytime there were stars; she must have meant that during the time when
the assault was made there were stars in the sky at night. Besides we
take judicial notice of the fact that while it is true that the month
of August is characterized by showers or rains, they generally are
passing showers and rains, after which the atmosphere becomes clear.

But as the most compelling reason why the witnesses for the
prosecution must be believed as to the identification of the accused by
them, is the fact that they had no cause or reason to charge or point
out the accused as the ones responsible for the offense, there being no
strong reason why they should violate their oaths and declare falsely.

After a review of all the evidence, We are convinced that the two
accused were really the ones who assaulted and fired at Genoveva,
Florentino and Jose Lazo, and killed Morentino Lazo and Jose Lazo, and
that their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty
that was imposed by the lower court is that of death for the murders of
Florentino Lazo and Jose Lazo. There is no question that the murders
were committed with the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation and with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
dwelling of the offended party. But while the penalty imposed appears
justified by the aggravating circumstances, there is no sufficient
number of votes to affirm the penalty of death for the reason that it
does not appear from the evidence that the accused-appellants were so
perverse as to deserve the supreme penalty. Hence, no sufficient number
of Justices voted to affirm the imposition of the death penalty.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified by imposing upon each of the accused-appellants the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for the murder of Florentino Lazo and Jose Lazo, but the judgment is
hereby affirmed in all other respects. The judgment and sentence
imposed upon them for the wounding of Genoveva Lazo is affirmed, with
costs against accused-appellants. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.