PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PAULINO FRANCISCO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Paulino Francisco is appealing from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Masbate finding him guilty of double murder and physical
injuries, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the offended parties for the death of Ema and Elsa, both
surnamed Medina in the amount of P3,000 each, and to pay the costs.

On April 2, 1951, Balbino Solana and his wife Sabina Villa were
living in the barrio of Morocborocan, Uson, Masbate, atop a hill in a
small house of light materials with no partitions inside, and with only
one window and a door. The floor was scarcely a yard above the ground.
Living with them were their two children Rodrigo and Pernito, 13 and 7
years old, respectively, and their grand-children Elsa and Ema Medina,
aged 9 and 6 years. Sabina ran a small store where she sold petroleum,
cigarettes, soap and bread, and for this purpose she had a shelf where
her merchandise were kept. On the evening of that day between 8 and 9
although her husband and the children were already asleep, Sabina was
still awake, smoking and sitting inside the house, about two meters
away from the half-open door, presumably to accommodate late customers.
Hanging from the rafters was a petromax lamp according to Sabina,
burning brightly. From the barking of their dogs she suspected that
somebody was approaching the house and she peeped through the opening
of the door. By the light of the petromax lamp she saw the defendant
Paulino Francisco whom the family had known for a long time; wearing
trousers of a dark color but naked from the waist up. He was holding a
stick of dynamite with the wick already lighted and was in the act of
throwing the explosive into the house which he in fact did despite the
frantic protest of the housewife. During those days fishing with
dynamite was not unusual among fishermen in the locality, and it is to
be presumed that Sabina was not unacquainted with the destructive
nature of dynamite. She tried to catch the explosive as it was hurled
thru the door, with the intention presumably of throwing it back
outside of her house but she failed, and it landed against the shelf,
bounded to the very spot where the children and her husband were
sleeping, causing a tremendous explosion that completely demolished
their small dwelling. Sabina was violently thrown outside the house and
she lost consciousness, but on coming to, she shouted for help
particularly calling to her neighbor Pablo Languido, asking him to
bring light because they had been blasted by Picu (nickname of Paulino
Francisco). With a light Pablo with his wife, found the house of Sabina
completely destroyed, the two grandchildren Elsa and Ema dead, and her
husband Balbino and their two children Rodrigo and Pernito seriously
injured, suffering from shock and multiple first and second degree
burns, Balbino still unconscious. Upon Pablo’s arrival Sabina repeated
to him that appellant had blasted their house with dynamite. After
first aid was rendered to the injured, Sabina asked Pablo to notify the
authorities. Pablo notified the lieutenant of the barrio and the two
hastened to the poblacion which is only about 3 kilometers away. Upon
being informed of what had happened, Chief of Police Santos Ondevilla
with three of his policemen proceeded to the scene of the blast
accompanied by Pablo and the lieutenant of the barrio. Sabina recounted
to him what had happened, emphasizing the fact that it was the
defendant who caused the explosion. Still partially deaf because of the
blast she was talking in quite a loud voice and one of the policemen
cautioned her not to speak so loud particularly in her accusation
against appellant because he might still be near and may cause further
harm to her and her family. Balbino, the husband, had recovered
consciousness by then, but conversation with him was impossible because
he could not hear.

The victims of the blast including the two dead grandchildren were
taken to the poblacion that same evening and Chief of Police Ondevilla
sent his three policemen to apprehend the defendant who was living in
the sitio of Miaga about a kilometer away. After some delay and rest,
with the aid of a guide, the three peace officers repaired to the house
of the defendant where they arrived about three o’clock the next
morning. As they approached his house and from a distance of about ten
meters therefrom, they heard him and his wife conversing although the
conversation was not sufficiently distinct for them to understand it.
One of the policemen called out the name of Paulino Francisco and after
the second call, his wife Felicidad Ampuan came down and upon meeting
and recognizing one of the policemen named Andres, she called to her
husband and said: “Andy (Andres) is here.” Later appellant came out of
the house still wearing trousers with a dark color and still naked from
the waist up but with a shirt thrown over his shoulder. The policemen
searched him for weapons and told him that the Chief of Police wanted
him for questioning, and he voluntarily and meekly went with the
policemen without even inquiring why he was wanted by the Chief of
Police. It remained for his wife who accompanied him to ask the
policemen why her husband was being taken to the poblacion.

Going back to the explosion, particularly the time it took place,
and shortly before that hour, Tomste Tinay, an herb doctor was in the
house of his niece Gloria Rivera because she had called him to treat
her sick child. After treating his grandchild, he heard the explosion
from the direction of the house of Sabina. He took his leave and he
started for his home not far away. On the way, he met or was overtaken
by a man wearing dark trousers but naked from the waist up, whom he
recognized to be the defendant. He had known Paulino Francisco for
about a year because he was his companion in husking coconuts. Paulino
was coming down the path or trail from up the hill where Sabina’s house
stood. He asked him the usual question: “Where he had been” but
Francisco instead of answering hurried or rather ran away in the
direction of the sitio where his house was. The following morning as
Tomas Tinay was pasturing his carabaos the party of three policemen and
the defendant and his wife passed near him and out of curiousity he
inquired why Francisco was being accompanied by these peace officers
and when informed that he was being taken to the poblacion for
questioning he told the policemen that he had seen Francisco the night
before shortly after the explosion and that he refused to answer
Tinay’s inquiry as to where he had been, and that he ran away.

There is also evidence to the effect that on their way to the
poblacion, accompanying the defendant, the policemen met one Juanita
Lambayo who upon seeing appellant told the policemen that Francisco was
the person who blasted the house of Sabina Villa. Francisco instead of
denying this charge or imputation kept quiet although afterwards while
on their way to the poblacion he told the policemen that he was
informed that Sabina’s house had been blasted, and he wondered who the
author of the blasting could be.

At the poblacion the victims of the explosion were medically
examined. The examining doctor found that the two children besides
sustaining multiple first and second degree burns, had their skulls
fractured and their brains macerated. Sabina, her husband Balbino and
their two children were also found to have suffered from first and
second degree burns and they were hospitalized or treated for periods
of from one to two months. During the trial Balbino was still partially
deaf, and Sabina could not write because of the effect of the explosion.

To establish the motive, the prosecution proved that about two years
previous to the blasting, through the recommendation of Balbino the
appellant was employed as a tenant on the coconut plantation of one
Pipay Sanano After some time, however, Pipay discovered that the
appellant had secretly converted about 500 coconuts into copra and
without notifying his landlord sold the said copra and appropriated the
price for himself. For this, he was dismissed as a tenant. Francisco
asked Balbino who was then employed as overseer of the plantation to
intercede for him but Balbino declined because he said that he felt
ashamed to do so especially since he was the one who had recommended
him to Pipay Sanano. The appellant deeply resented Balbino’s refusal
to help and began hating not only Balbino but also his family. As
further proof of this grudge, there is evidence to the effect that
sometime in February 24, 1951, that is, a little over a month before
the blasting of the house, on the occasion when Arsenia Solana,
daughter of Balbino and Sabina went to the seashore and while she was
passing by the house of the defendant, the latter’s wife named
Felicidad Ampuan nicknamed “Pidang” challenged her to a fight because
she said the two families were at war. There followed a discussion and
a heated exchange of words, Arsenia asking Pidang why she should be
included in a grudge or fight in which she had taken no part. Just then
the defendant arrived from the seashore, carrying some fish and upon
hearing the discussion, addressing his wife, shouted: “Pidang, kill her
and bury her at the seashore.” Then he went to his house and from there
he shouted to Arsenia: “Someday I will blast your heads to pieces.”
Arsenia later told her father about the incident particularly the
threats hurled by Francisco and her father told her that he would file
a complaint against him but later changed his mind saying that he
wanted to avoid trouble.

The appellant bases his defense on alibi, claiming that
when the explosion occurred he was peacefully sleeping in his house. He
admitted that there was no ill-feeling between him and the prosecution
witnesses Tomas Tinay and Pablo Languido and could not explain why they
testified against him, particularly Pablo who was his compadre. As to
Balbino and Sabina he claimed that they must have testified against him
out of spite because they suspected him as the person who denounced
Balbino to the police for keeping explosives; that as a matter of fact,
the Chief of Police conducted the corresponding investigation and found
two sacks of explosives in Balbino’s possession but did not prosecute
him for its illegal possession because he was paid P90 by Balbino. All
this was flatly denied by Balbino and the Chief of Police.

The blasting of the house of Balbino on the night of April 2, 1951,
resulting in the death of two of its occupants and serious injuries to
the rest is an admitted fact. The identity of its author depends upon
the credibility of witnesses. We agree with the trial court which had
the opportunity of passing upon said credibility that the witnesses for
the prosecution are more worthy of credit and their story more
reasonable and satisfactory. We reproduce the pertinent portions of the
trial court’s decision on this point:

“The court took more than a passing interest in
observing the manner and conduct of the witnesses who testified against
the accused. Sabina Villa, had been emphatic and persistent in pointing
the accused, Paulino Francisco as the very person whom she saw throw
the dynamite into their house on the night in question.

“As
against the clear and candid testimonies of Sabina Villa and the
circumstantial evidence given by disinterested parties, the accused was
not able to offer any evidence which could creditably exculpate him
other than a general denial.

* * * * * * *

“Carefully
considering the weight of evidence for the prosecution, the Court is
compelled to conclude that the accused, Paulino Francisco, out of a
resentment for Balbino Solana’s denial to intercede for him so that he
may be reinstated to his former place in the employ of Pipay Sanano to
erase the suspicion against his character, committed the hideous act of
throwing a dynamite into the abode of Balbino Solana as he had foretold
when he a month before, saw his wife quarreling with Arsenia Solana,
the daughter of Balbino Solana.”

Atty. Amanda Viola Viray, designated attorney de oficio for
the appellant has filed an able brief, and has made valiant efforts to
save her client; but against the overwhelming evidence against the
latter, her efforts are bound to be of no avail. She has even asked for
new trial and presented an affidavit (Annex B) to her brief wherein one
Arturo Balenbino now serving sentence in the Bilibid Prison in
Muntinglupa for the crime of robbery states that it was he and one
Rodrigo Francisco who committed the crime of which the appellant was
accused and convicted; that said crime was committed at the instigation
of a Chinaman named Jose Lim who promised to pay them P5,000, and that
Rodrigo Francisco is still at large.

We confess our failure to be impressed by the affidavit; and this is
not the first time that we decline to attach much, if any, importance
to similar affidavits where persons now serving long sentences for
serious crimes committed by them and therefore have not much, if
anything to lose, assume responsibility for crimes of which fellow
prisoners had been convicted in order to save the latter from criminal
responsibility. It is not improbable that said schemes are conceived
and carried out for a consideration, usually monetary, and that if
successful, and the person convicted is finally acquitted, it would
still remain for the Government to successfully prosecute and find
guilty the convict assuming responsibility because he might then
repudiate the contents of his affidavit and resort to other schemes to
avoid criminal responsibility himself. For this reason,’ we find no
reason for seriously considering, much less, acceding to the motion for
a new trial.

The lower court as already stated, found the appellant guilty of
double murder and physical injuries. Considering that the two murders
and the physical injuries were produced by one single act, namely, the
explosion caused by the hurling of the dynamite into the house, the
case comes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code regarding Complex
Crimes, which provides that the penalty for the more serious crime
(murder in this case) which is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, should be applied in its maximum period,
namely, death. So that even without considering the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and dwelling, that attended the commission
of the complex crime, the penalty applicable here is necessarily that
of death. However, due to lack of the number of votes required for the
imposition of the extreme penalty we hereby impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
but with the opinion that the appellant does not deserve executive
clemency. Furthermore, the indemnity for the death of Ema and Elsa
fixed by the lower court at P3,000 each is raised to P6.000 each. With
this modification, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.