PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALEJANDRO CLARIT AND “PEOPILO CLARIT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal
from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte,
Hon. Wenceslao M. Ortega, presiding, finding Alejandro Clarit guilty as
principal of the murder of one Orencio Gandamon, and
defendant-appellant Teofilo Clarit guilty as accomplice in the
commission of said murder, sentencing them accordingly, and further
sentencing Alejandro Clarit to pay damages in the amount of P4,000 and
Teofilo Clarit in the sum of P2,000 with costs.

It appears
that before May 1, 1952, a family of Subanos lived in a house in the
sitio of Pomokloron, barrio of Salvacion, municipality of New Pinan,
Zamboanga del Norte. The family consisted of Orencio Gandamon and
Liling Subana, husband and wife, and their children Cristina, Salvador,
Soling, and other younger brothers and sisters of the latter. On May 1,
1952, the family was living in a house belonging to a nephew of
Gandamon by the name of Vicente Gomiason or Takili. This was so because
the house of Orencio Gandamon had been burned by Alejandro Clarit, for
which burning the latter had been found guilty of arson. Orencio
Gandamon was building a new house, but as it was not yet finished
because only the framework thereof had been put up, he and his family
had to live in the meantime in the house of the above mentioned nephew.
This house had a flooring of boards and coconut leaves as siding.

In
the evening of May 1, 1952, while the family was taking their supper
squatting on the floor of the house, a gun explosion was suddenly heard
Just outside the house. Orencio appeared to have been hit because
immediately after the explosion he cried “Agoy”, appearing to have
received a shot in the left side of the chest. The explosion frightened
all the members of the family and immediately Cristina and Soling
jumped out through the door to secure his help. Just as they reached
the ground they saw the two accused Alejandro Clarit and Teofilo Clarit
standing by one side of the house, the former holding a gun. The
accused were one meter beside the house and three meters away from
them. Becoming more frightened upon seeing these two, they ran away for
help. Salvador, the son, was also frightened and wanted to jump out of
the window, but as he approached it, he saw the two accused, Alejandro
Clarit and Teofilo Clarit, the former holding a gun. So Salvador
desisted from his intent and came back to the middle of the house.
Liling Subana, the wife of Orencio, after noticing that her husband was
wounded, tried to help him out but to no avail, so she decided to go
down, but as she did so, she saw the accused Alejandro and Teofilo
Clarit running away from the house. In her statement taken by the chief
of police, she said she identified Alejandro because he was limping.
This statement differs somehow from her testimony in open court, but
she explained the discrepancy saying that it was due to difficulties in
translating her statement into Visayan which she did not speak.

Such
are the testimonies of the three most important witnesses for the
prosecution who identified the two accused as the authors of the
murder. It was also proved by the prosecution that the father of the
accused-appellants, Paulino Clarit, had purchased a land in the
vicinity, which land adjoined that claimed by Orencio Gandamon. The
accused who are the children of Paulino, claim that the land occupied
by Orencio Gandamon is part of the property bought by their father, so
Alejandro Clarit set fire to the house of Orencio Gandamon. Alejandro
Clarit was prosecuted therefor and convicted of arson. After the
burning of the house, Orencio Gandamon, still insisting that the land
belonged to him, started building another house. The accused then
approached Orencio and threatened to shoot him if he cpntinued building
the house. But on May 1, 1952, having finished only the framework, he
and his family had to live in the house of a nephew where the murder
took place.

The accused-appellants denied. having committed
the murder and claimed that on the day thereof, they were making copra
in the coconut land of one Antonio Lantekse m another municipality.
Antonio Lantekse declared that he has a, parcel of coconut land in
Onidos, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental; that he knows the accused, who
are the sons of Paulino Clarit who also has a house in Onidos; that the
accused, Alejandro and ;Teofilo, helped him make copra beginning May 1,
1952, and that the said accused were in his house in the evening of
that day, they having taken supper in his house; that after supper, the
said accused, slept in the house, and that, the following day they
continued to make copra. On cross-examination, however, upon being
asked, whether he was sure that the defendants started working with him
on May 1, Monday, he answered that he was not sure and that he only
believed that they started on Monday, because the father of the accused
had come to him on May 7, asking him to testify to the fact that on May
1, his children were making copra on his land.

There are
various circumstances why the wife and children of the deceased were
able to identify accused-appellants. The latter were known to them
because complainants lived near the land of the Clarits. The night Was
clear because it was a moonlit night. There were no trees near the
house that could have hidden the appellants from sight and they were
still near the house when the children of the deceased saw them. After
the shot, Alejandro and Teofilo must have stayed close to the house tb
observe the results of the shot, so they were seen still near the house
by the daughter who jumped down thru the door and the boy who was about
to jump thru the window. When, on the following day, the police chief
came to question the members of the family of the deceased, these never
doubted who the assailants were and immediately pointed to the
appellants as the authors of the crime. The appellants themselves can
not deny that they must have been identified because, according to the
testimony of Clarit’s wife the chief of police and some Subanos went to
their house looking for her husband and so she (Clarit’s wife) had to
seek shelter in another house for fear bf reprisal.

The
trial court was convinced that the crime was proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the testimonies of the children and wife of the deceased.
While there is a discrepancy in the testimony of the wife (she said
that immediately after the firing of the shot she stepped down and saw
the accused, but in, her declaration before the chief of police Exh.
“1” she said that after the shot she first had to help her husband and
find out what his condition was, and it was only then that she went
down the stairs and saw Alejandro Clarit 40 meter away from the house),
this slight discrepancy was explained by her as due to the fact the one
who took down her testimony, did not speak Subano which she speaks, for
which reason the imperfections wsre made. But, even admitting that it
was not her testimony in fcourt but her declaration two days after the
murder, Exh. “1” that is to be considered as the truth, the fact
remains that Alejandro Clarit was also identified by her because of the
manner in which he was limping as he ran away from the house.

Considering
the fact that the accused-appellants were identified by no less than
three persons, and were denounced to the police early the following
day, while the principal witness to the alibi of the defense was not
very definite about the day on which appellants were supposed to have
started making copra for him, and the further fact that the alibi was
furnished by appellants themselves, their father and close friends, we
are inclined to agree with the judge below that the commission of the
crime by the accused-appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

But
while we agree with the trial court’s findings that both Alejandro and
Teofilo Clarit were at the scene of the commission of the crime on the
evening of May 1, 1952, we are not prepared to confirm its conclusion
that the participation of the younger brother Teofilo was that of an
accomplice merely. It may be true that Alejandro, the elder, may have
planned and executed personally the crime, as Teofilo was only about 19
years of age at that time. This planning and execution of the crime by
Alejandro alone, in the absence of other circumstances, is not
sufficient to prove that Teofilo did not actually conspire with his
brother both in the planning and in the execution. The property or the
land which they considered to have been encroached upon by Orencio
Gandamon belonged to their father, and consequently the interest of one
is just as much as the interest of the other; when previous to the
occasion of the murder Orencio was threatened to be killed, when he
insisted on building his house on the disputed property, it was both
appellants again that came to see him and threatened to kill him if he
would continue building said house.

In the case of People vs. Ging Sam, et al., 94 Phil., 139, we held:

“The
remaining question to be determined is: Is there conspiracy in this
case? According to our law, ‘A conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.’ (Article 8, Revised Penal Code.) This law
apparently requires that for conspiracy to exist there must be an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony. But this requirement
does not actually mean that the agreement must be in writing or be
expressly manifested it being sufficient that it be implied from the
acts of the conspirators tending to show their common design to commit
the crime. Previous acquaintance among the conspirators is not even
necessary, nor is it required that each takes part in every act, or
that all shall know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
execution of conspiracy. The only thing required is that there be a
common purpose or design to commit the act the means employed or the
parts executed by each being immaterial. (12 C. J. 544-545).”

In People vs. Sedenio, G.R. No. L-6372, April 29, 1954 this Court also held:

“It
is next argued that appellant Elpidio Mejenio should, at most, be
convicted of slight physical injuries, there being allegedly no
positive evidence of conspiracy with his co-defendant. This pretense is
clearly untenable, for Elpidio’s presence at the foot of the coconut
tree—which he did not even try to explain—and the fact that he attacked
Crispin as soon as the latter fell to the ground, prove that appellants
were united in their purpose and in the execution thereof. This is
borne out by the fact that, shortly after the occurrence. Sinforiano
Sedenio told Pelagio Sedenio, in the presence of Elpidio Mejenio and
Teresa Mejenio: ‘Father we killed somebody. We forced Crispin Amacio to fall from a coconut tree.’ ”

In
accordance with the above quoted rulings, we hold that the
participation of Teofilo Clarit was not that of an accomplice merely
but of a principal in the commission of the crime.

In view of
the foregoing, the judgment and sentence imposed upon Alejandro Clarit
is hereby affirmed, with the modification that the amount of indemnity
which he is to pay is reduced from P4,000 to P3,000 and
defendant-appellant Teofilo Clarit hereby found guilty as principal in
the commission of the crime charged and sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P3,000. As
thus modified, the sentence imposed by the trial court is hereby
affirmed.

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