THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAYMUNDO DE VILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

After trial upon a plea of not guilty, the court rendered judgment
finding appellant guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of murder, with
treachery as the aggravating circumstance and without any mitigating
circumstance to offset the same. Thus he was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessory penalties
provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount
of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs. Hence the present appeal.

The information filed in the lower court charged appellant with murder committed as follows:

“That on or about the 29th day of July, 1959, in the
Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
armed with a long firearm, with the deliberate intent to kill one
Bonifacio Umandal @ Ben by means of treachery and with evident
premeditation, did assault and fire shots with the said firearm at the
said Bonifacio Umandal @ Ben, suddenly and without warning, the accused
thus employing means and methods in the execution of the crime which
tended directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make;
that as a result thereof, the accused succeeded in inflicting multiple
gunshot wounds in the different parts of the body of the said Bonifacio
Umandal @ Ben, causing profuse internal and external hemorrhage, which
directly caused his death.”

The prosecution evidence shows
that at about 6:30 o’clock in the morning of July 29, 1959, a BTCO bus,
driven by Modesto Malabanan, left Barrio Bayuyuñgan, Talisay, Batangas,
bound for the town of Lemery of the same province. Upon arriving at
sitio Ticub of Barrio Bayuyuñgan, the driver was forced to stop the bus
as tree branches were laid across the road. The conductor of the bus,
Bonifacio Umandal, got off, together with one Agripino Reyes and
another passenger, to remove the obstructions. As they were thus
engaged, successive gunshots were heard. Malabanan, thinking that it
was a hold-up, looked at the direction from where the shots came—about five meters away—and he saw appellant facing him carbine in
hand. Likewise he saw Umandal drop to the ground. Thereafter, appellant
challenged the male occupants of the bus to come down, but as nobody
did, he ran away. Malabanan – the driver of the bus – alighted
therefrom and found the conductor dead.

Reyes, one of the men who helped pick the fallen branches, left
immediately to report the incident to the local authorities. Arriving
shortly, a PC unit headed by Francisco Bedua of the 36th PC detachment
at Nasugbu, Batangas, found Umandal dead with empty shells of a carbine
in the place where the shots were fired. But the authorities finally
apprehended appellant only on August 12, 1959. In a statement sworn to
before the Justice of the Peace of Nasugbu, Batangas, he admitted
having shot the deceased Umandal in sitio Ticub, Bayuyuñgan, Talisay,
indicating the place where he had hidden the murder weapon. The empty
shells and the recovered firearm were forwarded to the CIS laboratory
at Camp Crame, Quezon City, for ballistic examination. In the opinion
of ballistic expert Capt. José G. Fernandez, the four empty shells were
fired from the chamber of the carbine under examination.

Appellant now claims that his confession (Exhibit A) was not made
voluntarily, as shown by the fact that it was made at night time. This
self-serving contention can not prevail over the fact that the
confession is fully corroborated by the testimony of prosecution
witnesses Malabanan and Reyes to the effect that both saw appellant
holding a carbine five meters away from the bus and in the direction
from which the successive gun shots came, and that he was the one who
dared the male occupants of the bus to come down and face him. These
two witnesses knew appellant personally and could not have been
mistaken as to his identity. Moreover, the record discloses no fact or
circumstance showing any unfair motive on their part to testify falsely
against him.

It must be borne in mind likewise that in said confession appellant
indicated the precise place where he had hidden the carbine used by him
in committing the offense, and the weapon was actually found thereat.
To this must be added the circumstance that, according to
uncontradicted prosecution evidence, the empty shells found near the
body of the deceased were fired from the said weapon.

Appellant also claims that the trial court erred in finding that the
fatal wounds sustained by the deceased were caused by the shots fired
from the carbine mentioned in his confession. Suffice it to say in this
connection that, according to Dr. Garcia, who testified for the
prosecution, the death of the deceased was due to the bullet wounds
caused by the shots fired from appellant’s carbine.

Appellant also relies upon an alibi, but his testimony in support
thereof can not prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution
witnesses already mentioned above, and the confession Exhibit A. His
alibi becomes all the more untenable, in the light of the circumstance
that his house was not far from the place where the crime was
committed, thus making it entirely possible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time it was committed, and to have returned
to his home immediately thereafter.

In view of all the foregoing, We find that the decision appealed
from is in accordance with law and the evidence. Therefore, the same is
hereby affirmed, with costs.

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