THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO PINEDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Pineda

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Lorenzo Pineda for the killing of the spouses Justiniano Arcilla and Maria Arcilla, whose bodies were found buried in a common grave in the barrio of Malonso, in the municipality of Baraban, province of Tarlac. Pineda stood trial for murder, was convicted, and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact lesson on the weight of alibi against positive identification, on the force of motive in a case built on circumstantial and testimonial evidence, and on how the Court treats a claim that a confession was extracted by force.

Procedural History

Two informations for murder were filed against Lorenzo Pineda and his co-defendants, who were still at large when Pineda was brought to trial. The trial court found Pineda guilty in each case and sentenced him in each case to suffer reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of 2,000 pesos, and to pay the costs, with the proviso that the period of imprisonment should not exceed 40 years, pursuant to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act Number 217. From that judgment the defendant appealed, and the appeal came before the Supreme Court, which decided the case on the thirtieth of August, 1949.

Facts

Early in the evening of the fifth of November, 1946, Justiniano Arcilla and his wife Maria Arcilla were killed and buried in a common grave in the barrio of Malonso. Justiniano was the overseer of Tito Feliciano in his rice lands there. The police noticed the disappearance of the spouses and, suspecting that Lorenzo Pineda had something to do with it, brought him to the municipal building for questioning. He disclaimed knowledge of their whereabouts and was released.

About the end of March, 1947, a Huk runner named Pablo Rivera fell into the hands of the police and revealed that some people in the barrio knew what became of the Arcilla spouses. The police gathered the male inhabitants of the barrio and told Rivera to point to the person who had information. Rivera pointed to Dominador Wage. Wage, Francisco Maninang, and Andres Galang then revealed that in the afternoon of the fifth of November, 1946, while the tenants were threshing palay in the patio not far from the Arcilla home, Pineda asked Justiniano Arcilla for a ration of four cavanes of palay. Justiniano granted him one cavan only. Pineda was disgusted because he was allowed one cavan whereas the others were given two, and he disclosed his resentment to Dominador Wage, whom he met that afternoon.

Faustino Galang, Miguel David, Bartolome Pasion, Horacio David, and Troadio Tamayo, the co-defendants of Pineda, stopped Dominador Wage and Francisco Maninang on their way home and compelled them to dig a hole in the sitio called Ocho with shovels furnished them. After digging the hole they were brought to a place 300 meters away and guarded by Bartolome Pasion. Later, about dusk, the house of Pineda was surrounded by people among whom were Pineda and his co-defendants. They brought the spouses down, tied their elbows behind their backs, and led them to the hole. With the butt of a carbine carried by Horacio David, Faustino Galang and Troadio Tamayo struck blows on the heads of the spouses, as a result of which they died, and they were buried in the hole. Pineda and his co-defendants were recognized by Andres Galang, who was still in the patio threshing palay and was dragged along by the malefactors to the place of the crime. The witnesses were warned not to reveal what they had seen or else they would be killed, including their families. The revelation brought about the arrest of Pineda, who made a clean breast of the part he had taken in the crime, as set forth in an affidavit marked as Exhibit A. After exhumation, the dead bodies were identified by the children of the deceased.

Issues

• Whether or not the alibi of the appellant, supported by the testimony of his wife and of his son-in-law, is sufficient to overcome the positive evidence for the prosecution identifying him as one of those who took part in the killing.
• Whether or not the appellant's testimony that he was subjected to third degree treatment to wring from him the confession in the affidavit Exhibit A can be believed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act Number 217, provides:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to permit the imposition of a penalty in excess of forty years.

This is the provision the trial court applied when it provided that the period of imprisonment should not exceed 40 years, and it fixes the outer limit of the penalty in each case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alibi is not sufficient to overcome the positive evidence for the prosecution which points to the appellant as one of those who took part in the killing. The Court stressed that there was a motive for the crime: the appellant was to receive one cavan of palay for ration instead of two that the other tenants like him actually received, and it was he who, to avenge the discrimination committed by Justiniano Arcilla, went to inform his co-defendants about it. The Court also noted that two witnesses for the prosecution are the appellant's own relatives. Dominador Wage is his son-in-law and Francisco Maninang is married to his niece. Asked whether his son-in-law had any grudge or ill-feeling toward him, the appellant swore that he did not, and after his arrest his wife sent for her son-in-law Wage to live with her in the house.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellant's testimony at his trial on the third degree cure resorted to in order to wring from him the confession in Exhibit A cannot be believed. His wife testified that she did not notice anything on his body which might have been the result of ill treatment. The Court found that this must be true, for if he really had been maltreated in the way he testified, he could not have talked to his wife the following day when she went to the municipal jail to see him.

Doctrine

First, an alibi that is supported only by the testimony of the accused's own wife and son-in-law cannot prevail over positive evidence for the prosecution identifying the accused as a participant in the killing, especially where a motive for the crime is established. Second, the presence of a clear motive strengthens the prosecution's case and gives coherence to the testimony of witnesses, even where those witnesses are relatives of the accused, for relationship does not by itself destroy credibility where no ill-feeling is shown. Third, a claim that a confession was extracted by force will not be credited where the physical evidence and the conduct of the accused contradict it, as where his wife noticed nothing on his body and he was able to converse with her the following day. Fourth, the penalty must respect the statutory ceiling, and the Court applied Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to permit the imposition of a penalty in excess of forty years.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with costs, so the People won and Pineda's conviction for murder stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that alibi, especially one supported only by the accused's own family, cannot overcome positive identification and a proven motive. Examiners like to use this case on the weight of alibi against positive testimony, on the credibility of related witnesses, and on the forty-year ceiling on the service of the penalty under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.