THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO AREVALO, BERNARDO AREVALO, ERNITO AREVALO, AND ROCEVAL AREVALO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder by the Court of
First Instance of Capiz, Branch 1,^[1]
in Criminal Case No. 55, entitled “People of the Philippines
vs. Reynaldo Arevalo, Bernardo Arevalo,
Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo“, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“The Court, therefore, finds the following facts conclusively
established by the prosecution:

“That on the 3rd day of March, 1971, at about 7:00 o’clock in
the evening in sitio Pinamolotan,
barrio San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz,
Abelardo Gonzales was attacked with bolos by the
accused Reynaldo Arevalo, Bernardo Arevalo, Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo, who, each armed with a fighting bolo inflicted
physical injuries upon Abelardo Gonzales, which
injuries caused his death.  That the accused
took advantage of their superior strength, they being four in number and each
being armed with a fighting bolo.

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
Reynaldo Arevalo, Bernardo Arevalo,
Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of murder, defined and penalized by
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, without any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, and hereby sentence each of them to Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify jointly and severally the
heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

“If the accused Reynaldo Arevalo,
Bernardo Arevalo, Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo has signed an agreement to abide by the disciplinary
rules imposed on convicted prisoners while under confinement in the Provincial
Jail, the preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be deducted
from the imprisonment imposed herein at its full extent; otherwise, they shall
be credited to only four fifths of said term. 
Each accused is finally sentenced to pay one fourth of the costs.

“SO ORDERED.

“Roxas City,
Philippines, June 3, 1974.”

The four appellants were charged with the crime of murder in an
information which read:

“That on or about the 3rd day of March, 1971, in the
municipality of Pilar, province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Court, said accused, armed with fighting bolos (talibong),
conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another and acting
in common accord, did then and there with evident premeditation and treachery,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously taking advantage of nighttime and of
their superior strength and number assault, attack, and bolo one Abelardo Gonzales, thereby inflicting upon the latter
several mortal wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death
immediately thereafter; that due to the death of said Abelardo
Gonzales, his heirs had suffered and are entitled to a death indemnity of P12,000.00,
an indemnity for the consequent loss of the earning capacity of the deceased
who had no permanent physical disability at the time of his death, moral
damages for mental anguish and exemplary damages in consonance with the
provisions of Art. 2206 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.”

Upon arraignment, all the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded
not guilty.

The defense did not deny that the victim Abelardo
Gonzales was killed on March 3, 1971,
one of the accused (Reynaldo Arevalo) admitting that he
was the only one who inflicted the fatal injuries on the victim in
self-defense, and the other three relying on the defense of alibi.  The victim, Abelardo
Gonzales, suffered injuries as indicated in Exhibit “A”, as follows:

“MEDICO-
LEGAL NECROPSY REPORT

NAME: ABELARDO GONZALES     AGE:
40 yrs. old          SEX: MALE

STATUS: Married                                                                 DIED
AT: San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz

DATE & TIME OF EXAMINATION: March 3, 1971 at 9:30 P.M.

POSTMORTEM
FINDINGS

GENERAL
APPEARANCE:     The cadaver is that of a
male, fairly developed, lying on his back at the center of the road.

PHYSICAL FINDINGS:

(1)  
Incise wound, 2 1/2 inches in length, cutting
the whole thickness of the scalp along the midsupero-occipital
region.

(2)  
Incise wound, 12 inches long, 1 1/2 inches in
depth, along the superior border of both scapular region, cutting skin,
muscles, blood vessels & nerves, and the spinal column.

(3)  
Incise wound, 10 1/2 inches long, 1 1/2 inches
in depth, 1/2 inch below & parallel to wound No. 2; cutting skin, muscles,
blood vessels, border of both scapular bones and the spinal column.

(4)  
Incise wound, 11 inches long, 1 inch in depth, 1
cm. below & parallel to wound No. 3; cutting skin, muscles, blood vessels,
nerves and both scapular bones, and the spinal column.

(5)  
Stab wound, 11/2 inches in width, 1 inch in
depth, at the mid?superior border of the left clavicle, lateral side of
the left side of the neck.

(6)  
Incise wound, 8 inches long, extending from the
inferior border of the left nostrils, to the right lateral side of the neck,
cutting completely the left wall of the mouth, 1 inch of the inferior left
earlobe, and almost completely, the superior-posterior portion of the neck.

(7)  
Incise wound, 8 1/2 inches long, 1 cm. below
& parallel to wound No. 6; cutting almost completely the left lateral wall
of the mouth and almost completely, the posterior portion of the neck.

(8)  
Incise wound, 7 inches long, 1 cm. below and
parallel to wound No. 7; cutting completely, the lateral wall of the mouth in
that level, and almost completely the posterior region of the neck.

(9)  
Lacerated wound, superficial, 1 inch in length
at the dorsum of the distal 3rd of the right forearm.

CAUSE OF DEATH: Hemorrhage, severe secondary to the multiple incise
wounds.

(SGD.) DR. FLORA BADANA-REY, M.D.

Rural Health
Physician

Dulangan, Pilar, Capiz“

The prosecution, through the testimonies of principal witnesses Juanito Benjamin^[2]
and Chito Gonzales^[3]
presented direct evidence of the participation of identified accused Reynaldo Arevalo, Bernardo Arevalo, Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo in the killing of
Abelardo Gonzales on March 3, 1971.  The
prosecution’s version is as follows:

The fourteen year old son of the victim Abelardo
Gonzales, Chito Gonzales, together with his younger
brother, 3-year old Allan, were with the victim on March 3, 1971, at about 7:00
o’clock in the evening at sitio Pinamolotan,
barrio San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz,
walking on the trail going to their home. 
Victim Abelardo Gonzales carried 3-year old
Allan and Chito Gonzales walked beside his
father.  They came from the store of Isias Agesta where they exchanged
vinegar for empty bottles.

While walking, the victim Abelardo
Gonzales was suddenly approached from behind by Reynaldo Arevalo
who appeared by the wayside and boloed at the back
the victim who fell forward and thus his 3-year old son Allan was thrown away
from him.  The two other accused Ernito Arevalo and Bernardo Arevalo, who also suddenly appeared simultaneously with
Reynaldo Arevalo from the wayside, took turns with
Reynaldo in striking the fallen victim with their fighting bolos.  When the victim fell, fourteen year old Chito Gonzales took hold of his three year old brother
Allan and ran away to the cane fields to escape.  The fourth accused Roceval
Arevalo likewise appeared in the scene and with his
fighting bolo also struck blows, together with Reynaldo, Ernito
and Bernardo, at the prostrate victim Abelardo
Gonzales.  The accused tried immediately
afterwards to run after Chito and Allan Gonzales but
the latter two disappeared among the sugar cane planted by the fields on the
wayside. The four accused then ran away.^[4]

During the occurence of the
aforementioned incident, Juanito Benjamin, who was
then in the vicinity, very near where the crime occurred, watching his sugar
cane from a cane car, saw the offense committed, and when Juanito
Benjamin saw what was happening he hid behind the cane car so that the four
accused did not notice his presence.^[5]

A while after the crime was committed, Chito
Gonzales, with his brother Allan, ran to his house at Sitio
Pinamolotan and reported the incident to his aunt and
sister.  The group returned to the scene
of the crime and found Abelardo Gonzales already
dead.  They then proceeded to the house
of Igmedio Alabata who
accompanied the group to the Police Station where the crime was reported.^[6]

The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the
victim’s body (Dra. Flora Badana-Rey,
Rural Health Physician, Dulangan, Pilar,
Capiz) testified that she did so at 9:30 o’clock in the evening of March 3, 1971.^[7]

The version of the defense, although admitting the killing of Abelardo Gonzales on the evening of March 3, 1971, denies and contradicts the
prosecution’s version, as follows:

Accused Reynaldo Arevalo admitted that
he was the one who boloed and killed the victim Abelardo Gonzales on March
3, 1971, in the evening, but he alleged that he did so in
self-defense.  While on the road at Sitio Pinamolotan, barrio San
Fernando, Pilar, Capiz, he met the victim Abelardo
Gonzales who gave him wine to drink, which he did.  Abelardo Gonzales
asked money from Reynaldo Arevalo and when the latter
pleaded that he had no money, victim Abelardo
Gonzales drew a locally made gun “pugakhang”
and threatened to shoot accused Reynaldo even if the latter refused to fight.  When Abelardo
Gonzales was about to shoot Reynaldo Arevalo, the
latter pushed Abelardo and boloed
him between the eyes and nose.  The
accused then struck Abelardo with his bolo three
times on the face and neck and grabbed the “pugakhang“.  Victim Abelardo
Gonzales ran away and Reynaldo boloed him three more
times at the back and once at the left forearm. 
Reynaldo ran to his house where he heard shouts and a commotion.  He had a grudge against the victim Abelardo Gonzales because three months before March 3, 1971, the latter accused
Reynaldo Arevalo of having stolen coconuts in the
plantation where Gonzales was in charge. 
Accused Reynaldo Arevalo was not on speaking
terms with the victim before March 3,
1971.  He could not produce
the gun he allegedly grabbed from the victim Abelardo
Gonzales during the incident, because the gun accidentally fell from Reynaldo Arevalo when he ran away from the scene of the incident
upon the coming of the relatives of the victim. 
He was not able to report the incident to the barrio captain nor to the
police authorities because the relatives of the victim were looking for
him.  The victim during the incident was
only accompanied by his son Chito Gonzales but not by
his son Allan.^[8]

Accused Roceval Arevalo
testified that he did not participate in the killing of Abelardo
Gonzales.  On March 3, 1971, at 7:00
o’clock in the evening he claimed he was at barrio Dulangan, Pilar, Capiz, working in the hacienda, cutting sugarcane and
putting them in the tractors.  He was
surprised when he was arrested and he learned that Abelardo
Gonzales died because he fought with Reynaldo Arevalo.  The place where he worked is three kilometers
from sitio Pinamolotan
where the incident happened.  He claims
he did not leave the place where he was working on March 3, 1971, because he was making arrangements for the
cane cars to load sugarcane.  He also
claims that he was implicated by witness Juanito
Benjamin because the latter had a grudge against Roceval.^[9]

Accused Ernito Arevalo
denied participation in the killing of Abelardo
Gonzales and claimed that during the incident he was on the farm with his
in-laws in San Fernando in the
hills.  He was a laborer in a fishpond
located at barrio Binarubawan, Pilar,
Capiz.  On March 3, 1971, he reported to the fishpond
and worked up to noon.  Afterwards, he went home, slept and went to
his in-laws at 7:30 in the evening
up to 9:00 o’clock.  When he returned home at 9:30, he was informed by his mother that Reynaldo Arevalo killed someone, so he went to the house of Reynaldo
and conversed with the latter.  He was
arrested on March 6, 1971.  The distance between the scene of the
incident to his house at Sitio Pinamolotan
is 1-1/2 kilometers.  The distance from
his father-in-law’s place to the scene of the incident is one kilometer and the
distance from the scene of the incident to the fishpond where he worked is two
kilometers.^[10]

Accused Bernardo Arevalo testified that
he was a fishpond watcher at barrio Botacol, Panay,Capiz.  The distance is five kilometers.  He started working in the fishpond on March 4
of a year he could not remember.  On March 3, 1971, he worked in the
fishpond from morning up to afternoon and evening.  On March 4 and 5 he continued working in the
fishpond and went home only on Saturday afternoon.  He did not participate in the killing of
victim Abelardo Gonzales because he has no grudge
against the latter.  As a matter of fact,
he was his friend.  He stayed at barrio Botacol temporarily and visited his family once a
week.  Witness Pantaleon
Aligno corroborated the testimony of Bernardo Arevalo.^[11]

The trial court gave much credence to the testimonies of Juanito Benjamin, who had no reason to testify falsely
against the four accused, and Chito Gonzales who
testified in a simple straightforward manner as to how his father was suddenly
attacked and boloed from behind by Reynaldo Arevalo, followed by Ernito Arevalo and Bernardo Arevalo who boloed the fallen Abelardo
Gonzales, and also by Roceval Arevalo
who used his bolo on the victim when the latter was prostrate and helpless.

The trial court made a very careful scrutiny of evidence of both
the prosecution and the defense and found the evidence for the prosecution,
consisting of the unbiased testimony of eyewitness Juanito
Benjamin who actually saw from a distance of three brazas
from his vantage point on a cane car the attack made by all the four accused,
Reynaldo Arevalo, Bernardo Arevalo,
Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo upon the victim Abelardo Gonzales, pointing out in detail the participation
of each of the four accused, and clearly identifying each, conclusively
established that the four accused participated in inflicting bolo wounds upon Abelardo Gonzales. 
There was no evidence produced by the accused to show any reason why
witness Juanito Benjamin should testify against them
falsely, hence, he must be telling the truth.^[12]
There has been established by the evidence, conspiracy among the accused by
reason of the ambush they perpetrated and the concerted simultaneous attack
they made on the victim, the four attackers suddenly coming out of the sugar
plantation, with great stealth and cunning on a moonlight night and attacking
the victim with bolos.^[13]

This Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the trial
court’s findings on the credibility of witnesses who testified in this
case.  The theory of the defense that
accused Reynaldo Arevalo killed the victim Abelardo Gonzales in self-defense when the latter,
allegedly after giving wine to Reynaldo, drew his home-made gun and asked money
from Reynaldo, with a threat to kill him, is very difficult to believe,
unsupported as it is by any other evidence other than Reynaldo’s testimony, and
in the face of the testimonies of Juanito Benjamin
and Chito Gonzales.^[14]

Reynaldo Arevalo could not even produce
the gun he was supposed to have taken from the victim and his explanation that
it was lost when he ran away hardly deserves credence.^[15]
Reynaldo Arevalo could not even explain why, if it
was true that he killed in self-defense, he did not report the matter
immediately to the barrio captain or the police authorities.  His version of the incident is likewise very
difficult to believe.

The proven presence of numerous wounds, so many of them fatal, on
the body of the victim Abelardo Gonzales eloquently
manifests the truth in the prosecution’s version of the crime that the four
accused took turns in using their fighting bolos on the victim even when he was
already prostrate from the sudden attack of Reynaldo Arevalo
who hit him from his back.  Reynaldo Arevalo, himself, admitted that he was not on speaking
terms with the victim before the incident of March 3, 1971 and that there was a
grudge between Abelardo Gonzales and Reynaldo because
three months before March 3, 1971, Abelardo accused
Reynaldo publicly of stealing coconuts from the plantation where Abelardo was in charge. 
Accused Reynaldo Arevalo, wittingly or
unwittingly, provided the motive for the sudden attack of the four accused on
the victim during the incident in question.

The contention of the defense that Roceval
Arevalo was not really one of the assailants of the
victim on the evening of March 3, 1971, because Chito
Gonzales did not mention him in his affidavit^[16]
and Roceval was not included in the original complaint,
is to Our mind not worthy of merit, because an examination of the sworn
statements of Chito Gonzales and Juanito
Benjamin^[17]
readily shows that Chito Gonzales made no mention of Roceval Arevalo in his sworn
statement given to the police authorities immediately after the incident
because Roceval Arevalo
came to the scene and boloed the fallen victim after Chito Gonzales took his younger brother Allan and ran away
to hide.  By the narration of Juanito Benjamin in his sworn statement, Chito Gonzales could not have seen the accused Roceval Arevalo striking the
victim with his bolo because that happened after Chito
Gonzales fled with his 3-year old brother from the scene of the crime.

There is no merit in the two assignments of error allegedly
committed by the trial court because it correctly rejected the defense version
that accused Reynaldo Arevalo killed the victim Abelardo Gonzales in legitimate self-defense, and in
finding that the other accused Bernardo Arevalo, Ernito Arevalo and Roceval Arevalo participated in
the crime.  Furthermore, the evidence for
the prosecution conclusively established the qualifying circumstance of
treachery to qualify the killing to murder.^[18]
This qualifying circumstance absorbs the aggravating circumstances of nighttime
and abuse of superior strength.

There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance in the
commission of the crime, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from, being in accordance
with the law and the evidence, is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, and De
Castro, JJ., concur.

Santos and Abad Santos,
JJ., on leave.

^[1]
Judge Pelayo v. Nuevo.

^[2] t.s.n., pp. 2 to 16, Terrestre, January 21, 1972.

^[3] t.s.n., pp. 2 to 26, Apuang, February 9, 1972.

^[4] t.s.n., pp. 2-7, Apuang, Feb. 2, 1972; Exh.
2-A, Translation of the sworn statement of Chito
Gonzales.

^[5] t.s.n., pp. 2-15, Terrestre, Jan. 21, 1972; Exh.
4-A, sworn statement of Juanito Benjamin.

^[6] t.s.n., pp. 7-8, Apuang, Feb. 9, 1972.

^[7] t.s.n., pp. 18-19, Terrestre, Jan. 21, 1972; Exh.
“A”, Medico Legal Neuropsy Report of Dra. Flora Badana Rey.

^[8] t.s.n., pp. 2 to 7, 8 to 16, Apuang,
March 21, 1972.

^[9] t.s.n., pp. 30 to 37, Terrestre, Sept. 6, 1972.

^[10] t.s.n., pp. 54 to 61, Terrestre, December 20, 1972.

^[11] t.s.n., pp. 64 to 73, Terrestre, January 9, 1973.

^[12]
pp . 157-158, Original Record.

^[13]
pp. 6, 8, 11, 13, t.s.n., Jan. 21, 1972; pp. 5-6, t.s.n., Feb. 9, 1972; pp. 7-8, t.s.n.,
Feb. 9, 1972; People vs. Tapac, 28 SCRA 191,
198-199.

^[14] p.
158, Original Record.

^[15]
p. 159, Original Record.

^[16]
Exhibit “2-A”.

^[17]
Exhibits “2-A” and “4-A”.

^[18]
pp. 18-19, rollo.