THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARTIN LAROSA AND DAMASO ROCAFORT, DEFENDANTS. DAMASO ROCAFORT, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal, taken by defendant Damaso Rocafort, from a
decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas, convicting him of
the crime of robbery with homicide, with, the aggravating circumstances
of nocturnity and relationship, without any mitigating circumstance to
offset the same, and sentencing him to the extreme penalty, to
indemnify the heirs of Eugenio Villerva in the sum of P5.00 and to pay
one-half of the costs.

In the morning of March 30, 1952, the dead body of a man was found
in a brook in the barrio of Macalamcam, municipality of Rosario,
province of Batangas, with big chunks of adobe stone tied to the body
to keep it somewhat submerged in the water. The local health officer,
who made an autopsy that morning, reported the following findings:

“(1) Swollen right mandibular region, with multiple contusions on the left side of the forehead;

(2) Lacerated wound on the left infra-orbital region;

(3) Lacerated wound on the upper lip, right side;

(4) Fractured right side of the occipital region;

(5) Contusion on the chin, left aide;

(6) Contusion, left mandibular region;

(7) Swelling and ecchymosis on the anterior and left side of the neck;

(8) Abrasion on the sternal region, left side;

(9) Abrasion on the left side of the chest near the border of the breast bone;

(10) On opening the thorasic cavity, it was found that the heart is apparently normal in size;

(11)
The lungs are apparently normal, and upon extirpation, examination
revealed that no water was inside the bronchi. Placing it on a pail of
water, it floated showing that air bubbles are present;

(12) Blood is streaming from the right ear;

(13)
Upon opening the stomach revealed that it contains partly digested rice
showing that only about 3 hours has passed after partaking a meal when
he died (basing on the theory that if the stomach is entirely empty,
death probably took place at least 4-6 hours after the last meal).
There is no presence of large amount of water inside the stomach.

“The
cause of death was due to shock caused by the multiple trauma received
by the deceased. The instrument used by the assailant might have been a
hard blunt instrument.”

As the chief of police of Rosario began an investigation on the
spot, the body turned out to be that of Eugenio Villerva. A son of
appellant Damaso Rocafort identified the rope with which the body was
bound, as the one with which a carabao of his father was tied up to the
preceding night. Moreover, it appeared that the deceased had been last
seen that night together with said Damaso and his uncle, Martin Larosa.
Damaso could not be found, however, anywhere in Rosario on March 30.
Upon being subsequently located by the authorities, he refused to make
any statement whatsoever. Upon the other hand, Martin surrendered
voluntarily to the authorities and signed an affidavit stating that he
had killed Eugenio Villerva at the behest of his father Ciriaco
Villerva. Soon, thereafter, he (Martin) implicated, however, Damaso
Rocafort, and, it appearing that some money was taken from Eugenio
immediately after the assault upon him, both were accused in the Court
of First Instance of Batangas of robbery of P2,000 with homicide. Upon
arraignment, Martin pleaded guilty to the charge, with the
qualification that the amount stolen was P5.00 only, and that the crime
was committed without any aggravating circumstance. Considering,
furthermore, Martin’s illiteracy, his condition of drunkenness at the
time of the occurrence and his voluntary surrender to the authorities,
said court sentenced him to life imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased in the sum of P5.02, and to pay one-half of the costs.

Moreover, testifying for the prosecution, Martin stated that, on
March 29, 1952, between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., Damaso sent word to him
that they would go to a given gambling house that evening, as they had
done several times in the past. They met, soon later, in the yard of
one Gabriel Sacdalan, where Damaso’s brothers-in-law, Felix Villerva
and Eugenio Villerva, were also present. Soon afterwards, Felix
departed, whereupon Martin (who drunk a glass of wine in that place),
Eugenio and Damaso left together. After crossing, in the order given,
the brook above-mentioned, some distance away from Gabriel’s house,
Damaso struck Eugenio on the head with a piece of wood. Forthwith,
Eugenio turned around and faced Martin, who was behind him. Believing
that Eugenio would, lunge at him, Martin, likewise, gave him a blow. As
Eugenio fell on his face, Damaso turned him over and gave him some more
beating, after which he (Damaso) got the sum of P5.00 from Eugenio’s
pocket. Then Damaso and Martin proceeded to the gambling house, leaving
Eugenio unconscious in the place of the occurrence. At about three
o’clock the following morning they left the gambling place. Upon
reaching the scene of the crime, they found Eugenio already dead.
Damaso got a rope somewhere and tied some stones to Eugenio’s body, and
the same was, with the assistance of Martin, thrown into the brook
already referred to.

Damaso’s version is that, in the afternoon of March 29, at 4:00
p.m., Eugenio went to his (Damaso’s) house and invited him to go to
that of Roberto Rivera, who had previously mortgaged a land to him
(Eugenio). The latter intended to urge Roberto to redeem the property,
for, otherwise, he (Eugenio) would deliver it to Damaso. On the way to
Roberto’s house, they saw his partner, Francisco Ramos, in the yard of
Gabriel Sacdalan. Francisco advised them that Roberto had gone away to
raise the redemption money. Presently, Felix Villerva and then, after
the departure of Francisco, Martin came. Soon later, Damaso and Eugenio
proceeded to the former’s house, where they took their dinner, with
Damaso’s children and his wife, who is Eugenio’s sister. Half an hour
later, Martin arrived and began to chat with them over the contemplated
redemption of the land mortgaged by Roberto. After about two hours,
upon Martin’s suggestion, Eugenio and he left. Damaso volunteered to
accompany them, but Martin dissuaded him, stating that Eugenio would
spend the night in the house of Felix. Subsequently, Damaso dosed off
upon a sack of mongo, until his wife bade him to go to bed, which he
did. At midnight, she woke him up and asked him some food, she having
delivered a child several days before. After preparing her food, he
went to the gambling house above-mentioned, belonging to one Felipe.
Shortly afterwards, Martin arrived and informed him that he had left
Eugenio in the house of Felix. Damaso returned home alone at about 5:00
a.m.

The wife and a son of Damaso corroborated his testimony to the
effect that he and Eugenio dined in their house; that subsequently,
Eugenio departed therefrom together with Martin; that he (Damaso) slept
in his house up to midnight; and that it was only then that he went to
the gambling den.

The lower court gave, however, no credence to this alibi and adopted
the theory of the prosecution. Hence, it convicted Damaso of the crime
charged, with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and
relationship, and sentenced him to the extreme penalty, to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P5.00, and to pay one-half of
the costs.

The issue before us hinges on the credibility of the testimony of
the opposing witnesses. The lower court found the testimony of Martin
Larosa sufficiently trustworthy, he having “testified in a candid and
straightforward manner which inspires confidence.” Said the trial Judge:

“After a careful review of the evidence, the court
finds that though the main evidence for the prosecution comes from a
polluted source, Martin Larosa testified in a candid and
straightforward manner which inspires confidence. He admitted his full
participation in the killing and robbery and in the disposal of the
corpse and with the corroborative testimony of Fausto Villerva, Felix
Villerva and Gabriel Sacdalan, the evidence for the prosecution is more
than sufficient to sustain conviction of the accused Damaso Rocafort.
It is true that on the fourth day after the incident and for the next
two days, Larosa gave somewhat conflicting statements (Exhibits 1, 2
& 3); but the same portray the workings of a confused, timid and
repentant mind. As explained by him, after making Exhibit 2, his
conscience would not give him peace, so he had to make Exhibit 1 on the
following day and on the third day Exhibit 3. It is noted that the
later ones amplify on the earlier.”

Upon a review of the record, we do not find sufficient reasons to
disturb the conclusion reached by the lower court. Although the
testimony of a co-accused requires careful scrutiny, it must be noted
that Martin did not turn state witness under promise of immunity. He
was not excluded from the charge in consideration of his testimony.
Before giving it he pleaded guilty to the charge. Accordingly, he had
no possible motive to falsely incriminate Damaso. On the contrary,
Martin had every reason to protect him, for Damaso is the son of a
sister of Martin.

It is urged by Damaso that Martin had incriminated him because he
(Damaso) had previously implicated him (Martin). This pretense is
untenable, for Martin had admitted, from the very beginning, his
participation in the commission of the crime charged. In fact, he had
voluntarily surrendered himself to the authorities. What is more,
Martin tried, at first, to shield Damaso, by telling the peace officers
who investigated him (Martin) that Ciriaco Villerva had induced him
(Martin) to kill his (Ciriaco’s) son, Eugenio Villerva. Indeed, Damaso
had prevailed upon Martin to abstain from revealing his intervention in
the killing of Eugenio, under promise to support his (Martin) family
during his confinement in jail. Upon the other hand, Damaso had always
refused to take any statement to the authorities.

At any rate, the following circumstances indicate the substantial veracity of the theory of the prosecution, to wit:

(1) The rope with which the body of Eugenio was tied belonged to
Damaso. The chief of police, who testified about this point, is,
admittedly, a good friend of appellant.

(2) Patrolman Flaviano Martija said in April, 1952, while the
defendants herein were in the municipal jail of Rosario, he overheard
Damaso asking Martin “Why did your uncle, right away squeal when our
agreement was Whatever might happen we may not squeal?” There is no
evidence that Patrolman Martija had any ill feeling towards appellant
or any other possible motive to commit perjury.

(3) This same witness overheard Damaso confessing his guilt to his
counsel, who remonstrated him for his failure to reveal it earlier to
him (counsel). The latter did not take the witness stand to deny the
veracity of this testimony of Patrolman Martija.

(4) Damaso corroborated Martin’s testimony concerning the fact that
they were together in a gambling house in the evening of March 29 to
80. Needless to say, appellant’s theory to the effect that it was
already midnight when he left his house and proceeded to the gambling
place is inherently incredible.

(5) When Damaso was brought to a room in the municipal building of
Rosario where the dead body of Eugenio Villerva was, he refused to
approach it and became pale and nervous.

(6) When the chief of police, who is a good friend of Damaso asked him questions, Damaso refused to say anything.

(7) Damaso absented himself from his hometown on March 30, 1952. He
claimed, to have gone shopping to the neighboring town of San Juan, and
to have returned to his house in the evening. But this pretense is
incredible, for having returned home from the gambling place at 5:00
a.m., it is most unlikely that he would be in the mood to spend the
whole day coming and going for shopping purposes.

(8) Damaso did not go to the barrio where the body of Eugenio later
lay in state, and he neither gave his condolence to the relatives of
the deceased, who was his brother-in-law, nor attended his funeral.

Only one more point need be touched—the motive of the killing. There
is abundant evidence, partly confirmed by appellant’s testimony, that
Eugenio Villerva expected to collect from Roberto Rivera a certain
amount of money which, together with P2,000 he (Eugenio) was believed
to bring with him, he intended to invest in another loan guaranteed by
a mortgage; that on March 29, 1952 Eugenio left his residence in the
barrio of Tinga and went to that of Damaso, at the latter’s invitation;
and that said sum of P2,000 was missing when the cadaver of Eugenio was
found the next day. Thus the motive appears to be robbery, although,
according to Martin’s testimony, the only amount taken by Damaso from
Eugenio was P5.00. It is not improbable, however, that said testimony
of Martin was based upon information given by Damaso as to the amount
he succeeded in getting from Eugenio.

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the lower court
did not err in finding appellant Damaso Rocafort guilty of robbery with
homicide. Although the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and
relationship attending the commission of the offense warrant the
imposition of the extreme penalty, for want of the number of votes
necessary therefor the penalty of life imprisonment must be meted out
to said appellant. Moreover, he should be sentenced to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased, not only the sum of P5.00 stolen from him,
according to the evidence, but also, the additional sum of P6,000, for
the loss of life. Thus, modified as to the penalty and the indemnity,
the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects,
with the costs of this instance against the aforementioned appellant.
It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.