PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO PAZ ALIAS COMMANDER ROMY AND SULPICIO TICA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

In an
information filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal and docketed as its Criminal Case No. 6814, Romeo Paz,
alias Commander Romy, Sulpicio Tica, and Marcos Castalone, together with seven others who are still
unidentified, were charged with the crime of murder, as
follows:

“That on or about the 7th day of
December, 1956, in the municipality of Tanay, province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and
treachery did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully
kill one Tranquilino Dayrit
by then and there tying his hands and while the victim wan in this position, the
accused hit him with the butt of their gun, and one after the other the same
accused struck and thrushed with a balisong on the body of the said Tranquilino Dayrit until the
latter died.

“That the following aggravating
circumstances were present to insure the commission of the
crime:

“(1) Taking advantage of superior
strength;

“(2) That crime was committed by
armed band;

“(3) That means was employed
which add ignominy to the natural effects of act. “Contrary to
Law.”

Arrest having been effected on
Sulpicio Tica and Marcos
Castalone only, while the other accused remained at
large or unidentified, these two accused were arraigned; and they entered a plea
of not guilty, and trial proceeded against them.

After due hearing, the trial
proceeded against them. Gustavo Victoriano, Judge,
rendered s decision dated 16 November 1957, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“In view of the foregoing
considerations, the Court finds the accused Sulpicio
Tica guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder, as charged in the information* and sentences him to life imprisonment,
with the accessories of the Jaw, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Traquilino Dayrit in the amount of
P6.000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency due to the
nature of the principal penalty imposed upon him, and to pay one-half of the
costs of this action.

“It appearing that the guilt of
the accused Marcos Castalone has not been established
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the Court acquits him of the
charges, with 1/2 of the costs de oficio.

“It is so
ordered.”

Counsel for accused Tica presented a motion to reconsider the above decision;
but while said motion was pending resolution, said accused personally filed his
notice of appeal. The trial court denied the motion and gave due course to his
appeal.

Subsequent to the promulgation of
the aforestated decision, Accused Romeo Paz alias
Commander Romy, was apprehended. He was immediately
arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty.

On 8 April 1958 counsel for
accused Paz presented a motion to quash the information on the ground that the
offense charged therein was allegedly committed by said accused in the course of
his rebellious activities as a Huk; hence, said
accused should be prosecuted for the crime of rebellion only, and not of murder.
This motion was opposed by the Fiscal.

The trial court denied said
motion. Paz moved to reconsider said order of denial, but the same was likewise
denied; hence, trial against said accused was commenced and
terminated.

The trial court, presided by Hon.
Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Judge, rendered a judgment dated
27 October
1959, the
dispositive part of which is quoted below, to
wit

“In view of the above
considerations, this Court finds the accused Romeo Paz Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder as charged with no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance to modify his criminal liability, and pursuant to the provisions of
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, hereby imposes upon said accused the
penalty of Life Imprisonment with the corresponding accessory penalties provided
for by law, and orders him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Tranquilino Dayrit in the amount
of P6,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
the proportionate costs. Accused shall be credited with one-half of such
preventive imprisonment as he may have suffered by reason of this
case.

“So
ordered.”

A motion to reconsider the above
decision having been denied, accused Paz also appealed.

At the separate trial of accused
Tica and Castalone, the
evidence for the prosecution showed that sometime in the year 1953 Tranquilino Dayrit and his wife,
Narcisa Tadong, stayed in
the house of accused Sulpicio Tica situated in the mountains of Sitio Pinagsibiran, Tanay, Rizal; that in the same
year and place the spouses met Huk Commanders Romy and Garcia when their land was surveyed and often met
the Huk Commanders whenever they asked food from Dayrit; that sometime in the months of March and April,
1956, while the Dayrits were staying in Tica’s house, accused Tica
proposed to the Huk Commanders and their Huk companions to liquidate suspected army informers, among
whom were the Dayrits, which conversation was Reported
to the army authorities; that sometime in July, 1956 Dayrit denounced accused Tica as a
Huk and his Huk activities
to the 19th BCT in Sta. Maria, Lacuna; that about a week before 7 December 1956
accused Tica’s carabao ate
the rice plants of Dayrit; that Dayrit got angry with Tica; that
accused Tica, his father and brother went to Dayrit’s place carrying boloes and
challenging Dayrit to go out of his house; and that
because of this quarrel Dayrit lodged a complaint
against the Ticas in the Fiscal’s office in Pasig, Rizal, the investigation of which was scheduled for 19
December 1956.

That in December, 1956 the Dayrits used to stay in Sitio
Pinagsibiran, Tanay, Rizal, where they had a house neighboring that of accused
Tica’s; that at about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
6 December 1956, Huk Commanders Romy and Garcia, some other Huks,
and the accused Tica and Castalone went to their house and asked for Dayrit from Narcisa Tadong; that upon being told that he (Dayrit) was not at home, for he was then in Manila, they
inquired what time he will arrive, to which Tadong
replied that he might come that day or the following day; that the group left
and retired for the night at accused Tica’s
house.

That at about 9:00 o’clock in the
morning of the next day, 7 December 1956, the same group of men came back to
Dayrit’s place; that when the group arrived Dayrit was in front of their house cutting grass; that
accused Tica and Castalone
stationed themselves outside the fence along the road while the Huks approached Tadong from whom
they again inquired as to the whereabouts of her husband; that as Dayrit was already seen by the Huks she pointed him (Dayrit) out
to them and told Dayrit that there were persons
looking for him; that Dayrit instructed his wife to
allow the men to enter; that Dayrit went up to his
house, followed by Huk Commander Romy and some Huk companions,
while four other Huks remained in the ground; that
once they were inside the house the Huks told Dayrit that Tica is calling for
him and he (Dayrit) will have to accompany them to the
headquarters of the BCT in Sampaloc to settle the
matter; that Tadong confirmed the presence of Tica as he was waiting in the road; that Dayrit was seemingly unwilling to go with the Huks for he seated himself, removed his eye-glasses, and got
a towel.

At this juncture, the Huks hogtied Dayrit with a piece
of big rattan, dragged him out of the house, and brought him to the road where
accused Tica and Castalone
were waiting; that before leaving the house, the Huks
took rice, clothings and shoes, and even warned Tadong and her son, Teodoro Dayrit, not to leave the house, otherwise they will be
killed; that Tadong and her son followed the Huks to see what they will do with Dayrit; that upon reaching the road the Huks surrounded Dayrit, then
pulled him to a grassy place along the road and hit him with the butts of their
guns; that Commander Romy pulled out his knife and
began stabbing Dayrit on his neck, after which he
handed the same knife to accused Tica who also stabbed
Dayrit’s neck, followed by the other Huks who took turns in stabbing Dayrit until the latter fell down; that the group repeated
the stabbings on the different sides of Dayrit’s body;
that accused Tica removed the right eye of Dayrit by means of a “balisong“,
and then Dayrit’s lips were pierced and tied together
with a rattan; that after seeing Dayrit was already
dead, the group looked around and left the place; that Tadong and her son also left the place, took another way,
and went to Baras, Rizal, to
report the incident to the army authorities; and that the soldiers took the
corpse of Tranquilino Dayrit.

The above narration was
established through the testimony of Narcisa Tadong, widow of the late Tranquilino Dayrit. The killing of
Dayrit was also corroborated by Teodoro Dayrit, 7-year old son of
Narcisa Tadong, who declared
that his father was stabbed and killed by Sulping
(pointing to accused Sulpicio Tica) in the presence of Commander Romy; that the Huks took his
father and brought him to a grassy place along the road where he was killed;
that Commander Romy and Commander Garcia also stabbed
his father; and that he was with his mother when his father was
killed.

The fact of death of said Tranquilino Dayrit was testified
to by Clemente E. Diaz, Medical Officer of the 8th
BCT, who conducted, on 8 December 1956, an examination of the cadaver of said
deceased and found that Dayrit died of shock secondary
to hemorrhage caused by the stab wounds inflicted by means of a sharp-pointed
instrument for which he issued the following medical certificate (Exh. “A”):

“1. Multiple stabbed wounds on
the right and left sides of the neck;

2. Multiple stabbed wounds
between the scapular regions;

3. Multiple stabbed wounds on the
left lower part of the scapular region;

4. Stabbed wound on the upper
left nipple;

5. Cut wound on the anterior
surface of the left forearm.”

And, as additional proof of the
corpus delicti, the prosecution submitted the death
certificate of said Tranquilino Dayrit (Exhibit “C”).

The prosecution also established,
through the testimony of Capt. Claudio P. Sucgay,
former Intelligence Officer of the 19th BCT, that on 18 July 1956 Tranquilino Dayrit reported and
denounced accused Tica as a Huk supply officer, for which he executed a sworn statement
Exhibit “B”).

Accused Sulpicio Tica premised his defense
on alibi by flatly denying that he took part in the killing of Tranquilino Dayrit for his
non-presence in the scene of the crime in the afternoon and evening of 6
December and the whole morning of 7 December 1956. Thus, he claims that after
lunchtime in the afternoon of 6 December 1956 he left his house in sitio Pinagsibiran, bound for the
town proper of Tanay, Rizal,
to attend to the celebration of the death anniversary of his grandmother, which
was scheduled for the next day, 7 December 1956; that upon reaching his house in
Aldea, within the town proper, at around 5:00 o’clock
of the same afternoon, he dressed up and went to the barber shop for a haircut,
but he was unable to have it because there were many people waiting to have
their haircut so he went back to his house where he met and saw many guests
attending the anniversary celebration, such as Pat. Ponso (Inagan) with whom he had a
brief conversation at around 8:00 p.m., Dr. Anihin,
whom he s aw at around 11:00 p.m; and Pat. Ponso again at
about 3:00 o’clock in the dawn of 7 December 1956; that after this second
meeting with Pat. Ponso he went to sleep and
woke up before 7:00 o’clock in the morning of 7 December 1956, ate, dressed up,
and proceeded to the barbershop at about 8:00 a.m.; that while on his way there,
he happened to walk along with Dr. Anihin until they
reached the barbershop where they parted ways as Dr. Anihin was going to his office; that as the barbershop was
still closed he walked around the place where he was approached by the Chief of
Police of Tanay telling him to go with his father to
the municipal building to get their subpoena, to which request he gave an
affirmative reply; that after this brief meeting he proceeded to the barbershop
where he met Pat. Ponso again; that at around 9:00
o’clock a.m., while having his haircut, he was again approached by the Chief of
Police reminding him not to forget to go to the municipal building; that after
his haircut he fetched his father and went to the municipal building where they
met Guillermo (Memong) Melendres, a policeman, from whom they asked for the Chief
of Police; but as the latter had not yet arrived, they waited for him (Chief of
Police) in vain until noon time, and, as they were already hungry, they went
home to eat and returned at about 2:00 o’clock p.m. to the municipal building;
that upon arrival there they were informed by Melendres that the Chief of Police had already arrived but
was in the second floor; that they waited for the Chief of Police in his office,
located in the ground floor of the municipal building; that after a short while
the Chief of Police came, but was not able to attend to them, and told them to
wait; that at around 4:00 o’clock p.m. the Chief of Police attended to them and
let them sign the subpoena (Exhibit “I”), after which they went home to Aldea; that before midnight of 7 December 1956 he, together
with his father and Castalone, were taken by army
soldiers to the 8th BCT camp in Baras, Rizal, where they were questioned in connection with the
killing of Tranquilino Dayrit upon complaint of Narcisa
Tadong; that in the investigation they denied
participation in said killing, and after the investigation they were released
and brought to their homes; that Narcisa Tadong implicated him (Tica) in
the killing of Tranquilino Dayrit because he reported to Dayrit during his lifetime about her illicit relations with
a certain Mr. Cruz.

Accused-appellant Tica produced several witnesses to support his alibi:
Reynaldo Vera, who testified that after lunch on 6 December 1956 the appellant
left his house in Pinagsibiran for Tanay proper to attend an anniversary celebration; policeman
Ildefonso Inagan of Tanay, who claimed to have seen this accused three times, at
eight in the evening of 6 December, in barrio Aldea,
Tanay, and again at 3:00 and 8:00 a.m. of 7 December;
municipal health officer Mamerto Anihin, who asserted having seen Tica in the night of December sixth and conversed briefly
with the appellant on his way to the barbershop in Tanay before 8:00 a.m. of 7 December 1956 and again shortly
past noon of the same day in the Tanay plaza; barber
Vitaliano Viray, who
testified having seen Tica at about 8:00 a.m. of 7
December in front of his barbershop in Tanay proper;
later told Tica to wait for his haircut because of
other customers ahead of him; cut his hair at around 9:30 a.m., and during the
process saw Chief of Police Cautivo tell Tica to go to his office. Edilberto Cautivo, Chief of
Police, affirmed in court having met Tica around 8:00
a.m. in Tanay and told him that there was a subpoena
for him, his father and brother, and again, at around 10:30 a.m., he told Tica at the barbershop not to forget to drop at his office;
that Tica and the letter’s father came at around 2:30
p.m. and were finally attended to at 4:00 p.m., when they were made to sign the
subpoena, Exhibit “1”, wherein the witness noted “12-7-56 at 4:10 p.m.”.
Policeman Guillermo Melendres, guard at the office of
the Chief of Police, testified to Tica’s having called
at said office several times, at 11:00 a.m., 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. of 7 December,
looking for Chief Cautivo, and that accused stayed at
said office until after 4:00 p.m.

The trial court convicted
appellant Tica on the strength of the concordant
testimony of Narcisa Tadong
and her young son, Teodoro Dayrit. The conviction is assailed on the ground that the
testimonies were improbable and contradictory, and were negated by the alibi of
the witnesses” of this appellant.

We have gone over the record and
see no error in the conviction. The discrepancies and alleged improbabilities of
the testimony of both prosecution witnesses were in matters of detail and, in
fact, coupled with their lack of education, heighten their credibility rather
than otherwise, and show that the testimony was neither coached nor rehearsed.
(People vs. Selfaison, L-14732, Jan.
28, 1961). This court has noted that such differences are due to
individual variations in observation and memory, and do not necessarily indicate
falsehood (People vs. Tuason, 86 Phil. 278; People vs.
Calleha, L-2264, 27 December 1950). The fact is that
the late Tranquilino Dayrit
was killed in broad daylight, and that Tica was
well-known to Narcisa and her son, being their
neighbor, so that the possibility of error in identification at the scene of the
crime is remote (cf. People vs. Quiatchon, L-11109, 30
June 1958).

Appellant stresses that Tadong testified that after stabbing Tranquilino Dayrit. his assailants removed one of his eyes and sewed his lips,
but the certificate of post mortem examination showed no such lesions. In the
first place, the post mortem does not appear to have been very thorough: no
autopsy was made. Secondly, it is common experience, and writers and students of
Psychology and criminal investigation, like Gross and Munsterberg, have so remarked, that in the excitement and
confusion that attend the witnessing of startling occurrences, particularly when
coupled with heightened emotions, it is not rare for excitable witnesses to
actually suffer illusions that lead them to believe having seen things that
actually did not happen (cf. People vs. Layos, 60
Phil. 761). The cruel and bloody murder of Dayrit by
an armed band was an event of the type described. Such illusion, however, could
not have existed with respect to the actual presence of appellant Sulpicio Tica at the locus of the
crime, for he was seen even before Dayrit was seized
and killed, and, therefore, before the emotions of the prosecution witnesses
were much aroused. Certainly if, as hinted for appellant, these witnesses had
been coached by the army combat team officers, in revenge for Tica’s denunciation of their excesses, the officers would
not have allowed such gross errors to creep into the testimony for the
prosecution. It is noteworthy that the stories of Narcisa Tadong and her son were
scrutinized and believed by two different judges, who separately tried
accused-appellants Tica and Paz. Their belief must be
accorded great weight, and, under the circumstances, the faults stressed by the
defense do not justify total discarding of the incriminating
testimony.

This Court has repeatedly ruled
that oral evidence of alibi can not prevail over positive identification of the
accused by witnesses who saw them at the scene of the crime and who could not be
mistaken because the accused was well-known to them (People vs. Quiatchon, supra; People vs. Sabuero, 108 Phil. 74; People vs. Divinagracia, 13 April 1959. In the case at bar, there are
details to support the trial court’s rejection of Tica’s alibi. With the sole exception of Reynaldo Vera, who
saw Ties once at noon of 6 December (the day preceding that of the killing), it
is an incredible coincidence that each and all of the other alibi witnesses
should have met appellant Tica, not once or twice, as
might be expected, but three times in less than twenty-four hours, from the
night of 6 December to the afternoon of 7 December. One of them, Ildefonso Inagan, even insisted on
the plainly ridiculous story that he met Tica three
times, and that every time Tica reported that the
rooster of the witness, that was in flea’s care, had died, and that Inagan in each instance gave the same reply, “what can we
do?” Then again, Chief of Police Cautivo, while
carefully noting the time when Tica received the
subpoena, Exhibit “I”, could not show or recall any other instance of subpoena
service in which he had noted the time in writing. Withal, there are hiatuses as
to the whereabouts of Tica on the fatal morning, so
that it can not be safely asserted that it was materially impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime, which was only 23 kilometers away. All in all, the
trial court had reasons to observe that the alibi witnesses might have seen
appellant Sulpicio Tica, but
not on the date and hour they specified. The court below had special opportunity
to observe closely the demeanor of the individual witnesses that is not
available to us, and our review of the evidence does not afford any adequate
basis for discarding its appreciation of their
credibility.

“Where there is a conflict in the
testimony of witnesses in a criminal action, these of the defense giving
evidence directly contradicting that given by those of the prosecution, the
appellate court, on appeal, will not interfere with the conclusions of the trial
court concerning the credibility of such witnesses in view of the act that the
trial court saw them in the act of testifying and observed their manner and
demeanor as witnesses, unless it is satisfactorily shown that the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied sonic fact or circumstance of weight and
influence sufficient to induce belief that, if the error had not been committed,
the decision on the question would probably have been different.” (Francisco,
Evidence, 1964 Ed., p. 1132)

The judgment of conviction
against accused Sulpicio should, therefore, be
affirmed.

With regard to the appellant,
Romeo Paz, Commander Romy, who was separately tried
and convicted on the same prosecution evidence, we have the added circumstance
that said Paz admitted in the sworn statement (Exhibit “B”) that he was with the
group of men who took Tranquilino Dayrit from his house in Tanay,
Rizal, but it was his companion by the name of “Hira” who actually stabbed Dayrit
while he (Paz) and his companions were surrounding and guarding him (Dayrit). In another sworn statement (Exhibit “C”), Paz
admitted that he was a member of the Hukbalahap
organization, and that he was with “Hira” when Tranquilino Dayrit was killed with
a bayonet in the mountains of Tanay, Rizal.

For his defense, accused Romeo
Paz declared that since 1950 he was a member of the Hukbalahap organization; that he was with the group of Huks who killed Tranquilino Dayrit; that Dayrit was killed
because he was suspected by the Huks to be an army
informant or spy; that when Dayrit was killed he
merely stood as guard to give warning to his companions if any army men
approached. Paz also admitted having signed the sworn statements Exhibit “B* and
“C”.

As rebuttal evidence, the
prosecution presented Fiscal Amable Vicencio, who declared that he issued a subpoena dated 23
November 1956 (Exhibit “E”) in the case of Tranquilino
Dayrit against Sulpicio
Tica, et al., for Grave Threats; that this subpoena,
as per return, was received by Sulpicio Tica on or before 7 December 1956, but that this case was
dismissed because before any preliminary investigation could be conducted on 19
December 1956 complainant Dayrit was
killed.

In the instant appeal, accused
Romeo Paz contends the killing of Tranquilino Dayrit was done in connection with, or in the furtherance
of, the subversive movement of the Hukbalahaps or HMB;
hence, he should be held liable only for the crime of simple rebellion under
Article 1″ and/or article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and the information
against him be dismissed.

This contention has no merit. The
prosecution established that the killing: of Tranquilino Dayrit was motivated
by the personal or private quarrel which accused Sulpicio Tica had with Dayrit during his lifetime, for Dayrit was asked by the band to “come with us to the PC so
that your case with Sulping (Tica) would be fixed” (t.s.n., pp.
2-3, March 9, 1959). Apparently, Tica utilized the
Huks as the instrument in pursuing his design of
killing Dayrit because of his grudge against him for
filing a complaint in the Fiscal’s
office.

That the killing was in pursuance
of the Huk rebellion is a matter of mitigation or
defense that the accused has the burden of proving clearly and satisfactorily;
The lone and uncorroborated assertion of appellant Paz that his superiors told
him of Dayrit being an informer, and his suspicion
that he was one such, is neither sufficient or adequate to establish that the
motivation for the killing was political, considering appellant’s obvious
interest in testifying to that effect.

This Court has already held
that—

“While this Court ruled in People
v. Hernandez, 52 O. G., 5506 that there is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder because the latter offense is absorbed by the former, however,
distinction was made in the care of People vs. Geronimo, 53 O. G., 68 where this
Court held that if the Wiling is inspired by personal motive such killing is not
absorbed by the rebellion but may be the subject of separate prosecution.” (People vs. Rogado, G. R. No.
L-13025, December 29, 1959).

The guilt of this accused is
clear even upon his own version that he merely stood guard while his companions
stabbed and killed Dayrit. His avowed conduct in going
with the band to the house of the deceased, and standing while Dayrit was seized, abducted from his house, killed, is
adequate proof of his participation as conspirator, and of his responsibility as
co-principal in the murder.

Wherefore, the two (2) decisions,
convicting appellants Tica and Paz of the crime of
murder should be, as they are hereby affirmed. Costs against
appellants.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo,
Barrera, Regala, Makalintal,
Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.