THE PEOPLE Of THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FR. FAUSTINO BALANCIO AND ROSARIO QUERUBIN, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Charged with and tried for murder, upon a plea of not guilty in the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, appellants Fr. Faustino Balancio
and Rosario Querubin were convicted and each sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Serafin
Querubin in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay the costs. Both appealed
claiming, in substance, that the lower court erred in finding Querubin
guilty, as principal, and Fr. Balancio, as principal by inducement, of
the crime of murder on the basis of the evidence of record.

Appellant Querubin admits that he shot and killed the deceased
policeman Serafin Querubin near the municipal building of Caoayan,
Ilocos Sur, in the evening of December 30, 1958, but claims that he did
it in self-defense. To substantiate this defense, he testified as
follows:

That for several months prior to the date of the incident, the
convent of Fr. Balancio had been stoned at night frequently; that
although Fr. Balancio sought the help of the authorities to find out
who were the culprits and to stop the stoning, their efforts were
unsuccessful; that, for his protection, the Philippine Constabulary
stationed at Vigan, Ilocos Sur, gave him a security guard named Cpl.
Hermogenes Delfin, who was joined later by Pfc. Ernesto Jimenez; that
on the night of December 30, while the security guards, Fr. Balancio,
herein appellant Querubin and his wife were in the living room of the
convent, the place was stoned again, for which reason Cpl. Delfin fired
three shots in the air, while Pfc. Jimenez went down with a bloodhound
to chase the culprits; that appellant Querubin also went down to help
find out who were the culprits, taking a westward direction; that while
he was walking, a man under a tree—who turned out to be policeman
Serafin Querubin—threw stones at him and then tried to pull a gun out
of his pocket, for which reason he beat him to the draw and fired at
him.

The lone and uncorroborated testimony of appellant Querubin is not
sufficient to establish the above related facts. Explaining why the
deceased was impelled to stone him and to attempt to draw his gun,
Querubin testified that this was probably due to the fact, that the
former thought he had been discovered by appellant as the one who had
stoned the convent that night. This could not be so because, according
to uncontradicted evidence, the deceased had been conversing at the
municipal building with the policeman on guard duty, surnamed Navarro,
for some time before the stoning took place and shots were fired, and,
as a matter of fact, upon request of policeman Navarro, he was
precisely going to the convent to investigate the incident when he was
met, fired at and killed by Querubin. The trial court was, therefore
justified in not believing the latter’s version that, upon meeting the
deceased, the latter attacked him in the manner above related. This
conclusion becomes stronger upon considering the fact that when the
Philippine Constabulary investigators arrived at the scene of the
killing that same night, they found the victim’s gun still tucked
inside his right hip pocket. Certainly, if it was the deceased who,
enjoying the important element of surprise, assaulted Querubin first,
the latter could not have beaten him to the draw.

Upon the other hand, the version of the witnesses for the
prosecution appears to be more credible. The prosecution evidence shows
that about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of December 30, 1953, the
deceased Serafin Querubin had gone to the municipal building of Caoayan
preparatory to his relieving the policeman on guard duty thereat; that
while the two were converting, they heard gunshots coming from the
direction of the convent located quite near the municipal building;
that because Navarro could not leave the municipal building as his
guard duty was not yet over, it fell on the deceased Serafin Querubin
to go to the convent to find out what happened; that he had hardly
covered the distance of 15 meters from the place where he left
policeman Navarro when he met appellant Querubin, to whom he identified
himself, at the same time raising his hand; that, instead of replying,
Querubin fired at him twice hitting him on the chest, as a result of
which he died.

In connection with the above version, it is worthwhile to consider
that appellant Querubin and his wife must have been good friends of Fr.
Balancio, for it appears that, sometime before the bloody incident,
Querubin’s wife had gone to the convent to inquire from the priest if
their mutual friend, Judge Antonio Quirino, had already arrived, and
sometime later Querubin himself arrived at the convent to ask the
priest to donate a basketball to the Western Caoayan Athletic
Association, of which he was then a member. Due to this friendship, it
is quite understandable that Querubin had resented the unjust vexation
to which Fr. Balancio had been subjected frequently during the past
months. Therefore, when the convent was stoned again that evening while
he was there, it was but natural that his anger should be aroused. In
that state of mind he went down the convent and then met the deceased,
and believing that the latter was the culprit, he fired at him.

However, considering the facts established by the evidence, we agree
with the Solicitor General that the crime committed by Querubin is not
murder but simple homicide. Neither treachery nor evident premeditation
has been proven.

As regards appellant’s claim now that, if convicted, the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in his favor,
we find the same to be without merit, because, according to the
evidence, he was arrested by Cpl. Delfin before he ever had a chance to
surrender.

Coming now to the case of Fr. Balancio, we find that the evidence is
clearly insufficient to prove his guilt of murder by inducement.

Of the many prosecution witnesses, only two, Dionisia Querubin, a
sister-in-law of the deceased, and Felicisimo Querubin, his brother,
actuallly implicated this appellant. Due to their close relationship
with the deceased, it is manifest that their testimony is tainted with
bias and cannot be accepted without qualification. To this we must add
the circumstance established by the defense that the appellant priest
had previous misunderstandings with them. There is, in this connection,
sufficient evidence showing that formerly the priest used to send his
boys to buy dried fish from the store of Dionisia, but later gave them
orders to the contrary when he found out that she was not treating them
well. On the other hand, the priest earned the resentment and dislike
of Felicisimo Querubin when he dismissed the latter’s daughter from the
convent for misbehavior.

Besides, a perusal of the record shows that these two witnesses
could not even agree on what Fr. Balancio allegedly told appellant
Querubin before the shooting happened. According to Dionisia, the
priest shouted to his co-appellant: “Remember the promise, even a
policeman, shoot him”, and that Querubin, after shooting the deceased,
said: “Father, I have killed him. It is up to you to take care of my
family” (transcript pp. 31, 33, 42, Oct. 1,1959). For his part,
Felicisimo claims that what the priest said was the following: “Even a
policeman, you fire at him, I will be responsible later on”, and that
Querubin, after shooting his victim, said: “Father, I have killed, it
is up for you to take care of my family as per agreement” (Id. pp.
57-58, Oct. 1, 1959).

But even assuming that Fr. Balancio really told his co-appellant,
before the fatal shooting, what either one of the aforesaid prosecution
witnesses claims, that would not be legally sufficient to sustain his
conviction of murder by inducement in the absence of other
incriminating evidence.

In the case of People vs. Omine, 61 Phil. 609, the defendant shouted
to his co-defendant: “Pegale y matale” and thereafter the latter struck
the victim in the breast with his bolo. This evidence was held
insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt because the alleged
inducement was not made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime, and it did not appear that such inducement was
the determining cause of the commission of the crime. One of the
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain cited in support of the ruling
was one where, according to the facts, during a riot in which a person
was killed, the accused said to one of the combatants: “Stab him, stab
him”. The court held that this was not enough to convict him of
homicide by inducement, it not appearing that he did anything more than
say such words.

Again, in the case of People vs. Tamayo et al., 34 Phil. 38, it
appears that while an altercation was in progress, one of the
defendants indicated his sympathy for his companions and encouraged
them by shouting at them: “Go ahead, hit him”. The court held that this
alone was not enough evidence to convict him of the crime committed, by
inducement.

We, therefore, agree with the recommendation of the Solicitor
General that the judgment appealed from should, be reversed, as it is
hereby reversed, as far as appellant Fr. Faustino Balancio is
concerned, with the result that the latter is acquitted, with one half
of the costs declared de ofiicio.

On the ether hand, as regards appellant Rosario Querubin, the
appealed judgment is modified by finding him guilty only of homicide,
without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance modifying his
criminal liability. Applying the indeterminate sentence law to his
case, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of not
less than six (6) years and one day for prision mayor, nor more than fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one day of reclusion temporal;
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Serafin Querubin in the amount
of P6,000.00 and to pay one half of the costs. It is so ordered.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur..