THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIX SEMAÑADA, ALIAS SEMANADA, ALIAS COMMANDER DANTE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Sometime in 1950 Felix Semanada, alias Semanada, alias Commander Dante, a
young boy of 17 years of age, joined the Hukbalahap organization, which was
composed of 4 units, namely, the organization, the contacting, the liquidation
and the courier groups, and Semanada was assigned to form part of the latter
group, whose duty was to deliver letters and messages. Apparently, Felix
Semanada was unhappy and discontented and oftenly scolded by his parents, so he
easily yielded to the propaganda of the Hukbalahap organization, for he did not
have the opportunity to obtain any academic schooling except up to Grade II.

On or about 6 o’clock in the evening of June 12, 1952, Felix Semañada, then
19 years of age, and in company of 2 Huks, i.e., Commanders Wennie and Heling-,
all armed, arrived at the house of the spouses Serapio Villate and Nieves
Magtibay, situated at barrio Sastre, Gumaca, Quezon, where they had a store. The
couple were taking their supper when Felix Semanada ordered Serapio Villate to
go down and, apparently because the latter resisted the order, he was brought
down to a distance of about an arm’s length from his house. Once there he was
seized and hogtied by Commanders Wennie and Heling with a string used for
fishing. As his companions held the victim Semañada stabbed Villate several
times with a sharp pointed bolo measuring about a palm’s length (dangkal). The
torture lasted for about 30 minutes causing the victim to cry in agony “aroy,
aroy”. His wife, Nieves Magtibay, who hails from the same barrio of Semañada,
actually saw the stabbing from the opening of an upstairs window and she ran to
her husband’s aid but she was not able to help him because of the 2 Huks that
were unknown to her, one of whom blocked her way while the other hit her with
the butt of his gun on the upper lip, as a result of which her upper lip was cut
and she lost 3 front teeth.

After the killing of Serapio Villate, Felix Semañada and his companions went
up the victim’s house. There Semanada pushed Nieves Magtibay to a corner,
threatened to kill her and demanded from her the shotgun of the deceased. The
three also ransacked the couple’s wardrobe, after which they left with the
shotgun valued at P250.00 and other merchandise and money of a total value of
P900. The widow also left the place to report the incident to her brother-in-law
Daniel Villate, who in turn reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary,
and that same evening the authorities found the deceased Serapio Villate lying
dead, face downward and hogtied,

A post-mortem examination of the cadaver disclosed that a total of 51 wounds
were inflicted on the thorax and abdomen of the deceased, 50 of which were
superficial and only one fatal, for it penetrated the abdomen, with a depth of 5
inches, one inch long and one centimeter wide (Exhibit A).

The widow, however, kept silent as to the identity of Felix Semañada as one
of the malefactors until he surrendered to the authorities in Nagcarlang,
Laguna, on December 5, 1955. Upon learning that said Huk was already in the
custody of the law, she revealed to the authorities that the person who stabbed
her husband to death in the evening of June 12, 1952, was Felix Semañada and
explained that the reason for her long silence was her fear that while Semañada
were at large living in the mountains, she might be liquidated if he would learn
that a charge for murder was filed against him by the widow of the deceased.

Due to this revelation and after the corresponding investigation a complaint
for “robbery in band with murder” was filed in the Justice of the Peace Court of
Gumaca, Quezon, against Felix Semañada, alias Semanada, alias Commander Dante et
al., without naming the said 2 other commanders who were still at large
unidentified. After proper proceedings the Justice of the Peace Court, convinced
that the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense imputed to
him, remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Quezon where the
Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding information this time against Felix
Semañada, alias Semanada, alias Commander Dante alone, charging him with the
crime of robbery with homicide, defined and punished by Article 294 in
connection with Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act 18.

Upon arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty but after hearing the Court
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide,
defined and punished under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code,
with the attendance of 3 aggravating circumstances with none mitigating to
offset the same, and sentenced him to die in the electric chair, to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased Serapio Villate in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay the
further sum of P900.00, value of the cash and goods robbed from the deceased,
with costs.

Defendant did not appeal from this decision but this case was nevertheless,
brought to this Court under the provisions of Section 9, Rule 118 of the Rules
of Court, for review and judgment as law and justice shall dictate.

In this instance counsel for the defense maintains that the lower Court
erred:

1. In holding that the accused-appellant Felix Semanada is guilty beyond
   reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with murder, although the evidence of
   the prosecution is wholly insufficient as it is improbable and contrary to
   common experience;

2. In giving weight and merit to the evidence of the prosecution to the effect
   that widow Nieves Magtibay kept silent as to identity of the assailant until the
   accused surrendered to the authori ties for fear that she might be liquidated
   also by the accused who was living in the mountain as a Hukbalahap;

3. In concluding that the wounds have been inflicted one by one, torturing the
   deceased for one-half hour constituting an aggravating circumstance of cruelty,
   although there is no evidence to support said conclusion;

4. In not extending to the accused-appellant the benefit of Article 12,
   paragraphs 5 and 6, although the evidence shows that he acted under the
   influence of uncontrollable fear or compulsion of an irresistible force;

5. In holding the accused-appellant liable for the acts of his com panions when
   he had neither knowledge of the intention to kill the deceased nor had he
   actually participated in its commission; and

6. In not holding and extending to the accused the mitigating circumstances of
   (1) lack of instruction; (2) for having acted under the influence of grave fear
   not entirely uncontrollable under paragraph 1, article 13, in connection with
   paragraph 6 of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code; and (3) voluntary surrender
   of the accused to the authorities on December 5, 1955, within paragraph 10, of
   article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

The version of the defendant as to the execution of the crime at bar is as
follows:

On or about June 12, 1952, at about 3 o’clock p.m., while Felix Semanada was
in barrio Labnig, Gumaca, Quezon, waiting for letters to be delivered,,
Commanders Wennie and Heling of the liquidation unit arrived. The 2 commanders
ordered him to accompany them to barrio Sastre, but he refused on the ground
that as a courier he had his own duty to do, but the said commanders took their
firearms, pointed them toward him saying that he would be killed if he refused
to guide them to the house of Serapio Villate. He was told that they were just
to visit Serapio Villate without showing any intention of killing that man. Had
he not been forced to go to with them to barrio Sastre, he would not have gone
with them. They arrived at barrio Sastre at about 6 o’clock in the evening and
when they were about 20 arm-length away from the house of Serapio Villate, the 2
commanders Wennie and Heling ordered him to stay guard near the road; while thus
guarding alone, he could have escaped but he did not for fear that if he did so
he would be liquidated by the 2 notorious commanders and, beside that, he had no
reason to escape, as he was made to believe that they were going there only for
a visit. As a matter of fact, while thus guarding the road he heard neither
cries nor shouts from the house of Villate. On the other hand, he could not have
gone to town because he would have been arrested by the army.

On December 5, 1955, in Nagcarlang, Laguna, upon realizing the evils of
communism and having grown up to understand the beauty of democracy, he
surrender voluntarily to Sgt. Regalado of the 26th B.C.T. He said that he wanted
to live peacefully and to start a new life.

In consonance with this version defendant disclaims any criminal liability
for the death of Villate and the robbery in the latter’s house. He admitted
having been at the scene of the crime at the time it was being committed, but he
says that it was so, because he was under the influence of a great fear.
Consequently-counsel for the defense argues that in so far as the defendant is
concerned, the circumstances of treachery and cruelty cannot be appreciated
against him, because the killing was not executed by him, aside from the fact
that the testimony of the widow Nieves Magtibay, who averred to have seen the
defendant stabbing the deceased for 30 minutes deserves no credence because from
the opening of the window thru which she allegedly was peeping, she was unable
to see the defendant, specially if it is considered that her view was
intercepted by at least 3 persons.

Counsel further maintains that even if convicted of the crime charged
defendant is entitled to the benefits of the mitigating circumstances of (1)
lack of instruction; (2) having acted under the influence of fear not entirely
uncontrollable to be exempting under Article 12, paragraph 6 of the Revised
Penal Code, but coming within the purview of Article 13, paragraph 1 of the same
legal body; and (3) voluntary surrender to the authorities on December 5, 1955,
which also may be considered as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13,
paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code, for it constitutes a circumstance of a
similar nature and analogous to the circumstance of voluntary surrender to a
person in authority or agent covered by paragraph 7 of said article 13.

Upon going over the evidence on record, We find no reason for the widow
Nieves Magtibay to testify falsely against the defendant herein and to impute to
him the commission of so heinous offense. She knew very well the defendant and
was able to identify him fully. Any way, the matter devolves into a case of
credibility of witnesses and the trial judge, who had the opportunity of
observing their demeanor while testifying in his presence and is in a better
position than the appellate Court to gauge their credibility, has given full
credence to the testimony of said widow.

As to the circumstance of lack of
instruction, the Solicitor General states that the test for the mitigating
circumstance is not illiteracy alone, but rather lack of sufficient intelligence
(People vs. Ripas, et al.,^*G. R. No. L-6246, promulgated May 28, 1954), and the
record discloses that far from his claim that he suffers from lack of
instruction, he possesses an intelligence worthy of a lawyer considering his
ability, for one unschooled, to distinguish between implications and innuendos.
At any rate, lack of instruction is not mitigating in cases of robbery (U.S. vs.
Pascual, 9 Phil., 491; People vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil., 154; People vs. De la
Cruz, et al., 77 Phil., 44), although it might be under certain situations in
cases of murder (People vs. Taluk, et al., 65 Phil., 696) and homicide (People
vs. Hubero, 61 Phil., 64).

With respect to the alleged “uncontrollable fear or compulsion of an
irresistible force”, which appellant says the lower court did not consider in
his favor, the Government contends that the purported uncontrollable fear was a
mere fabrication and that appellant was a willing participant in the criminal
design. Moreover, fear or duress in order to be a valid defense, should be based
on real., imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It should not be
inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A person should not commit a
very serious crime on account of a flimsy fear (People vs. Quilloy, 88 Phil.,
53), and the evidence on record does not show that defendant really acted by
such uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Anent the circumstance of voluntary surrender or of a similar or analogous
circumstance We hold that defendant cannot claim it in his favor in the case at
bar, because he did not surrender to the authority or its agents by reason of
the commission of the crime for which he is herein prosecuted, but for being a
Huk who wanted to come within the pale of the law (see People vs. Sakam, 61
Phil., 27, 33-34).

On the strength of the foregoing considerations We find Felix Semanada, alias
Semanada, alias Commander Dante, guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide
attended by the aggravating circumstance of treachery (which include nocturnity
and aid of superior strength), dwelling and cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the victim. He should, therefore, be
sentenced to the supreme penalty of death which, however, cannot be imposed upon
him for lack of the required number of votes necessary for the imposition of
said penalty.

Wherefore, the decision of the lower Court rendered in this case and brought
to Us in consultation is hereby affirmed, although the penalty imposed upon the
defendant is lowered to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), in accordance
with the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 9 of Republic Act No. 296,
known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, with the corresponding accessories of the
law and the payment of the costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^*95 Phil., 63.