THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO SEGALES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The charge is murder. The qualifying circumstance averred is treachery.
The Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte found defendant Rogelio
Segales guilty as charged, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the heirs of the victim Dionisio Oclaman in the sum of
P12,000.00 and to pay the costs. Defendant appealed.

In the evening of May 11, 1963, there was a dance at the public market
of barrio Consolacion, Sogod, Southern Leyte on the occasion of the
selection of beauty queen. About nine o’clock, while the people were in
the dance hall witnessing the canvassing of the votes cast for the
candidates, a commotion ensued when Gorgonio Tinio stabbed Hilarion
Sesbrenio. This incident was witnessed by Cornelio Supot following
which he and the people around scampered for safety. Tinio ran away and
was chased by Pat. Tomas Daclan, a member of the Municipal Police Force
of Sogod.

Few minutes thereafter, another incident occurred on the road near the
market place when Rogelio Segales stabbed the left chest of Dionisio
Oclaman with a hunting knife. This was also witnessed by Cornelio Supot
who testified that after the stabbing, the victim, Dionisio Oclaman,
turned round and fell on the ground, blood oozing profusely from his
body. Frightened because of what he had witnessed, Cornelio Supot went
home.

This second stabbing incident which happened that evening, particularly
when Rogelio Segales thrust a knife at Dionisio Oclaman, was also
witnessed by Ruperto Cadano.

After about five minutes, Marcos Taba, a stepbrother of Dionisio
Oclaman, arrived and upon being informed that the victim is his
stepbrother, went near and saw him already hovering between life and
death. Taba asked Dionisio Oclaman who stabbed him and the latter
answered that it was “Rogie.” Taba rushed home to inform his father and
stepmother about the incident. When the latter arrived at the scene of
the crime, Oclaman was already dead.

The body of the deceased was autopsied by the Municipal Health Officer
of Sogod, Dr. Ranulfo Salazar, who found the victim to have suffered –

“One clean-cut stab wound on the left side of the thorax, about
2.5 centimeters long and 1 centimeter wide, vertically oblique. It is
located at the level of left 6th rib. just left of the vertical left
nipple line. When a metal probe is inserted into this wound, its
direction is inward into the thoracic cavity.

“The left thoracic cavity is punctured through the 6th., left
inter­costal space, and completely fracturing the left, 6th rib. The
heart is punctured and penetrated through its left ventricle by a wound
about 2.5 centimeters long. This wound on the heart is not
thru-and-thru.” (p. 4, Appellee’s Brief)

Dr. Salazar testified that Dionisio Oclaman died due to “hemorrhage which was severe, internal and external, and severe shock.”

Rogelio Segales denied the charge against him, although he admitted his
presence at the public market that evening of May 11, 1963, playing
bingo with several persons. He averred that he was playing bingo when
all of a sudden a commotion occurred and the victim Dionisio Oclaman
came to him and said: “Please help me, Rogie. I was stabbed by
Gorgor.” Oclaman even raised his shirt to show the wound but shortly
thereafter, he fell. Afraid of what he had seen, he ran away to the
house of his parents.

The defense presented other witnesses, among others, namely:
Tranquilino Duran, Marcelino Mainit and the defendant’s mother, Corazon
Segales.

Tranquilino Duran testified that in that evening he was in the house of
Flora Paza which was about seven meters away from the dance hall. At
Paza’s house, he saw Gorgonio Tinio pass by and go to the place where
Hilarion Sesbrenio and Dionisio Oclaman were conversing. All of a
sudden, he saw Tinio thrust a bayonet at Sesbrenio but the latter was
able to parry the weapon which, instead, hit Oclaman on the left chest.
Tinio continued to hack Sesbrenio several times. In the meantime,
Oclaman, after being hit, ran towards the store of one Boholano which
was about ten (10) meters away.

Marcelino Mainit declared that in the evening of May 11, 1963, while he,
Ernesto Yu, Atty. Lucilo Regis, Atty. Cadavos, Manuel Palanca,
Francisco Miter and Antonio Lao were riding on a motor banca on their
way back from Consolacion, they saw a man swimming in the sea. They
went near him and invited him to ride with them. When asked why he was
swimming that evening, the man, who turned out to be Gorgonio Tinio,
answered that he had stabbed two persons and that he was running away.
Tinio was carrying with him a bayonet (Exhibit “5”) which he admitted to
be the weapon he used in stabbing his victims, Sesbrenio and Oclaman.
Before the motor banca arrived at the town proper of Sogod, Tinio jumped
into the water, leaving behind Exhibit “5.” The following morning, he
and Ernesto Yu reported the matter to the Chief of Police of Sogod and
also surrendered the bayonet.

Corazon Segales, mother of Rogelio Segales, testified that she was in
her store that evening of May 11, 1963 when Dionisio Oclaman arrived and
informed her that he was stabbed by Gorgor. He even took off his shirt
to show the wound in his left chest which was oozing with blood.
Thereafter, the victim went to the bingo game which was about fifteen
meters away from the store.

The defense claims that the trial court erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution and in not giving credit
and weight to those of the defense.

We agree with the findings and conclusion of the lower court that it is
herein appellant who is responsible for the death of Dionisio Oclaman.

1. There is the direct and positive testimony of Cornelio Supot, a
26-year old farmer from Bo. Mahayahay, Sogod, Southern Leyte, that he
saw appellant stab Dionisio Oclaman on his left chest. Oclaman turned
around, and fell down as blood came out profusely from his body.
Thereafter, Segales drew the knife from the body of the victim and ran
away. (pp. 13-14, Sept. 28, 1965 hearing, Vol. I)

2. Ruperto Cadano also witnessed the incident and even
demonstrated before the lower court how appellant stabbed the victim “by
placing his hand first parallel to his body then the right hand facing
his forearm 45 degrees at the elbow. With that position he made the
thrust forward to the person of the deceased.” (tsn., p. 8, November 12,
1965 hearing, Vol. IV)

3. Likewise, prosecution witness Marcos Taba testified on his
conversation with his wounded stepbrother Dionisio Oclaman, few minutes
before the latter died, as follows:

“Q And then what did you do when you saw Dionisio Oclaman staggering?

A I ran to approach him and placed him between my arms.

Q What else did you do, if any?

A He was then wounded on the left chest just near the nipple
and when he was in the act of lying on his abdomen I held him because
of his wound. I asked him and his voice was already faint and in answer
to my question he said ‘Rogie.’

Q You said you asked him, what question did you ask him?

A I asked him, who stabbed you?

Q Do you know who is this ‘Rogie’ referred to by the deceased Dionisio Oclaman?

A I know him. He is Rogelio Segales.

Q Is this Rogelio Segales, the accused in this case?

A Yes.

Q Then what happened after that if anything happened at all?

A While I was then covering his wound the people came around us but I could not recognize them.

Q Then what happened next?

A While I was then holding my brother between my arms and
around us were plenty of people I was poked three times on my back. On
the third time I turned my face and I saw that he was the Chief of
Police and I said to him, this is my brother chief.

Q Then?

A And after that the Chief of Police got his pistol and pushed me and so I ran home.

Q Why did you run home?

A I ran home to inform my father and my stepmother.

Q To which place did you run, where is your home?

A To barrio Slide.

Q Is this Bo. Slide the same place as the Mahayahay referred to in the common parlance in the town of Sogod?

A Yes.

Q Were your parents at home when you reached home that evening?

A Yes.

Q And then what did you do when you reached home?

A I told my father and my stepmother that Dionisio Oclaman had been stabbed.

Q And after telling them that Dionisio Oclaman was stabbed, what did you do, if any?

A My father, stepmother and I went to the place where Dionisio Oclaman was stabbed.

Q And what happened when you were in that place already where Dionisio Oclaman was stabbed?

A As Dionisio Oclaman was no longer in the place where I
left him because he was brought to Sogod we went to Sogod Dispensary.

Q And what did you find in the dispensary when you reached there?

A Nonoy and Dionisio Oclaman were in the dispensary.

Q Were they still alive when you reached the dispensary?

A Dead already.” (tsn. pp. 26-29, Nov. 12, 1965 hearing, Vol. IV)

The ante-mortem statement made by the victim hours before his death
pointing to appellant as the one who stabbed him partakes of the nature
of a dying declaration because of the serious nature of the wound he
sustained, which in fact resulted in death shortly after the statement
was made.

4. We find no ill-motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses
to testify falsely against herein appellant; neither did appellant
impute any motive why they did testify against him. Fact is, appellant
Rogelio Segales is the son-in-law of the Chief of Police of Sogod,
Southern Leyte and, because these prosecution eyewitnesses could not
report the matter to the local peace officers, they had to go to the
Philippine Constabulary at Maasin, Leyte, some 70 kilometers away.

5. Defense witness Tranquilino Duran declared that it was
Gorgonio Tinio who inflicted the victim’s wound with the bayonet
(Exhibit “5”) which has a single blade. However, according to Dr.
Salazar who examined the wound of the deceased, the weapon used is
double bladed. Thus, it could not be the bayonet, Exhibit “5”, which
was used in the stabbing of the victim.

6. The story given by Marcelino Mainit and Atty. Lucilo Regis
that they saw Gorgonio Tinio swimming in the sea carrying with him the
bayonet, Exhibit “5”, is manifestly artificious and unworthy of
credence. The first thing an assailant would do would be to throw away
the weapon used in his assault of another; further, he would not
immediately admit that he was escaping because he had stabbed two
persons. The fact that he was avoiding criminal liability is
inconsistent with his voluntary revelation regarding his authorship of
the crimes of double murder. And, if it was true that he was carrying
with him the bayonet while swimming, he would not leave it behind in the
banca but, instead, would bring it with him again when he jumped back
into the sea. Further, the story given by appellant’s mother, Corazon
Segales, that Dionisio Oclaman went to her store showing the wound on
his chest following which he walked to the place where the bingo game
was being held is an evidence which is not credible in itself. As
stated by this Court in People vs. Dayag, 56 SCRA 439, “[w]e have no
test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our
knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these
belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of juridical cognizance.”

7. If Duran actually saw Tinio stab the deceased Oclaman and
even reported the matter immediately to the chief of police, it is
surprising why he executed his written statement only on September 6,
1963. It appears that appellant Rogelio Segales is the son-in-law of
the Chief of Police of Sogod, Southern Leyte. That must be the reason
why a case was filed by the said chief of police against Gorgonio Tinio
for the killing of Sesbrenio and Oclaman. The case was filed in the
Municipal Court of Sogod and docketed as Criminal Case No. R-271. As
stated by the Solicitor General, “the filing of the double murder charge
before the Municipal Court of Sogod would not be taken as evidence that
Gorgonio Tinio was the assailant of Oclaman because, as already stated,
the investigation in said court never went beyond the first stage of
the preliminary investigation. x x x” (p. 13, Appellee’s Brief)

WHEREFORE, with the modification that an indemnity of P30,000.00 be
ordered paid to the heirs of the victim Dionisio Oclaman by appellant
Rogelio Segales, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in all other
respects, with costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.