PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL GUARDO, CARLOS TAMAYO AND ORLANDO TAMAYO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The theft of a kitchen stove is certainly no justification for
the taking of human life, but there it is. 
The owner, Ruben Estanilao, complained to the
authorities.  Orlando Tamayo
was among those investigated.  Manuel Guardo was also linked to the offense.  Carlos Tamayo
resented the suggestion of his son’s involvement and made a vague threat.  The stove was ultimately traced and returned
to the owner,^[1] but the matter did not end there.

All this happened on April
9, 1974.  Two days later, on
Holy Thursday, Estanislao was dead, stabbed in the
chest with a kitchen knife.

Immediately after the incident, Guardo
surrendered to the Marikina
police and admitted the killing.  In due time he was charged with murder, together with Carlos Tamayo and Orlando Tamayo as
co-principals.  All three were
found guilty after the trial before Judge Pedro A. Revilla
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.  Guardo was
sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of 14 years and 8 months of reclusion
temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as
maximum.  His voluntary surrender was
considered in mitigation.  The two Tamayos were sentenced to life imprisonment.  They were also bound jointly and severally
with Guardo to indemnify the victim’s heirs in the
amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs.^[2]

This appeal involves only Manuel Guardo
and Orlando Tamayo. 
Carlos Tamayo died on February 25, 1982,^[3] to be judged in another forum by a
still Higher Court than
this.

On the basis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the trial
court found that in the morning of April
11, 1974, while his arms were being held by the two Tamayos, preventing him from defending himself, Ruben Estanislao was stabbed in the chest by Manuel Guardo with a kitchen knife.^[4]
The assailants then fled.  Ruben’s wife, Sebastiana, immediately approached her husband and asked
him who had stabbed him.  His answer
was:  “Sila,
Hulihin sila.”
(“They, Apprehend them.”) She hurriedly hailed a tricycle and brought
him to the hospital but he died shortly upon arrival.^[5] The cause of death, as the autopsy
was to reveal, was “cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of a stab wound in the
chest.”^[6]

Two eyewitnesses were presented by the prosecution, namely, Norma
Madayag, the victim’s cousin, and David Estanislao, his 14-year old son.

Norma testified that she was coming out at the back of Ruben’s
stall in the Marikina
public market at about 10:30 o’clock
in the morning of April 11, 1974,
when she saw Guardo stab her cousin while his arms
were being held by Orlando Tamayo and Carlos Tamayo.  Carlos Tamayo was
restraining Ruben’s left arm and Orlando
was holding the other arm.  She was about
four feet from them when the stabbing occurred.^[7]

David Estanislao said he was about
three meters from his father when he was stabbed by Guardo
in the manner described by Norma.  The
incident happened at the back of their carinderia.  He
too declared that at the time of the stabbing, his father’s arms were being
restrained by the two Tamayos, adding that in the process
Ruben’s watchstrap was unloosed.  David said that he was unable to do anything
and just stood there because of fear and shock.^[8]

The widow, Sebastiana, said she did not
witness the actual stabbing although she had seen the four protagonists talking
to each other moments earlier.  When she
looked back her husband had already been bloodied and was holding his
stomach.  She also noticed that when she
approached him his watch had become unfastened. 
Besides narrating how she succored Ruben and took him to the Eulogio Rodriguez
Memorial Hospital,
she testified on the loss of their kitchen stove and the involvement of Manuel Guardo and Orlando Tamayo.  According to her, Carlos Tamayo
asked her why his son was being
implicated and, when she said she did not know, muttered:  “If my son is hurt, hmmm.”^[9]

There cannot be any probability of mistaken identity here for the
principal figures in this tragedy were known to each other, having worked in
the same market for years.  Ruben and his
family had a carinderia and Guardo had his own stall where he served goto and pansit.  Carlos Tamayo
worked as a cargador and his son was employed
in the slaughterhouse in the same market.

Guardo admitted stabbing Ruben minutes
after the incident and later reiterated this confession at the trial.^[10]
He disclaimed criminal liability, however, on the ground of insanity.  The night before the incident, he testified,
he kept hearing voices but could not see where they were coming from.  As he felt he was being pursued, he sought
refuge in the Marikina
police station, where he asked – and was allowed – to stay for the night,
leaving the same in the morning of April
11, 1974.^[11] There
is dubious corroboration of this statement^[12] but it is not really that important.

On the stabbing itself, Guardo averred it was provoked by Ruben himself, who called
him that morning as he was passing by and insisted that he reveal the name of
the person who had stolen the kitchen stove. 
He said he did not know and was roundly berated by Ruben.  He felt embarrassed and left.  He then bought some turnips, borrowed a
kitchen knife from a fellow vendor and walked around while he peeled and ate a
turnip but was called again by Ruben, who shouted “putang
ina mo” and “magnanakaw” at him. 
He saw red, he said.  On impulse,
he stabbed Ruben.  He then went directly
to the Marikina police station and confessed the crime, surrendering the knife.  He swore in court that he committed the crime
alone and exculpated his two co-accused.^[13]

There is evidence that Guardo had previously been confined in the National Mental Hospital for some time,^[14] but this does not prove anything.  Neither does his stay in the Marikina police station the night before the killing,
assuming this was true, add to his defense. 
The important thing is that no evidence was adduced to show that Guardo was insane at the time of the commission of the
offense in the morning of April 11, 1974.  No
one testified that he was acting irrationally immediately before, during, or
immediately after the stabbing.  No
witness was presented to show that Guardo had at that
time no control of his actions or was not in full possession of his mental
faculties.  In fact, there was no
indication even during the trial of any mental abnormality in him except only a
dullness of mind which could possibly have been feigned, as when he said he did
not know how long a minute was.^[15] As
the Court sees it, the plea of insanity should not have been made at all,
considering the lack of competent evidence to prove it.  It was a crazy defense.

The involvement of the two Tamayos is
another matter.

Carlos Tamayo, testifying for himself, insisted that although he was near Ruben Estanislao at the time of the stabbing, he had no part in
it and certainly did not restrain the victim from defending himself.  He was about one and a half meter from Ruben
where he was stabbed.  Immediately after
the stabbing, Carlos said, he ran away for fear that Guardo
would turn the knife on him and then went to his son Orlando to warn him
against the killer.  He declared categorically
that Orlando was not at the scene
of the crime and therefore could not have held one of Ruben Estanislao’s
arms.^[16]

Orlando Tamayo, for his part,
corroborated his father’s testimony about warning him, and said he was about fifteen meters away in the slaughterhouse
when Ruben was stabbed by Guardo.  At the time of the stabbing, Orlando declared, he was busy dressing
chickens.^[17]
Significantly, if his testimony is to be believed, Carlos merely warned him
against Guardo, who was only a short distance away,
and did not take him away to safety as a protective parent would have done.

As earlier observed, Guardo
himself testified that he alone was responsible for the stabbing of the victim
and had no assistance from the Tamayos.  He was positive that Carlos Tamayo did not restrain Ruben and that Orlando Tamayo was not there at the time of the incident.

Similar testimony was given by Diego Adlao,
but he was revealed on cross examination to be a rather unreliable
witness.  He said he ran away after the
stabbing because he was afraid but after a while returned to his stall and
resumed his normal activities as if nothing unusual had happened.  He declared he collected payments for the
coffee he had earlier sold to about fifty persons but said he discussed the
matter with no one although the incident was surely the most insistent topic
that morning in the Marikina
market.  He also said he had volunteered
to testify only out of a sense of civic duty but later admitted he had been
asked to be a witness by a relative of the Tamayos.^[18]

Against the defense, the trial court inclined toward the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and correctly.  These witnesses gave definite, forthright
testimony of what they had seen and, notably, could not be shaken on
cross-examination.  Even the 14-year old
David stood his ground during his long interrogation by defense counsel and
insisted on his narration of how his father was killed by the accused.^[19]

The fact that these witnesses were relatives of the victim did
not necessarily taint their testimony as it was not shown that they had any ill-feeling toward any of the
accused before the stabbing of Ruben Estanislao.  As for the
argument that Norma Madayag took about one
week before implicating the Tamayos, it is settled
that mere delay in reporting such matter will not render the testimony
incredible,^[20]
especially if it is considered in this case that the witness was a close
relative of the deceased and must
have been occupied by other matters after his death, such as his funeral.  The fact that David could not remember the
name of the policemen who took his statement after his father’s killing and
that he had not previously mentioned the Tamayos‘
participation therein is also understandable. 
It must be remembered that the boy was at the time in a state of shock and confusion over
the traumatic experience of seeing his father suddenly stabbed and killed.

By contrast, the motive of the Tamayos
cannot be lightly brushed aside as it involved a matter of honor.  Orlando
took umbrage at the imputation that he had something to do with the theft of Ruben’s kitchen stove.  Carlos, the father, was also angry over the
suspicion that had been cast upon his son and, indeed, uttered an ominous
warning to Ruben’s wife.  While it would
have been unnatural for the prosecution witnesses to implicate the Tamayos if in fact they were not guilty, it was, on the
other hand, quite natural for the Tamayos to be
resentful over the insinuation that Orlando had something to do with the theft of Ruben Estanislao’s kitchen stove. 
It is easier to accept that the Tamayo’s ire
toward the victim manifested itself in their direct participation in the
stabbing by Guardo of Ruben Estanislao
as the object of their common wrath.

We see no reason to reverse
the factual findings of the trial judge, who had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses and to assess their credibility.  The written record will not show that nuance
of tone or voice, the meaningful contrast between the hesitant pause and the
prompt reply, and the expression or color or tilt of face that will affirm the
truth or expose the fabrication.  All
these subtle factors could be considered by the trial judge in weighing the
conflicting declarations before him, and we do not find that he has erred.

Although the attack was
frontal, the crime committed was murder, qualified by treachery, as the accused
employed means to insure the commission of the offense without risk to
themselves of any defense the offended party might make.^[21] There was also abuse of superiority when the
two Tamayos
restrained Ruben Estanislao while Guardo
stabbed him,^[22] but this aggravating circumstance is
absorbed in alevosia and
so cannot be treated separately. 
Conspiracy has not been proved and neither has evident premeditation,
but it is admitted that Guardo is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender with the corresponding reduction of his sentence.  The penalties imposed are in accordance with
law, but the civil indemnity shall be, as it is, increased to P30,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED as above modified, to be enforced only against Manuel Guardo
and Orlando Tamayo, the criminal liability of Carlos Tamayo having been extinguished by reason of his death.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Paras, and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, Aug. 21, 1974, pp. 7-8.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 27-28.

^[3]
Ibid., p. 135.

^[4]
TSN, July 3, 1974, pp. 5-9,
10-11; Ibid., Oct. 8, 1974,
pp. 5-6.

^[5]
Ibid., July 16, 1974, pp. 12, 18.

^[6]
Exh.
“F” – Folder of Exhibits, p. 9.

^[7]
TSN, July 3, 1974, pp. 4-6, 11.

^[8]
Ibid., Oct. 8, 1974, pp. 5-6, 15.

^[9]
Id., July 16, 1974, pp. 9-11, 25-28.

^[10]
Id., Jan. 14, 1975, p. 3.

^[11]
Id., Jan. 14, 1975, pp. 2, 82.

^[12]
Rollo, pp. 19-20, 22.

^[13]
TSN, Jan. 14, 1975, pp. 3-4; Ibid.,
Jan.
15, 1975, p.
5.

^[14]
Rollo, pp. 20-21; TSN, Dec. 16, 1974, pp. 18-23.

^[15]
TSN, Jan. 15, 1975, p. 75.

^[16]
Ibid., March 5, 1975, pp. 3-4.

^[17]
Id., April 7, 1975, pp. 4-5, 8, 17-18.

^[18]
Id., Dec. 16, 1974, pp. 6, 12-15; Rollo, pp. 17-19.

^[19]
Id., Oct. 8, 1974, pp. 9-19.

^[20]
People v. Cabanit, 139 SCRA 94, citing People v.
Rotas, 73 SCRA 583, 593, & People v. Lao
Wan Sing, 18 SCRA 1076; People v.
Centeno citing
People v. Estocada, 75 SCRA 295.

^[21]
People v. Reyes, 11 Phil. 225; People v. De La
Cruz, 17 Phil. 527; People v. Gonzales, 92 Phil. 1078.

^[22]
Rollo, pp. 7-8.