THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FILEMON VOLPANI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, FILEMON VOLPANI AND HONORIO LAMBINO, APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a conviction for murder.

About five o’clock in the morning of April 14, 1956, Peping
Adulta found the dead body of his half-brother Rafael Mendoza, 30,
beside the railroad track in Barrio Bulo, town of Unisan, Province of
Quezon. He immediately reported the matter to the authorities. Special
policemen Julio Tenorio and Lorenzo Merrer proceeded without delay to
the place, and having discovered a knife (balisong) near the foot of the
cadaver, Tenorio picked it up with a loop of string made of buri palm
(it was sent later to the N.B.I. for fingerprints). Thereafter, he
reported to the Chief of Police, who ordered the transfer of the cadaver
to the town, where it was subjected to a post-mortem examination by Dr.
Priscila Carillo. The latter found, and so certified, that the deceased
had sustained (a) a wound extending three and one half inches from the
back of the head to the back of the right ear, injuring (without
piercing) the skull; (b) a severe contusion and swelling of the left
eye; (c) abrasions on the right side, just outside of the right
auxiliary fossa, cutting the skin and subcutaneous tissue only. Upon
opening the skull, abundant intracranial hemorrage showed, which in the
doctor’s opinion prodiced Mendoza’s death.

The corresponding investigation by the authorities yielded no
important clue. The knife exhibited no fingerprints.

However, about a year later, on March 18, 1957, a complaint for
murder was filed in the justice of the peace court of Unisan against
Filemon Volpani, Honorio Lambino, Aniano Amparo, Emilio Verdan, and one
John Doe. After the preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal,
having found no evidence against Aniano Amparo and Emilio Verdan, filed
the information only against Filemon Volpani and Honorio Lambino.

At the trial in the court of first instance, several witnesses
testified before Hon. M.M. Mejia, judge, who in a carefully prepared
decision setting forth the evidence offered on both sides and discussing
it at length, reached a verdict of guilt.

The story of the prosecution was substantially this:

Rafael Mendoza maintained illicit relations with the wife of
Filemon Volpani. Aware of it, the latter managed to feign frienship with
Mendoza^[1] even as he
secretly tried to retaliate in kind, by seducing Mendoza’s wife,
Felicisima Regencia, 27 years of age. As a matter of fact, he proposed
to the later several times that, as a revenge, they should also sleep
together. Felicisima, however, firmly rejected the immoral proposition.

Then the violent death occurred. Suspects were rounded up,
specially those persons known to have been with Mendoza the night
before: Filemon Volpani, 34, Aniano Amparo, Zosimo Lambino, Alfredo
Bondad and Emilio Verdad. But, as stated before, no evidence of
sufficient importance turned up, and no prosecution ensued, that is
until March 18, 1957, when Volpani, who renewed his pursuit of Mendoza’s
wife, in order to convince her of the intensity of his devotion,
frankly admitted having killed her husband, with the help of Honorio
Lambino and others, so that she may be free to live with him. Faithful
to the last, and rising to the occasion, Felicisima promptly informed
the agents of the law. Her affidavit was taken, and proceedings began in
the corresponding town court.

Now, it turned out, the killing had been actually witnessed by
Eusebio Recarte, 31, whose testimony, as summarized by the trial judge
showed, “x x x that he had been regularly going to Bulo, Unisan, since
1955 to gather coconuts and to do some clearing work in the coconut
plantation of a certain Mr. Romualdo Vargas, a rich proprietor of
Unisan, Quezon; that he was in barrio Bulo, Unisan, Quezon, from April
to May 1956; x x x that while he was in barrio Bulo, he lived in the
house of a certain Fermin Tapero, about one-half kilometer from the
railroad track; that he had known Volpani and Lambino in Panaon, and
also the deceased Rafael Mendoza, and in fact had worked for him in
unhusking coconuts; that about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of 13 April
1956, he and Peping Adulta (half-brother of the deceased) went over to
barrio Bulo to serenade a certain barrio lass, Carmen Tapero, a relative
of Fermin Tapero and daughter of Eleuterio Tapero, because Peping was
interested in Carmen; that at Carmen’s place, he played the guitar and
sang two “kundimans” downstairs and sang songs upstairs Eleuterio’s
house, on behalf of Peping (he actually sang quite well for the Court
during the trial); that after the serenade, he left Peping in Carmen’s
house and proceeded on his way home to Fermin Tapero’s house; that at
about 2:00 o’clock on the early morning of 14 April 1956, after the
night Bicol Express from Manila bound for Legaspi, Albay, had long
passed Panaon, he found himself on the railroad track, towards Bulo;
that while he was walking on the railroad track, he saw a group of
persons who were apparently intoxicated because one of them said that he
wanted to kill somebody; that in order to avoid encountering the group,
he hid himself in the “talahib” grass by the side of the railroad
track; that while he was already hidden, the persons coming from the
opposite direction passed by in front of his hiding place; that soon
after the group had passed him, he heard one of them say. “Dito na
lamang Pare” (let’s do it here); that he then saw Aniano Amparo, whom he
had known in Panaon, stab Rafael Mendoza on the back; that after being
stabbed by Aniano Amparo, Mendoza shouted “aray” and turned his face a
little backward when thereupon Filemon Volpani swept away Aniano Amparo
with his arm and then hit Rafael Mendoza on the back of the head with a
piece of wood anout one-half (½) feet long; that while Rafael Mendoza
was falling to the ground, Honorio Lambino, who had been holding him,
released the deceased; that after Rafael Mendoza fell on the ground,
Lambino, Volpani and Amparo gathered around the body of Rafael Mendoza
and one of them said: “Patay na, tayo na” (Let’s go; he is already
dead); that Lambino, Amparo and Volpani had two other companions whom he
did not recognize; and that after the five individuals had left, he
also went out of hiding and proceeded home.”

This witness revealed his knowledge of the affair, only in August
1957, to Ricardo Mendoza, brother of the deceased, because at that time
“the accused were already arrested.”

Testifying in corroboration of Ricarte’s account, Ireneo Lat
swore that that evening hee stood near the railroad bridge of the same
Barrio Bulo, watching his fish-trap; that early in the morning, a group
of six men passed by him at a distance of 2-½ meters, coming from Barrio
Panaon; that among those persons he recognized Honorio Lambino, Filemon
Volpani and Rafael Mendoza; that about fifteen minutes later, Volpani
and Lambino returned hurriedly on the way to Panaon with three other
companions — without Rafael Mendoza; that in the morning about six
o’clock, he received information about Rafael Mendoza’s death; and that
he went to see the cadaver which lay near the railroad track about 176
meters from the bridge.
Thus, the case for the People appears to be complete, convincing. The
adulterous relations constituted a sufficient incentive to kill;
Volpani’s revelation to Felicisima was plausible in the circumstances,
and the credibility of the eyewitness was not successfully impeached.

Indeed, as the defense itself admits, Volpani and the deceased
were together drinking tuba up to eleven o’clock that night, and Volpani
was not far away from — he could have been present at — the scene of
the crime at the time of its commission.

And the alibi offered by Lambino proved to be unlikely. He said
he made a trip to Mangaldan, Pangasinan, on April 7, 1956, stayed there
until April 13, 1956, when he took the Ilocos Express at about
midnight, arriving in Manila at six o’clock in the morning of April 14,
1956. “I went there,” he added, “because I was called by the lawyer who
was representing me and my brother in a certain civil case; however,
because the hearing was postponed, I returned to Unisan.”

Yet the prosecution proved by the records of the case that on
February 2, 1956, his case was set for hearing, (Exh. C) on April 25,
1956, and on the last date it was postponed on April 13.
Moreover, his attorney could not have called him on April 7, 1956, “for
conference before the trial” (119 s.n.) — eighteen days in
advance of the hearing April 25, 1956. No wonder His Honor gave no
credence to this defense, explaining,

“If any conference was required, the same could have been called a
day or two before the trial, as is the customary practice among
lawyers. This should be more particularly true in this case, taking into
account the distance between Unisan, Quezon, and Mangaldan, Pangasinan,
which requires one whole day’s travel and in view of the further fact
that the clients obviously were not in a financial position to afford
various trips between Quezon and Pangasinan.”

Besides, as often judicially declared, alibi can not prevail in
the face of positive identification by eyewitnesses. And Volpani and
Lambino were definitely indicated by the two witnesses, Ricarte and Lat.

These two could not have recognized the accused, insists their
counsel, because there were no lights in the place, and the moon was not
shining. This point was brought to the attention of the trial judge,
who stated that by the light of the stars in the clear nights of April,
the persons could be recognized at a distance of three meters or more.
It being a fact that the party of the accused passed the witnesses at
three meters^[2], or less, and
that these previously were acquainted with the herein accused, we are
not inclined to dispute the factual finding on the point of
identification, remembering that it is not only by sight, but by the
voice, that the persons in the group could be singled out.

On the whole, we discover no valid reason to doubt the
testimony of Ricarte and of Lat. And so, like the trial judge, who saw
the witnesses testify and who wrote a more extended opinion, we believe
these appellants to be guilty of murder, treachery^[3] having attended the act of slaying. The place
was uninhabited, (p. 10-Appellants’ Brief) but as defendants had bee
under the influence of liquor (13, 33, 62, s.n.) the medium penalty
should be imposed: life imprisonment. The appealed decision correctly
imposed it, even as the two defendants were required to pay, jointly and
severally, to the heirs of the deceased the amount of P4,000.00, and to
satisfy the costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Paras, C .J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1] He went drinking with
Mendoza; used to rake him home when intoxicated.

[2] The group of persons passed in front of Ricarte at about
three meters, while he peered among the bushes. (48 s.n.)

[3] Three armed persons against one, during nighttime.