THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RLCARDO REYNO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Charged before the CFI of Nueva Ecija for the crime of
Murder, for the death of Noel Vigilia, the accused
Ricardo Reyno, was found guilty thereof and sentenced
to “reclusion perpetua,” to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs. Being a detention
prisoner, 1/2 of his preventive imprisonment was credited to his
favor.

There is no dispute regarding the
fact that Noel Vigilia was stabbed in the early
morning of April 7,
1961, in
the vicinity of Quimson St., Cabanatuan City, which caused his death.
The issue is predominantly on the identity of the
assailant.

The version of the prosecution,
thru the testimony of Nicolas Ruiz, Jr., upon which the decision of conviction
was primarily anchored, runs as follows:

At about 12:30 o’clock in the
early dawn of April 7, 1961, the witness (Ruiz, Jr.), the deceased (Vigilia), Guillermo Afaglaya,
Oscar Nieves, Boyet de los
Reyes, Antonio Bundoc, a certain Johnny from Talavera, and Salty and Ruben, and compadre, respectively, of said witness, were front of the
store of Sally, at the corner of Quimson Consejo Streets, Cabanatuan City.
While they were conversing, four (4) persons, one of whom was later recognized
by Ruiz to be the accused Ricardo Reyno, arrived in
the vicinity and tinkered with the water pipe in front of the
Wesleyan College. The deceased Vigilia, from the store, told the group, not to tinker with
the pipe, which caused one of the four persons tinkering with the pipe to glance
back at Vigilia and his companions. Guillermo Maglaya followed by the deceased Vigilia approached the group, but they left going eastward
on Quimson
Street. Because the pipe was spurting
water, Maglaya and Vigilia
fixed the same, after which they joined their own group. After 15 minutes more
of conversation, Magilaya and his group started for
home, taking Quimson
Street where the house of Vigilia was more accessible. Vigilia and Bundoc walked side, by
side, well ahead of the group, followed by Ruiz, Jr. and Maglaya, about five (5) meters behind. Close behind were
Oscar Nieves and Boyet de los Reyes. As the group was passing in front of the house of
Dr. Luningning Roa, on Quimson Street, Ruiz, Jr. saw Noel Vigilia suddenly turn around, pressing the joint of his left
thigh. Maglaya, closely followed by Ruiz, Jr., ran to
find out what had happened to Vigilia. When they were
in the place where Vigilia was, Ruiz, Jr. saw a person, about 2 to 3 meters away, holding a bladed
instrument. At this juncture, Antonio Bundoc shouted
“Boy (referring to Ruiz, Jr.) may dala yan,” causing Ruiz, Jr. to stop running. At this instance,
the person stabbed at Ruiz, Jr., who evaded the assault by jumping. As the
assailant readied to give, another thrust, and as Ruiz, Jr. prepared to parry
the same, the two stared at each other for about 40 winks or seconds. It was at
this juncture that Ruiz, Jr. came to recognize the
assailant, as one of those who tampered with the pipe in front of the
Wesleyan College and whom the deceased accosted
earlier. At the time of the stabbing, the accused Ricardo Reyno was wearing khaki trousers, T-shirt, a buri hat, the same attire worn by one of the persons who
tinkered with the pipe. There- after, Reyno ran
eastward along Quimson
Street. Ruiz Jr., also saw three (3)
other persons, whom he failed to recognize running away with accused Reyno from the scene of the offense.

The deceased was brought to the
Provincial Hospital in
Cabanatuan City. The attending physicians called
for the immediate need of blood. In the meanwhile, the relatives of Vigilia were notified of the incident, who also tried to
look for blood. At 2:25 a.m. the same date (April 7,
1961),
Noel Vigilia” expired, due to severe hemorrhage,
before the necessary blood type could be found and administered to him. The
cadaver was later brought to the Ilagan Funeral Parlor
for burial preparations. The police authorities were also notified, and police
patrols were instructed to cover possible outlets, most specially bus
terminals.

At the Rural Transit Terminal,
Policeman Agustin Alonzo found the accused Reyno, on
board a bus bound for Manila. He was acting suspiciously,
looking back and forth. Pat. Alonzo questioned Reyno
inside the bus, but later brought him down in front of the terminal. Accused
Reyno told the policeman that he was going to Rizal town, notwithstanding the fact that he was on board a
truck bound for Manila. After a while, Attorneys Vigilia, brother of the deceased, and Wycoco and Maglaya arrived. Pat.
Alonzo asked Maglaya if Reyno was the assailant, to which Maglaya replied that the one who stabbed Noel Vigilia looked like Reyno and that
the one who could positively identify the killer, was Nicolas Ruiz, Jr. Ruiz,
Jr. was brought from the funeral parlor and immediately upon seeing Reyno, told the policeman that he (Reyno) was the one who stabbed Vigilia, although said Reyno was
wearing a different attire then. The bag of Reyno,
which was still in the bus was taken. Asked if he had a
knife, Reyno gave a negative reply. However, upon
examination of his bag, aside from clothes, men’s toilet articles, in a topsy, turvy condition, and a fan
knife which Reyno admitted to be his, were found.
Reyno was brought to the City Hall for further
questioning. A search in the house of Juliana R. Domingo, sister of accused
Reyno, yielded a Jacket, which was taken to the
municipal building. The T- shirt was stained with blood at the hem. The knife
and t-shirt were submitted to the NBI for examination and chemical analysis. The
shoes of the deceased Vigilia at the scene of the
crime, which were covered with blood were also
forwarded to the NBI for the same purpose. On April 26, l961, Andres A.
Santiago, Chemist of the NBI, rendered a report (Exh.
B-l) stating that the knife (Exh. C), the T-shirt
(Exh. D) and the shoes (Exh.
E & E-l), were positive for human blood. At a later
date (June 20,
1961),
the same NBI Chemist rendered a Final Report (Exh. B),
wherein he stated, in addition to the observations contained in Exh. B-1, dated April 26,
1961,
that the type of blood found on the T-shirt of the accused and found on the
shoes of the deceased (Exhs. E & E-1) belonged to
the same type of blood as the deceased; that the blood group of the accused
Reyno was type O, which is different from that found
on the T-shirt and the shoes.

In his appeal before this Court,
accused-appellant denied having stabbed the deceased, claiming that he was in
the house of his sister at the time. In explaining the blood stain in the hem of
the T-shirt (Exh; D), the appellant claimed that it
could have been put there when he was being investigated by the police in the
municipal building.

We have gone over the records
with great care, considering the nature of the offense and the penalty imposed
by the trial Court; and We are perfectly convinced, as did the trial Court of
the identity of the appellant. True, he offered the alibi that he was in the
house of his sister, at the time the crime was being committed. His
alibi, however, cannot overcome the positive identification by
prosecution witness Ruiz, Jr., which was spontaneously made, after the
accused-appellant had been confronted by Ruiz, at the bus terminal. Moreover,
the identification of the appellant finds convincing corroboration in the
findings of the NBI Chemist, to the effect that the tell-tale knife found among
the belongings of the accused, at the time he was going away, was positive with
human blood; that the blood found on the hem of the T-shirt belonging to him
(Exh. D) tallied with the
blood grouping of the deceased. Appellant attributed the blood on his T-shirt,
as having been placed there by Atty. Vigilia, the
brother of the deceased, when he was being investigated in the municipal
building. This was, nevertheless, discarded by the lower court, which considered
the imputation as preposterous, with the noteworthy observation that Atty. Vigilia would not fabricate evidence against the accused in
the presence of many towns-people. We share this view of the court a quo,
specially when, by the very admission of the appellant, the deceased did not
have any ill-feeling with him.

Appellant’s counsel projects an
argument that there was no reason fur the accused to kill the deceased. It must
be stated, however, that lack of motive does not preclude the commission of an
offense. Moreover, in this particular case, the accused Reyno must have resented the interference of the deceased,
when he (accused) and three (3) other persons tinkered with the water pipe, in
front of the Wesleyan Colleges. While ordinarily the incident would not have
provoked the accused, or anyone for that matter, to commit an offense, it is of
judicial knowledge that others have been killed or assaulted for lesser or no
reason at all. In the present era, the impulsiveness of youth has given way to
mature thinking.

PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the
decision appealed from should be, as it hereby affirmed, in all respects, with
costs against the accused-appellant, Ricardo Reyno.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.