PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO ARTIEDA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic review of the Decision of the Court of First
Instance of Laguna, Branch IV, convicting the accused, Antonio Artieda, of the crime of Murder and imposing upon him the
penalty of death.  His co-accused,
Rodolfo Artieda and Venancio
Dorado, were acquitted of the crime for insufficiency of evidence.  The fourth accused, Bernabe
Artieda, alias David, alias Abe, has remained at
large.

The three brothers, namely, Antonio, Rodolfo and David, all
surnamed Artieda, together with their first degree
cousin, Venancio Dorado, and other “Does”
were originally charged with the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder.  The trial Court, however, found only the
crime of Murder as established, and Antonio as the only one guilty thereof.

The Information filed on January
30, 1973 reads as follows:

“That at or about 9:00 o’clock in the evening on May 8, 1972,
in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna,
Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused ANTONIO ARTIEDA,
RODOLFO ARTIEDA, BERNABE
alias DAVID ARTIEDA alias ABE, VENANCIO
DORADO and the other “DOES” while conveniently provided with firearms
and conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with evident
premeditation and treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take
and bring along with them SIMEON RIVERA to a certain place to be killed, and
thereafter, in the pursuit of their criminal intent, purpose and design, tied
the hands attack, assault and inflicted mortal wounds upon him which caused the
death of the said SIMEON RIVERA.

“That in the commission of the crime, the qualifying and
generic aggravating circumstances of nighttime sought to facilitate the
commission thereof, evident premeditation, treachery, cruelty, and use of
superior strength were present and attendant.”^[1]

As a factual backdrop, it may be stated that prior to the
incident involved herein, the younger brother of the appellant was killed.  The victim, Simeon Rivera, was charged in
Court for his death but was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.  Prior to the judgment of acquittal, Simeon
had escaped from jail.

The evidence for the prosecution may be summarized as follows:

On May 8, 1972, at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, Simeon
Rivera and his wife Apolonia Heraldo,
were already lying down about to go to sleep in their house at barrio Palayan, Nagcarlan, Laguna, when
someone called “Tao po.  Tao po, we are
authorities, P.C.” Apolonia stood up, got a lamp
and opened the door.  She held the lamp
over her head to be able to identify the persons who called and she saw the
accused Venancio Dorado, Rodolfo Artieda
and Antonio Artieda. 
She greeted them “Good evening”.  Her husband, who followed her, greeted them,
too.  All of a sudden, Venancio Dorado, who was on the first step of the stairs,
pulled her husband causing him to fall to the ground face downward and hit him
on the leg with a gun.  Then, Antonio Artieda got a rope from his pocket and with it, tied the
hands of the victim at his back with the help of Rodolfo.  All this while, Apolonia
was very near the accused pleading with them to spare her husband.

While the victim was being assaulted, Bernabe
Artieda went inside the house and thrust the point of
his gun at the stomach of Mario Pomperada, the son of
Apolonia, causing him to fall.  Apolonia pleaded
with him not to hurt her son, and whispered to the latter to jump down and run,
which he did going towards the direction of his uncle’s house.

After the victim was taken towards the direction of the house of Rufino Artieda, appellant’s
father, Apolonia ran to her brother-in-law, Garding Pomperada, whose house
was about 250 meters away.  Her son, who
was already there, had informed his uncle that his step-father was forcibly
taken away.  She did not tell her
brother-in-law that she recognized four of her husband’s abductors
“because I was afraid since they (witness pointing to the three accused)
threatened me before they left” and “I might be the next
victim.” She only asked her sister-in-law, Juling,
about the relation of Venancio Dorado to Rufino Artieda, and was told that
Venancio is the nephew of Rufino’s
wife, Aurelia.  She spent the rest of the
night in her brother-in-law’s house.

The following morning she returned to their house at about 5:00 o’clock in the morning to cook rice, which
she brought to the Nagcarlan municipal building for
her husband.  Failing to find her husband
at the detention cell, she went upstairs to the office of the Mayor and
inquired if he had caused the arrest of her husband by the PC, to which the
Mayor replied in the negative.  In her
talk with the latter, neither did she reveal the identities of the
“abductors” of her husband out of fear for her safety and that of her
son.  Following the advice of the Mayor,
she reported the incident to the Chief of Police without, however, informing
the latter either of the persons who were responsible for it.  The Chief of Police then advised her to go to
the PC because the police had no long arms or guns.

The following day, May
10, 1972, at about 9:00 o’clock
in the morning, the Chief of Police, policeman Gonzalo Sotoya
and Cesar Soriano, barrio councilman Leonardo Pomperada of Palayan and others
found the dead body of Simeon Rivera in a forest in barrio Palayan.  The Rural Health Physician of Nagcarlan, Dr. Ciriaco Porteras and Sanitary Inspector Cesar Sumaribe,
examined the body of the victim, which was already in a decomposed stage.  The doctor placed the time of death at about
2 1/2 days to 3 days earlier.  Pictures
were taken of the cadaver (Exhs. “A”,
“B”, & “C”) showing the hands tied at the back, the
legs bent at the knees and the intestines protruding.  The medical certificate issued by the
physician showed the following findings:

“Cause of Death – Intra abdominal hemorrhage, stab wound
penetrating internal organ.

Description of wound:

1)  Stab wound 1″ x 3/4 external line at the
level of xyphoid process.

2)  Stab wound – hypochondriac region 1″ x ¾

3)  Stab wound 1″ x 3/4 right iliar

4)  Stab wound 4″ x 3″ hypoyastrin“^[2]

The body was brought to the municipal
building and was later on buried.

On May 12, 1972,
Apolonia Heraldo decided to
reveal all she knew and to give her statement to Sgt. Calcetas
of the PC, naming appellant and two others as three of those who forcibly took
her husband on the night of May 8, 1972.

The defense, for its part, pleaded alibi and sought to impeach
the credibility of Apolonia Heraldo.  Appellant Antonio Artieda
maintains that on May 8, 1972,
from half past six o’clock in the
evening until two o’clock in the early
morning of the following day, he was at Rizal,
Laguna, at the place where the shows were being held because it was then their
town fiesta.  His witness, Aquilino Carpena, confirmed that
he saw Antonio there at about 10:00 o’clock
in the evening near the place where “beto-beto”
games were being played.

After trial, the lower Court found “reasonable basis to
conclude that Antonio Artieda participated directly
and actively in the killing of Simeon Rivera. 
And (that) x x x it
was qualified by treachery and aggravated by cruelty.  It was further aggravated by the circumstance
of nighttime for undoubtedly this circumstance facilitated the commission of
the crime.” Accordingly, it sentenced Antonio Artieda
to death in its Decision dated April
26, 1974, the dispositive portion of
which is worded thus:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the
accused Antonio Artieda is hereby declared guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with the attendance of two
aggravating circumstances, for the killing of Simeon Rivera.

“This Court is reluctant to impose the supreme penalty of
death, especially in this case where the accused evidently decided to take the
law in their own hands because they had no more recourse left against Simeon
Rivera whom they must have believed to be the killer of the younger brother of
the accused Artiedas inspite
of his acquittal.  But this circumstance
cannot be considered mitigating for it cannot even be considered as an
immediate vindication of a wrong.

“The law does not leave this Court any choice.  It requires that the penalty of death be
imposed.  Therefore the accused Antonio Artieda is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty
of death as provided by Article 248 in relation to Article 64, paragraph 3, of
the Revised Penal Code.  He is further
ordered to indemnify the heirs of Simeon Rivera in the sum of eighteen thousand
pesos (P18,000.00) as moral damages, and to pay one-third of the costs.

“With respect to the two accused, Rodolfo Artieda
and Venancio Dorado, they are hereby acquitted
because their identity as among those who abducted the victim Simeon Rivera,
has not been established with proof beyond reasonable doubt.  Their immediate release from preventive
imprisonment is hereby ordered.  With
two-thirds of the costs de officio.

x x x“^[3]

Appellant assigns the following errors to the Trial Court:

“I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APOLONIA
HERALDO RECOGNIZED AND WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANTONIO ARTIEDA AS ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO ABDUCTED HER HUSBAND SIMEON
RIVERA ON MAY 8, 1972.

“II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY AND THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF NOCTURNITY AND CRUELTY WERE PRESENT.

“III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE MOTIVE IN THE KILLING
OF SIMEON RIVERA IS TO REVENGE THE DEATH OF A BROTHER OF ANTONIO ARTIEDA AT THE HANDS OF THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE, SIMEON
RIVERA.

“IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ANTONIO ARTIEDA
OF MURDER ON THE BASIS OF THE WEAKNESS OF HIS DEFENSE RATHER THAN ON PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”

During the pendency of this appeal, the
appellant wrote a letter, dated January
9, 1979, to the late Chief Justice, which we quote:

“SULAT
PAN-TULONG SA MATAAS

NA HUKOMAN (SC)

x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x

“Kagalang-galang
na Hukom,

“Ang may-lagda,
isa pong bilanggo na kasalukuyan hina­tulan ng kamatayan
sa silya elektrika (Death by Electrocution) sa
mababang Hukoman
(CFI).  Ayon sa kaso nabanggit
sa itaas ay buong paggalang nagsasalaysay nitong sumusunod:

“Mula sa labi o bibig ni
Justice Antonio Barredo nuong
nagsalita pa siya dito sa loob
ng Pambansang Piitan, 1978, ay winika pa niya:  ‘ – – – sa dami ng
mga kaso o asunto na nakabinbin
sa Korte Suprema na dapat
pag-aralan ‘For Review’ at dahil
sa kakulangan sa miembro ng
mahistrado ay ikinalulongkot
kong sabihin sa inyo na
kahit na araw at gabi ang
aming pagsisikap na pag-aralan ang
inyong kaso ay hindi namin makakaya.  Kaya, ang payo ko
sa inyo na
kong kayo man ay totoong nagkasala sumulat na kayo sa korte
SC – at sabihin ang katotohanan‘.

“Kagalang na
galang na mga Hukom –, sumulat
po ako sa
inyo at nais kong ipaabot po
sa inyong kaalaman ang tunay
na pangyayari at dahilan sa nabanggit
kong kaso sa itaas …  Ako po ang tunay
na salarin sa pagkamatay ni
Simeon Rivera nuong Mayo 8, 1972, sa
barrio Palayan, Nagcarlan,
Laguna.  Oo.  pinatay ko kagalang-galang na Hukom — si
Simeon Rivera sapagkat ang nasabing Simeon Rivera ay siya rin ang pumatay
sa aking bunsongkapatid nuong niloloob ni Simeon ang bahay ng
aking magulang na si Rufino
Artieda.  Dapat lamang po
si Simeon Rivera magbayad ng buhay sapagkat
marami siyang buhay na inutang.  Ako ang kriminal at may sapat na dahilan.

“Kong anoman po
ang ina-akala ninyo na karapatdapat
sa akin ay handa akong tumanggap at magdusa na walang
pagsisisi sapagkat ako ang tunay
na kriminal.

“Upang patunayan
ang aking sinasabi sa itaas,
heto po pirmahan
o lagda-an ko ngayong Enero 9, 1979, dito sa aming
dormitory, New Bilibid Prison, Metro Manila.

(SGD.)ANTONIO
ARTIEDA

(T) ANTONIO ARTIEDA

Pris.
No. 10939-D

Dormitory 7A-2, NBP“^[4]

Notwithstanding the execution of this extrajudicial confession by
the appellant, the nature of the offense and the gravity of the penalty imposed
by the trial Court dictate that we delve into the merits of the case.

In his first assigned error, appellant contends that the trial
Court erred in concluding that Apolonia Heraldo recognized and identified Antonio Artieda as one of the persons who “abducted” (dinukot) her husband Simeon Rivera.  He maintains that Apolonia
Heraldo was not candid and truthful in her testimony
because she did not reveal immediately to her brother-in-law nor to the
authorities the identities of the persons who forcibly took her husband away on
the night of May 8, 1972
until after the lapse of four (4) days. 
As testified to by Apolonia Heraldo, however, she did not disclose the names of the
culprits because she was threatened by them and she was afraid that she might
be the next victim if she had immediately disclosed the truth to the
authorities.  This attitude of Apolonia does not destroy her credibility.  As this Court held in People vs. Almirez,^[5]
failure of the witness to expose the name of the killer due to fear of reprisal
when he informed the authorities does not discredit him.  Experience has shown that witnesses are
reluctant to identify the accused until they are safe enough from probable
harm.^[6]

Antonio Artieda was recognized and
identified by Apolonia Heraldo
and her son, Mario Pomperada, as Antonio was already
known to them long before the happening of the incident in question.  They came close enough to appellant to enable
them to recognize him, especially Apolonia Heraldo, who was even elbowed on the stomach and breast by
Antonio as she pleaded that the assailants spare her husband.  So, even if there were no moon that night, as
the defense has successfully established through a witness from the Weather
Bureau, it was not impossible for appellant to have been recognized by the said
witness particularly since the latter was carrying a lamp.

It is true that there is no direct evidence linking appellant to
the killing of the victim; but he was positively identified as one of the
persons who had forcibly taken away (dinukot) Simeon
Rivera, who was found dead two days later. 
Examination of the body of the victim, which was already in a decomposed
stage, revealed that he was already dead for 2 1/2 days when he was found and,
therefore, must have been killed in the evening of May 8, 1972 after he was
forcibly taken from his home by at least four men.  It can be logically concluded that the group
collectively, or one of them individually, killed the victim, and that as a
group which acted in unison, the act of one is the act of all.

“Where the accused was a member of a band that appeared at the
house of the deceased for the purpose of killing the latter, as he was in fact
killed by two of the shots fired by some members of the band, the accused is
liable for the resulting homicide although there was no evidence that he fired
a shot at the deceased.”^[7]

Appellant further contends that the lower Court erred in
concluding that the motive in the killing of Simeon Rivera was revenge.  It is admitted, however, that the brother of
appellant was killed and the victim in this case, Simeon Rivera, was charged
for his death, but was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.  Appellant, therefore, had a motive to kill
him.  Appellant argues that if he really
had the intention to kill Simeon, he could have easily done so when the latter
escaped from jail.  However, having
successfully gotten away from the law, the victim must have taken every
possible pre­caution to hide not only from the authorities but especially from
the family of the deceased who believed he was the culprit.  Appellant, therefore, could not have carried
out his intention when the victim was in hiding.  As this Court has had occasion to rule in
People vs. Canada,^[8]
circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict.  Thus, “Although there is no direct
evidence pointing to the accused as the person who inflicted the wound that
caused the death of the deceased, when the circumstances pointed out by the
lower Court constitute more than sufficient evidence to convince the appellate
court that he is the only person with sufficient motive to wish the death of
the deceased, it is held that the appellant was properly convicted of
homicide.”

The defense of alibi interposed by appellant cannot prosper in
the face of positive identification by prosecution witnesses.  Appellant’s witness, Aquilino
Carpena, merely stated that he saw appellant at Rizal, Laguna, at the place where the shows were being held
at about 10:00 o’clock in the
evening.  The “abduction” was
effected earlier, or at 9:00 o’clock,
Barrio Palayan, Nagcarlan,
Laguna, where the crime was committed is more or less four (4) kilometers away
from Rizal, Laguna, and the distance between the two
places could be negotiated by walking for about an hour.^[9]
Appellant, therefore, has not established by convincing evidence that he was at
another place for such a period of time that it was impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.  As this Court has held, the defense of alibi
is an issue of fact that hinges on credibility and in this respect, the
relative weight which the trial Court assigns to the testimony of witnesses
must, unless patently and clearly inconsistent with the evidence on record, be
accepted.^[10]

Neither did the trial Court err in holding that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was present in the commission of the offense.  That the killing of the victim was carried
out without risk to appellant is shown by the fact that when the body’s victim
was found, his hands were tied together at his back as, in fact, they were
already tied when he was forcibly taken from his home.  He had no clothes on except his underwear,
and he had a gaping wound on the abdomen from which his intestines protruded (Exhs. “A”, “A-1”, “B”,
“C” & “C-1”).  The
killing of a victim while bound is regarded as treacherous.^[11]
However, in so far as nocturnity is concerned, under
the circumstances ob­taining, it must be deemed absorbed in treachery, as it
cannot be perceived distinctly therefrom.^[12]
There being no showing either that the other wounds found on the body of the
victim were inflicted to prolong his suffering before the fatal wound was
dealt, it cannot be concluded that the aggravating circumstance of cruelty was
duly proven.^[13]
Cruelty cannot be presumed.^[14]

For consideration now is the effect of the extrajudicial
confession by appellant.  The fundamental
rule is that when the admission takes place after the prosecution has presented
its evidence, the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty can no longer be
con­sidered.^[15]
The extrajudicial confession herein was made during the pendency
of this appeal, for which reason, the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty
can no longer be considered in appellant’s favor.

The crime committed herein is Murder, qualified by treachery,
with no other modifying circumstances. 
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.^[16]

WHEREFORE, except as to the penalty imposed, which is
hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua,
the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, Actg. C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos and De
Castro, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., on official leave.

Aquino, J., in the result.

^[1]
p. 40, Appellant’s Brief.

^[2]
Exhibit “D”, p. 49, Original Records.

^[3]
p. 249, Original Records.

^[4]
p. 110, Rollo.

^[5] 3
SCRA 252 (1961).

^[6]
People vs. Elizaga, 73 SCRA
524 (1976).

^[7]
Criminal Law, Luis B. Reyes, Book I, 1974 Edition, p. 426.

^[8]
12 SCRA 9 (1964).

^[9] T.s.n., November
19, 1973, p. 27

^[10]
People vs. Berdida, 17 SCRA
520 (1966).

^[11]
People vs. Luna, 58 SCRA 198 (1974).

^[12]
People vs. Berdida, supra.

^[13]
People vs. Dayug, et al., 49 Phil. 423 (1926).

^[14]
People vs. Jimenez, 54 O.G. 1361.

^[15]
People vs. Buco, 21 SCRA
5 (1967).

^[16]
People vs. Lopez, 80 SCRA 18 (1977).