THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOAQUIN BAUTISTA AND LUIS GAOAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Jacinto Belmonte while asleep (on the floor, it seems) was shot from under
the house and died one hour or less afterward. The missile hit him on the left
side below the armpit and came out of the left breast above the nipple. The time
was between 10 and 11 o’clock at night and the date was January 13, 1942. Formal
complaint was filed with the justice of the peace on September 13, 1945, against
Joaquin Bautista and Luis Gaoat as the alleged authors, although the crime was
reported to the authorities soon after its commission.

Two witnesses testified for the prosecution, Lagrimas Belmonte and Fructuoso
Belmonte, daughter and brother respectively of the deceased. Both declared in
substance that they and other members of the household had gone to sleep when
they were aroused by the report of a gun. They opened the window and saw Luis
Gaoat running towards his house which was about fifteen meters away. As Gaoat
was climbing up the batalan of his dwelling, Joaquin Bautista, the other
accused, emerged in a crouching position from under the house of the deceased,
revolver in hand, and followed Gaoat into the latter’s house. There was no moon
but the night was starry and there was sufficient light for them to recognize
the two defendants, these being their neighbors.

The two accused put up different defenses. Bautista said that he was in the
town or municipality of Lallo on January 13, 1942. Other witnesses undertook to
corroborate him. For his part, Gaoat admitted that he was in the immediate
vicinity of Belmonte’s house when the shot was fired but said that the man who
shot the deceased was Francisco Garma (Joaquin Bautista’s father-in-law, who at
the time of the trial was already dead). Going into detail, he testified that at
about 10 o’clock, Francisco Garma dropped at his house and invited him to buy
basi at the home of one Rafael Calobong; that when they got in front of
Jacinto Belmonte’s house, Garma stopped, told him to wait and crawled under
Belmonte’s house; that not long after, he heard a gunshot, upon which he rushed
to his house because he was afraid to be implicated; that Francisco Garma also
ran but in the direction of his own house, which was about one kilometer from
the Belmontes’. Gaoat disclaims any knowledge of Garma’s design.

It is evident that Francisco Garma was brought into the case as a last minute
attempt to save at least Bautista without any risk of worsening Gaoat’s case or
of causing the punishment of the newly implicated party. By his admission, Gaoat
never told anyone that Garma and not Bautista was with him when Jacinto Belmonte
was killed. Not even at the preliminary investigation of the case did he mention
Garma’s name. He admitted that he pointed to Garma as the perpetrator of the
crime for the first time when he took the stand in the Court of First
Instance.

No sufficient if any motive has been shown for Francisco Garma to slay
Jacinto Belmonte. The only evidence given on this score is that of Andres Garma,
Francisco Garma’s nephew, and of Joaquin Bautista, to the effect that Jacinto
Belmonte owed Garma and refused to pay and that because of Belmonte’s refusal
Garma threatened to kill the debtor. But Lagrimas Belmonte, the deceased’s
daughter, said that since they settled in that barrio they had never borrowed a
centavo from Garma. It was, she said, Garma who owed Francisco Sabas money. We
do not hesitate to say that the prosecution witness’s testimony is more worthy
of belief.

Gaoat’s denial of complicity in the crime does not harmonize with his
admission, on cross-examination, that he pleaded guilty, although that plea was
substituted afterward with one of not guilty. His statement that he pleaded
guilty only to “the fact that I have seen Francisco Garma commit the crime” is
silly. Again, this accused, who lived only about fifteen meters from Belmonte’s
house, did not, unlike Belmonte’s other neighbors, answer the screams for help
of the decedent’s daughter. As a matter of fact, according to the latter, Gaoat
never came after her father was shot. Gaoat countered with the testimony that he
not only came but was requested by Lagrimas Belmonte to summon Fructuoso
Belmonte. Lagrimas Belmonte, testifying in rebuttal, characterized this
testimony as nonsense, stated that Fructuoso Belmonte was in her house asleep
when her father was slain. Again we believe Lagrimas Belmonte.

Gaoat’s companion who was seen holding a pistol, we are convinced, was not
Garma but Bautista. Bautista’s alibi is very unsatisfactory. The trial judge
described it as “forced and lacking in conviction.” This, too, is our appraisal
of the evidence on this feature of the case.

Gaoat and Bautista had a previous common adventure which tends to link both
of them with this case and which shows their proneness to take another man’s
life on the slightest or without provocation, a disposition which was given
impetus no doubt by the confusion that accompanied the Japanese invasion. That
incident was sufficient to goad into action the two men who had shown little or
no sense of responsibility and were taking advantage of the existing chaos.

Francisco Sabas testified that on December 18, 1941, Luis Gaoat came to his
house ostensibly looking for one of Sabas’s employees. He and Gaoat talked for a
while on the porch mostly about “their (defendants’) looting of Chinese stores.”
Going in for supper, he left Gaoat on the porch. When he got through eating his
revolver was gone and he found his mat upside down and his wallet and coins
scattered. He sat again at the porch with a flashlight. Soon he heard a shot and
a bullet whizzed over his head. He stood up and with the aid of his flashlight
saw Joaquin Bautista with a revolver in his hand and Luis Gaoat and one
Bienvenido Remigio behind him. He reported the theft to Jacinto Belmonte, the
barrio lieutenant, and Belmonte looked over the footprints below the porch and
made a drawing. The following morning Belmonte made an investigation regarding
the whereabouts of the stolen revolver. Sabas did not know the result of the
investigation for soon after that he evacuated to another place. Two years later
the two defendants pleaded guilty of stealing Sabas’s revolver, in. the justice
of the peace court.

Lagrimas Belmonte testified that in her father’s investigation of the theft
of Sabas’s gun, her father found the footprints to be Joaquin Bautista’s and
Luis Gaoat’s. In the course of that investigation, according to this witness,
the deceased told Gaoat that maybe he and Bautista had stolen Sabas’s revolver.
Luis Gaoat, she said, got angry and never talked with her father while Bautista
never showed up after that.

The identity of the two defendants having been duly established, Bautista’s
liability as principal is incontestable. Beyond doubt he fired the shot. As to
Gaoat, the circumstances surrounding the case also satisfy us beyond question
that he was in concert with Bautista in the planning of the crime and
participated in its material execution by standing guard or lending Bautista
moral support. He is criminally responsible to the same extent as his
co-accused.

The court below found the defendants guilty of murder qualified by evident
premeditation, and appreciating in their favor the circumstance of lack of
education, it sentenced them to 20 years of cadena temporal, to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000
and each to pay one-half of the costs. The Solicitor General disagrees with the
penalty thus imposed and recommends the maximum, .which is death. He contends
that besides premeditation there were present the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, dwelling and nocturnity, without any mitigating circumstance to
offset them.

There is no sufficient evidence of evident premeditation. There is no
evidence as to the time when the defendants decided to kill Belmonte. But
treachery was undoubtedly present. It is this circumstance that should raise the
killing to murder.

Night time is merged with treachery. Nocturnity, it has been held, may not be
taken as an aggravating circumstance separate and independent of that of
treachery. (U. S. vs. Salgado, 11 Phil., 56; People vs. Bumanglag,
56 Phil., 10; People vs. Madrid, G. R. No. 41967, Nov. 9, 1934; People
vs. Banguy, 52 Phil., 87.) The reason for this rule is that nighttime
forms part of the peculiar treacherous means and manner adopted to insure the
execution of the crime. (People vs. Pardo, p. 568, ante.)

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be taken into account. In a
case of murder committed under very similar circumstances (U. S. vs. Moro
Macarinfas, 40 Phil., 1), it was held that “though the aggressor did not go up
into nor enter the interior of the house of the deceased yet the fact that he
entered the ground of the same and went under the house in order to inflict on
the offended party the very severe wound resulting in death, it is obvious that
there was present in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance
that the same was committed in the dwelling of the offended party.”

However, we believe that the trial court properly considered the mitigating
circumstance of lack of education. This circumstance compensates the aggravating
circumstance just mentioned, with the result that the prescribed penalty should
be imposed in its medium degree, which is reclusion perpetua.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed with the modification that the
principal penalty shall be reclusion perpetua instead of cadena
temporal. The appellants will pay the costs of this instance in equal
proportion.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, and Bengzon,
JJ., concur.

MORAN, C. J.:

I certify that Mr. Justice Padilla joins in
this decision.