THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO ERIT ET AL., DEFENDANTS, RICARDO ERIT, LEOPOLDO ERIT AND PEREGRINO FRANCO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

A band of five men raided and robbed the house of Eulalio Bedrijo in barrio
Matagangtang, municipality of Cataingan, Masbate, on the night of September 16,
1946, killing Bedrijo and carrying away P400 in cash and various articles of
personal property worth, according to the information, P200. Four witnesses
pointed to Peregrino Franco, Ricardo Erit and Leopoldo Erit, the last two being
brothers, as three of the perpetrators of the crime. The witnesses were
Edilberto Bedrijo, Eulalio’s son, Pablo Morales, Mauricia Catampungan, widow of
the deceased, and Pacifico Muertegui. Their testimony is summed up in the brief
for the Government as follows:

“It appears that at about 2 o’clock in the early morning of September 16,
1946, (pp. 3, 28, 34, t. s. n.) the herein appellants, Ricardo Erit, Leopoldo
Erit and Peregrino Franco, accompanied by two other unidentified persons, all
armed with rifles (pp. 5, 20, 43, t. s. n.), went to the house of Eulalio
Bedrijo, who was the barrio lieutenant of Matagangtang (pp. 5, 40, t. s. n,)
which was located in said barrio, municipality of Cataingan, Province of
Masfcate (pp. 2, 40, t. s. n.). Upon arriving thereat, they called from below,
saying ‘Good evening’ (p. 13, t. s. n.), but as none of the occupants of the
house answered, they fired at the house (pp. 10, 18, 31, t. s. n.). Immediately
thereafter, Peregrino Franco and the two unknown persons went up the house (pp.
3, 18, 20, 31, 42, t. s. n.), while the appellants Ricardo and Leopoldo Erit
remained below, standing guard around the house (pp. 3, 14, 28, t. s. n.) The
occupants thereof, namely, Mauricia Catampungan, wife of the deceased, Edilberto
Bedrijo, son of the deceased, Pablo Morales, and three students, Pacifico
Muertegui, Leandro Aguilar and Pablo Nator (pp. 33, 40, t. s. n.), were all
herded in a room therein (pp. 14, 38, 50-51, t. s. n.). The three robbers
started looking for the revolver of the deceased and threatened to shoot the
occupants if they did not deliver the said revolver (pp. 11, 19, 32, 40, t. s.
n.) to which Edilberto Bedrijo answered that he had no revolver (pp. 19, 32,
t.s.n.), and the widow saying that her husband had taken his revolver with him
to town (pp. 11, 19, 32, 40, t. s. n.). The marauders then demanded money from
them and upon being told by Mauricia Catampuñgan that she had no money, they
threatened to force open her trunk (pp. 11, 19, 32, 41, t. s. n.). Upon being
thus threatened, Mauricia opened the trunk from which Peregrino Franco took an
“alcancia” which he broke open and which contained silver coins amounting to
P400 (pp. 11-12, 19, 32, 41, t. s. n.). The robbers also took away with them a
raincoat and eyeglasses belonging to the deceased (p. 33, t. s. n.), as well as
several articles of clothing belonging to the students (pp. 40, 42, t. s. n.),
with a value of P66 (Exhibit 1). Moments thereafter, the deceased arrived, and
as he was entering the gate, appellant Ricardo Erit told him not to move (p. 33,
t. s. n.), and when the former proceeded to enter, Erit fired at him (pp. 12,
33, 41, t. s. n.). After taking the revolver, valued at P100, from the cadaver,
(pp. 5, 33, t. s. n.), appellants and their unknown companions hurriedly left
the premises (pp. 39, 44, t. s. n.).

“As a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained on the left breast and left
forehead (pp. 53-54, t. s. n.), the deceased expired on that same occasion (p.
h7 t.s.n.) and was buried two days thereafter (Exhibit A).”

Upon this evidence, His Honor, Judge Jose Z. de Venecia found the three
above-named defendants (the others not having brought to trial) guilty of
robbery and sentenced them to not less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto
mayor and not more than 3 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision
correccional, and to pay the heirs of the deceased P500. Ricardo Erit alone
was pronounced guilty of homicide and, in addition to the above penalty, was
sentenced for this offense to an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1
day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of
P2,000.

Peregrino Franco admitted participation in the crime but said that he was
forced by threats and intimidation by Santiago Onrubia, Zoilo de la Peña,
Demetrio Mato and Antonio Sanchez. Ricardo Erit and Leopoldo Erit put up an
alibi.

Peregrino Franco appealed to the Court of Appeals as well as Ricardo Erit and
Leopoldo Erit but withdrew his appeal before the case was submitted for
decision. The First Division of the Court of Appeals certified the case to this
Court, being of the opinion that the crime committed was the complex crime of
robbery with homicide, with aggravating circumstances, and that the imposable
penalty was the maximum of that prescribed in article 294, subsection 1, of the
Revised Penal Code, which is death.

Ricardo Erit’s and Leopoldo Erit’s appeal presents a question of
identity.

Although, as the court below observed, the witnesses directly and positively
affirmed that Ricardo Erit and Leopoldo Erit were the two men who stood guard
downstairs and that Ricardo Erit shot Eulalio Bedrijo, their testimony is far
from being airtight and is totally uncorroborated. Aside from the witnesses’
affirmation, there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, which links the two
brothers with the crime in question. The truth of the testimony that the
witnesses saw Ricardo and Leopoldo Erit through the window hinges not so much on
the witnesses’ veracity as on their ability to recognize the defendants beyond
any possibility of mistake. That they told what they conscientiously believed to
be true might be conceded; that their perception was correct is seriously to be
doubted.

The time and the position of the parties lend ground for skepticism as to the
accuracy of the witnesses’ observation. The witnesses were all inside the house
while the robbers, who they said were the Erit brothers, were in the yard. The
house was quite high, high enough at least to permit a man to stand up under the
floor. The light in the house was not described, nor was the part of the house
where it was placed revealed. The probabilities were that it was an ordinary
kerosene lamp, the light of which could not have transcended far beyond the
window.

It is said that there was a moon, but it was not full moon, as some witnesses
erroneously asserted. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the moon was
in its last quarter on September 18, 1946, and rose on the 16th at 10:20 p.m.
Granting that the night was not overcast, still we are not satisfied that a
quarter moon afforded the people inside the house sufficient light to recognize
the people in the yard with a reasonable degree of certainty. A person may be
recognized through his size, his height, movements, and the shape of his body by
another to whom those features are familiar. Edilberto Bedrijo was not so
situated with reference to Ricardo or Leopoldo Erit. These lived eight
kilometers from Bedrijo’s house and were known to Edilberto only because this
witness used to see them; in the market. Our doubts find concrete proof in the
fact that Edilberto Bedrijo, of all the four witnesses, was the only one who
said from the start that the two men who kept watch downstairs and one of whom
shot his father were the Erit brothers. Two of the other witnesses named only
Peregrino Franco in their extra-judicial statements. The other witness was not
examined or presented at the preliminary investigation although he said he was
on hand ready to testify.

Circumstances of affirmative character disclosed by the evidence add to the
uncertainty:

1. Peregrino Franco, who was arrested before the Erit brothers and who from
   the outset admitted complicity in the robbery, did not implicate Ricardo or
   Leopoldo Erit, either directly or indirectly, while naming four others as his
   confederates. There is no indication, and there is no reason to believe, that
   Franco committed perjury to shield these brothers or out of fear of them. He had
   more reason to be afraid of the people he squealed on Ricardo Erit and Leopoldo
   Erit, as well as Franco, were securely lodged in jail. And, a stranger from
   Iloilo, Franco was not bound with the Erits by ties of blood or friendship.
   Except for the fact that he claimed to have been forced against his will, a
   claim which we think is untrue but which was not strange for him to make, this
   defendant’s testimony has the earmarks of sincerity. His answers were to the
   point, straightforward, plausible and consistent.

2. The people whom Peregrino Franco pointed out as his companions were not
   imaginary persons but real hardened bandits who were the terrors in Cataingan.
   Three of them were slain by the police in November, 1946, and so were still
   alive when they were incriminated by Franco. This clashes with the prosecution’s
   theory that Franco falsely implicated them because they could not refute his
   statements.

3. On the body of one of the three men killed, Santiago Onrubia, was found
   witness Muertegui’s belt, which was among the personal effects stolen from
   Bedrijo’s house. This is a safe demonstration that Onrubia was one of the
   robbers. It is to be presumed from the nature of their business that Onrubia, De
   la Peña, Mato and Sanchez operated in group and were together when the crime at
   bar was committed. The information in fact named all of them as active
   participants in the crime. Now then, with Peregrino Franco there were already
   five malefactors accounted for. According to the witnesses for the Government,
   only five men composed the band, three going up the house and two remaining
   outside.

4. Ricardo Erit and Leopoldo Erit have not been shown to have any police
   record or reputation for lawlessness. As a matter of fact, one of them at least,
   Ricardo, appears to have gainful occupations. He was a carpenter and farmer.

Our conclusion is that Ricardo Erit and Leopoldo Erit should be acquitted.
The appealed decision is reversed with costs charged de oficio.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones, and
Reyes, JJ., concur.