PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN BRIOSO AND MARIANO TAEZA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Abra, in its Criminal Case No. 626, finding the two
appellants Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza guilty of murder, and sentencing each to suffer life
imprisonment and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Silvino Daria in the sum of P6,000.00 but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.

An information filed by the Provincial Fiscal dated 16 January 1967
charged the two accused, Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza, with the crime of murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 23rd day of December, 1966, in the
Municipality of Tayum, Province of Abra, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable court, the above-named accused, armed with firearms of different
calibers, by con federating and mutually helping one another, with deliberate
intent to kill and without justifiable motive, with treachery and evident
premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and felonious­ly,
assault, attack and shot one, Silvino Daria, in­flicting upon him multiple gunshot wounds on the
different parts of his body, which wounds caused his death thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime, to wit:  (a)
treachery and evident premeditation; (b) advantage was taken of superior
strength; and (c) with the use of firearm.”

The records of the case show that on 23 December 1966, between 8 and 9 in the
evening, the spouses Silvino Daria
and Susana Tumalip were in their house at barrio Tiker, Tayum, Abra.  The husband was making rope
in the annex of their house, while the wife, four meters away, was
applying candle wax to a flat iron.  Silvino Daria was using a lamp
where he worked.  Outside, the night was
bright because of the moon overhead.

Cecilia Bernal, a niece and neighbor of the spouses, was alarmed
by the barking of dogs.  She peeped
through a crack in the wall of her house and saw appellants herein pass
southward in the direction of the house of Silvino Daria that was six meters away.  Brioso was carrying
a long gun.  Her suspicions awakened, she
went downstairs and, shielded by the fence, witnessed each appellant point a
gun at the bamboo wall of Daria‘ s house.  Two
detonations followed, and there­after she heard Daria
moaning and his wife call for help, saying her husband had been shot.  Bernal went to the house and found the victim
prostrate, wounded and unable to speak. 
The widow, however, testified that right after being shot, she rushed to
her husband’s side and he told her that he was shot by Juan Brioso
and Mariano Taeza. 
Silvino Daria
expired one hour later as a result of gunshot wounds in the abdomen and
leg.  A few days later, Cecilia Bernal
and the widow, Susana Tumalip, executed affidavits
pointing to the two accused as the killers (Exhibits “B” and
“C”, respectively).

The cause of the death of Silvino Daria was “Shock due to severe hemorrhage secondary to
gunshot wounds at the abdomen and leg”, as found by Dr. Isabelo B. Lucas, Municipal Health Officer of Tayum, Abra, contained in his
Medico-Legal Necropsy Report, Exhibit “A”.

The motive for the killing appears to have been the dis­approval
by the spouses Silvino and Susana Daria
of Mariano Taeza’s courtship of their
daughter, Angelita. 
Angelita was even sent to Manila
for her to avoid Mariano Taeza.  The courtship is admitted by Mariano Taeza.

The two accused appealed the conviction and assigned the fol­lowing
errors as committed by the court a quo:

1.    The lower court erred in relying on the
uncorroborated and contradictory testimony and statement of the prosecution
witness Cecilia Bernal on the physical identity of the accused;

2.    The lower court erred in disregarding the
affidavit (Exhibit 2) of Antonio Daria, son of the
deceased, clearing the accused Mariano Taeza, which
affidavit had been identified in court by the fiscal before whom the same was
executed; and

3.    The lower court erred in finding the accused
guilty of the crime of murder.

The assigned errors are discussed
together, being closely interrelated.

We find no discrepancy in the testimony of Cecilia Bernal on the
material points.  She stated that she did
not see Mariano Taeza carry a gun when both the
accused passed by.  But this brief
observation does not necessarily mean that he was not actually armed or carrying
a gun on his person.  The fact that he
did was proved when both the said accused were seen pointing their respective
gun at the victim and each subsequently fired once at him, Taeza
using a short weapon (t.s.n Millare,
page 17) that could have been carried concealed in his person.

The house of Cecilia Bernal was only six meters away from that of
Silvino Daria’s.  The night was brightly illuminated by the
moon.  Ce­cilia Bernal had known both
accused for a long time and it is admitted that they also know her.  There could have been no difficulty in
identifying the accused under the circumstances.

Cecilia Bernal had no motive to impute falsely this heinous
charge of murder against the above-said accused, considering that Mariano Taeza is a nephew of the deceased by a first degree
cousin.  Even Juan Brioso
specifically said that he knew of no reason why she should testify against
him.  Hence, her statement that she came
to court only to tell the truth should be believed.  The witness also stated that she was hard of
hearing and could not understand some of the questions; thus, the alleged
inconsistencies in her testimony do not detract from the “positive and
straightforward”^[1]
identification of the accused as the ones who were seen at the scene of the
crime and who actually shot Silvino Daria.

It is noteworthy that the trial judge observed witness Bernal
closely, warning her several times not to exaggerate, yet in the decision gave
her full credence, being obviously satisfied of her truthfulness.  The general rule, based on logic and
experience, is that the findings of the judge who tried the case and heard the
wit­nesses are not disturbed on appeal, unless there are substantial facts and
circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered,
might affect the result of the case^[2],
which in this case have not been shown to exist.

Moreover, the testimony of Cecilia Bernal finds corroboration in
the declaration of the victim, who told his wife that it was Juan Brioso and Mariano Taeza who shot
him.  This statement does satisfy the re­quirements
of an ante mortem statement. Judged by the nature and extent of his wounds, Silvino Daria must have realized
the seriousness of his condition, and it can be safely inferred that he made
the same under the consciousness of impending death^[3],
considering that he died only one hour after being shot.

The defense of both the accused is alibi.  Mariano Taeza’s own
account was that in the evening of 23
December 1966 he was at the barrio clinic of Tiker
playing the guitar with Antonio Daria (son of the
deceased), Narciso Valera
and Jose Cabais. 
While in the said place, they heard two gun explosions.  Soon afterwards, Macrino
Arzadon and Taurino Flores
came running towards them, informing Antonio Daria
that his father was already dead.

Exhibit “2”, the alleged affidavit of Antonio Daria, was presented in court to corroborate Mariano Taeza’s testimony. 
But while the said affidavit was identified by the Provincial Fiscal as
having been subscribed and sworn to before him, he also stated that he did not
know Antonio Daria personally and that was the only
time he appeared before him.  Exhibit
“2” does not have the seal of the Fiscal’s
Office.  More­over, the said exhibit was
never identified by the supposed affiant and there was no opportunity for the
prosecution to cross-examine him.  As
stated in People vs. Mariquina4, affidavits are generally not
prepared by the affiants themselves but by another who uses his own language in
writing the affiants’ statements, which may thus be either omitted or
misunderstood by the one writing them. 
For this reason, and for the further reason that the adverse party is
deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, affidavits are
generally rejected in a judicial proceeding as hearsay, unless the affiants
themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.  In view hereof, We
find Exhibit “2” of no probative value, and that the lower court did
not err when it rejected the same.  In
this con­nection, it is markworthy that the
prosecuting attorney stated in open court that Antonio Daria
had also executed another affidavit (Exhibit “D”) in the Fiscal’s office “to the effect that he went to the
office of defense counsel, – – – – – – – – and there affixed his thumbmark on a statement that was never read to
him”.  Be that as it may, not one of
the other persons who, Mariano Taeza claimed, were
with him in the barrio clinic (Narciso Valera and Jose Cabais) was
produced in court to support his alibi. 
Mariano Taeza’s testimony, therefore, remains
uncorroborated.  It has been repeatedly
held that in the face of direct evidence, alibi is necessarily a weak
defense and becomes more so if uncorroborated.5 It is worse if the alibi
could have been corroborated by other persons mentioned by the accused but they
are not presented.6

By Mariano Taeza’s own admission, he
and the other accused, Juan Brioso, are close
friends.  It was shown that Mariano Taeza’s house is only about two hundred meters from that of
Silvino Daria’s and that
the barrio clinic is only about eighty to one hundred meters from the said
victim’s place.  Mariano Taeza himself stated that Silvino
Daria died “may be less than thirty minutes, may
be five minutes” after his arrival-at the victim’s house with the latter’s
son and other persons.  As held in
another case7
the defense of alibi is so weak that in order to be believed there
should be a demonstration of physical impossibility for the accused to have
been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.  Mariano Taeza was
so near the victim’s house that it was easy for him to be there when the
shooting occurred.

The other accused, Juan Brioso, stated
that he was in sitio Catungawan,
barrio Basbasa, Tayum, on 23 December 1966.  He was there upon invita­tion of his first
cousin, Nestorio Flores, to cut and mill sugar
cane.  He left his house in Addamay at 8 in the morning of the said day, arriving in Catungawan before the noon
meal.  They cut sugar cane from 4 to 5 in
the afternoon.  At 6:30, after supper, he, his cousin, and the latter’s son,
Felix Flores, started milling the sugar cane which they had cut.  The milling lasted up to 2 in the early
morning of the following day.  He never
left the place where they were milling. 
He learned of the death of Silvino Daria only when he returned to Addamay
because his parents informed him of the news. 
He admitted knowing Cecilia Bernal and that she likewise knows him.

He denied being a close friend of Mariano Taeza
(thereby con­tradicting Mariano Taezas s testimony)8;
denied that he had gone to the house of Angelita Daria, and his having knowledge of the courtship of Angelita by Mariano Taeza; or
that both of them used to drink and go out together.  On cross-examination, however, he admitted
that he went with Mariano Taeza when they attended
dances.  One such occasion was during the
birthday of his first degree cousin in Addamay way
back in 1965.

Nestorio Flores was presented to
corroborate the alibi of the accused. 
But while both exhibited wonderful memory as to what happened between
sunset and midnight of 23 December 1966, they contradict
each other as to what happened in the earlier hours or events.  As already stated, Juan Brioso
testified that he left his place in Addamay at 8 in
the morning and arrived at his cousin’s house before the noon meal of 23
December 1966; but Nestorio Flares
asserted that it was 8 in the morning when Juan Brioso
arrived.  Brioso
claimed that they cut sugar cane from 4 to 5 in the afternoon of the said
day.  His cousin testified that they cut
sugar cane in the morning after Brioso’s arrival
until lunchtime.  Brioso
stated that they milled sugar cane for the third time in that place in 1966,
the first occasion being on 29 November and the second on 8 December.  Flores denied this,
saying that they did not cut sugar cane in November, 1966, although in other
years they did.  He further stated that
it was already in December of that year that Brioso
came.  In fact, the same witness showed
uncertainty as to the exact date, when he answered even on direct examination
that “may be that was the time when he came”.9 In cases of positive identification
of the culprit by reliable witnesses, it has been held that the defense of alibi
must be established by “full, clear and satisfactory evidence.”10
It is obvious that this witness, who is a close relative of the accused, was
merely presented in court in an attempt to save Juan Brioso
from punishment for the crime committed. 
We believe the trial court when it found that the witness has an in­terest
in the fate of the accused Juan Brioso, and,
therefore, his testimony should not be given credence.

Evidence also shows that from Tiker to Catungawan is only about nine
kilometers and only a two-hour walk.  The
place is also accessible by motor transportation, although motor vehicles are
allegedly rare in the said place.  As in
the case of Mariano Taeza, it was not physically
impossible for Juan Brioso to be at the locus criminis at the time the crime was committed.

It has been clearly and sufficiently proved that the killing of Silvino Daria was qualified by
treachery (alevosia)11 The victim was quietly making rope in his own house.  He was caught off-guard and defenseless when
suddenly and unexpectedly the two accused fired at him.  He had no chance either to evade or repel the
aggression.  The trial court correctly
held that treachery absorbs nocturnity and abuse of
superior strength.12 But while these aggravating
circumstances are always included in the qualifying cir­cumstance of treachery,
the commission of the crime in the victim’s dwelling is not,13
hence the crime is murder attended by one aggravating circumstance, which has
been held to be present where the victim was shot inside his house although the
triggerman was outside.14 There being no mitigating circumstance
to offset it, the apposite penalty is death. 
However, for lack of sufficient votes, the penalty imposable is reduced
to life imprisonment.

WHEREFORE, the sentence under appeal is affirmed, with the
sole modification that the amount of the indemnity is increased to P12,000.00.15

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor,
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1] Page 5, Decision.

^[2] People vs. Pareja, G. R. No.
L-21937, 29 November 1969, 20 SCRA,
693.

^[3] People vs. de Gracia, G. R. No.
L-21419, 29 September 1966, 18 SCRA
197.

4 Editor’s Note: No corresponding footnote in the
original.

5 Editor’s Note: No corresponding footnote in the
original.

6
People vs. Mendoza, L-7030, 31 Jan. 1957, cited in People vs.
Alcantara
, supra .

7
People vs. Alcantara, supra.

8
Page 62, t.s.n., Hearing of 19 September 1967.

9
Page 90, t.s.n., Hearing of 19 September 1967.

10 US vs. Pascua, No.
869, 16 January 1903, 1
Phil. 631, and other cases, cited in People vs. Alcantara,
supra; See also People vs. Marquez G.R. Nos. L-24373-74, 28 November 1969, 30 SCRA 442.

11 Art. 14, paragraph 16, of the Revised Penal Code.

12 People vs. de Gracia,
supra, citing US vs. Estopia,
No. 9411, 29 September 1914,
28 Phil. 97.

13 People vs. Ruzol, et al., L-8699, 26 December 1956, 100 Phil. 537; See also People vs. Manobo,
L-19798, 20
September 1966, 18 SCRA 30.

14 People vs. Ompad, L-23513, 31 January 1969,
26 SCRA 750.

15 People vs. Casillar, L-28132, 25 November 1969, 30 SCRA 352, citing People vs. Pantoja,
L-18793, 11
October 1968, 25 SCRA 468.