THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CAYETANO RODRIGUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The issue in this murder case is whether Cayetano
Rodriguez, 37, a former policeman, accidentally shot Domingo Balisi, as claimed by the said accused, or maliciously shot
the victim, as claimed by the prosecution.

Between eight and nine o’clock
in the evening of February 1, 1972,
a shot from Rodriguez’s rifle wounded his neighbor and alleged friend, Domingo Balisi, 31.  The
victim was then in the yard of his father, Quirino,
located at Barrio San Jose, San Pablo, Isabela.  He was conversing with his father and his
neighbors, Ventura Cammayo, Cesar Fulugan
and Vicente Panganiban.  They were squatting on the ground in a
semi-circle.  Cammayo
and Quirino were facing the gate.

Domingo had an entrance gunshot wound in the back, at a point
opposite the left side of his chest.  The
bullet exited below his right nipple. 
Although seriously wounded, he managed to enter his father’s house,
followed by Quirino, Cammayo
and Rodriguez himself.  The gunwielder was silent when Cammayo
asked him why he shot Domingo.

Olimpia Balisi,
the wife of Domingo, who was summoned to her father-in-law’s house after the
shooting, asked her husband what happened. 
Domingo replied that he was shot by Rodriguez.  He gave the same reply to the barrio captain.  He was brought in a jeep hired by Cammayo to the emergency hospital at Cabagan
where a Constabulary investigator took down his antemortem
declaration.  In that statement, he again
identified Rodriguez as his assailant.

Domingo died on that same night while he was being transferred to
the provincial hospital.  The chief of
police confiscated from the wife of Rodriguez the rifle used in the
shooting.  Rodriguez was not in his
house.  He went into hiding.

The version of Rodriguez was that while he was pursuing a dog
that was running with his kettle of cooked fish, he allegedly fired at the dog
when it was about to enter Quirino Balisi’s yard.  It
was only during the commotion which ensued after the shooting that Rodriguez
supposedly came to know that Domingo Balisi was
wounded.  Rodriguez claimed that the
wounding was accidental and unintentional.

He and the victim were like brothers.  He entered Quirino’s
house and when he saw Domingo suffering from the gunshot wound, he (Rodriguez) extracted the slug from the exit
wound below Domingo’s right nipple.

Rodriguez said that he
was the one who procured the jeep that brought Domingo to the emergency
hospital but he did not go with the jeep because he was afraid that he might be
harmed.  He allegedly reported the
shooting to the barrio captain but not to the police because he assumed that he
had not committed a crime.

He said that he attended Domingo’s funeral but this was denied by
his witness, Fulugan, and by the barrio captain.  He testified that when he was informed that
there was a warrant for his arrest, he surrendered to the chief of police
(38-39 tsn Feb. 1974).

However, the record shows that the warrant dated February 12, 1972 was served upon him
in March, 1972 and he posted his bail bond on the 15th of that month.  He appeared before the Constabulary
detachment at San Jose only after a
release order was issued by the municipal court (p. 28, Rollo).

On the other hand, the prosecution’s version was that Rodriguez
suddenly appeared near the open gate of Quirino’s
yard and, at a distance of fifteen meters, feloniously shot Domingo whose back
was turned against Rodriguez and while Domingo was conversing with his father
and three other persons.  The shooting
occurred when there was a full moon.

As testified by Domingo’s widow, Olimpia,
the motive for the cold-blooded assassination was Rodriguez’s infatuation for
her.  She testified that before she
married Domingo and when Rodriguez was already married to her first cousin, Geronima Balisi, he courted her (Olimpia).  She
rebuffed his advances.  After she married
Domingo, Rodriguez persisted in making immoral proposals to her.  She spurned them.  Rodriguez denied that he courted Olimpia.

The learned trial judge
gave credence to the prosecution’s version and rejected the fish-and-dog story
of Rodriguez.  It convicted Rodriguez of
murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua
and ordered him to pay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the victim’s
heirs (Criminal Case No. 51, Cabagan, Branch
III, CFI of Isabela).  From that judgment, Rodriguez appealed to
this Court.

He contends that the
trial court erred in giving probative value to the testimony of the victim’s
widow and in finding him guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

These contentions cannot be sustained.  The trial court correctly found that
Rodriguez liquidated Domingo in order to eliminate any legal and moral
impediment to his winning the love of Domingo’s wife.

It did not err in holding that Rodriguez’s guilt was proven
beyond reasonable doubt because his testimony that the shooting was accidental
appears to be a palpable fabrication.  Quirino and his son-in-law, Cammayo,
were telling the truth when they testified that they saw Rodriguez deliberately
firing his rifle at the back of Domingo. 
What hit Domingo was not a stray bullet but a bullet that was fired at
him point-blank by Rodriguez.

For that same reason, appellant’s alternative contention that
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong should be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance is untenable.  Rodriguez
intended to kill Domingo.  He used a
deadly weapon in consummating the killing. 
The means which he employed were adequate to bring about the evil which
was caused and intended.  This is not a
case where the wrongful act was
different from that which was intended.

Nor can voluntary
surrender to the authorities be appreciated in appellant’s favor, as argued by
his counsel and as recommended by the Solicitor General.  Appellant surrendered only after a warrant
for his arrest was issued and he had found it futile to continue being a
fugitive from justice.

The trial court did not err in holding that the crime committed
was murder qualified by treachery. 
Rodriguez made a sudden, deliberate and surprise attack on the unwary
and unarmed victim whose back was turned and who did not expect that he would
be assaulted.

The testimony of Olimpia Balisi that in a prior incident Rodriguez shot Domingo with
the same rifle, while Domingo was attending to his carabao
but no grave wound was inflicted, is not sufficient to
prove evident premeditation.  Olimpia did not give any details as to the circumstances surrounding
that incident.  No criminal action was
taken against Rodriguez for his alleged attempt against Domingo.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.  Costs against the
appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., no part.