G.R. No. L-24780. June 29, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAYMUNDO ARAJA AND RODING ARAJA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision of
the Court of First Instance of Batangas, Eighth Judicial DisÂtrict, in Criminal Case No. 1904,
convicting the brothers, RAYMUNDO Araja and RODING Araja, of Murder, qualified
by treachery, and sentencing each one to suffer reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased Apolonio Aquino, jointly and severally, in the sum of
P6,000.00, each to pay one-half of the costs, and to suffer all the accessories
of the law.
The Information, dated
December 17, 1962, charged the two
above accused as follows:
“That on or about the 29th day of November, 1962 in the Barrio
of San Gabriel, Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, armed with firearms, conspiring and confederating
together, acting in common accord
and mutually aiding each other, with deliberate intent to kill Apolonio Aquino by means of treachery and with evident premeditation,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and fire
shots several times at the said Apolonio Aquino with the said firearms, thereby inflicting upon him several gunshot
wounds in the different parts of his body which caused his death; that the
crime was committed with the aggravating
cirÂcumstances of abuse of superior strength, use of unlicensed firearms and
nocturnity deliberately sought.”
Apolonio Aquino (the
deceased, for short), 20, single, was a resident of Barrio Payapa, Lemery, Batangas.
His friend, Epifanio
Umali, 22, single, farmer, was a resident of the same barrio. The latter, as principal prosecution witness,
testified that in the afternoon of November 29, 1962, he and the deceased
boarded the last trip of the BTCo. bus from Barrio Payapa, bound for Barrio San
Gabriel, Talisay, Batangas. Upon
arriving at their destination at 6:00 P.M., they proceeded to the house of the
deceased’s friend (whose name he did not know) where they ate supper and stayed
for an hour. Five friends of the
deceased from Barrio San Gabriel were already there. At 8:00 P.M., accompanied by those friends,
they proceeded to the house of Purok Araja, father of the accused brothers, to
serenade Purok’s niece and the accused’s first degree cousin, Gregoria Bathan,
also from Barrio Payapa, whom the deceased was courting.
According to the
deceased’s father, Catalino Aquino, Gregoria’s parents did not approve of that
courtship but were in favor of another man, Jovito
Gamboa. And it was because of this that
Gregoria was taken to Barrio San Gabriel by her parents in order to keep her
away from the deceased.
Continuing with Epifanio
Umali’s narration, he stated that at 10:00 P.M., on their way home after the
serenade, he and the deceased stood by with their group along the road in front
of a store owned by Leodegario Bait where one of their companions bought
cigarettes for all of them.
When the deceased was about to light his cigarette, they suddenly heard shouts “patay kayo ngayon“.
The deceased beamed his
flashlight towards the place where the voices came from. Thereby, Epifanio saw both accused holdÂing
firearms and simultaneously fire shots at the deceased. The latter was hit, fell with his face down (sumobasob
na) and cried “aray!” Frightened,
Epifanio ran away towards Barrio
Tamayo and walked home to Barrio Payapa.
Informed by one Baldomero
Malabanan of the shooting incident, PC soldier Victoriano Antazo proÂceeded to
the scene of the crime where he and some companions found the deceased lying
near the road, with gunshot wounds, in grave condition. He recorded his investigation of the deceased
as follows:
“Tanong: Ano ang iyong pangalan?
Sagot: Apolonio Aquino.
Taga saan ka? Payapa, Lemery, Batangas, po.
Sino ang bumaril sa iyo? Ang anak ng Purok, po, na taga San Gabriel,
Talisay, Batangas, po.
Bakit ka binaril? Bagay po sa babae, na taga Payapa rin.
Tanong: Ano ang ibinaril sa iyo?
Sagot: carbine at garand po.
(Sgd.) APOLONIO
AQUINO
Witnesses: (SGD.) PORFIRIO AUSTRIA
(SGD.) PEDRO MALABANAN
Ante
Mortem Statement, taken by Pfc.
Victoriano Antazo,
122 PC Co.
Bayuyungan Detachment,
at exactly
2430 hrs. 30 November
1962.”
Thereafter, they hired a
BTCo. bus to take the deceased to the Batangas Provincial Hospital, passing via
the Payapa-Lemery route. They stopped at
Barrio Payapa to fetch the deceased’s father, who thereupon boarded the
bus. PC soldier Antazo heard father and
deceased murmuring words. The deceased
died, however, before reaching the hospital, specifically at Buan, Batangas.[1]
Catalino Aquino, the
deceased’s father, also a farmer, corroborated Epifanio’s testimony regarding
his son’s departure from their barrio, accompanied by Epifanio, for the purpose
of serenading Gregoria Bathan. He added
that at about midnight he was awakened and informed that his son had been wounded. He boarded the parked BTCo. bus and asked his
son who had shot him and why. The latter
replied, “Raymundo Araja and Roding Araja,” and that he was going to die
because of those wounds. He then
comforted his son by telling him that
they were taking him to the hospital, but his son expired en route thereto.[2]
An ocular inspection of
the crime scene was conducted the following day by PC Sgt. Michael
Anduque. He found a flashlight and five
empty shells near the place of the incident and caused them to be turned over to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, Batangas, Batangas, on December 18, 1962. He also declared that the
front of the store where the slaying occurred is approximately 500 to
700 yards from the house of Purok Araja, and about 400 to 600 yards from that of the accused Raymundo Araja.
He investigated Porfirio Austria, who was in the deceased’s group, and
Gregoria Bathan herself, which investigations were reduced to writing.[3] Neither declarant, however, was presented as
a witness.
On December 27, 1962, the
deceased’s body was exhumed and upon examination by Dr. Ceferino Cunanan, NBI medico-legal officer, he found a gunshot wound on the “lumbar region, right, posterior
aspect”, thru and thru, exiting at
the “right hypochondriac region”.[4]
According to him, the muzzle of
the gun must have been behind the deceased for this wound to have been
caused. The second gunshot wound, also thru
and thru, was on the right wrist antero-lateral aspect, which fractured
comminutedly that area, and exited
in the dorso-lateral aspect.[5]
Dr. Cunanan stated that this wound could have been caused while the deceased
was facing the assailant. He also found
the deceased’s “heart with blood clots” meaning that the latter could
have lived for sometime before
he died, the duration depending upon the degree of hemorrhage, which could be
an hour or more, as his wounds could not have caused instantaneous death.[6]
In exculpation,
appellants both advanced the defense of alibi.
They denied any participation whatsoever in the commission of the crime and claimed
to have been at their respective homes when the shooting occurred.
Elaborating, RAYMUNDO
Araja, 23, married, farmer and resident of Bo. San Gabriel, declared that at
8:00 P.M. of November 29, 1962, while at his house, Baldomero Malabanan (his father-in-law) came with somebody from
Barrio Payapa, asking him (RAYMUNDO) to accompany them to borrow a guitar as
the group wanted to serenade. They were
eight serenaders, to wit, Baldomero Malabanan, Porfing, Peddy, Amador, Meddy,
Pedring and two others from Barrio Payapa whom he did not know. RAYMUNDO borrowed the
guitar from his father’s house, where he saw his brother RODING. The group then serenaded Gregoria Bathan, his
first cousin from Barrio Payapa, who was vacationing at his father’s
house. After the serenade, Peddy, one of
the group invited him to go with them, which he did, leaving RODING
behind. The group proceeded to Barrio
Alas-as but he separated from them at the junction of the road, and went home. While resting, he heard shots. He peeped through their window, and saw
Gorio, the store owner, trying to light
the front of his store. He approached
the store and inquired from Gorio what had happened. Because Meddy, his brother-in-law was with the
group, he and Porfing (who hid near the store) went to look for Meddy who might
have been hurt. They found Meddy in his
house, unhurt. As instructed by the
Deputy Barrio Lieutenant, they continued their search for whomsoever was hit
and found somebody sprawled by the road.
The following day, November 30, 1962, he and RODING were fetched by the
PC soldiers who brought them to Macaoy, Lipa City, thence to Camp Crame for
investigation. On December 2, 1962, they
were allowed to go home. But one month
later, they were arrested.[7]
For his part, RODING
Araja, 33, married, farmer, and also a resident of Barrio San Gabriel,
testified that before the serenaders arrived, he was already in the house of
his father and remained there until they left.
Another group of serenaders came and it was during this second serenade
that he heard shots after which the serenaders sang a farewell song and
left. He then went home to
sleep. The next morning, November 30,
1962, his father arrived and told him that Apolonio Aquino (the deceased), one
of the serenaders from Barrio Payapa, met
with an accident. At 10:00 A.M. of the
same day, the PC soldiers took him and RAYMUNDO to Maraoy, and on December 1,
1962, to Camp Crame where something was applied to their hands. Later, they were allowed to go home.[8]
The defense likewise
presented PC Major Jose C. Fernandez, Chief, Chemistry and Questioned Documents
Branch of the PC Laboratory, Camp Crame.
He declared that upon the request of Captain Eufronio Alip, Jr., the
Commanding Officer of the 122nd PC Co., Camp Malvar, Lipa City, he examined the
hands of RAYMUNDO and RODING Araja at 11:00 A.M. of December 1, 1962, for
presence of gun powder residue, by using the dephonylemine or ballistic
test. His findings were negative. He declared, however, that he could not
conclude therefrom whether the two suspects fired a gun or not because of such
factors as: the length of a firearm –
like a carbine or garand rifle, which if fired once or twice will seldom give
positive results because of the distance of the chamber of the gun from the
dorsal side of the hand of the firer; the washing of the hands with gasoline
before examÂination; perspiration of the firer’s hand, which can wash off gun
powder residue; the use of gloves; and even the velocity of the wind in
relation to the direction of the line of fire.[9]
Luis Genil, a neighbor
and brother-in-law of RAYMUNDO corroborated the latter’s alibi. He recalled that at 9 o’clock in the evening
of November 29, 1962, he went to the house of RAYMUNDO but instead found there
the brothers, Berto and Julian (whose family names he could not remember) and
the wife of RAYMUNDO, who told him that RAYMUNDO was out serenading. Twenty minutes later, RAYMUNDO arrived. Then they heard a volley of shots. Because the shots seemed to have been fired
somewhere near his house where his family was, he ran towards home. Seeing that the store was already lighted, he
went there and saw the storeowner, Porfing Austria, and RAYMUNDO
conversing. He then went with RAYMUNDO
to look for his brother-in-law, Pedro Malabanan, and upon returning to the
house of RAYMUNDO they met another brother-in-law of RAYMUNDO, who is the
Deputy Barrio Lieutenant, and who informed them of the incident.[10]
After trial, the lower
Court rendered a verdict of guilty, as initially stated. On April 2, 1965, appellants filed their
notice of appeal.
In assailing the judgment
of conviction, appelÂlants contend that the prosecution failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt their identity as the perpetrators of the crime. This assertion is negated by the evidence.
1. When asked by Pfc. Antazo in the ante-mortem statement “sino ang bumaril sa iyo“? the deceased answered precisely, “ang anak ng Purok po na taga San Gabriel,
Talisay, Batangas, po.” The circumstance that the deceased answered in
the singular and failed to specify appellants’ names, although he knew them,
does not detract from the identification he had made considering that at the
time the declaration was taken, he was in grave and weakening condition that
the investigating PC soldier, for humanitarian reasons, deemed it more urgent
to bring him to the hospital rather than ask him for more specific details of
the incident.[11]
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, the deceased, who was in the throes of
death at the time he gave the ante-mortem statement, could not be expected to
speak distinctly and with faultless grammar such that he could have omitted the
word “mga” to denote
that more than one son of Purok had shot him.
“One does not hold the dying to the observance of all the niceties
of speech to which conformity is exacted from one on the stand” (Mr.
Justice Cardozo). However, the
deceased’s reply to the next question – “ano
ang binaril sa iyo?” – “carbine at garand po” –confirmed
that he referred to and meant the two sons of Purok Araja, it being impossible
for only one person to carry and fire the two weapons at the same time. Moreover, the deceased while aboard the bus,
confided to his father that appellants, both of whom he identified by name, had
shot him. The deceased’s conscious state
immediately after the shooting is borne out by the NBI medico-legal officer,
who declared that the wounds suffered by the deceased would not have caused
death instantaneously but that
he could have lived an hour or more depending on the blood being lost. Thus, he was physically capable of giving the
ante-mortem statement
taken even after the incident and at the very site thereof.
The positive declaration
of the deceased as to the identity of his assailants, given with the
consciousness that death was imminent, is undoubtedly entitled to weight
considering the seriousness of his wounds and the fact that death supervened
shortly afterwards, thereby showing the great improbability that the deceased
would have trifled with the truth.[12] Contrary to the trial Court’s opinion, the
deceased’s dying declaration satisfied all legal requisites, namely:
(1) it must concern the
crime and the surroundÂing circumstances of the declarant’s death; (2) at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness
of an impending death; (3) the
declarant was competent as a witness at the time the same was executed; (4) the declaration is
offered in a criminal case for murder in
which declarant was the victim.[13]
But even if the statement
were not admissible as an ante-mortem declaration, it may
still be conÂsidered as part of the res gestae, as correctly held by the trial Court.
It was made immediately after the shooting incident, appears to be
natural and spontaneous and made before the deceased could contrive or devise a
plan to incriminate appellants.[14]
The defense contention
that the prosecution suppressed evidence when it failed to present Porfirio
Austria and Pedro Malabanan, witnesses to the ante-mortem statement, is untenable. The
prosecution believed that with the witnesses it had presented during the trial,
it had sufficiently established the guilt of appellants. Moreover,
their testimonies would have
been merely corroborative so that there was no compelling reason for the
prosecution to still utilize them as witnesses.
Besides, assuming that their testiÂmonies were material, nothing could
have prevented the defense from presenting them as their own witnesses in order
to discredit the ante-mortem statement. The presumption of suppressed evidence does
not apply when the same is equally accessible or available to the defense.[15]
The defense, too, makes
capital of the fact that Porfirio Austria did not mention the appellants by
name in his Statement taken on November 30, 1962,[16] and
merely stated “may dalawang taong dumating galing
silangan, at kami ay kanilang dinaluhong sabay putok ng baril.” This
fact, however, does not prove appelÂlants’ innocence any. In the first place, Porfirio was not asked
for those names. And secondly, it is
possible that because of the suddenness of the occurrence, or perhaps, because of his position in relation
to the deceased, he was unable to recognize appellants unlike Epifanio Umali who identified them readily.
Be that as it may, Porfirio Austria’s statement corroborates the
evidence that two indiÂviduals were the malefactors.
2. The joint participation
of appellants in the assault on the deceased was vividly recalled by witness
Epifanio Umali, his barriomate and companion that fateful night in these words:
“Q. Then
what transpired?
A. Apolonio Aquino lighted his cigarette, the
rest of us have not lighted our
cigarÂettes yet when we suddenly heard
somebody said “Patay kayo ngayon”.
Q. After hearing those words, what transpired?
A. Apolonio Aquino focused his flashlight towards
the place where the voices came from.
Q. And focusing the light on the place where the
words came from, did you see any body?
A. I
saw Raymundo and Roding holding firearms and they suddenly fired shots.
Q. Against
whom?
A. Apolonio
Aquino.
Q. And
what happened?
A. He
was hit.
Q. What
happened to Apolonio Aquino after he was fired at by the two Arajas?
A. He
fell and he shouted, “Aray”, so I ran away.”[17] (Italics supplied)
No evil motive has been
imputed against Epifanio Umali for testifying against appellants. As a matter of fact, the latter admitted that
they knew of no reason as to why Epifanio testified against them nor were they
in bad terms with said witness.[18] In such a situation, the rule is that where
there is no evidence, and nothing to indicate, that the principal witness for
the prosecution was actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that he
was not and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.[19]
In
the face
of such positive identification, added to the ante
mortem statement of the deceased, the defense of
alibi sharply loses its
credibility. RAYMUNDO claimed that after
he separated from the group of serenaders he went home and slept. However, as he himself admitted, the distance
between his house and the place where the shooting occurred was only around 30
meters so that it was not physically impossible for him to have been at the locus criminis at the time it was committed.
“Q. And
how far is that store from your house?
A. The store was about thirty meters away from my
house.
Q. So, your house to the place of the incident is
less than
70 meters more or less? It is possible because the place of the incident is near the store.
A. I do
not remember that statement.
Q. You stated a while ago that the distance
between your house and that of the junction where you separated from the group
is how many?
A. More or less fifteen meters.
Q. Not half a
kilometer?
A. No, sir.
x x x x x x x
Q. So that actually now, the place where the shooting occurred is only around 30 meters away from
your
house?
A. Yes, sir.[20]
Then, too, RAYMUNDO avers that after the shooting, he and Porfing (referring in all probability to Porfirio Austria), were
instructed by the Deputy Barrio Lieutenant to
search for anyone who may have been
hit.[21] Actually, however, Porfing was with the deceased’s group when the latter was shot, had signed the ante–mortem statement as a witness, and had executed a statement[22] regarding the incident, so that there would have been no need for him to search. RAYMUNDO’s credibility is thus again laid open to serious doubt.
RODING, on the other hand, averred that when the deceased’s group of serenaders left
the house of his father, he remained in said house and listened to the serenade
of the second group during which time he heard the volley of shots. Again, however, the distance between his
father’s house and the scene of the incident was only “more than 1/2
kilometer”.
“Q.
How far is the house of your father from the scene of the incident
A. Far, sir.
Q. More or less, how far?
A. More than 1/2 kilometer.”[23]
As held
in People vs. Tizon,[24] a distance of one or two kilometers from the
scene of the incident does not exclude the accused from the possibility of
committing the crime.
The absence of traces of
gunpowder residue in appellants’ hands neither proves their innocence. The ballistic expert himself, a defense
witness, could not categorically conclude from said result that the appellants
did or did not fire any firearm because of other factors involved. One fact looms clear, however, and that is that the deceased’s declaration that his assailants had utilized a
“carbine and garand” finds confirmation in:
“Exh. ‘5’ – 5 empty shells
caliber
.30 carbine
Type
Mark MI (2M5);
-1
for caliber, 30 empty
shells garand
Type
Mark MIA.”
which
shells were found in the scene of the crime by Sgt. Anduque and were surrendered by the PC to the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal on December 18, 1962.[25] (Italics supplied)
That the deceased
sustained only two gunshot wounds when, in fact, five empty shells were found
at the scene of the crime would not diminish a bit the strength of the
prosecution evidence, it being obvious
that only two out of the five
shots found their mark. Appellants
cannot be expected to be sharpshooters.
The non-presentation of the firearms used in killing the victim neither disproves the guilt of appellant. It is most unlikely that appellants would just leave them at the scene of the crime.[26]
The defense further asks: how could it
be possible that it was only the
deceased who was hit when there was a group with him? Additionally, how could it be possible that the deceased was hit at the back when according to Epifanio’s testimony, upon hearing appellants’ shout, the deceased focussed his flashlight on
them so that the deceased was
facing appellants at the time he
was shot? A plausible explanation is
that appellants must have hit the deceased‘s hand holding the flashlight, and thereÂafter, the deceased must
have turned around reflexly, with his back towards the appellants, at which point, the latter directed another shot or shots at him, one of which hit its
mark. And, if the others in the group were not hit at all, that
was their good fortune. Or, the deceased was the only
target
of the assailants and was easily
picked out from the group because of the flashlight he had
focussed on the appellants.
Lastly,
appellants
would have us believe that they were bereft of any motive to liquidate the
deceased as there were no strained relations between them. They claim that RAYMUNDO even accompanied the deceased and stayed with his group until the end of the serenade, and that on the way to Purok Araja’s house, the deceased even pointed out
RAYMUNDO’s house to Epifanio Umali. Well settled is the rule, however, that motive need not be established when the accused has
been positively
identified[27] as when
there are eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime,[28] as in the case under review. Besides, it should be recalled that appellants are first degree
cousins of Gregoria Bathan, the
sweetheart of the deceased.
The family must have been one in disliking the deceased as a suitor.
The evidence also discloses that during the serenade, RODING went to
where RAYMUNDO was and proceeded to the kitchen, followed by RAYMUNDO,[29] after which
the two re-entered the sala, and RODING left.[30] It is very possible that the brothers
discussed the identity of the serenaders particularly, the deceased. And if
RAYMUNDO still joined the group in
leaving the house after the serenade, it was to create a “deceptively friendly atmosphere.” It should also be recalled
that he separated from the group just before the latter went to the
store on the pretext that he was going home.
In resume, the guilt of the appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The crime committed was Murder qualified by treachery. The assault on the deceased was sudden
and unexpected to the point of incapacitating the deceased to repel or escape from
it.[31]
Appellants adopted a method which tended directly to insure the accomplishment of their objective with no risk to themselves from any defense
that the deceased might have been able
to make. Evident premeditation has not
been satisfactorily proven. The
aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength and nighttime cannot be considered for they are deemed
absorbed by
treachery.[32] In the absence of
any modifying circumstance, the
trial Court correctly imposed the medium period of penalty prescribed by Article
248 of the
Revised Penal Code (reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death), or reclusion
perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, except with respect to
the amount of the civil
indemnity, which is hereby raised to P12,000.00.[33]
Costs against accused-appellants
Raymundo Araja and Roding Araja.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
[1]
t.s.n., June 9, 1964, pp. 61-74.
[2]
t.s.n., June 9, 1964, pp. 75-96.
[3]
Exhibits
“B” & “1”.
[4]
Exhibit “F”.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
t.s.n., January 16, 1964, pp. 39-61.
[7]
t.s.n., August 13, 1964, pp. 2-50; September 11, 1964, pp. 13-19.
[8]
t.s.n., September 11, 1964, pp. 20-34.
[9]
t.s.n., July 24, 1964, pp. 96-109.
[10]
t.s.n., October 7, 1964, pp. 35-44.
[11]
People vs. Genoguin, 56 SCRA
181, 190 (1974).
[12]
People vs. Manlapaz, et al., 55
SCRA 598 (1974).
[13]
People vs. Lanza, 94 SCRA 613 (1979); People vs.
Sagario, et al., 14 SCRA 468 (1965).
[14]
People vs. de Gracia, 18 SCRA 197 (1966).
[15]
20 Am. Jur., p. 193; People vs. Padiernos, 69 SCRA 484 (1976), cited in People vs.
Realon, L-30832, August 29, 1980.
[16]
Exhibit “B”.
[17]
t.s.n., August 27, 1963, pp. 4 & 5.
[18]
t.s.n., September 11, 1964, p. 30;
August 13, 1964, p. 16.
[19]
People vs. Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285
(1976); People vs. Mercado, 38 SCRA 168, 174 (1971); People vs.
Gonzales, et al., 76 Phil. 473 (1946).
[20]
t.s.n., August 13, 1964, pp. 37-39.
[21]
t.s.n., August 13, 1964, pp. 8-9.
[22]
Exhibit “B”
[23]
t.s.n., September 11, 1964, p. 28.
[24]
66 SCRA 372 (1975).
[25]
t.s.n., December 3, 1963, pp. 37-38.
[26]
cf. People vs. Ordonio, 68 SCRA
397, 402 (1975).
[27]
People vs. Veloso, 92 SCRA 515
(1979).
[28]
People vs. Sabater, et al., L-41537-8, February 24, 1981.
[29]
t.s.n., August
27, 1963, p. 45.
[30]
Ibid., p. 45.
[31]
People vs. Pengzon, 44
Phil. 244
[32]
People vs. Carzano, 95 SCRA 146 (1980); People vs. Redoña, 87 Phil. 743 (1950); People vs. Mobe, 81 Phil.
58 (1948).
[33]
People vs. Lucero, 96
SCRA 694 (1980) citing People vs. Pantoja, 25 SCRA 468).