THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RODRIGO AGUSTIN, JULITO RIZARDO, SILVERIO APOLINARIO, CONRADO APOLINARIO, ARSENIO AGUSTIN, PEDRO BETUDIO, PEDRO AGUSTI…

In the Court of First Instance of Antique, Rodrigo Agustin, Julito
Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario, Conrado Apolinario, Arsenio Agustin,
Pedro Betudio, Pedro Agustin, Diosdado Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario,
and Tranquilino Betudio were charged, under two separate informations,
with the murder of Benito Labauan and the frustrated murder of the
latter’s wife, Emilia Labauan, respectively. All were acquitted of the
charge of frustrated murder. Pedro Betudio, Pedro Agustin and
Tranquilino Betudio were likewise acquitted of the charge of murder,
but the rest, namely, Rodrigo Agustin, Arsenio Agustin, Julito Rizardo,
Diosdado Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario, Conrado Apolinario and
Silverio Apolinario, were found guilty, with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender, lack of instruction and extreme poverty, and the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and
commission of the crime in an uninhabited place. Each was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly and
severally with the others, the heirs of Benito Labauan in the amount of
P6,000, and to pay 1/7 of the costs.

The case is now before us on appeal by Julito Rizardo, Silverio
Apolinario, Conrado Apolinario, Diosdado Apolinario and Adriano
Apolinario. They claim that the lower court erred (1) in convicting
them after it had acquitted Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin, who were
the ones principally charged with the crime; (2) in giving credence to
the testimony of Emilia Labauan; (3) in considering Rodrigo Agustin’s
extrajudicial admission against them; and (4) in not holding that the
prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The killing of Benito Labauan was the aftermath of a land
controversy. It appears that in the Court of First Instance of Antique
he sued some residents of Iglonoy, Bugasong, Antique, for the recovery
of land on which they had their houses. He won the case but the
defendants adamantly refused to vacate the premises even after a writ
of execution and an alias writ of execution had been issued against
them. Appellants are among these residents of the barrio affected by
the case.

On July 9, 1960 the local deputy sheriff and some constabulary
soldiers went to Iglonoy to enforce a demolition order issued by the
Court. The deputy sheriff showed the order to Pedro Betudio, barrio
lieutenant, informing him that he and the other squatters would be
given time to remove their houses, but that if they failed to do so,
the deputy sheriff would execute the order. Betudio, claiming that he
and the others had nowhere to transfer their houses, asked for a period
of grace, but Labauan refused, so the demolition started. Demolished
were the houses of Pedro Agustin, Manuel Betudio, Adriano Apolinario,
Dionisio Apolinario, Manuela de la Cruz, Diosdado Apolinario and
Antonio Francisco. When the turn of his house came Pedro Betudio
approached the sheriff and Labauan and offered to recognize the
latter’s ownership on condition that he be allowed to remain on the
land as tenant. Labauan readily agreed, and proposed that he and
Betudio meet the following Tuesday in San Jose, with their respective
attorneys, in order to put their agreement into writing. The meeting,
however, failed to materialize.

Concerning the crime itself Emilia Labauan, widow of the deceased,
testified to the following effect: In the afternoon of Wednesday, July
13, 1960 , she and her husband and another person named Juan Lam-an
were on their way home from their farm in Iglonoy. They walked single
file, with Labauan leading and his wife immediately behind. On their
way they crossed Iglonoy creek. As Labauan was about to step from the
creek to the bank, Pedro Betudio suddenly appeared from a nearby
thicket on a slightly elevated portion of land and hacked Labauan with
a bolo. He was joined in the attack by Pedro Agustin, Julito Rizardo,
Silverio Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario, Diosdado Apolinario,
Tranquilino Betudio, Arsenio Agustin, and Rodrigo Agustin. Emilia also
tried to escape, but was caught by a blow with a bolo wielded by
Basilio Agustin (who was not included as an accused because he was at
large). Basilio then helped the others hack and stone Labauan even
after he was already dead.

Badly injured as she was, Emilia managed to crawl away and hide, and
regaining some strength later on, walked to Bagtason. There two
policemen investigated her and took her statement (Exh. C), thinking
she would die. Thereafter she was taken to the hospital where she was
investigated by constabulary soldiers. She related that Pedro Betudio
boloed her husband while Basilio Agustin inflicted the six-inch wound
she received in the scapular region.

The next morning a group of policemen and soldiers found the body of
Labauan on a trail near Iglonoy creek, an uninhabited area. They also
recovered from the place an empty scabbard, a slingshot, a buri hat and
a denim cap.

The autopsy on Labauan’s corpse (Exhibit B) revealed that he
suffered multiple wounds on the face (which was hardly recognizable
because of its “macerated” condition), on the head, in the neck and in
both upper extremities. The right forearm was completely severed.

On July 15, 1960 Rodrigo Agustin signed a confession (Exhibit I for
the prosecution; Exhibit 1 for the defense), in which he admitted his
guilt and at the same time implicated Julito Rizardo, Silverio
Apolinario, Arsenia Agustin, Conrado Apolinario, Basilio Agustin and
several others whose names he said he could not remember at the time.

The defense presented by each of appellants is alibi.

The first error assigned by them questions their conviction of the
charge of murder after the trial court acquitted Pedro Betudio and
Pedro Agustin. Contrary to appellants’ claim these were not the only
ones principally charged with the crime. All of them were so charged,
including the two who owned their complicity, namely, Rodrigo Agustin
and Arsenio Agustin. In this appeal the issue is not whether Pedro
Betudio and Pedro Agustin were guilty but whether the prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of each of the
appellants. The record shows that with respect to Julito Rizardo,
Silverio Apolinario, Diosdado Apolinario and Adriano Apolinario, the
prosecution has proven its case.

Emilia Labauan, the victim’s widow, who witnessed the attack and was
herself wounded, identified these four appellants as among the
assailants. The attack was made in the afternoon when it was still
bright enough for her to clearly see them. She was only three meters
away. She had known them for years previous to the incident as they
used to pass by her house. At the trial, she pointed at each of them in
court when she testified as to how they chased, stoned and boloed her
husband.

Appellants argue that since the lower court doubted Emilia with
respect to her statements as to the culpability of Pedro Betudio and
Pedro Agustin, then the rest of her testimony involving appellants in
the crime is likewise subject to doubt. The conclusion does not follow
from the premise insofar as this appeal is concerned. The case against
Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin is not before us for review, but only
the case against appellants. The doubt entertained by the lower court
with respect to the former – with which we do not necessarily concur –
does not affect our own appraisal of the evidence.

Appellants say Emilia contradicted herself when she stated at the
trial that when Pedro Betudio initiated the attack he hit Benito
Labauan on the right arm amputating it, while in the statement she made
after the incident she declared that she did not know where Pedro
Betudio hit her husband. Considering that she had just suffered a great
emotional and physical shock and was practically semi-conscious when
her statement was taken, it is not surprising that she could not then
give the details of the attack.

Against the convincing and positive identification made by Emilia
the alibis of said four appellants cannot stand. Julito Rizardo and
Diosdado Apolinario insist they were farming in Manlakbo, Valderrama,
Antique, on the day of the crime. The distance between barrio Manlakbo
and barrio Iglonoy was not stated. Julito merely said that the first is
very far from the second. Also, both he and Diosdado admitted that they
did not know when July 13, 1960 was and stated that they were only told
by Mariano Pantaleon, an alleged copworker, that they were in Manlakbo
on such date. Mariano Pantaleon attempted to boost the testimony of the
two. However, he could not explain why that date, July 13, 1960,
happened to be fixed in his mind. Diosdado claimed that he was in
Manlakbo from July 5 to July 15, 1960 and that he did not learn that
his house had been demolished on July 9, 1960 until after he came home
on July 15, 1960. This is hardly credible.

Appellant Adriano Apolinario claims that he was in Buruangan,
Valderrama—about 6 kilometers by road from Iglonoy—working,
together with appellant Conrado Apolinario, in the Land of Purificacion
Bandoy. The latter also tried to support Adriano’s alibi, but she
admitted that she was not working in the field but simply stayed at
home, where she could not see him all the time. So Adriano could have
left without her knowledge. Silverio Apolinario testified that from
March to July 17, 1960 he was in Linentian, Lauan, Antique. But like
Julito and Diosdado, he admitted that he did not know when July 13,
1960 was, but his attention was called to it only later on. He
presented Jose Vergara, who attempted to corroborate the alibi by
declaring that Silverio was in his place at that time. Vergara, it
appears, is the father-in-law of Silverio’s brother, and naturally
would try to help Silverio out of his predicament.

Appellants point to Rodrigo Agustin and Arsenio Agustin as the only
culprits. But this is disproved by the positive testimony of Emilia
Labauan and by the number and variety of the victim’s wounds. He
received one (1) lacerated and five (5) incised wounds in the head; two
(2) incised wounds on the chest; ten (10) incised wounds in the upper
extremities; and macerated wounds in the same regions of the body
caused by repeated inflictions with sharp bladed instruments. Dr. Justo
Nacionales, who performed the autopsy, stated that the different sizes
and shapes of said wounds indicated that different boloes were used in
inflicting them.

This conclusion of Dr. Nacionales is further supported by the
extrajudicial statement of Rodrigo Agustin to the effect that his
companions in the murder were “Julito Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario,
Arsenio Agustin, Conrado Apolinario, Basilio Agustin and others but I
could not remember anymore”, and that each wielded a bolo during the
attack.

Appellants argue that Rodrigo had been forced and intimidated into
making his statement. But the defense itself presented the statement
(Exhibit 1) as part of its case, thus waiving the right to object to it
on that ground. In any event, we are convinced that Rodrigo executed
the statement voluntarily. Sgt. Gervasio Jacinto, the officer who took
it, thoroughly belied on rebuttal Rodrigo’s assertion that he grabbed
Rodrigo by the neck, and threatened, intimidated, or exercised undue
influence over him. The statement was taken in the presence of the
chief of police and in the office of the municipal mayor, which was
open to the public. Furthermore, Justice of the Peace Buenaventura
Tolentino stated on the witness stand that after he had explained to
Rodrigo the contents of the statement the latter willingly affirmed it.

Appellants question the use of Rodrigo’s statement against them.
This statement, however, is not the only evidence of their
participation since with the exception of Conrado Apolinario, they were
identified by Emilia Labauan at the trial. Thus she declared that the
persons who jumped from the bank of the creek and first attacked her
husband were “Pedro Betudio, Pedro Agustin, Julito, Silverio Ader,
Dadong, Tanque and Basilio Agustin” and that those who met her husband
from the opposite direction were “Blas, Doroy and Tonio.” The only one
to whom no reference was made by her is Conrado Apolinario. She did
mention the nickname “Dadong,” but when she was asked to point out whom
she meant she pointed at Diosdado Apolinario. She likewise pointed at
appellants Julito Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario and
at the accused Tranquilino Betudio, respectively, when asked who
“Julito”, “Silverio”, “Ader” and “Tanque” were. We believe that there
is no sufficient identification insofar as appellant Conrado Apolinario
is concerned.

We come now to the circumstances that attended the commission of the
offense. The condition of lack of instruction cannot be taken as a
mitigating circumstance, because it has not been established that
illiteracy was coupled with such a low degree of intelligence that the
malefactors did not fully realize the consequences of their criminal
act. (People vs Ripas, 95 Phil. 63; People vs Gorospe, L-10644, Feb.
19, 1959; People vs Magpantay, L-19133, Nov. 27, 1964). Neither may
poverty and voluntary surrender be appreciated in their favor. Extreme
poverty may mitigate a crime against property, such as theft, (People
vs Macbul, 74 Phil. 436) but not a crime of violence, such as murder.
The four aforementioned appellants did not surrender. Silverio
Apolinario testified he was arrested in the market, while the three
others stated that they went to see the chief of police, not for the
purpose of surrendering but because the latter had called for them for
reasons they did not know.

On the other hand, the circumstance of treachery -which qualifies
the killing to murder – must be taken against appellants, considering
the suddenness of the attack, launched by them from a hidden position.
This circumstance absorbs that of abuse of superior strength (People v.
Tiongson, L-9866-67, Nov. 28, 1964); while the elements to constitute
the circumstance of evident premeditation have not been clearly
established. The crime was, however, committed by a band of armed men—at the very least six, namely, the four appellants and the two who had
owned the crime, each of whom carried a bolo; and in an uninhabited
place, which was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the
crime.

The law prescribes the capital penalty for the offense, but for lack
of sufficient votes to impose it the Court simply affirms the judgment
appealed from with respect to appellants Julito Rizardo, Silverio
Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario and Diosdado Apolinario with costs.
Appellant Conrado Apolinario is acquitted, with the corresponding costs
de oficio.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion , Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.