G.R. No. L-22094. March 28, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS; SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, AMBROSIO TATLONGHARI, FAUSTO MERCADO, AGAPITO MERCADO AND …
REYES, J.B.L. J.:
Appeal from the judgment of conviction of the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur,
in Criminal Case No. 3590, sentencing therein accused Santiago Tatlonghari, Fausto Mercado, Agapito Mercado, Tiburcio Lalogo and Cirilo Cueto to life imprisonment and the accused, Ambrosio TatIonghari, to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of from six years, one month and eleven days of prision mayor
to twelve years, five months and eleven days of reclusion temporal;
all of them to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Victor Eje,in
the sum of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs of the proceeding.
Arraigned before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Santiago Tatlonghari, his son, Ambrosio Tatlonghari, Fausto Mercado, his
son, Agapito Mercado, Tiburcio
Lalogo and Cirilo Cueto pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder recited in
the information, as follows:
“That on or about August 25, 1954 in the evening in the barrio
of Port Junction, municipality of Ragay, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, armed with
bolos, confederating, conspiring, and mutually helping each other, and with
evident intent to kill Victor Eje, and by means of
treachery, did then and there, intentionally, wilfully,
criminally, and feloniously, attack and assault said Victor Eje
with stones and bolos, as a result of which the victim received contusions and
wounds in different parts of his body, to wit:
1. Large gaping wound
located at the temple left side, about 1 inch in diameter with complicated
fracture of the skull exposing a portion of the brain thereat;
2. Stab wound about 5 inches
in length extending from the upper portion of the forehead midline to the upper
jaw, traversing the left side of the nose.
It divides the face into two and also dividing the bones of the face on
its path. The upper jaw is also divided
into two thus loosening the front teeth of same;
3. Stab wound about 3 inches
in length located at the outer canthus of the right eye
piercing the skull;
4. Stab wound about 5 inches
in length located at the jaw left side severing the attachment of the mandible
from the rest of the skull and cutting the lower lobe of the left ear;
5. Stab wound at the neck
just below the chin cutting the trachea aesophagus,
and all the vital blood vessels thereat reaching as far as the vertebral
column;
6. Long stab wound extending
from the median portion of the upper portion of the sternum down to the
umbilicus, exposing outside the greater omentum small
intestine and the lower portion of the liver;
7. Stab wound about 3 inches
in length incising the skin exposing the bones of the left hand; and
8. Contusion with swelling
at the back right side,
and as a consequence thereof Victor Eje died instantaneously.
“The aggravating circumstances of treachery, nocturnity, and superior strength were present in the
commission of the crime.”
The prosecution tried to establish its case through the
testimonies of witnesses:
FELIMON ALMARES, who declared that at about 7:30 in the evening
of 25 August 1954, in the barrio of Port junction, Ragay,
Camarines Sur, while he and
Victor Eje were walking along the railroad track
towards their homes in barrio Catabangan, they met
the accused, Santiago Tatlonghari and Tiburcio Lalogo, in front of the
house of one Marcos Nacionales; that thereupon,
Santiago Tatlonghari shouted, “listo kayo mga beta” (get
ready, boys), after which stones rained on them hitting him (Almares) on the left knee;[1]
that thus hurt, the witness rolled to the right side of the railroad track and
hid himself among the talahib and cogon grasses that
abound in the area; that before rolling to safety, he saw Santiago tatIonghari and Tiburcio Lalogo hitting with bolos Victor Eje,
who was then lying on the ground with his two hands raised upward;[2]
that he saw the stabbing because there were beams of light coming from the
houses of Catalino Arellano, Marcos Nacionales and Juan Corod, which
were within the vicinity;[3]
that Santiago Tatlonghari had also a flashlight in
his left hand which was focused on the victim while the latter was being hit
with bolos;[4]
that thereafter, Fausto Mercado, Agapito
Mercado, Cirilo Cueto and Ambrosio Tatlonghari appeared
from the cogon grasses along the railroad track and, with Santiago Tatlonghari and Tiburcio Lalogo, viewed the prostrate body of Victor Eje; then they left the place together, going eastward in
the direction of the railroad station;[5]
that when the group was gone he left his hiding place and headed for home. He related the incident to Pedro Comia and Epifanio Bico when they came to see him a little later.
MARCOS NACIONALES testified that, about 7:30 in the evening of 25
August 1954, he was taking his supper with his family in their house near the
railroad track in Port Junction when he heard the sound of falling objects in
front of their house; that he finished his meal and then peeped through the
window; that he saw Santiago Tatlonghari standing
near the rails with a bolo in his hand and near his feet lay the body of a person;[6]
that Santiago Tatlonghari also shouted in Tagalog‘, “Come out those who sympathize with Victor Eje, this will be your last”; that he noticed standing
on the eastern side of his house Ambrosio Tatlonghari and Agapito Mercado,
while on the western side stood three persons who he failed to recognize on
account of darkness;[7]
that when he, his wife and children went down their house and ran towards the
house of barrio lieutenant Pedro Comia, they were
accosted by Santiago Tatlonghari who focused his flashlight
on them and inquired if they (the witness and companions) were enemies, to
which they answered in the negative; that upon reaching the house of Pedro Comia, they informed the latter of the killing near their
house; that the following morning, they saw the corpse of Victor Eje on the sport where the night before the witness had
seen Santiago Tatlonghari standing with a bolo in
his hand.[8]
F0RTUNATO ARANAS, on the other hand, declared that at about 8
o’clock in the evening of 25 August 1954, while he was resting at the front
yard of his house, Santiago Tatlonghari, Fausto Mercado, and Agapito Mercado
passed by going westward in the direction of Catabangan;
that Santiago Tatlonghari was then carrying a bolo
and a piece of wood; that when the trio was, in front of the house of Catalino Arellano,[9]
Santiago Tatbonghari shouted, “sigue mga bata“,
and with this followed the sound of falling objects; that, after some time, Cirilo Cueto, Tiburcio
Lalogo, Agapito Mercado, Fausto Mercado, and Ambrosio Tatlonghari returned going towards Ragay;
that Santiago Tatlonghari, who was the last to pass
by, warned him, “don’t walk without light, or you might be mistaken for
someone else. Victor Eje
is dead already”;[10]
that later, Pedro Comia and Epifanio
Bico passed and proceeded to the place where the body
of Victor Eje was found.
PEDRO COMIA, barrio lieutenant of Port Junction, testified that
in the evening of 25 August 1954, he was tending his store when Marcos Nacionales and his wife, both trembling, arrived and informed
him of overhearing people quarreling in front of their house; that he then took
his flashlight and proceeded to the place indicated by the couple; that he
found in front of the house of Nacionales the corpse
of Victor Eje with stab wounds; that after he had
looked around the place he decided to go home; that on the way he saw Santiago Tatlonghari, Ambrosio Tatlonghari, Cirilo Cueto, Tiburcio Lalogo, Agapito Mercado and Fausto Mercado standing in front of the house of Fortunato Arenas;[11]
that he was able to recognize them because, when he focused his flashlight on
the group, they all faced him.[12]
DR. FELIX MACALINO, a charity physician of Sipocot,
Camarines Sur, who
conducted the autopsy on the body of Victor Eje,
testified that the deceased received seven stab wounds and a contusion; that by
the nature of four of the wounds, they must have been inflicted while the
victim was in a lying position; that any of the six wounds sustained by the
victim could have caused the death; that the wounds were inflicted by a sharp
instrument like a bolo, while the contusion (at the back) could have been
caused by a blunt object like a stone.
The defense of the accused is alibi, and that other
persons committed the crime.
SANTIAGO and AMBROSIO
TATLONGHARI testified that on the night of 25 August 1954 they were locked in the municipal jail of Sipocot, Santiagohaving hurt one
Pedro Gallano after several rounds of gin at the Sipocot railroad canteen that afternoon. They were allegedly released only at about nine o’clock of the following morning (26
August).
The above allegation was corroborated by Sgt. REYNALD0 ZAM0RA of
the Sipocot municipal police, who testified that at
about two o’clock in the afternoon of 25 August 1954, having received
information that there was trouble in the railroad station, he went there and
found Santiago and Ambrosio Tatlonghari
drunk; that he brought the two to the municipal jail to sober up; that when he
returned to the municipal building at about seven o’clock in the evening he
informed the two that they could already go home, but the latter requested that
they be allowed to stay because there was no more train trip at that time;
that, by mistake, the jail was locked, so that Santiago and Ambrosio
Tationghari remained inside until he (the witness)
reported for duty at about nine o’clock of the following day. The incident allegedly was recorded in the
police blotter (Exhibit 1).
Accused FAUSTO MERCADO, for his part, claimed that on 25 August
1954 he went to the house of Artemio Barento in barrio Sinuknipan,13 Del Gallego, Camarines Sur, upon learning that his godchild (Artemio’s
son) was ill; that he arrived in the house of Artemio
Barento at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon and
stayed there until 4:30 in the morning of 26 August 1954.
ARTEMIO BARENTO, confirming the allegation of Mercado, declared
that the latter was in his house from 4 o’clock
in the afternoon of 25 August 1954
until 4:30 in the morning of the
next day.
Accused AGAPITO MERCADO testified that at about 6 o’clock in the afternoon
of 25 August 1954, he attended a party held in the house of Eriberto
Juri in Barrio Inangdawa, Ragay, Camanines Sur that the dancing lasted until about 2 o’clock in the
morning of 26 August 1954; that when the party broke up he stayed in the house
of Juri until about 6 o’clock in the morning when he
took the train for Port Junction.
ERIBERTO JURI corroborated the testimony of Agapito
Mercado. He declared that on 25 August
1954 Mercado was attending the dance that followed the baptism of his only child;
that the party started at about 6:30 in the afternoon of 25 August 1954 and
broke up at about 2 o’clock in the morning of the following day (26 August);
that for the duration of the party Agapito Mercado
was in their house. He left only in the
morning of 26 August.
Accused CIRILO CUETO, a blacksmith, has this to say: that from 4
o’clock in the afternoon of 25 August 1954 until the morning of the next day he
never left his house; that he was then with his wife, children and one Benito
Javier that he learned of the death of Victor Eje
only in the morning of 26 August 1954 when he fetched water for their use in
the house.
BENITO JAVIER, a farmer of Dal Rosario,
Lupi, Camarines Sur, testified that on 25 August 1954 he went to the house
of Cirilo Cueto to have’
his plow repaired arriving there at about 11 o’clock in the morning; that as
the ordered work was not finished, he decided to pass the night in Cueto’s house; that from the time Cueto
stopped working on his plow at about 6:30 in the afternoon until the time the
witness went to sleep at past 8 o’clock Cueto was in
his house; that he (Javier) left Port’ Junction at about 7 o’clock in the
morning of 26 August 1954, after he was told by Cueto
that the repair of the plow cannot be continued because a relative of his,
referring to Victor Eje, had died.
Accused TIBURCIO LALOGO, like the others, denied the charge that
he took part in the commission of the crime.
He testified that, on the night in question, he was in his house with
his wife and father-in-law; that he did not go out of the house the whole
evening and learned of the death of Victor Eje only
in the morning of 26 August 1954
from people passing by their house.
The defense then presented the testimonies of GREGORIO CANTOR and
MARIANO PAET to the effect that they were in the house of Juan Corod when the stabbing incident happened; that they
recognized the assailants of Victor Eje to be Porfirio Atienza, Victorian Ragodon, and another fellow who was unknown to them; that
after the trio left Epifanio Bico
and Pedro Comia arrived and placed a kerosene lamp
near the cadaver of Eje.
PORFIRIO ATIENZA, a prisoner serving sentence in the National
Penitentiary, also took the witness stand for the defense. He declared having known the deceased, Victor
Eje, who had a quarrel with his father during the
Japanese occupation; that on 25 August 1954, when Eje
met him at the railroad station, the former asked him if he still bore grudge
against him (Eje); that Eje
slapped him, but when Eje drew his bolo from its scabbard
he (Atienza) also took hold of his bolo and hit the
former successively, killing him; that, at the time, he was accompanied by Victoriano Ragodon and Abraham
Mariano who did not take part in the altercation but merely saw to it that the
companions of Eje would not be able to help the
latter.
On cross-examination, however, this witness admitted having been
arrested by the Manila Police on 20
August 1954 at the North Harbor
in Manila for concealment of a balisong; that he was tried therefor, was convicted, and was confined at the Manila
City Jail for about 20 days.[13]
The prosecution, likewise presented evidence that for this offense Atienza was sentenced to a fine of P25.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; that he was arrested and confined in the
Manila City Jail on 20 August 1954 and was released only on 8 September 1954
(Exhibits B & C, Rebuttal).
On 11 April 1960, the trial court rendered judgment, finding the
accused to have acted in conspiracy in committing the crime; declared them guilty
of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, except Ambrosio
Tatlonghari who, on account of minority,[14]
was decreed to suffer the penalty of from six years, one month and eleven days
of prision mayor to twelve years, five
months and eleven days of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased; and to pay the costs.
All the accused, except Tiburcio Lalogo who jumped bail before the sentence was read in the
lower court and has remained at large since then appealed to this Court.
The issues raised by the appellants in this instance boil down to
one thing: whether or not the court a quo was correct in finding
herein appellants Santiago Tatlonghari, Fausto Mercado, Agapito Mercado
and Cirilo Cueto[15]
guilty of murder for the death of Victor Eje and in
imposing upon them the corresponding penalty therefor.
Considering the evidence presented in this case, we will take the
appeal of Santiago ‘Tatlonghari separately.
The finding of the trial court on the guilt of this appellant was based
on his identification by the prosecution witnesses as one of the assailants of
the deceased, Victor Eje. Felimon Almares positively named him as the person who gave the
signal to hidden companions, which signal was followed by the
“raining” of stones on him and the deceased; that he was one of the
two persons who stabbed Victor Eje as the latter lay
on the ground with hands raised upward.
Marcos Nacionales declared having seen this
appellant with bolo in hand standing near the fallen body of a person[16]
and heard him daring any sympathizer of Eje to come
out that when he and his family went down their house to go to the house of
barrio lieutenant Pedro Comia, it was this appellant
who accosted them and inquired if they were enemies. Fortunato Arenas
and Pedro Comia also testified having seen appellant Tatlonghari, with his five co-accused, in the vicinity of
the crime immediately before and after the slaying incident took place.
It is true that the defense presented testimonial evidence and a
police blotter (Exhibit 1) to prove that on the night of the killing appellant
Santiago Tatlonghari and his son, Ambrosio,
were inside the Sipocot municipal jail, and that
somebody else committed the crime. In
disregarding such evidence for the accused and giving credence to the version
of the prosecution instead, the trial court duly considered the facts that the
entries in the police blotter, Exhibit 1, were not duly accomplished,[17]
thus making them unreliable; that with the admission of Atienza
and the rebuttal evidence of the prosecution, the defense theory that the crime
was committed by said witness (Atienza) was totally
discredited. Upon the other hand, the
prosecution witnesses were observed by the trial court to have testified in a
natural and straightforward manner, indicating that they could be telling the
truth.
Of course, it is claimed for appellant Santiago Tatlonghari that the prosecution witnesses testified the
way they did because of personal grudges against him. It is contended that witness Almares suspected Tatlonghari of
having informed the Philippine Constabulary on the former about a carbine,
which information resulted in the confiscation of the weapon by the
authorities; that witness Nacionales begrudged. Tationghari’s
refusal to allow his son, Ambrosio, to be married to
a niece of said witness; that Fortunato Arenas was
under the influence and dictation of Mariano de Torres, who was confined in the
PC stockade in 1952 for Huk activities, upon
information furnished by Tatlonghari; and that
witness Pedro Comia was one of the group that
petitioned for the transfer of certain teachers from the barrio school, which
petition was opposed by Tatlonghari, then barrio
lieutenant and president of the Parent Teachers Association.
We find the allegation not worthy of belief. The reasons for the alleged individual
grudges of the witnesses against appellant being so flimsy and uncertain, it
is incredible that they could constitute as sufficient motive for an average
individual to conjure up so serious a charge as murder and thereby send an
otherwise innocent man to a long stretch of prison term. At any rate, the prosecution witnesses were
subjected to cross-examination by counsel for the defense, and the falsity of
their declarations, if indeed there were, could have been ferreted out and
exposed. As it is, the trial judge even
found the declarations of said witnesses more credible and rang of truth.
Neither is the defense helped by the testimonies of witnesses Porfirio Atienza, Gregorio Cantor
and Mariano Pact that the crime was committed by Atienza
and two others. On the Contrary, the
establishment of the fact that Atienza was confined
in the Manila City Jail on 25 August
1954 and, therefore, could not have been in Camarines
Sur slashing Victor Eje to
death with a bolo, worked only to weaken further the, alibi of the
accused.
The issue in the case being hinged on the credibility of
witnesses, the ruling of the court below must be sustained. For, in the absence of proof that there has
been misappreciation of evidence,[18]
– and there is no such proof in this case – the conclusion of the trial judge,
who had the opportunity of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses
while testifying, deserves the respect of the reviewing tribunal.
Counsel de officio for appellant Santiago Tatlonghari advances the argument that, if at all, the
latter should only be found guilty of homicide, the prosecution allegedly
having failed to prove that treachery, nocturnity and
abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime. It is claimed that there was no treachery,
because when Santiago signalled to his “boys” to get ready Victor Eje was already sufficiently warned of the impending attack
on him; there was also no showing that the accused purposely sought nighttime
for the commission of the crime, and that they took undue advantage of superior
strength.
There is no merit in the argument. The fact that the attack on the victim was
preceded by a cry or signal from this appellant does not make such attack less
treacherous. It must be remembered that
the utterance was not directed to the deceased and his companion, who were then
walking along the railroad track apparently unaware of the danger lying before
them; and the falling of stones that followed and the attack on Eje happened in such close succession that it is safe to
conclude that the latter must have been completely taken by surprise. To be sure, an assault made so suddenly and
on a victim that lay on the ground, and who could do nothing more than raise
his two arms upward perhaps in the futile attempt to cover himself against the
blows of his assailants, can not be anything but an attack on a totally
defenseless person and characterized by treachery.[19]
On the other hand, the circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior
strength were not considered by the court below. Thus, notwithstanding the finding of the
presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the penalty was only
imposed in its medium period – life imprisonment – denoting the absence of any
circumstance mitigating or aggravating the offense.
As regard the appeal of Fausto Mercado,
Agapito Mercado, Ambrosia Tatlonghari
and Cirilo Cueto, the issue
involved again depended on credibility.
The prosecution presented the declarations of witnesses Felimon Almares, Marcos Nacionales, Fortunate Aranas, and
Pedro Comia to prove that herein appellants were with
accused Santiago Tatlonghari and Tiburcio
Lalogo on the occasion Victor Eje
was slain. For its part, the defense
tried to establish that, on the night in question, appellants were in some
place other than Port Junction.
The trial court, giving due weight to the evidence for the
prosecution, held that appellants Ambrosio Tatlonghari, Fausto Mercado, Agapito Mercado, and Cirilo Cueto were with the other accused when the crime took
place. There is no plausible reason for
us to set aside this ruling, not only because it is essentially a resolution
on the credibility of witnesses, the correctness of which we have already
upheld, but also because of the well-recognized rule that alibi, the
weakest of defenses, can not prevail over the positive identification of the
accused by witnesses.
The only point to be considered then is, conceding that herein
appellants were in the group of Santiago Tatlonghari on
the night when Victor Eje was waylaid and slain,
whether or not the trial court was correct in holding them equally guilty of
murder and in sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Admittedly, nobody saw Ambrosio Tatlonghari, Fausto Mercado, Agapito Mercado, and Cirilo Cueto deliver blows to the deceased, or perform some other
act directly linked to the cause of death of the victim. All that the record shows is that these
appellants were with Santiago Tatlonghari and Tiburcio Lalogo shortly before,
during, and after the killing of Victor Eje, and that
they hurled stones at the latter and his companion, without further aggression. When and where these appellants met the
actual killers prior to the crime, or what was agreed upon with them, does not
appear. No evidence exists that they
were armed on the occasion, or that these appellants had adequate reason to
wish the deceased out of the way. From
this paucity of established facts, we do not feel justified in concluding that
these accused previously conspired and concerted with the slayers to take the
life of Victor Eje in the absence of clear proof that
the killing was in fact envisaged by them, they can not be held responsible therefor as co-conspirators, there having been no
satisfactory showing that the killing was done in furtherance of the conspiracy
(People vs. Basisten, 47 Phil. 493; People vs. Cerdenia, 51 Phil. 393; People vs. Garillo
85 Phil. 634; People vs. Daligdig, 89 Phil.614).
The record is clear, however, that, although they had not acted
pursuant to previous concert, the appellants, Fausto
Mercado, his son, Agapito, Ambrosio
Tatlonghari, and Cirilo Cueto, did knowingly aid the actual killers by casting
stones at the victim, and distracting his attention. However, their cooperation, although done
with knowledge of the criminal intent, was not indispensable to the murderous
assault by Santiago Tatlonghari and the fugitive Tiburcio Lalogo, for which reason
the four should be held liable only as accomplices in the murder of the late
Victor Eje and sentenced to a penalty one degree
lower to that of the principal participants in the crime (except in the case of
Ambrosio Tatlonghari whose
appeal has been previously dismissed for failure to file his brief). In People vs. Ubiña,
et al., 97 Phil. 515, 534, this Court ruled as follows:
“ – – – – – – – – – – The act of Romero Pagulayan
in following the deceased Carag as the latter went to
Bañgag, and thus assuring the conspirators of his
presence at said place, is also merely an act of complicity. Neither did they in any manner Induce the
commission of the offense they joined the conspirators after the latter had
decided to commit the act. Under the
circumstances, they do not fall under any of the three concepts defined in
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, and may only be considered guilty as
accomplices. The same conclusion is
strengthened by the principle that when doubt exists as to whether persons
acted as principals or accomplices, the doubt must be resolved in their favor
and they should be held guilty only as accomplices (People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38; People vs. Bantagan,
54 Phil. 834).”
In the basic decision of People vs. Tamayo,
44 Phil. 38, this Court, after an exhaustive review of the authorities, laid
down the principle in the following words (cas. cit.
pages 52 and 53):
“But while the authorities above collated conclusively show
that a man cannot be an accomplice in a crime without participating in the
criminal design of the principal, something remains to be said about the acts
from which such participation in the criminal design can be proved. Upon this point it is undoubtedly true that
concert of action at the moment of consummating the homicide, and the form and
manner in which assistance is rendered, may determine complicity where it would
not be other wise evident. Thus, in a
decision of December 29, 1884,
the case was that after two individuals had beaten another and thrown him to
the ground, the accused got upon him, trampling his breast and face. As a consequence of the injuries received
from the beating by the first two, the injured person died. It was held by the supreme court of Spain
that the accused was guilty in the character of accomplice, saying: Although
the accused did not intervene in giving the mortal injury caused by the cudgel,
for which reason he is not comprehended in article 13, he simultaneously
trampled upon the deceased who was on the floor; and this simultaneity of acts
contributing to the homicide makes him an accomplice in the same.’ (Decision,
Dec. 29, 1884; Viada, vol. 1, page 375.)”
After analysis of other decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court,
this Court then concluded:
“Now although, as thus demonstrated, participation on the part
of an accomplice in the criminal design of the principal is essential to the
same extent as such participation is necessary on the part of one charged as
co-principal, nevertheless, it is evident, — and the cases above cited
abundantly prove — that, as against an accomplice, a court will sometimes
draw the inference of guilty participation in the criminal design from acts of
concert in the consummation of the criminal act and from the form and manner in
which assistance is rendered, where it would not draw the same inference for
the purpose of holding the same accused in the character of principal. This is because, in case of doubt, the courts
naturally lean to the milder form of responsibility.”
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the sentence of life imprisonment
meted out to appellants Santiago
and Ambrosio Tatlonghari is
affirmed. Appellants Fausto Mercado, Agapito Mercado
and Cirilo Cueto are
sentenced, as accomplices, to an indeterminate sentence of not less than ten
(10) years of prision mayor, medium
degree, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, medium. All the accused are further sentenced in
solidum to pay the heirs of Victor Eje an indemnity in the sum of P12,000.00 and the costs.
The decision under appeal is accordingly modified in the mariner above
described.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee,
and Barredo,
JJ., concur.
[1]
Page 2, hearing of 15 November 1955.
[2]
Page 3, hearing of 15 November 1955.
[3]
Page 5, hearing of 15 November 1955.
[4]
Page 6, hearing of 15 November 1955
[5]
Page 3, hearing of 15 November 1955.
[6]
Page 46, hearing of 20 March 1956.
[7]
Page 44, hearing of 20 March 1956.
[8]
Page 46, hearing of 20 March 1956.
[9]
About 50 meters away from his house.
[10]
Pages 17-18, hearing of 20 February
1956.
[11]
Pages 67-68, hearing of 17 May 1956.
[12]
Page 71, hearing of 17 May 1956.
[13]
Page 73, hearing of 20 April 1959.
[14] Ambrosio Tatlonghari was only 17
years of age when the incident happened.
[15]
By resolution of this Court of 18
February 1966, the appeal of Ambrosio Tatlonghari was dismissed for his failure to file the
required brief.
[16]
It is not denied that the body of Victor Eje was
found in the particular place referred to by this witness.
[17]
According to the Manual of Instructions, the surnames of persons appearing in
the daily record of events are to be indexed in the blotter alphabetically, and
yet the names of the Tatlonghari father and son, who
were allegedly arrested on 25 August 1954, did not appear in the index; that
although they were supposedly released on 26 August 1954, said release appeared
as entry also for 25 August 1954; and that there is no procedure observed in
the closing of entries in the blotter for a particular day. The corresponding page is simply left blank,
which would make easy the insertion of any entry thereafter.
[18]
People vs. Labis, L-22087, 15 November 1967, 21 SCRA 875;
People vs. Gumahin, L-22357, 31 October 1967, 21 SCRA 729; People
vs. Secapuri, L-17548-19, 28 February 1966, 16 SCRA 199, and cases cited
therein.
[19]
People vs. Labis, supra.