THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FILOMENO VACAL, AND FIDENCIO VACAL, DEFENDANTS, FILOMENO VACAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal by defendant, Filomeno Vacal, from the sen­tence of reclusion
perpetua imposed upon him by the Court of First Instance of Southern
Leyte.

Filomeno Vacal and Fidencio Vacal were accused-as principals of
the murder of Ignacio Ruiz. Filomeno Vacal Was convicted, but Fidenclo Vacal
was acquitted on the ground of insufficient evidence to identify him as the
carbine-armed companion of the former.

At about 10:00 o’clock on the starry night of March 20, 1960, four men, Hilario Baclayon,
Ignacio Ruiz, Neme­sia Musico and Serapio Humangit, were walking single file in
that order on the trail from Katublian to Katong, Hi­nunangan, Southern Leyte. 
As they neared a cable post, Filomeno
Vacal, with a pistol in his right
hand, suddenly appeared near the right side of Ignacio Ruiz and shot him dead.  Filomeno
Vacal was recognized by Baclayon, Musico and Humangit, who knew him very
well, as the
assailant.  In their testimonies at the
trial, these three positively identified Filomeno Vacal as the person who shot
Ignacio Ruiz dead.

There is credible
evidence that Filomeno Vacal was an enemy of Ignacio Ruiz who claimed ownership
by inheritance of a parcel of coconut land which, according to Filomeno
Vacal, had been sold to him by Ruiz, father. 
Filomeno Vacal filed a criminal complaint against Ignacio Ruiz for
qualified theft of coconuts, but the court, on motion of the Fiscal, dis­missed the complaint on
the ground that the case between them was civil in nature and not criminal.

The autopsy report reads:

“EXTERNAL
EXAMINATION

“1.  Clothing – On examination the deceased was
wearing a long denim pants, a bloody white T-shirt.  The blood stains were located at the
corresponding location of the wounds at both sides of the body.

“2.  Body –
The body was that of an adult male Filipino, fairly developed, fairly
nourished, about 5 ft. and 2 in. tall, and about 105 lbs.
weight.  There is already complete postmortem rigidity all over the body.  The skin is pale, eyes open with
both pupils dilated and mouth open.

“External signs of violence found in the sur­face of the body
were:

“1.  A circumscribed smooth aperture about 1/2 cm.
in diameter located in the rt.
lateral aspect of the body 3-1/2 in.
from the lower border of the lower floating rib.  A thin halo of black line was found
just around the wound denoting powder burns.

“2.  A circumscribed slightly serrated aperture
about 3/4 of an inch in diameter located in the left lateral aspect of the body 6 in. above the lower border of
the lower rib.

“The imaginary line connecting the two wounds, would pass over
the xyphoid process.

“Wound direct upwards at an elevation of 2-1/2 in. from the
baseline.

“3.  Multiple pin size perforations in the inner
aspect of the arm about 3 in. above the corticoid process of the rt.
arm.

“On further examination a probe was in­serted to the first
wound which could pass only after several attempts.  Blood oozed from both apertures.

“CONCLUSION

“From the foregoing post-mortem findings the following
conclusions were made:

“1.  That the wound above described on ac­count of
its appearance, character and extent are to be classed as a single
perforating wound, the entrance of which is at the rt. lateral as­pect, and
outlet at the left lateral aspect of the body.

“2.  That Ignacio Ruiz died of internal he­morrhage
which resulted directly following the infliction of the above described wound of the
thoracic cage.

“3.  That judging from the appearance and location
of the wound the assailant must have been at the right side of the victim.

“4.  That the above described wound on account of
its nature, appearance and character is caused by a gunshot.

“5.  That the multiple pinpoint perfora­tions on
the inner aspect of the arm was caused by gunpowder burns.

“6.  That the assailant is not far from the victim
during the shooting due to the presence of gunpowder burns.

“7.  That the assailant was slightly lower than the
victim from the baseline judging from the nature and extent of the wound.

(SGD.) B.E. JOSTOL, M.D.

Municipal Health Officer”

The lower court found the accused, Filomeno Vacal, guilty of
murder with treachery as the qualifying cir­cumstance, with the aggravating
circumstance of nocturnity offset by the mitigating circumstance of passion,
and obfuscation, and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.  Defendant was also ordered to pay
P3,000 as indemnity
to the heirs of Ignacio Ruiz.

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in finding that his
identity was sufficiently proved.  The contention is
untenable.  The argument that the
night was dark, and that witnesses Baclayon, Musico and Hu­mangit could not
have recognized the appellant, is un­tenable. 
Against this argument we have the testimonies of the said three
witnesses positively identifying Filomeno Vacal as the person who shot Ignacio
Ruiz dead.  They testified that the stars
were shining in the sky, that visibility was fair and not poor and that they
recognized Filomeno Vacal who was very well known to all of them.  Visibility must have been fair because the
murderer himself was able to recognize and single out his victim from among the
four pedestrians.  Appellant also argues
that as these three witnesses did not report the murder to the authorities and
that they identified him as the
murderer only when they were questioned by ‘the police, such conduct shows that
they did not recognize him as the
murderer.  This argument is not logical
and can­not overcome the positive identification of appellant by ‘said three
witnesses as the killer.

Appellant’s defense of alibi is too elaborate and too good to be
true.  The alibi was testified to by said
appel­lant, his brother Fidencio, and Pio Mangaron.  In substance, they declared that in the
afternoon of March 20, 1960, Pio Mangaron and a friend, Salvador Bastes, were,
in the cockpit at the poblacion of Hinunangan; that after witnessing
one cockfight, they went to look for Filomeno Vacal, who was au­thorized by the
Mayor to propose-appointments to municipal positions, to follow up their
appointments for janitor and policeman, respectively; that when they saw
Filomeno Vacal, they invited him for drinks and supper at Salvador Bastes’
house at barrio Kanipaan, which is about three kilometers from the poblacion;
that the three hiked to Kanipaan where, after arriving at his house, Salvador
Bastes ordered his wife to prepare supper for Filomeno Vacal; that the latter refused to eat because he remembered that his brother, Fi­dencio, was holding a party at the poblacion in celebration of his
child’s baptism the day before; that Filomeno Vacal instead invited his
companions to Fidencio’s place; that they hiked back from Kanipaan to the poblacion, arriving at about 8:30
o’clock; that they stayed in Fidencio’s house until 12:00 o’clock midnight; and
that among the guests pre­sent were the Mayor, the Municipal Secretary, a
councilor and other prominent persons.

However, none of these prominent persons mentioned by the defense
witnesses testified in support of the alibi. 
The Mayor, who was supported in the previous elections by Filomeno Vacal
and for whom
he was working assort of sec­retary for appointments and promotions, did not
testify des­pite notices to him to appear and testify.  None also of the other prominent persons
allegedly present at the party of Fidencio Vacal testified for appellant.  Of the many other persons allegedly present at the party, only Pio Ma­ngaron, who
needed Filomeno Vacal’s recommendation for ap­pointment as janitor, testified
for him.

The lower court did not err in finding that the killing was
attended with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.  There was absolutely no defense against the
sudden pistol shot which caused the instantaneous death of the victim.

The lower court erred in finding that the aggravat­ing
circumstance of nocturnity was present. 
There is no evidence that the accused purposely sought the nighttime for
the commission of the crime.  The lower
court also erred in firing that the mitigating circumstance of pas­sion and
obfuscation was present.  There is no evidence to establish passion
and obfuscation.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, that part of the appealed judg­ment
sentencing the appellant to reclusion perpetua, is affirmed.  That part of the judgment ordering the appel­lant
to pay an indemnity of P23,000 to the heirs of Ignacio Ruiz, is modified by
increasing the amount to P12,000.

Costs against appellant.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.