THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISIDRO GUARNES, MONICO GUARNES AND HONORIO GUARNES, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The accused Isidro Guarnes, Monico Guarnes and Honorio Guarnes were sentenced
each to reclusion perpetua, for the death of Eustiquio Jabonillo, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the accessories of law and to pay the
costs. They appealed.

The record discloses that at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of June 6,
1956, Eustiquio Jabonillo, Remigio Gumban, Rufo Latosa, Alfonso Hisog, Dionisio
Guro and Mariano Cabillos, coming from the public market of Pavia, Iloilo
province, went to serenade in the house of Jovita Jaurequi, which was situated
about 12 meters from the railway tracks. At about 8:00 o’clock, the group
started for home walking in single file towards the railroad tracks, with
Eustiquio at the tail and strumming a ukelele. Barely had Remegio Gumban and his
companions crossed the railroad tracks, when he heard a noise caused by an
object brushing aside some shrubs. Upon turning his face, Remigio saw the
accused Isidro Guarnes stab Eustiquio on the chest, causing the latter to
exclaim “Abaw”. As Eustiquio staggered, the accused Monico Guarnes, armed with a
galvanized iron pipe and his brother Honorio Guarnes, armed with a “bahi”
(cane), struck Eustiquio on the back after which he fell to the ground face
downwards. These brothers were first degree cousins of Isidro Guarnes. Marciano
Gabillos who also saw the assault, attempted to help his companion, but Isidro,
poised with an Indian target (sling shot), warned Cabillos not to approach.
Cabillos, Gumban and Hisog ran to the municipal building and reported the
matter. Cabillos likewise notified Eustiquio’s brother who, in turn, notified
his father policeman Gregorio Jabonillo. At the police station, Cabillos told
policeman Eliseo Granflllo that the deceased was stabbed by Isidro Guarnes and
ganged up on by Monico and Honorio Guarnes. Cabillos and Pat. Granfillo went to
the scene of the assault and found the victim lying face downwards already dead
and as they turned over the inert body, they found a butcher’s knife (Exhibit B)
on the ground where he lay. Dr. Jose Acosta, municipal health officer of Pavia
who was summoned to the scene of the crime, found after a post mortem
examination, that the deceased sustained a stab wound on the left chest just
above the nipple, and two contusions on his back, which caused the victim’s
death in a matter of seconds (Exhibit A).

The evidence for the appellant Isidro Guarnes tends to show that before 7:30
P.M. of June 6, 1956, Isidro went to the house of Jovita Jaurequi where he used
to pass the night to accompany her family, as her deceased husband was his
cousin; that from a distance of 30 meters, he heard the strumming of a guitar;
that when he was about 6 meters from Jovita’s house, he saw a person going under
Jovita’s house and peeping up; and when the said person was reaching for a
chicken, he (Isidro) called him for an answer, but as his call was twice
ignored, he picked up a piece of wood and,struck him on the back. The would be
chicken thief ran away pursued by Isidro, who upon overtaking him struck him
again with the piece of wood. The unknown person faced him, with) his hand
drawing something from his hip pocket. At this moment Isidro recognized him to
be Eustiquio Jabonillo, a person known to him to be of. dangerous disposition.
Isidro, became afraid, drawing his butcher’s knife. The two grappled for the
possession of Isidro’s knife, but in the course of the struggle, Isidro was able
to kick one leg of Eustiquio which felled the latter to the ground, with Isidro
on top of him; that when he noticed Eustiquio was wounded, he ran away; that for
lack of transportation, he could not surrender to the authorities in the same
evening, but early on the following morning, June 7, 1956; and that nobody
helped him during the struggle.

Appellant Monico Guarnes declared that after gathering (tuba) at 7:30 in the
evening, he stayed home, never went out; he had visitors then, in the persons of
Pablo Jauco and Julio Latosa who drank (tuba) with him; Aida Gulac, who went to
get back her pliers; that he heard shouts and peeping thru the window, saw
policeman Gregorio Jabonillo walking back and forth near the body of Eustiquio
(his son) and that he wanted to go down but was prevented by his wife. It was
also shown that the young man (Cabillos) investigated by the policeman that
night, implicated only Isidro Guarnes but not his co-accused; that he had 9
children; that he did not keep any iron pipe in his house; that he never had any
altercation, ill feeling or grudge against the deceased and that he was a
peaceful and law abiding citizen.

Appellant Honorio Guarnes puts up also a denial and alibi. He
testified that he was in his poultry watching 50 hens and cocks; that he was
suffering from intestinal illness and he had to rest, upon the advice of Dr.
Acosta; that he had no altercation or quarrel with or grudge against the
deceased; and that he did not meet Isidro or Monico that night. It was shown
also that Honorio is a midget, about 4 feet and 2 inches in height.

The following question are posed in the briefs submitted by the parties: (1)
whether the evidence of record warrants the conviction of the appellants, which
necessarily involves the question of credibility; (2) Whether the appellants
Monico and Honorio Guarnes had been fully identified; and (3) Whether the
penalty imposed is in accordance with the evidence and the law.

There is no doubt in our mind that the crime had been committed in the manner
and fashion described by the witnesses for the prosecution. No less than 3
eye-witnesses have identified and saw the assault upon Eustiquio. Gumban
declared that just after he had crossed the railroad tracks, he heard the noise
caused by some object brushing against some shrubs and turning his face, he saw
appellant Isidro Guarnes stab the deceased and as the latter staggered,
appellants Monico Guarnes with a galvanized iron pipe and Honorio Guarnes, with
a “bahi” (cane), struck the deceased until he fell. Hisog testified to the same
effect. Cabillos corroborated Gumban’s testimony. They knew fully well whereof
they spoke, because they were the companions of the deceased before, during and
after the serenade and they were the ones who notified the. police authorities.
And when Cabillos was investigated that very night, he told Pat. Granfillo that
the deceased was stabbed by Isidro and ganged up on by Monico and Honorio. Of
course, appellants claim that these witnesses committed self contradictions,
inconsistencies and exaggeration. We find, however, that they refer to
inconsequential and minor details. There is absolutely no motive shown why these
witnesses had implicated Honorio and Monico, and tergiversate the truth. The
appellants were neityier foes nor friends of the witnesses. The trial court gave
full credit to their testimonies, and the record of the case supports the
opinion of the trial court in this regard.

We are of the firm belief that appellant Isidro Guarnes’ claim of self
defense, has not been substantiated. His story is unbelievable, not to say
fantastic. As appropriately commented by the Solicitor General, the deceased
“must have been a tenacious chicken thief who after being accosted for no less
than three times did not flee until he was hit by a piece of wood. Furthermore,
said version lacks candor for appellant did not even state the obvious, to wit,
that he plunged that knife on the deceased, limiting himself to saying that as
he fell on top of the deceased, he noticed that the latter was already wounded
(p. 101, t.s.n.). Certainly, such pretension cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of three witnesses who have not been shown to have any improper motive
for so testifying”. Appellant’s claim was not at all corroborated.

The same thing may be said of the alibi and denials offered by
appellants Monico Guarnes and Honorio Guanaes. The three witnesses heretofore
mentioned declared in a positive, direct and straightforward manner that they
saw these two appellants ganged up on Eustiquio which account for the two
injuries received by the latter on tie back, produced by the cane and iron tube.
Notwithstanding the darkness of the night, they were positively identified by
the three witnesses who testified that the light from the wick lamp on the
window of the house of Jovita reached the place of the incident which was barely
12 meters away. The identification was so clear that appellant Isidro Guarnes,
could not but admit that he was there on the night in question. The places where
the appellants were alleged to have stayed Were so near the scene of the crime
that it was not impossible for them to have been in said places and be at the
scene of the offense when the latter was committed. The fact that Honorio was a
dwarf or midget could not have been a handicap which would have prevented him
from holding a cane and beat the deceased.

We find that treachery (alevosia) and conspiracy attended the killing of
Eustiquio. The attack was sudden and unexpected. Barely had Gumban turned his
face, attracted by the noise of an object brushing against some shrubs, when
appellant Isidro Guarnes, without saying a word, stabbed the deceased on the
chest. So sudden was the attack that all that the deceased could utter was
“abaw”. The appearance and attack of the two brothers Monico and Honorio were
also sudden, for none of the witnesses knew where they came from before
attacking. The concerted action was manifested by the fact that the attack was
almost simultaneous and that when Cabillos attempted to help the deceased,
Monico and Honorio were at the back of Isidro, ready to attack Cabillos, in case
the latter persisted in approaching (People vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38).
The aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, is, however,
absorbed by the qualifying circumstance of treachery (People vs.
Balines, et al., G.R. No. L-9045, Sept. 28, 1956).

Prior to the incident the appellant Isidro Guarnes was heard to have made a
threat that the deceased was number one in his list. He had an altercation with
the deceased way back in 1951. He resented the serenade in the house of Jovita,
the widow of his first cousin, Manuel Guarnes. And the two other appellants were
drawn into the assault, by a natural desire to help their cousin Isidro.

With respect to appellant Isidro Guarnes, the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, should be appreciated in his favor, with no aggravating
circumstance to offset it. He is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor to 17 years, 4 months,
and 1 day of reclusion temporal. As thus modified, the decision
appealed from, is affirmed in all other respects, with costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.