THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AQUILINO AGUILAR, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Charged with robbery with homicide before the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Oriental, Aquilino Aguilar, and Esteban Pacudan
were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment while Pedrito Aguilar, who
claimed to be only 17 years old when the crime was committed, to an
indeteminate sentence of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal
as maximum, the three to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum
of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay the costs.
The three accused took the present appeal.

Early in the morning of March 21, 1958, while spouses Sulpicio
Olario and Concesa Olario were sleeping at their house in the
municipality of Medina, Misamis Oriental, they were awakened by the
sound of footsteps of persons entering their house. Thru their mosquito
net they saw three men in their bedroom and after they lifted the
mosquito net they came towards their place carrying a pistol in one
hand and a flashlight in the other. At the time the house was lighted
by two lamps, one in the bedroom and another in an adjoining room which
had no shutters. Concesa recognized one of them to be Aquilino Aguilar
who had no mask because she had known him for a long time to be a
friend of her father, while she noticed that the other two were masked
up to their noses although one of them was shorter and bigger than the
other. Aquilino Aguilar then demanded money from them to which Sulpicio
Olario answered indicating that their money was in the drawer. After
this the intruders ordered the spouses to lie down with their faces on
the floor and as Concesa did as bidden, she raised her head to look but
she was hit on the head by one with a chair causing it to bleed.
Shortly thereafter she heard an explosion and gathering strength she
rose and ran to the window which was about 56 inches from the ground
and jumped dislocating her waist. As she tried to stand up she shouted
for help until her mother came to her rescue. A neighbor by the name of
Pastor Patnasic also heard the explosion. . He peeped thru his window
and saw three men fleeing in the dark. Upon hearing the outcry of Consesa he repaired to her house.

When Concesa and her mother went back to the house after the
intruders had fled, they saw Sulpicio lying on the floor already dead
with three wounds in his body. Upon investigation three empty shells
were found in the bedroom. The thirty pesos in coins that were kept in
the drawer in their store were missing. A flashlight with its light
still on was left on the dining table. Minutes after the incident Sgt.
Ismael Wahiman of the Medina police force arrived to whom Concesa
immediately related that she was able to recognize one of the intruders
to be Aguilar, although she was not sure of his first name, and gave
the physical description of the other two.

The autopsy performed by Dr. Irineo Pascual show that the deceased received the following injuries:

(a) Gunshot wound region midway between frontal, two supra-orbital ridge.
(b) Gunshot wound on or about the region of the anterior axillary line at the level of the 6th intercostal space, left.
(c) Gunshot wound over the lumbar region, left.
(d) Gunshot wound (2) para vertebral, right at the interscapular region right.

The appellants set up alibi as their defense. Aquilino Aguilar declared that on March 20, 1958 he went to Portulin, Medina, to gather lanzones.
He was not- the one who climbed the trees because he was afflicted with
rheumatism. A 12-year old boy helped him. He went home at 4 o’clock in
the afternoon and when he arrived he put down the lanzones
and went to bed because of his rheumatism. His wife and his six
children, including his co-accused Pedrito, and a guest Francisca
Quesaba were in the house. His son Pedrito came home at 11 o’clock in
the evening and did not go out again. The next morning he took his bolo
to clean the lawn and did not go out until March 22, 1958, which was a
Saturday. On March 23, a Sunday, his wife informed him that there was a
boat going to Cabog and so he went to that place to join his labor
union. He did not work on that day ‘because the copra did not arrive
and so he went to the cockpit. The next day he went to the pier to find
out whether there was some loading to be done and while waiting a
policeman from Medina approached him and invited him to the municipal
building. It was only then that he came to know that he was accused of
robbery with homicide. At noon of the same day his son Pedrito was also
placed in jail. He denied his participation in the crime with which he
is charged. He also denied knowing Concesa Olario although he admitted
that being a gambler he came to know the father of Concesa in the
cockpit. He further testified that Esteban Pacudan, Andres Paglinawan
and another person accused of illegal fishing were later placed in jail
and he met them for the first time. He had no chance to talk to them
except at meal-time. He denied having talked to any one of them about
the charge against him.

Esteban Pacudan declared that on March 27, 1958 he went to
Mandahilag, Talisayan, Misamis Oriental to visit his sister Paulina
Pacudan with whom he left his child when he underwent medical
treatment. He found that his sister was in Sta. Ines, Talisayan, so he
went there. After meeting his sister he left to board a truck for
Kinoguitan but before he could do so the chief of police of Talisayan
approached him and asked him for his gun. He gave him his home-made gun
“paliuntod. ” The chief of police took him along to Talisayan where he
was investigated. He was asked if he knew Aquilino Aguilar and the
municipal mayor of Medina. He denied knowing Aguilar but admitted
knowing the mayor. The next morning, Sgt. Acuna told him that Aquilino
Aguilar had already confessed to the robbery but he claimed that he did
not know Aquilino Aguilar. He declared that on March 21, 1958 he was in
his house at Maujon, Gingoog, nine kilometers from Medina and stayed
there from March 21 to 25, 1958. He had allegedly been living at that
time on the land of one Telesforo Batab for one year at the time of his
arrest, his work being planting corn. On March 28, 1958, Sgt. Acuna
took him to the office of the Chief of Police of Medina and when
complainant Concesa Olario was asked if he was one of the persons who
were with Aquilino Aguilar on the night of the incident, she answered
“may be this is the appearance.” After such confrontation he was taken
back to his cell.

Pedrito Aguilar testified that he is the son of Aquilino Aguilar and
that early in the morning of March 20, 1958 he was in his house at
Mincapis, Agay-ayan, Gingoog, Misamis Oriental. On that day he went to
the land of Juana Isobel to watch the trucks passing through the
latter’s land. He had been employed by her since February, 1958. He
used to stay on the land from 6 o’clock in the morning up to late in
the evening. On March 20, 1958, he took his lunch at home and went back
to work. He came home at 10 o’clock that evening. He arrived at the
place of Juana Isobel to report at about 10 o’clock after which he went
home arriving there at 11 o’clock in the evening. He ate his supper,
smoked and went to sleep. He woke up at around 4 o’clock in the morning
of March 21, 1958 and went back to the land of Mrs. Isobel. He did not
know Concesa Olario nor the latter knew him. In the morning of March
23, 1958 he and his mother went to the seashore at Agay-ayan to buy
fish where he saw a boat which was docked at the pier of Cabog, Medina,
so he went home and informed his father about its presence. He was
employed in the sacking department at Cabog.

His father went to Cabog ahead of him but he did not see him that
day. He met his father the following morning while he was loading
copra. His father called him and told him to go to Agay-ayan and fetch
his mother because he, Aquilino, was being charged with a crime. He
fetched his mother at their house at Mincapis. Because he could not
believe that his father was accused of any crime, he went back to the
sacking department to work and it was only his mother who went to
Medina. After one hour his mother returned and told him that his father
was in jail, so he and his mother went to jail at Medina arriving at
the place at 9 o’clock. He asked his father why he was in jail and his
father answered that he was accused by a woman in Maanas. He saw
Concesa Olario that morning with Teodora Neri at the door of the
municipal building. After seeing his father he went back to Cabog to
resume his work. As it was lunch time and there was no food left for
him he went to the market. While he was eating he heard somebody
pointing to him paying “that is the son of Aquilino Aguilar.” He turned
his head and saw Teodora Neri. He did not come to know Teodora Neri
until the preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the
peace court. At about 4 o’clock in the afternoon a policeman came to
see him at the bodega where he was working and told him that
his father wanted to see him. At the door of the prison cell Sgt.
Wahiman told him that it was he who sent for him because he and his
father were accused as the authors of the crime committed in Maanas. At
the beginning only he and his father were occupants of the jail. Later
on Andres Paglinawan and Mar rial Toledo were brought in.

He did not know of any person by the name of Esteban Pacudan. He
came to know him for the first time at the preliminary investigation at
Medina. Pacudan arrived at the municipal jail of Medina three days
after his arrival.

There can be no doubt that those who intruded into the house of
spouses Sulpicio Olario and Concesa Olario in the morning of “March 21,
1958 with the intention of depriving them of their earthly possession
in the course of which they laid hands on them to the extent of firing
shots at Sulpicio causing his instant death are the appellants as
testified by the victim’s widow who, gathering strength upon hearing an
explosion, jumped down from their house and shouted for help which
outcry made her mother come to her rescue and caused the intruders to
flee and leave the house after taking possession of the money they had
in the drawer in coins amounting to P30.00. This tragic incident
appears well-narrated in the testimony of Goncesa Olario who was lucky
enough to survive and tell her awful experience. And it cannot be
disputed that she was1 able to identify their three assailants not only
because one of them was without mask, Aquilino Aguilar, whom he had
known for a long time to be a friend of her father, but also because at
the time there were then two lighted lamps one in the very room where
they were sleeping and another in an adjoining room which had no
shutters.

It is true that the other two intruders were then masked up to their
noses, but these masks notwithstanding Concesa was able to give a good
description of their physical condition as to enable her to identify
the two of them when minutes thereafter she was investigated by Sgt.
Wahiman and unhesitatingly pointed to the two as the companions of
Aquilino in the commission of the dastardly act. As the lower court has
aptly observed: “There is no plausible reason to doubt the veracity of
the widow’s testimony because there was no previous misunderstanding
between her and each of the accused, and her unhesitating and positive
identification of them as the authors of the crime immediately after
they were shown to her in the municipal building of Medina a few days
after the incident is a strong indication of her truthfulness. The
crime committed is of such a serious nature and it is hard to believe
that she would try to foist the responsibility on the accused just for
the mere satisfaction of a vanity or wild fancy.”

The testimony of Concesa finds corroboration in the statement of
Pastor Patnasic, a neighbor, who also heard the explosion and who upon
peeping thru the window of his house saw three men fleeing in the dark
coming from the house of the Olarios who could not be but the three
appellants herein. It is not true that Concesa Olario did not
positively identify the three intruders or that it was Sgt. Wahiman who
suggested the name of Aguilar during the investigation. When said
sergeant arrived after the incident to conduct an investigation the
widow immediately informed him that she recognized the faces of the
three men who went up her house and although she did not know the names
of the two or could not mention the first name of the third, she could
however remember that his surname was Aguilar. Concesa Olario also knew
Esteban Pacudan. Only one week before the incident she saw Pacudan
riding in a truck and after he was arrested for illegal possession of
firearm and taken to her presence she immediately identified him. She
made the same identification with regard to Pedrito Aguilar when the
latter was arrested in connection with a robbery case in Bayugon where
the complainant was one Teodora Neri.

On the strength of such positive identification corroborated by the
testimony of a neighbor who is a disinterested person one can hardly
argue that the defense of alibi set up by the three
appellants merits weight and consideration, more so when from their
very testimony it appears that their houses where they allegedly were
at the time of the incident were not so far-distant as would make
physically impossible their presence at the place of the commission of
the crime. And we make this comment notwithstanding the attempt made by
the defense to bolster up appellants’ alibi with the testimony of
Francisca Quesaba and Juana Isobel insofar as the father and son are
concerned. Indeed, we find the testimony of Francisca Quesaba punctured
with so many flaws as to deserve, credence. And to bear this out,
suffice it for us to quote what government’s counsel commented on her
credibility:

“1. As the trial court concluded, it is unbelievable
that with her house only one kilometer away and along the National
Highway she would not go home when it was still early in the evening
when she allegedly reached the Aguilars’ house. She admitted that it
was only a short walk from her house to the Aguilars’.

“2.
Her testimony that the night of the 20th was the first and the last
time that she ever slept in the house of the Aguilars is highly
suspicious (pp. 321, 253, t.s.n.).

“3. According to her, in
the afternoon of March 20, 1958, at about 3 o’clock, she dropped by the
house of appellant Pedrito Aguilar. on her way to her farm to give him
the tickets which her sister, Juana Isobel, asked her to deliver to
Pedrito, but because Pedrito was not at home when she delivered the
tickets to-his mother (pp. 306-307 t.s.n.). According to Juana Isobel
in the morning of March 20, 1958, she saw appellant Pedrito Aguilar on
her land. She allegedly came back in the afternoon of the same day to
gather bananas and found appellant still on the land watching for the
trucks that passed through it. She even conversed with him (p. 220,
t.s.n.). Why would Juana Isobel send the tickets to appellant Pedrito
Aguilar through her sister, Francisca Quesaba, when she herself was
going to the land which Pedrito was guarding. Why would she send him
tickets when Pedrito allegedly used to report to her every day. (p.
261, t.s.n.).

“4. It is noteworthy that Francisca Quesaba
whose house was only five houses from her sister, Juana Isobel, did not
even know that appellant Pedrito Aguilar was in the employ of her
sister when she had known the Aguilars since liberation and she
allegedly used to pass by the road near the Aguilar house on her way to
her farm (pp. 307-308, 319, t.s.n.) Significantly, she was a witness
for Feliciano Aguilar, a relative of Aquiline Aguilar (p. 302, t.s.n.),
and in a theft case against Pedrito Aguilar (p. 298, t.s.n.).

“5.
In her testimony before the trial court, she stated that she slept in
the house of appellant Aquilino Aguilar and woke up at 11 in the
evening to answer a call of nature after which she resumed her sleep.
It was then that Pedrito Aguilar arrived. Witness allegedly woke up at
4 o’clock the next morning and went on her way (pp. 300-301, t,s.n.).
According to Victoria Acuna, Aquilino’s wife, Quesaba left at 6 o’clock
the next morning (p. 328, t.s.n.). In her testimony before the justice
of the peace court, witness declared that both appellants Aquilino and
Pedrito Aguilar were already in the house when she arrived at their
house at 7 o’clock in the evening and that the whole evening she sat up
without sleeping (p. 391, t,s.n.).”

With regard to the testimony of Juana Isobel, we find also worthy of note the following comment of government’s counsel:

“* * * If appellant Pedrito Aguilar were in her
employ since February 1, 1958 (p. 319, t.s.n.)’, and she had sent him
tickets for the trucks passing through her land only on March 20,1958,
it is unlikely that appellant Pedrito Aguilar would take French leave
of his employer the moment he allegedly saw a boat at Cabog (p. 223,
t.s.n.). There must have been some weighty reason that induced him to
leave. It is noteworthy that witness Juana Isobel did not even employ
ano-ther to take appellant’s place after the latter had left her
service (pp. 223, 231, t.s.n.). Another circumstance that gives a lie
to this witness’ testimony is her and husband’s special power of
attorney executed on January 24, 1958, appointing Anastacio Sumastre to
exercise supervision and control over their lands and tenements in the
municipality of Gingoog to prevent any trespass and waste, etc (Exh. K,
p. 123, rec). Considering that Agay-ayan is only 4 kilometers from
Maanas and only 1 kilometer from Mincanis (p. 228, t.s.n.), it was not
physically impossible for appellants to be at the place of the spouses
Sulpicio and Concesa Olario at 1 o’clock in the morning in March 20,
1958.”

Anent the nature of the penalty imposed by the trial court, counsel
for the government recommends that the penalty of death be imposed upon
appellants Aquilino Aguilar and Esteban Pacudan considering that the
crime was committed at nighttime and in the dwelling of the offended
party. We find this recommendation tenable especially considering that
the said circumstances are not offset by any mitigating that may be
invoked in favor of said appellants, and so the Court hereby imposes
upon them the supreme penalty of death. However, with regard to Pedrito
Aguilar, the Court finds that the penalty imposed upon him is within
the limit prescribed by law.

Wherefore, modified as above-indicated, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.