THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO LLANTO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal, by Juanito Llanto, from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Batangas convicting him of the crime of murder and sentencing him to liie
imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the
heirs of Laureano de la Pena in the sum of P6,000 and to pay the costs.

On March 6, 1958, while Laureano de la Pena was walking northward, along the
national highway in the municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas a little after
11:00 p.m., someone fired at him, from behind, several times, thereby inflicting
several bullet wounds that caused his death about 20 minutes after midnight.

It appears that Laureano was, at the time of the occurrence accompanied by
Hipolito Estuista, whom the authorities located, soon thereafter, that same
night. Upon investigation forwith made by the local police force, Hipolito
declared that Laureano’s assailant was Juanito Llanto. Meanwhile, another member
of the local police force had asked Atanacio de la Pena, a son of the deceased,
for information as to the possible identity of the culprit. Unaware, as yet, of
Hipolito’s aforementioned statement, Atanacio unhesitatingly replied, for
reasons hereafter to be stated, that the killer must be Juanito Llanto. Hence,
the latter was immediately arrested and charged with murder.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that Laureano was a lineman of the
Philippine Power and Development Co., which supplied electricity to the
municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas; that Hipolito was an electrician of the
same company; that in the morning of March 6, 1958, Hipolito was sent from
Calamba, Laguna, to Sto. Tomas Batangas, to assist Laureano in the proper
maintenance of the service during the town fiesta the next day; that sometime
during the evening of March 6, a transformer, located at the southern part of
the town, went out of order; that, accordingly, Laureano and Hipolito went to
that place, to make the necessary repairs, which were completed sometime after
11:00 p.m.; that shortly after they had started leaving the place, Juanito
Llanto appeared suddenly behind Laureano and opened fire at him; that, as
Laureano fell down mortally wounded and Juanito Llanto ran away, Hipolito took
refuge, thoroughly frightened, in a restaurant near a gasoline station by the
roadside, where peace officers found him before day break; that, upon submission
to a parafin test, made that same morning, between 10:30 and 11:00 o’clock,
gunpowder residue was found on both hands of Juanito Llanto.

It further appears that the latter used to be another employee of the
Philippine Power & Development Co.; that about two (2) months prior to the
occurrence, Laureano had, while on vacation leave, repaired a transformer of the
company; that this was resented by Juanito Llanto because, being the one then on
duty, the repairs should have been undertaken by him; that Juanito Llanto became
so angry that he went to the house of Laureano and challenged him and the
members of his family; that Juanito Llanto even threatened to kill whoever came
out of the house on said occasion; and that, three (3) weeks later, Juanito
Llanto ceased to be employed in said company.

Appellant set up an alibi. He would have us believe that, at the time of the
occurrence, he was in a jeep, attending a band concert, some 300 meters east of
the municipal building of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, together with municipal
councilor Jorge Nora and Bienvenido Modelo. These two (2) and police sergeant
Pedro Francisco tried to corroborate appellant. However, the lower court found
their testimony unworthy of credence, and the record before us does not warrant
interference with the conclusion reached by His Honor, the trial Judge.
Moreover, inasmuch as appellant was riding a jeep and the scene of the
occurrence was not far away from the place where the band concert was being
held, it was quite possible for him to have attended said concert, then slipped
away, for a few minutes, while the concert was in progress, to commit the crime
charged, and, immediately thereafter, rejoined the crowd hearing the
concert.

Verily, we find no plausible reason to doubt the veracity of Hipolito
Estuista, the main witness for the prosecution. The defense lays stress upon
some inconsistencies in hi3 testimony, but said inconsistencies refer to minor
details and collateral matters that do not affect either the substance of his
declaration or its truthfulness. Appellant, also, claims that Hipolito’s
testimony deserves no credence, because of a misunderstanding they had allegedly
had in 1954 and another one in 1957. Hipolito denied, however, such
misunderstandings, apart from the fact that, even if the same had really
happened, they were far from being sufficiently serious to prompt the false
imputation of a crime as grave as that charged in this case.

Upon the other hand, Hipolito could not possibly have been mistaken as to the
identity of the culprit, not only because he had known Juanito Llanto for
several years prior to the occurrence, both having been employees of the same
electric company, but, also, because there was electric light, aside from the
moonlight, at the scene of the crime. Then, too, about four (4) hours after its
commission, when Hipolito had not had sufficient time, and was still too shaken,
to concoct a story falsely incriminating Juanito Llanto, the former positively
stated that the killer was the latter, and this statement was fully confirmed by
the residue of gunpowder found on his hands upon examination made that same
morning.

In an attempt to discredit or weaken the testimony of Capt. Crispin D. Garcia
regarding the paraffin test to which appellant herein had been submitted, the
defense introduced an article, said to have been written by Henry W. Turkle and
Jerome Lipman, on the “Unreliability of Dermal Nitrate Test of Gunpowder.”
However, the defense has not established either the authenticity of said article
or the qualifications of its alleged authors. Such evidence is clearly
inadequate, therefore, to offset the testimony of Capt. Garcia on his findings
indicating a great probability that appellant had fired a gun a few hours before
he was subjected to the aforesaid test.

Appellant denied, also, that he had had with Laureano de la Pena the incident
testified to by his son, Atanacio de la PenaAppellant admitted, however, that he
had gone to the house of the De la Pefias, on the occasion referred to by
Atanacio, although it was with the latter, not with Laureano, with whom, he
(appellant) said, he had an altercation. Besides, Atanacio denied, on rebuttal,
having had said altercation with appellant, and a review of the record does not
show that the lower court had erred in accepting the version of Atanacio and
rejecting that of appellant.

Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant Juanito Llanto. It is so
ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, and
Dizon, JJ., concur.