THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ROSALINO PEÑA, PABLO DEGRACIA, FELIX DOMINGO AND MANUEL BRIONES, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Sur, which found the appellants guilty of murder and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify jointly and
severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000.00, With the
four appellants were charged as co-principals Guillermo Doña, Felix
Dace and Benjamin Caliboso, but these three, not having been arrested,
were not put on trial.

There is no question that Pedro Florendo was brutally tortured
and slain on the date and in the manner depicted by the witnesses. But
two of the appellants denied any part in the ghastly crime and the
other two only admitted participation in the apprehension of the
deceased.

Two eye-witnesses, Pedro Racca and Cesareo Velasco, and the
deceased’s son, Francisco Florendo, furnished the chief evidence for the
prosecution. As summarized in the brief for the Government, their
testimony runs as follows :

“It about four or five o’clock on the afternoon of October 22,
1944, in barrio San Ignacio, Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, acting upon orders
of appellant Manuel Briones, a combined group of guerrilla bolomen from
the barrios of Tinaan and San Ignacio, halted and surrounded a
northward bound jitney on which Pedro Florendo, the municipal mayor of
Sta. Maria, was a passenger. The appellant Felix Domingo, being then
armed with a bolo, aided by ascertain individual Benjamin Caliboso,
made appellant disembark from said vehicle. Florendo was then brought
away to a place eastward, followed by the group of bolomen, towards the
barrio of Tinaan. Upon arriving at said place, Briones who was already
waiting for them, after a whispered conversation with appellant Pablo
Degracia, ordered Florendo to be tied up. Briones then ordered
appellant Felix Domingo to bring word of the capture of Florendo to
appellant Rosalino Peña at the barrio of Butir. Sometime later, having
decided not to wait for Peña, Briones ordered the whole party to
proceed with their captive to Butir. At a certain part of their
journey, Briones took for himself Florendo’s wallet. At the juncture of
the river between barrios Tinaan and Butir, they met up with Peña who,
after gloating over Florendo’s capture, attempted to hit Florendo with
his bolo. Briones, Domingo, Degracia, Caliboso and a certain Felix
Pace, however, restrained Peña – Briones, Degracia and Pace advising him
to wait until they reached barrio Butir and that it would be preferable
to put Florendo to a slow, death. Peña then struck Florendo, breaking
his eye-glasses and causing his face to bleed. Upon orders of Peña,
the whole party again proceeded on their journey to a certain place
called Botak. Upon their arrival thereat, Florendo was beaten, kicked
and otherwise brutally treated by Peña, Briones, Degracia, Domingo, a
certain Guillermo Doña and several others until he fell. It was then
agreed to bring Florendo farther east, to the barrio of Manogak, and
after Peña ordered that spades and iron bars be brought, the group
again proceeded on its way, Florendo being forcibly dragged by a rope,
his hands and feet being tied. At said barrio, upon the suggestion of
Peña, Pace and Caliboso, Florendo was stripped bare of his clothes, At
this point, Peña approached Florendo, and, cutting off one of
Florendo’s ears, ordered him to eat it. Doña, in his turn, severed
Florendo’s penis and forced it into their victim’s mouth. Pace then
also stepped over to Florendo, who was then suffering terribly, and
ripped open the latter’s belly with his bolo. Pena then finally
inserted his hand inside Florendo’s bloody entrails and wrenched out
his liver.

“It also appears from the evidence that Peña and
Florendo have been long-time bitter political enemies and, in fact, an
incident had occurred between them wherein Peña had almost shot
Florendo. Likewise, shortly after the start of the Japanese Occupation,
Peña with several companions looted a certain Chinese store, which
robbery Florendo tried to prevent, as he had then been entrusted with
the safekeeping of said store, but had been threatened by Peña with a
gun. Said matter having been reported to the Japanese Garrison by the
owner, Florendo was called for and questioned at the Japanese Garrison,
in the course of which investigation he pointed to Peña and other
appellants herein as the instigators of said looting. As a result of
this, Peña was maltreated by the Japanese.”

Following is the evidence for the defense as condensed in the appellants1 brief:

“After Pedro Florendo was brought to the
headquarters of Manuel Briones, said Briones after sending a report to
Rosalino Peña, through Felix Domingo of Florendo’s capture, in company
with some bolomen, proceeded eastward with said Pedro Florendo.
Halfway.from the headquarters of Briones to the headquarters of the
said Rosalino Peña, they met Peña and his men and delivered the person
of Florendo to said Rosalino Peña. Briones then and there returned with
Felix Domingo to the guardhouse of Tinaan, Rosalino Pena, upon meeting
Pedro Florendo, uttered the words ‘So, the spy is here now.’

“Pablo Degracia, on the other hand, while sitting on the ladder of his
brother-in-law’s house, on October 22, 1944, saw that suddenly, a group
of bolomen together with Pedro Florendo passed by the house. Pedro
Florendo asked for a drink of water, which Degracia’s sister-in-law
gave to him. From there the bolomen and Pedro Florendo proceeded
towards Butir passing first the garreta of Tinaan. Degracia did not go
with the group but remained in the house of his brother-in-law. After
about 30 minutes he also proceeded eastward fearing that tfiie Japanese
might come. He reached the garreta of Tinaan and there he again saw the
Bolomen with Pedro Florendo who, after some minutes of staying,
proceeded to the barrio of Butir. Degracia remained in Tinaan.

“Rosalino Peña on October 22, 1944, was in the Hoko Guardhouse at
Butir, receiving rations for the guerrillas which were brought by
Teodosia Dalit a leader of the Women’s Auxiliary Service of the bolomen
unit, when Felix Domingo arrived bringing the letter of Manuel Briones
informing him of the capture of Pedro Florendo. After the letter was
delivered, Felix Domingo returned for home, Rosalino Peña with his
bolomen went to meet Pedro Florendo who, at the time, was being brought
to the east. While in the intersection of the rivers between Cabaroan
and Butir, he met Pedro Florendo accompanied by Manuel Briones and his
bolomen. Manuel Briones delivered said Pedro Florendo and returned to
his guardhouse. Pena brought Florendo back east to his barrio af Butir.
When they have arrived there, Pena delivered the person of Florendo to
Nemesio Arreola who was higher in rank, being then the Chief of the
Military Government of the guerrillas in Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur.
Nemesio Arreola brought Florendo further east to fehe place called
Manogak, the headquarters of the military government. Rosalino Pena on
the other hand remained in the guardhouse at Butir to dispose of the
rations brought by members of the Women’s Auxiliary Service (WAS).

“Nemesio Arreola arrived with Pedro Florendo in barrio Manogak.
While there Nemesio Arreola told the persons present to go and witness
what is to be done with the spy No. .1. in the presence of the people
Arreola shouted ‘now tell all the truth of what you have done during
the past month because you are the one for whom the town was
prejudiced.’ ‘Do you know me?’ ‘Do you know Laureano Ayson?’ Do you
know Joaquin Escobar?’ ‘Do you know what happened to them for the last
month for having gone to report to the Japanese that we have been
collecting weapons and foodstuffs for the guerrillas’, to which Pedro
Florendo said ‘yes’ and asked for pardon for he did not then know what
he was doing. Arreola showed Florendo the lesions and bruises caused to
him by the Japanese and blamed Florendo saying those .bruises were the
result of his (Florendo’s) reports to the Japanese. He accused Florendo
before the people that Ayson and Escobar were dead because of him
(Florendo). All the time, Florendo was begging for pardon. Then Arreola
clubbed him with a piece of wood hitting the nape of his neck and
causing him to fall face downward. He was raised by Nemesio Arreola who
said ‘now call your masters, the Japanese, and let them defend your
life.’ After this he clubbed him again and Florendo again fell face
downward. At this instance, one of the guerrilla soldiers unsheated
his bolo with the intention of killing Florendo but Arreola stopped
him, claiming the right to kill Florendo aco that the latter can
expiate for his faults. So, Arreola unsheated his bolo and stabbed
Florendo at the left side of the abdomen killing him,”

The court placed full faith and credit on the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses while it spoke of the defendants and their
witnesses as insincere.

It is well established that,, “as a general rule, the Supreme Court
will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon
the weight and credibility that should be attached to the testimony of
the witnesses * * *, (unless) there is some fact or circumstance of
weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of
which has.been misinterpreted,” (People vs. Marcos et al,, G.R. No. ^7388.)

No reason has been adduced for the plea to reverse the lower
court’s findings beyond that the prosecution eye-witnesses1 extra
judicial statements, Exhibits ttlft and influence which are widely at
variance with their statements at the trial.

Comparison of the two sets of statements reveals no irreconciliable
conflict between them; that is to say, there is nothing in the
affidavits which contradicts the eye-witnesses testimony in court, that
the appellants did commit the acts imputed to them. Racca’s naming in
Exhibit “1”, his affidavit, Nemesio Rayola, Guillermo Dona, Dionisio
Juan and Vicente Martinez as having beaten Pedro Florendo, did not
preclude the idea that Rosalino Peña, Manuel Briones, Felix Domingo,
Pablo Degracia, and others were coauthors of the crime. And Cesareo
Velasco’s mention of 33 supposed perpetrators besides the four
appellants might denote an intent to implicate more people but not that
the accused were not involved. (Racca could have withheld some of the
defendants1 names for reason best known to himself; and Velasco could
have in mind all the persons who, besides the accused, had a hand in
the punishments of the deceased in one form or another, directly or
indirectly.

It is important to keep in view, in the consideration of the
witnesses’ affidavits, that these are brief; that save for some
preliminary questions, the statements , which are said to be in
disagreement with the witnesses’ statements at the trial, were given in
loose, general and haphazard fashion; that no effort at clarification
or elaboration seems to have been made by the examiner or investigator;
that Florendo, as some of the defendants are said to have suggested,
was condemned and tortured to a slow death; that the tortures were
committed by stages and in several places on the route to his
destination, and a large horde of bolomen followed the accused and the
prisoner throughout the long trek.

Conceding for argument’s sake that the two statements of either
witness are in hopeless conflict, it does not necessarily follow that
their testimony at the trial was perjured. The important factors that
should weigh in the appreciation of a witness’ veracity are the
reasonableness and cogency of his testimony and the manner in which he
answers the questions. The fact that he lied on another occasion must
give way to those considerations.

The trial court was convinced that Racca and Velasco were truthful
witnesses. For our part, we have detected no indication of falsehood in
their evidence enough to warrant reversal of the learned trial Judge’s
conclusions. We are especially impressed by the fact that, unaccustomed
to the ways of court, Racca and Velasco came with flying colors out of
the rigid and lengthy cross-examinations to which they were subjected
by the various counsel for the defense. The latter’s laborious effort
failed to make a breach in the witnesses’ story.

The appellants claim to have been genuine guerrillas and that Pedro
Florendo was a spy for the Japanese. They therefore contend that they
are entitled to the benefits of the Guerrilla Amnesty Proclamation,
although two of them pretended to have nothing to do with the crime
other than having seen the deceased being carried off toward the east,
while Briones asserted that he did nothing more than turn Florendo over
to Peña, who on his part said he merely delivered the person of
Florendo to Nemesio Arreola, now dead, “Chief of the (Guerrilla) Military Government in Sta. Maria.”

To come within the purview of the proclamation, it is essential to
establish that the offended party was a collaborationist or was
believed to be one, and that the crime was effected for the purpose
of promoting the cause of the resistance movement or punishing past
treasonable acts. Other than the defendants’ testimony and the’
supposed orders from superior guerrilla officers to catch Florendo,
there is no proof that the latter was a spy or collaborator, unless
serving as municipal mayor be considered collaboration with the enemy.
The great preponderance of evidence in fact is that he was not. As the
court said:

“Sobre la memoria del interJtecto Pedro Florendo la defensa quiso todavia extender sombras denigrantes.

* * * * * * *

“Solo los mismos enjuiciados trataron de establecer
hechos pro-japoneses por parte de Pedro Florendo, sin haberse asegurado
por los mismos y por imparciales testigos que hayan visto a Pedro
Florendo en la comision de tales hechos. Es mass el Sr. Maximino Bello,
abogado, ‘intelligence officer1 que fue segundo al Sr. Macario Peralta
Jr. en el comando de los guerillas en Iloeos Sur, con jurisdiecion
desde Vigan hasta Tagudin, declaro de un modo digno de credito que, en
o antes del 22 de Octubre de 1944, ningun report recibio acerca de
actividades de espionaje pro-japones (inclusa la alegado participacion
en la ejecucion de los guerillas Antonio y Atendido) por parte de Pedro
Florendo sino que, antes al contrario, dicho Florendo, actuando aun de
Mayor de Santa Maria, y su hijo estaban en contacto con el (Atty.
Bello) hasta el extremo de que. dicho Alcalde le dio por prestado un
revolver, no obstante saber que Bello formaba parte del movimiento de
resistencia.

* * * * * * *

“E1 mero hecho de que, a despecho de las pruebas
evidentes de la acusacion en cuanto a su participacion directa en el
asesinato de Pedro Florendo en Manogac, los cuatro acusados no hayan
tenido el valor de admitir dicha participacion y confiar en la eficacia
de la Proclama Presidencial No. 8, denota falta de fe en la virtualidad
de su teoria de que no estaban movidos por el odio vengativo.”

In a small community like Sta. Maria, collaborators could.not hide
their relations with the invaders and what they did. Hated,
collaborators’ acts were magnified, rarely minimized. When the highest
guerrilla intelligence officer on the area, who ought to have seen or
heard of the deceased|:s performances if he had been a traitor,
affirmed under oath that Florendo was a peaceful citizen, loyal to his
country, helpful to the guerrillas, the court rightly felt certain that
the offended party was not a spy or collaborator and that the
defendants knew it.

It is queer that if the deceased had been a collaborator throughout
the Japanese occupation spy No. 1, at that—as the defendants alleged,
no disinterested inhabitants of the town were called to testify, and
the earliest order to arrest him was issued only on June 16, 1944, and
the last on September 8, The courtf:s veiled insinuation that these
orders were fake was not farfetched. Their wording and tone and the
general appearance of the paper on which they are written greatly add
to the skeptism of their authenticity.

We are with the trial Judge that none but vindictivdness born of
bitter personal hatreds and previous political rivalry could have been
the motives behind the fiendish and ignominous killing. The defendants
did not bring their prisoner before the superior officers who, they
claim, had decreed his capture. They did not even let him have a
merciful death. He was literally butchered, and while vas still alive.
they gloated over his fate and were not to be cheated of the spectacle
of their victim’s painful, long-drawn-out sufferings deliberately
contrived. They hungered for his living flesh and thirsted for his
blood, and were not to be satisfied until final collapse intervened to
put an end to one of the most horrible and beastly exhibitions of manfs
inhumanity ever recorded in the annals of criminality.

We find the appellants guilty of murder as charged, with the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty, and for lack of sufficient votes
for the imposition of a higher penalty, the appealed decision is
affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ., concur.