G.R. No. L-42987. March 04, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE REBULADO, PRIMITIVO REBULADO AND ROGELIO SALES, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
BIDIN, J.:
This is an appeal from the June 16, 1975 Decision of the then
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Tenth Judicial District, Branch I,
presided by Hon. Delfin Vir. Sunga, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencing accused-appellant
Vicente Rebulado to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales
were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Servillon
in the sum of P20,000.00, jointly and severally; and to pay the costs.
In an Information dated December 16, 1969, Provincial Fiscal
Edmundo S. Alberto charged accused-appellants with the crime of Murder,
allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1969, at
approximately 6:30 o’clock in the morning, in the barrio of San Ramon,
municipality of Nabua, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping one another with intent to kill
and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and stab with a kitchen knife and
strike with pieces of wood one Rodolfo Servillon, thereby inflicting upon the
latter fatal wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused
the death of the said Rodolfo Servillon.”
All of the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty at the
arraignment.
As summarized in the People’s Brief, the facts of the case are as
follows:
“At about 6:30 in the morning of November 3, 1969, Edmundo
Gallarte, Lorenzo Avila and Rodolfo Servillon, all residents of San Ramon,
Nabua, Camarines Sur, on their way to harvest palay, dropped at the store of
Juana Tretasco Gallarte, a resident of the same place, to light their
cigarettes (pp. 25, 26, TSN, April 6, 1970; pp. 59, 60, TSN, Dec. 14, 1970).
“After lighting his cigarette, Rodolfo Servillon sat on a
table (p. 26, TSN, Id.). Several
minutes later, Vicente Rebulado, Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales arrived
at the store (p. 60, TSN, Dec. 14, 1970). While Rodolfo Servillon was seated on the table, Vicente Rebulado went
behind Servillon, and without any warning, stabbed the latter hitting him on
the right side of the lumbar region (pp. 26, 32, TSN, Apr. 6, 1970).
“While trying to run away after he was stabbed, Servillon was
hit on the left forearm by Primitivo Rebulado, and on the back by Rogelio
Sales, who were each armed with a piece of wood. Servillon, however, was able to run away from his attackers who
pursued him, but gave up after they failed to catch up with him (pp. 30, 31
& 34, TSN, Id.). Edmundo Gallarte
and Lorenzo Avila followed Servillon, and caught up with him when the latter
was walking in a zigzag manner, and brought him to the house of Alejo
Beranza. Servillon was then taken to
the clinic of one Dr. Belmonte (pp. 35, 36, TSN, Id.).
Upon advice of Dr. Belmonte who administered emergency treatment on
the critically injured Servillon, the latter was brought to the Camarines
Provincial Hospital where he was operated on (p. 67, TSN, Dec. 14, 1970).
Medical findings on his (Servillon’s) body reveal that he sustained
two wounds: (1) a ‘stab wound on the
lumbar region, right penetrating abdomen, perforating ascending colon,
lacerating lower pole of right kidney, massive hematoma posterior peritoneum’,
and (2) ‘external lesions consisting of abrasions, anterior spect upper third
left forearm.’ The stab wound was the fatal one which caused Servillon’s
death, due to Massive Internal Hemorrhage (pp. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10, TSN, Apr.
6, 1970; Exhs. “B” & “C”, pp. 2 & 4, Rec.).
At about 8:00 o’clock in the morning of November 3, 1969, a report
that a certain Rodolfo Servillon was stabbed by Vicente Rebulado, was received
in the Office of the Chief of Police of Nabua, Camarines Sur. Upon the order of the Chief of Police, the
suspect Vicente Rebulado was arrested and brought by Police Lt. Teofisto Ayuma
to the said Chief of Police who conducted an investigation. Vicente Rebulado gave a written statement
(Exh. “D”) which was sworn to before Juan Ballecer, Municipal Judge
of Nabua, Camarines Sur (p. 55, TSN, Apr. 6, 1970).
In his statement to the police, Vicente Rebulado narrated the
circumstances surrounding the stabbing of Rodolfo Servillon. He stated that he was arrested for the stabbing
of Rodolfo Servillon; that he was the one who stabbed Servillon; that he
stabbed Servillon at about 6:30 in the morning of November 3, 1969, because
while he (Rebulado) was on his way home to San Antonio, Ogbon, Nabua, Camarines
Sur, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of November 2, 1969, after he came
from the house of Rosy Bagasbas, of San Ramon, Nabua, and whom he was courting,
Rodolfo Servillon emerged from a dark place and hit him (Rebulado) with a
piece of wood; that he was hit on the left ear with a piece of wood, and on the
stomach, with a fist blow; that Servillon assaulted him because he (Servillon)
was also courting Rosy Bagasbas that he returned to the house of Rosy Bagasbas
and told the latter and her mother what happened to him; that Rosy Bagasbas and
her mother escorted him until he reached a safe place before reaching home;
that upon waking up the following morning (Nov. 3, 1969), he related the
incident to his father; that his father told him that they settle the case
amicably; that he did not want any settlement because he wanted to take revenge
on Servillon; that he, together with his father, his brother Primitivo
Servillon and his brother-in-law Rogelio Sales went to look for Rodolfo
Rebulado; that they found Servillon, together with Raymundo Gallarte and
Lorenzo Avila, in the store of Juana Tretasco Gallarte, in San Ramon, Nabua,
Camarines Sur; that when he saw Servillon seated at the store, he (Vicente
Rebulado) without saying any word, approached and stabbed Servillon who thereafter
ran away but while running was met and struck by Primitivo with a piece of
wood; that his brother-in-law Rogelio Sales stood by and watched what was
happening; that after the incident (Vicente Rebulado) went home together with
his father, his brother Primitivo, and brother-in-law Rogelio Sales (Exhs.
“D”, “D-1”, “E2″, pp. 11-13, Rec.).”
The defense of accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo
Rebulado is alibi, while accused Vicente Rebulado is self defense.
Accused-appellant Rogelio Sales denied any participation in the
crime. He testified that at the time of
the commission of the crime, he was working on the riceland of Felix Cuadro;
that he does not know the persons of deceased Rodolfo Servillon, Edmundo
Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila; that he denies the statements of Gallarte and
Avila pointing him as one of the accused, and does not know any reason why they
would incriminate him in the tragic incident; that he is the brother-in-law of
his co-accused Primitivo and Vicente Rebulado who have been living with him in
his house for the last six years; and that he was arrested while plowing the
ricefield of Felix Cuadro at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of November 3,
1969 (TSN, Hearing of Dec. 19, 1972, Ibid., pp. 153-169).
Felix Cuadro corroborated the testimony of Rogelio Sales. He added that he met Rogelio on his way to
look for laborers to plow and harrow his field at four (4:00) o’clock in the
morning of November 3, 1969 riding on a carabao; that he was taken to the house
of Rogelio’s father who was still sleeping, but he was able to engage their
services that same morning; that after the father and son took their breakfast,
they all left at about 7:00 o’clock the same morning to the ricefield and
started to work immediately; that he went home to take his breakfast and to
prepare the food for lunch; and that when he returned to the field at about
10:00 or 11:00 in the morning, Rogelio was no longer there and his father
informed him that he was arrested by a policeman (TSN, Hearing of Dec. 19,
1972, Ibid., pp. 134-152).
Likewise, accused-appellant Primitivo Rebulado denied
participation in the killing of Rodolfo Servillon. He testified that he went to the cemetery of Nabua, Camarines Sur
on November 2, 1969 at 5:00 o’clock p.m., for the All Souls Day celebration;
that his purpose was to see friends and “barkadas” and to visit his
dead cousins and relatives, but he was able to name only one and forgot the
others; that past 12:00 o’clock midnight of November 3, 1969, he went and slept
at the hut of Moises Paranal; that past 6:00 o’clock in the morning of November
3, 1969, he was awakened by Moises Paranal in order to attend the 6:30 mass in
the chapel of the cemetery; and that they both went home past 8:00 o’clock a.m.
on the same date (TSN, Hearing of July 17, 1972, Ibid., pp. 123-130; and
Hearing of March 5, 1974, Ibid., pp. 203-217).
Primitivo Rebulado’s testimony was
corroborated by Moises Paranal who was on vigil for his deceased sister and
brother-in-law. However, Paranal
testified that Primitivo Rebulado had no immediate relative to watch in the
cemetery that night; and that it is only now that he disclosed that he and
Primitivo were together at the cemetery when the crime was committed, and
hence, could not have participated with his co-accused Vicente Rebulado and
Rogelio Sales in the commission of the crime (TSN, Hearing of Apr. 11, 1973,
pp. 105-123).
Vicente Rebulado, on the other hand, in an obvious attempt to
exculpate his co-accused appellants, testified that he and deceased Rodolfo
Servillon were alone when the incident that led to the latter’s death occurred;
that he killed Servillon because on November 1, 1969, after he visited Rosie
Bagasbas, the girl they were both courting, Servillon warned him that if he
ever goes back to the girl’s house, Servillon will kill him; that at 6:30 in the morning of November 3, 1969,
while he was passing the store of Juan Gallarte Tretasco, he was called by
Servillon who was at the store and who asked him where he was going; that he
told Servillon that he was going to visit Rosie Bagasbas; that Servillon boxed
him but he was not hit; Servillon then got a piece of wood to arm himself;
that he also got a piece of wood and was able to disarm Servillon with his
first strike; that they then fought and the deceased Servillon took his scythe
which was on the table; that he was able to get his stainless knife and stabbed
Servillon; that Servillon ran away after having been hit, and he decided to go
home; and that on the way, he surrendered to a policeman who was looking for
him after identifying himself (TSN, Hearing of Aug. 8, 1973, Ibid., pp.
170-199).
The trial court, in a decision dated June 16, 1975, found all the
accused guilty as charged with the crime of Murder. The decretal portion of the said judgment reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Vicente Rebulado,
Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder, hereby sentences the accused, Vicente Rebulado the Penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua (Life); applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby
sentences each of the accused Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales to suffer
the penalty of, from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor, as
minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the late Rodolfo Servillon in the sum of
P20,000.00, jointly and severally and to pay the costs.”
Accused-appellants Primitivo Rebulado and Rogelio Sales appealed
the decision of the trial court, while accused Vicente Rebulado chose to serve
his sentence.
From the records of this case, it appears that only
accused-appellant Rogelio Sales has been apprehended and detained at the
Provincial Jail of Camarines Sur, in Naga City. Appellant Primitivo Rebulado could no longer be found (Ibid, p.
51).
The Brief for Appellant Rogelio Sales, submitted by his counsel de oficio appointed by this Court, raised the following issues:
I
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ROGELIO SALES AS CO-CONSPIRATOR
OF VICENTE REBULADO.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING ACCUSED ROGELIO SALES TO
IMPRISONMENT, INDEMNITY AND COSTS.
The instant appeal is devoid of merit.
Conspiracy in the case at bar is established by the positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Raymundo Gallarte and Lorenzo Avila
pointing to acts done in concert by the accused to carry out an unlawful
design: that all three accused arrived
together at the store where the victim was seated together with the prosecution
witnesses. Soon thereafter, accused
Vicente Rebulado went behind Rodolfo Servillon and stabbed the latter. As Servillon was about to run away, he was
hit with a piece of wood on his left forearm and on the back by Primitivo
Rebulado and Rogelio Sales, respectively. Notwithstanding the assault on his person, Rodolfo Servillon was able to
run away pursued by his assailants who failed to catch up with him. Rodolfo Servillon was later brought to the
Provincial Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon
him. These facts taken together
establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellants acted in concert with a
common design. Hence, the act of one
conspirator is the act of all.
In People vs. Serante, 152 SCRA 520 [1987]), this Court held:
“For conspiracy to exist it is enough that at the time the
offense is committed, the participants had the same purposes and were united in
its execution as may be inferred from the attendant circumstances. This court has repeatedly ruled that conspiracy
may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a
joint purpose and design. (People v.
Catao, 107 Phil. 861 [1960]; People v. Estrada, 130 Phil. 108; 22 SCRA 111;
People v. Alcantara, L-26867, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 812).
Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one conspirator becomes
the act of all; and it is of no moment that not all the accused participated in
the actual commission of every act constituting the crime (People v. Paredes,
et al., 133 Phil. 633 [1968], 24 SCRA 635).”
The alibi of Rogelio Sales that he was working in the ricefield
of Felix Cuadro in barrio San Antonio, Nabua, Camarines Sur at the time of the
commission of the crime does not deserve slightest consideration. Barrio San Antonio is said to be about one
(1) or two (2) kilometers from San Ramon of the same municipality where the
crime took place. There is no physical impossibility for the
accused-appellant Sales to be at the scene of the crime. In any
event, the presence of accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado, as well as the
prosecution witnesses Edmundo Gallarte
and Lorenzo Avila at the scene of the crime, is confirmed by the statement (Exhibit
“D”) of accused Vicente Rebulado at the Nabua Police Department on
November 3, 1969 at 8:30 a.m., barely two
(2) hours after the incident, and subscribed and sworn to before Municipal
Judge Juan Ballecer which, among others, states:
“Q: Did you heed or follow the advice of your father to have this case settled
with him (Servillon)?
A: No, because I wanted to
take a revenge on him so I went
to look for Rodolfo Servillon.
Q: When you were going to
San Ramon, do you know who were with you?
A: Yes sir, they were my father Damian Rebulado, my brother,
Primitivo Rebulado and my brother-in-law Rogelio Sales (Exhibit
“D-4”).
x x x x
x x x x x
“Q: Were
you able to locate Rodolfo Servillon?
A: Yes sir, in the store of
Juana Gallarte Tretasco at San Ramon, Nabua, Camarines Sur.
Q: What was Rodolfo
Servillon doing at the said store?
A: He was just inside that
store together with Lorenzo Avila and Raymundo Gallarte.” (Exhibit
“D-9”, Record, p. 12).
It is a settled rule in this jurisdiction that alibi cannot
prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution’s witnesses of the
accused as the perpetrators of the crime especially when there is no physical
impossibility for the accused to be at the scene of the crime (People vs.
Pecato, 151 SCRA 14 [1987]; People vs. Dava, 149 SCRA 582 [1987]; People vs.
Inot, 150 SCRA 322 [1987]). In the face
of the clear and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding
the participation of the accused in the commission of the crime, the defense of
alibi assumes no probative value and is not credible (People vs. Serante, supra). Besides, there is no evidence to show that
the prosecution witnesses who personally know all the accused as they come
from the same place were actuated by any sinister motive to impute a crime so
grave as murder to accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo
Rebulado. As a matter of fact, accused
Vicente Rebulado, in his affidavit (Exh. D) admits that his co-accused
appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado were with him that fateful
morning of November 3, 1969 when the offense complained of occurred.
Finally, it must be stated that the findings of facts of the
trial court that has the privilege of observing the demeanor of witnesses while on the witness stand, and
therefore can discern if these witnesses are telling the truth or not, must not
be disturbed and should be given weight. There are no exceptions in the record that justify the acquittal of the
accused-appellants (Amarante Heirs vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 155 SCRA 46
[1987]).
In view of the foregoing considerations, the trial court did not
err in finding all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is Affirmed with the modification that
accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo Rebulado are hereby sentenced
to reclusion perpetua without qualification as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is not applicable, among others, to persons convicted of an
offense punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment and to those who
shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence (Sec. 2 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law); and accused-appellants Rogelio Sales and Primitivo
Rebulado are ordered to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the
deceased Rodolfo Servillon in the amount of P50,000.00. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., (Chairman), Feliciano, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.