THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROTILLO JAMERO, MAX JAMERO AND BONIFACIO JAMERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Appeal interposed by Rotillo Jamero, Max Jamero, and Bonifacio Jamero from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Surigao
del Norte finding them guilty of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery,
without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and sentencing each one of
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
with the accessory penalties prescribed by law; and ordering them to indemnify,
jointly and severally, the heirs of the late Gerardo Orquina
in the amount of P12,000.00, as well as to pay their proportionate share in
three fourth (3/4) of the costs.

The inculpatory facts show that at
about 12:30 o’clock in the afternoon of July 14, 1968, while the deceased
Gerardo Orquina, his brother Pompio
Orquina, Claudio Mendez, Armingol
Ugay, Arturo Ugay, and
several others were drinking in the house of Asterio Eludo at barrio Campo, Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, Simeon Jamero
arrived and belligerently demanded from those present whether “Bayo” and “Pato“,
the sons of “Kijaw“,^[1]
were present, at the same time unsheating a bolo tied
to his waist.^[2]
The deceased Gerardo Orquina stood up and mollified
Simeon Jamero, saying that his brothers were not
there and that only he and Pompio were present and
that they had nothing to do with the “incident”^[3] concerning
“Bayo” and “Pato“.  Arturo Ugay, a
municipal policeman of Bacuag, also stood up and
pacified Simeon Jamero, who then put away his bolo
and joined the group in drinking.  Not
long thereafter, a commotion took place at the “tabo-an”^[4]
nearby and the group broke up.^[5]

Gerardo Orquina went ahead of his
brother Pompio who stayed behind.  As Gerardo Orquina
was on his way to their jeep parked near the market place, Max Jamero, a son of Simeon, approached him and asked for a
cigarette.  When Gerardo Orquina replied that he had none, Max Jamero
pushed and kicked him in the buttocks.^[6]
Gerardo Orquina did not retaliate as Max Jamero was armed with a piece of wood.  Instead, he ran around the jeep to elude Max Jamero, who was trying to beat him with the piece of
wood.  But, when he saw Bonifacio Jamero, a brother of
Max Jamero, drawing a bolo and coming towards him,
Gerardo Orquina ran towards a hill, pursued by Max Jamero, who now and then tried to hit him with the piece of
wood, and by Bonifacio Jamero,
who was brandishing a bolo.  Then Rotillo Jamero, also armed with a
bolo, came from another direction and joined his brothers in the pursuit of
Gerardo Orquina.^[7]
Upon being overtaken, Gerardo Orquina was assaulted
by Rotillo, Max, and Bonifacio
Jamero.  After
Gerardo Orquina had fallen, he knelt before his
assailants, raised his hands, and pleaded for his life saying, “You just
stab me but don’t kill me because I have many children.”^[8]
But, his plea went unheeded because Rotillo Jamero raised his bolo and stabbed Gerardo Orquina in the left chest. 
After delivering the deathblow, Rotillo Jamero went towards the highway, followed by his brothers
Max and Bonifacio. 
Rotillo was met by policeman Arturo Ugay who demanded the surrender of the bolo.  Rotillo refused,
saying that there were still two others in town.^[9]
Max and Bonifacio Jamero
were also intercepted by their father, Simeon, who disarmed them.^[10] Rotillo Jamero was eventually
persuaded to yield his bolo to Arturo Ugay, who then
brought him to the municipal hall of Bacuag.

In the course of the attack, Pompio Orquina, upon learning that his brother Gerardo was being
assaulted by the appellants, tried to go out of the house of Asterio Eludo in order to help
Gerardo.  But, when he saw Simeon Jamero standing ominously outside the doorway with a drawn
bolo in hand, he went up the house of Asterio Eludo and remained thereat until he was fetched therefrom by the town chief of police.^[11]

A post mortem examination of the cadaver of Gerardo Orquina^[12]
revealed that he sustained the following lesions:

“1.  Abrasions, forehead, right.

 2.   Incised
wound, about 12 cms. long, 5 cms.
gaping, bone-deep, middle third, lateral, right arm.

 3.   Incised
wound, about 8 cms. long, 4 cms.
gaping, bone-deep, lower third, anterior, left arm.

 4.   Incised
wound, about 4 cms. long, superficial, anterior,
upper third, left arm.

 5.   Stab
wound, about 5 cms. long, chest, left side, slightly
lateral and above the nipple of the left breast, penetrating into the thoracic
cavity.  The trajectory of the wound is
medially and posteriorly.

6.    Incised wound, about 7 cms.
long, superficial, chest, right side, above nipple of the right breast.

7.    Abrasions, multiple, linear, chest, right
side, below nipple of right breast.

8.    Incised wound, about 9 cms.
long, 4 cms. gaping, bone-deep, lower third, lateral,
right leg.

9.    Abrasions, dorsum, both hands.

10.    Abrasions, posterior, middle third, right
forearm.”

As a consequence, Rotillo Jamero, Max Jamero, Bonifacio Jamero, and Simeon Jamero were charged with the killing of Gerardo Orquina before the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte. 
After trial, Rotillo Jamero,
Max Jamero and Bonifacio Jamero were found guilty as charged and sentenced
accordingly, while Simeon Jamero was acquitted.  Hence, the present appeal.

Appellants claim that Rotillo Jamero alone is accountable for the death of Gerardo Orquina and that Max and Bonifacio
Jamero did not participate in the commission of the
offense.

Bonifacio Jamero’s
defense is an alibi.  Thus, he testified
that on the day in question, July 14, 1968, he was in Surigao,
driving the jeep of Mayor Odchimar of Bacuag which was on loan to the Jaycees who had a
convention at Surigao, having been there since July
12, 1968, until about 12:30 o’clock in the afternoon of July 14, 1968, when he
left for home after eating his lunch at the public market of Surigao.  He arrived
at Bacuag at about 2:00
o’clock that same afternoon. 
After returning the jeep to Mayor Odchimar, he
left for barrio Campo, arriving thereat at about 2:30
o’clock.  Upon getting off at
a street intersection, he was informed that his brother, Rotillo
Jamero, had met an “incident”.^[13]
When he reached their house, he informed his father of what he heard and his
father replied:  “Yes, I do not know what
happened”.^[14]

Although this claim is corroborated by Mayor Odchimar
who testified that his jeep was driven by Bonifacio Jamero while it was on loan to the Jaycees since July 12,
1968, it cannot be conclusively said that the appellant Bonifacio
Jamero was not at barrio Campo when the crime was com­mitted
because the offense in question was perpetrated at about 1:00 o’clock in the
afternoon and the jeep could have been returned to Mayor Odchimar
at 2:00 o’clock, after the crime was committed. 
Besides, this claim cannot stand in the face of the positive
identification made by Cresencio Ugay
and Felicitas Orquina, as
well as the testimony of Max Jamero that he saw his
brother Bonifacio in their house in the morning of
that day.^[15]

Max Jamero, for his part, declared that
he was also in the same “tabo-an” of barrio
Campo on that day of July 14, 1968, selling dried octopus and smoked fish, from
6:30 o’clock in the morning until 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, when a
commotion took place in said “tabo-an”.  Upon seeing the people scampering, he
hurriedly gathered his wares and went home across the river.  After putting his merchandise in a safe place,
he went back to the ” tabo-an” in order to
find out what caused the commotion.  Upon
returning, he was informed that his brother, Rotillo Jamero, was involved in an “incident”.  Not long thereafter, he saw Rotillo accompanied by a policeman, Arturo Ugay, who was carrying a bolo.  Upon seeing them, he went back home.  He also denied having participated in the
killing of Gerardo Orquina.^[16]

This claim, however, is negated by the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses that he struck the deceased with a piece of wood and by
the post mortem report showing that abrasions were found on the head, chest,
hands, and forearm of the deceased Gerardo Orquina.^[17]

Rotillo Jamero,
upon the other hand, claims that he killed Gerardo Orquina
in self-defense.  His version of the
incident is that while he was at the said market place of barrio Campo on that
fateful day, talking with his friends, Panfilo Bentulan and Servano Roy alias
“Nonoy“, the deceased Gerardo Orquina approached them and punched his stomach when he
refused the offer of Gerardo to have a drink with him, resulting in a fist
fight between him and Gerardo Orquina.  After exchanging several blows, Gerardo Orquina ran towards a jeep parked near the market
place.  Upon coming to the jeep, Gerardo Orquina reached for a bolo placed underneath the steering
wheel of the vehicle.  He also tried to
take hold of the bolo and was successful, while Gerardo Orquina
was left in possession of the scabbard. 
Finding himself at a disadvantage, Gerardo Orquina
ran away.  Accused ran after Gerardo Orquina.  After a
while, Gerardo stopped and waited for him. 
When he came to Gerardo Orquina, he slashed
and stabbed the latter with the bolo, after which he left.^[18]

In the plea of self-defense, the burden of proof is on the
accused pleading it.  Failing to do so, a
conviction must necessarily lie.  The
very testimony of Rotillo Jamero
establishes that he was committing unlawful aggression against the victim at
the time the fatal blows were delivered. 
Hence, self-defense cannot prosper.

Appellants impugn the testimony of Cresencio
Ugay and Felicitas Orquina as unworthy of credence, the former because of his
previous convictions and brushes with the law, and the latter for being a
coached and tutored witness.

This Court has repeatedly ruled that the matter of assigning
values to the testimony of witnesses is best performed by the trial courts
because, unlike appellate courts, they can weigh such testimony in the light of
the demeanor, conduct, and attitude of the witnesses at the trial.  The fact that Cresencio
Ugay had been previously convicted of minor offenses
and that he had several brushes with the law does not disqualify him from
testifying; nor does it render his testimony devoid of belief in the absence of
any motive to testify falsely against appellants.  As to the testimony of Felicitas
Orquina, it is not punctured with any serious
inconsistencies as to lead one to believe that she was coached or tutored.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from, being in accordance
with the law and the evidence, is hereby affirmed in toto.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino, and Martin,
JJ., concur.

Antonio, J., did not take part.

^[1]
“Bayo” and “Pato”
are the nicknames of Gervacio and Fortunato
Orquina, respect­ively.

^[2]
p. 49, tsn, Vol. I

^[3] Gervacio and Fortunato Orquina killed Rodrigo Jamero, a
brother of Simeon Jamero, in 1965 and were
consequently imprisoned.  They were
released a few days before July 14,
1968 (pp. 292-294, tsn, Vol. II) and were
in Bacuag on that day to attend the wake of their
father.  (pp. 442-446, tsn, Vol. IV)

^[4]
market place

^[5]
p. 57, tsn, Vol. I

^[6]
p. 320, tsn, Vol. II

^[7]
p. 215, tsn, Vol. II

^[8]
p. 322, tsn, Vol. II; p. 251, tsn,
Vol. III

^[9]
p. 219, tsn, Vol. II

^[10]
p. 222, tsn, Vol. II

^[11]
pp. 297-299, tsn, Vol. II

^[12]
Exhibit “B”

^[13]
pp. 166-169, tsn, Vol. III

^[14]
p. 178, tsn, Vol. III

^[15]
pp. 232-233, tsn, Vol. III

^[16]
pp. 194-200, tsn, Vol. III

^[17]
Wounds Nos. 1, 7, 9, and 10 in Exh. “B”

^[18]
pp. 245-251, tsn, Vol. III