THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HONORATO GENILLA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case is before us, upon certification by the Court of Appeals,
pursuant to Sections 17 and 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, and
Section 3, Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is an appeal by
Honorato Genilla from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Lanao del Norte convicting him and his co-defendant Leopoldo Arellano,
who has not appealed, of the crime of murder and sentencing each to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from 18 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal to 30 years of reclusion perpetua,
and to pay the proportional part of the costs, in addition to jointly
and severally indemnifying the heirs of Faustino Amate in the sum of
P6,000.00.

As Faustino Amate left his house, in the barrio of Butadon,
Municipality of Kapatagan, Province of Lanao, to answer a call of
nature nearby, on August 24, 1953, at about 9:30 p.m., his wife Cleofe
heard him shouting for help. Thereupon, she opened the door of the
house and saw Faustino running towards the house, pursued by two (2)
men, who attacked him with their bolos. When she, followed by Alfredo
Homok, who was staying in said house, approached Faustino, they found
him prostrate on the ground, with bolo wounds in several parts of the
body, in consequence of which he died that same evening. The only issue
in the lower court was the identify of Faustino’s assailants.

In this connection, Faustino’s widow testified that they were
Leopoldo Arellano and appellant Genilla, she having recognized them
while they were boloing Faustino. Her testimony was corroborated by
Alfredo Homok, who stated that, as he went down the house, upon hearing
Faustino’s screams for help, he (Alfredo) saw Arellano and Genilla
fleeing from the scene of the occurrence. Further corroboration was
furnished by the fact that Faustino told Cleofe and Alfredo that his
assailants were the aforementioned defendants.

The records moreover show that Genilla and one Necitas Agawin had
adverse claims over a parcel of land which was held by the latter’s
tenants, namely, the deceased Faustino Amate, and Angel Generalao and
Anatolio Generalao. Because of the conflict, Genilla and his
co-defendant Leopoldo Arellano had allegedly resorted to threats and
intimidation to dissuade Agawin from pressing his claim. As a
consequence, three (3) criminal cases were filed with the Justice of
the Peace Court of Kapatagan, namely: (a) Case No. 43, against Genilla,
for alleged threats to kill Anatolio Generalao; (b) Case No. 44,
against Genilla and two (2) others, for alleged threats to kill Angel
Generalao; and (c) Case No. 45, filed by the now deceased Faustino
Amate against appellant’s son, Inocentes Genilla, for malicious
mischief.

Apprehensive about appellant’s designs, for he was known to have a
shotgun, and suspecting that the local authorities were in favor of
appellant Genilla, in view of their passive attitude with respect to
said criminal cases, which were eventually dismissed, Necitas Agawin
urged the Constabulary to investigate Genilla and Leopoldo Arellano and
confiscate the former’s shotgun, pending settlement of the conflict
over the land aforementioned. Hence, on August 24, 1953, at about 2:30
p.m., Corporal Badenas and two (2) soldiers of the Constabulary,
together with Faustino Amate, went to Genilla’s house and served upon
him a subpoena requiring him to appear before Capt. Gonomit, P.C. the
next day. On that occasion Badenas, likewise, seized the shotgun found
in Genilla’s possession. Genilla then inquired from Badenas about the
name of the person who had reported him to the Constabulary. As Badenas
disclaimed knowledge of the identity of the complainant, appellant
said: “that fellow” – pointing to Faustino Amate – “I am sure was the
one who reported, because that fellow has a land conflict with me”.
Badenas, likewise, carried with him a subpoena addressed to Leopoldo
Arellano to whom it was not served, because, Badenas was told, he
(Arellano) was not in his house at that time.

That same evening, at about 9:30 o’clock, Amate was wounded in the
manner above indicated. A few hours later, or shortly after midnight,
Badenas was informed of Amate’s assassination. On August 25, 1953,
shortly after 8:00 a.m., Badenas arrested Genilla in his own house.
Immediately, thereafter, the former apprehended Arellano, who then
carried, inside a scabbard on his waist, a bolo which, upon
examination, turned out to be blood stained. Thus, the prosecution
established the identity of the culprits, as well as their motive.

Appellant denied having committed the crime charged and claimed to
be in his house, about four (4) kilometers away from the scene of the
occurrence, where the same took place. The defense introduced, also,
the testimony of Demetrio Villapania in corroboration of appellant’s
alibi. However, the lower court did not believe the witnesses for the
defense and found no cogent reason to doubt the veracity of those of
the prosecution. Indeed, the records before us fully justify the
conclusions reached by His Honor, the Trial Judge.

On June 6, 1963, while the records of this case were still in the
Court of Appeals, Genilla filed a motion for new trial based upon
allegedly new discovered evidence, said to consist of two (2)
affidavits of the widow of the deceased, dated September 6, 1960, and
May 15, 1963, respectively, retracting her testimony against said
appellant and exempting him from all responsibility for the crime
charged. Acting upon said motion, the Court of Appeals resolved, on
June 13, 1963, to consider it when this case is decided on the merits.
Said motion should be, as it is hereby denied.

There are several reasons why said alleged affidavits should be
considered with caution. To begin with, one purports to bear a
signature which is so poorly written as to manifestly reveal that its
author is hardly literate, whereas the other purports to have been
thumbmarked. If the affiant really signed the former, why did she not
affix her signature on the latter? Secondly, the first affidavit is
dated September 6, 1960, yet it was not filed until June 6, 1963, and
no attempt whatsoever has been made to explain the delay. Neither has
any effort been exerted to apprise the court as to why the second
affidavit had to be taken, if the first were a genuine one.

Again, appellant’s conviction is not based exclusively upon the
testimony of Mrs. Amate. The same, it whould be noted, was corroborated
by that of Alfredo Homok, by the ante-mortem declaration of Faustino
Amate, by the fact that said declaration was partly confirmed by
Leopoldo Arellano’s admission of his participation in the commission of
the crime charged, and by the circumstance that the authorities must
have been advised, immediately after the occurrence, that the
culprits were Arellano and Genilla, for both were apprehended early the
next morning. The foregoing circumstances particularly the last,
indicate, also, that, in implicating Genilla, Mrs. Amate must have
acted spontaneously – not upon instigation of Faustino’s sister and
against the will of Mrs. Amate, as intimated in her alleged affidavits
– for otherwise the authorities would not have forthwith arrested said
defendants.

No modifying circumstance – apart fromcne qualityxng circumstance of
treachery – having been present in the commission of the murder
charged, the penalty therefor should be meted out in its medium period,
or reclusion perpetua, because of which the lower court erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103.)

WHEREFORE, modified as to the penalty which should be reclusion perpetua, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with costs against appellant Honorato Genilla.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., on leave.