G.R. No. L-29752. October 28, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SILVERIO LOPEZ, CRISPULO ZAMORA, JUAN DAVIS, FORTUNATO DAVIS, AND BONIFACIO DAVIS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
finding the accused Silverio Lopez, Crispulo Zamora, Juan Davis, Bonifacio
Davis and Fortunato Davis guilty of the crime of Murder and sentencing each of
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, except the accused
Fortunato Davis who was convicted of murder and taking into account the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, was sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law; to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Rufino Datuin in the sum of P6,000.00; and to pay the costs of the
suit.
On November 3, 1965, a novena was said in the house of Roman
Villajuan, situated at Barrio Mabasa, Argao, Cebu, to celebrate the end of the
one-year period of mourning for his mother-in-law, Juana Albores. As local custom dictated, food and
refreshments were served to the guests after the prayers. Among those who attended were Rufino Datuin,[1]
Angkoy Davis, Gildo Datuin, Aguedo Davis, Atilano Davis, and Potenciana Mamolo,
the latter being the sister-in-law of Villajuan. Rufino Datuin arrived at the house of
Villajuan at about noontime and after eating, he suggested that they hold a
cockfight, to which some acceded.
At about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the accused Silverio
Lopez, Crispulo Zamora, Juan Davis, Fortunato Davis, and Bonifacio Davis, all
armed with various kinds[2]
of weapons, arrived at the makeshift cockpit.
After a “soltada” and while Rufino Datuin was cutting off the
leg of a vanquished gamecock as his prize for the use of one of his spurs or
gaffs, Fortunato Davis boxed Rufino Datuin from behind, hitting him on the nape,
and causing the latter to fall. Rufino
Datuin stood up to face his assailant, and then fled.[3]
The five accused gave chase and at the same time pelted Rufino Datuin with
stones. About 150 meters from the house
of Villajuan,[4]
the five accused overtook Rufino Datuin and Bonifacio Davis hacked him on the
right shoulder. When Datuin fell, the
five accused took turns in assaulting him until he died. Then the five accused left the scene.
The incident was reported to the authorities of Argao and the
next day, members of the municipal police force arrived to conduct an
investigation. After a picture of the
deceased was taken as he lay on the ground,[5]
the cadaver was brought to the poblacion of Argao, Cebu, where Dr. Carlos L.
Fortuna, the medical health officer, conducted an autopsy. His Report[6]
showed that the deceased sustained eleven (11) wounds, described as follows:
“(1) Wound, clean-cut, scalp, forehead, almost
horizontally placed, 5″ long 1 3/4″ deep with fracture of the frontal
bone, with the lateral end at the fronto-temporal region 2 inches posterior and
above the lateral end of the right eyebrow.
The medial end at the middle portion of the left eyebrow. The right frontal lobe of the brain is cut.
“(2) Wound,
clean-cut, scalp, temporo-frontal region, left, horizontally placed, with
fracture of the temporal bone. It is 4
1/2″ long and 1 1/2″ deep with the anterior end at the lateral end of
the left eyebrow, while the posterior end 1 1/4″ posterior to the left
external auditory meatus.
“(3) Wound, clean-cut, scalp, parietal region with
fracture of the parietal bone, left 2″ long parallel to 1/4″ to the
left of the midline.
“(4) Wound, clean-cut, face, almost horizontally
placed, with fracture of the nazal bones arid right and left maxilla, 5″
long 1 1/2″ deep, exposing both maxillary sinuses.
“(5) Wound, lacerated, chain, left side 1″
long 1″ deep, with fracture of mandible left just below the central
incisors up to the left 2nd premolar teeth.
“(6) Wound, clean-cut forearm, left, middle and distal
thirds 3 3/8″ long 1/2″ deep, medial aspect, hitting the ulnar bone.
“(7) Wound, stab,
abdomen, left upper quadrant 15/16″ wide 5 1/4″ deep directed
medially and upwards. Structures
involved: Abdominal muscles, skin and
subcutaneous tissue, peritoneum, small intestine and stomach.
“(8) Wound, clean-cut, 2 1/2″ long 1″
deep, shoulder, right posterior and cutting the neck of right scapular bone.
“(9) Wound,
clean-cut, knee right, anterior, 3″ long 1 1/2″ deep the distal end
of the femur.
“(10) Wound, clean-cut, 2 1/8″ long 1
5/6″ deep, leg, right middle third, lateral, 5″ below the knee joint.
“(11) Contusion-abrasion, shoulder, posterior
aspect 1″ x 2″.
Cause of death: Fracture of
the bones of the skull.”
Silverio Lopez,[7]
Crispulo Zamora, Juan Davis, Fortunato Davis, and Bonifacio Davis were
consequently charged with the crime of Murder before the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 3rd day of November, 1965, in the
municipality of Argao, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one
another, with deliberate intent to kill, evident premeditation and treachery,
taking advantage of superior strength and the age of their victim who was 60
years of age did, then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously attack,
assault and stab with a sharp-pointed weapon, one Rufino Datuin, thereby
inflicting upon him 10 fatal wounds in the different parts of the body which
caused his death shortly thereafter.”
Upon arraignment, Silverio Lopez, Crispulo Zamora, Juan Davis,
and Bonifacio Davis pleaded not guilty, while Fortunato Davis entered a
conditional plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide.[8]
After trial, judgment was rendered finding the accused guilty of
murder and sentenced accordingly. Hence,
the present appeal.
In seeking a reversal of the judgment, the accused?appellants
claim that the crime committed is homicide, for which the appellant Fortunato
Davis alone is responsible and assail the trial court for believing the
witnesses for the prosecution whose testimonies are inherently improbable and
incredible. The appellants more
particularly impugn the testimony of Alberto Udioran, Roman Villajuan, and
Potenciana Mamolo and point to some contradictory and inconsistent statements
made by them.
The appeal is without merit.
The contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants are
not of such a magnitude and character as to lead one to believe that these
witnesses were coached or tutored.
Besides, no motive has been imputed to these witnesses for them to
falsify the truth against the appellants.
Alberto Udioran even declared that his wife is a close relative of the
accused Davises.[9]
The claim that Fortunato Davis alone is responsible for the death
of Rufino Datuin and that his co-accused did not participate in the commission
of the crime is not consistent with the truth and the physical facts of the
case.
According to him, he went to the house of Roman Villajuan at
about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of November 3, 1965, to attend the party
following the novena. Upon arrival
thereat, he saw a cockfight going on.
Since he was tired and hot after a long walk, he did not mingle with the
crowd, but sat down to rest and cool off.
A few moments later, Rufino Datuin approached and upbraided him,
saying: “Stand up there or else I
will break your head. Why is it that you
have been gathering the fruits of the coconut trees there?”[10]
He tried to use reason, saying that he was the one who planted the coconut
trees. But, the deceased insisted that
the coconut trees were his. When Rufino
Datuin unsheathed a knife and tried to kick him, Fortunato Davis jumped to
evade the kick, at the same time picking up a rock which he threw at Rufino
Datuin who scampered away. Incensed, he
ran after Rufino Datuin. At a distance
of about 40 meters, Rufino Datuin stopped and faced him, saying: “All right, come, and let us have a
showdown.” He continued throwing stones at Rufino Datuin, who, upon being
hit, fell to a squatting position on the ground. Then, he went to Rufino Datuin and hacked him
with a bayonet until Rufino died.[11]
It is unlikely, however, for a frail sexagenarian like Rufino
Datuin to have confronted the very much younger Fortunato Davis on that day to
settle their land dispute by means of force or intimidation considering that Rufino
Datuin had already brought the matter to the attention of the municipal
judge. Besides, if Rufino Datuin was the
aggressor, it would be unnatural for him to run away the moment Fortunato Davis
took up his challenge.
Moreover, the witnesses for the prosecution categorically
declared that all five appellants actively participated in the killing of
Rufino Datuin. The eyewitnesses are one
in stating that when the deceased ran away being hit on the nape by Fortunato
Davis, the appellants threw stones at Rufino Datuin causing him to fall. Then Bonifacio Davis went to the victim and
hacked him on the right shoulder and head.
When the victim turned to face his assailant, he was hit by Juan Davis
on the forehead. Therafter, Silverio Lopez
hit Rufino Datuin on the face with a rock after Fortunato Davis had slashed the
victim several times with a knife.
Crispulo Zamora also stabbed the on the abdomen with a bayonet.[12]
Furthermore, the defense of alibi interposed by the other
appellants do not satisfy the rule that in order to establish an alibi an
accused must show that he was at another place for such a period of time that
it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was
committed at the time of its commission.[13]
Thus, Juan Davis declared that he was on his way to the house of
Roman Villajuan in the afternoon of November 3, 1965, when he met one Gil
Datuin on the way, about 2 kilometers from the house of Roman Villajuan, who
informed him that Fortunato Davis had killed Rufino Datuin. He went back because he was afraid. He further stated that he was implicated in
this case because Susana Datuin, daughter of the deceased, resented his having
advised Crispulo Zamora to report to the police authorities the illegal
possession of a firearm by Joaquin Datuin, son of the deceased Rufino Datuin.[14]
The accused Bonifacio Davis stated that he was working on their
farm from morning to sunset of November 3, 1965, after which he went home to
rest. Their house is about 5 kilometers
from the house of Roman Villajuan and was included in this case for being the
younger brother of Fortunato Davis.[15]
The accused Crispulo Zamora testified that he was in his
brother’s house in sitio Osmad, 6 kilometers away from the house of Roman
Villajuan, the whole day of November 3, 1965.
He was included in this case because he had a previous quarrel with
Joaquin Datuin who shot him in the leg.
He admitted that he had been convicted for stealing the chickens of
Rufino Datuin.[16]
The accused Silverio Lopez declared that he was sawing lumber the
whole day of November 3, 1965 in barrio Apo, about six kilometers from barrio
Mabasa. He also denied participation in
the killing of Rufino Datuin and claims that he was implicated by Susana and
Joaquin Datuin because he refused their previous offer to kill Crispulo Zamora
for P200.00.[17]
As could be seen, the places where the appellants are claimed to
be during the commission of the crime are all located in Argao, Cebu, and
within the periphery of barrio Mabasa where the crime was committed, and the
place was accessible so that it was not impossible for the accused to have been
at the scene of the crime when it was committed.
The reasons advanced by the accused as to why they were charged
in this case although innocent are flimsy and deserve no credit. Thus, Silverio Lopez stated that he was
implicated in this case because he had refused the offer of Susana and Joaquin
Datuin of P200.00 for him to kill Crispulo Zamora. But, the record does not show what could have
persuaded Susana and Joaquin Datuin to seek Lopez’ services in the killing of
Crispulo Zamora. Besides, the claim
appears to be a last-minute concoction as Silverio Lopez never told the police
authorities or his co-accused of such an offer, although Silverio Lopez was
frequently seen in the company of his co-accused, including Crispulo Zamora,
before the commission of the offense charged.[18]
The accused Crispulo Zamora had every reason to bear a grudge
against Rufino Datuin. Rufino Datuin had
previously charged him with being a chicken-thief and for which he was
convicted. He also had a quarrel with
Joaquin Datuin, son of Rufino Datuin, who shot him in the leg.[19]
In that quarrel, Crispulo Zamora appeared to be the most aggrieved so that it
cannot be true that he was implicated in this case because of that quarrel.
The statement of Juan Davis that he was included in this case for
having advised Crispulo Zamora to report to the police authorities the illegal
possession of a firearm by Joaquin Datuin could not have motivated Susana
Datuin to falsely include him for it is not of record that Susana Datuin
previously knew that he had so advised Crispulo Zamora.
The claim of Bonifacio Davis that he was implicated in this case
just because he is the younger brother of Fortunato Davis is not worthy of
belief.
It results that the trial court did not err in accepting the
version of the prosecution as credible and in concluding that the guilt of the
appellants have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery. There is treachery because the attack on the
victim was sudden and unexpected and from behind. The deceased, therefore, did not have the
slightest opportunity to defend himself.
The lower court, therefore, correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. With respect to
Fortunato Davis, having been convicted of murder and taking into account the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the proper penalty to impose
upon him is an indeterminate penalty ranging from 17 years of reclusion temporal,
as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the
deceased should be raised to P12,000.00.
WHEREFORE, and with the modification above indicated, the
judgment appealed from should be, and is hereby, affirmed in all other
respects. Costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Aquino, and Santos, JJ., concur.
[1]
also known as Ceferino Datuin (see Exhs. D, D-1, also pp. 71, 73, tsn,
Maureal).
[2]
Fortunato Davis was armed with a hunting knife; Silverio Lopez, a homemade gun;
Juan Davis, a bolo locally known as “plamenco”; Bonifacio Davis, a
hunting knife; and Crispulo Zamora, a bayonet. (p. 24, tsn, Maureal).
[3]
p. 89, tsn, Garcia.
[4]
See Exhibit 1.
[5]
Exhibit C.
[6]
Exhibit A.
[7]
Silvestre Lopez was originally named as one of the accused. At the trial, however, it was shown that his
real name was Silverio Lopez.
Accordingly, the information was amended to conform with the
evidence. (See pp. 97-98, Orig. Rec.;
also p. 70 tsn, Maureal).
[8]
p. 26, Original Record.
[9]
p. 6, tsn, Garcia.
[10]
Rufino Datuin and Fortunato Davis had a boundary dikpute. Sometime on February 10, 1965, while Rufino
was away, Fortunato and his brother Bonifacio Davis climbed the coconut trees on
the disputed parcel of land and harvested some coconuts. Rufino Datuin
reported the incident to the municipal authorities (Exh. G) and as a
consequence, the said accused were summoned to appear. (p. 77, tsn, Maureal).
[11]
pp. 145-147, tsn, Maureal.
[12]
pp. 2-4, 47-50, tsn, Garcia; pp. 25?26, tsn, Maureal.
[13]
People vs. Resayaga, L-23234, Dec. 26, 1973, 54 SCRA 350; People vs.
Saliling, L-29974, Feb. 27, 1976, 69 SCRA 427; People vs. Abrogar,
L-24310, Oct. 19, 1976.
[14]
pp. 184, 185, 189, tsn, Garcia.
[15] pp.
192, 193, 195, tsn, Garcia.
[16]
pp. 127, 128, 131, tsn, Maureal.
[17]
pp. 207, 210, tsn, Garcia.
[18]
p. 75, tsn, Maureal.
[19]
p. 131, tsn, Maureal.