G.R. No. L-37203. October 23, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLITO SADIWA, ROMEO PAYLAGO AND BENJAMIN ALAB, DEFENDANTS, CARLITO SADIWA, APPELLANT.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
Automatic review of a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Oriental Mindoro in Criminal Case
No. DJC-138, imposing the death penalty on CARLITO
SADIWA for the crime of murder.
Carlito Sadiwa
and other persons were accused of murder in an information
which reads as follows:
“That on or about the 7th day of September 1970 at Sitio Pansulan, Barrio Inclanay, Municipality of Pinamalayan,
Province of Oriental Mindoro and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused CARLITO SADIWA
and BENJAMIN ALAB, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
with evident premeditation, treachery and motivated by pecuniary consideration
of reward money and while armed with carbine Caliber .30 then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with a decided
purpose to kill, waylaid, ambushed and shot therewith one Atty. Salvador Venturanza employing means, manner and form in the
execution thereof which tended directly and specially to insure its commission
without danger to the person of said accused, inflicting upon said Atty.
Salvador Venturanza, several mortal wounds in different
parts of the body which caused his instantaneous death; while accused Romeo Paylago, though not a principal by direct participation but
conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding the other co-accused Carlito Sadiwa and Benjamin Alab to kill and liquidate said Atty. Venturanza
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and motivated by personal hate and revenge due to land dispute and
other court litigations, induce, instruct and instigate by means of reward
money, or pecuniary consideration to murder said Atty. Salvador Venturanza as they did in fact murder him in an isolated
place pursuant to, and in accordance with the instruction and instigation of
said Romeo Paylago, a principal by inducement.
“That in the commission of the crime the qualifying
circumstance of teachery and the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, uninhabited place and that the crime
was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise are
attendant.”
On June 1,
1973, the court
promulgated its decision consisting of 74 pages with the following judgment:
“WHEREFORE, accused Carlito Sadiwa is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder as defined and penalized in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, qualified by treachery and with the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and the crime having been committed in an uninhabited place, and
there being no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, he is therefore
sentenced to suffer the capital punishment of DEATH and to pay the heirs of the
deceased Atty. Salvador Venturanza the amount of P12,000.00 as indemnity.
He is also condemned to pay the said heirs the amount of P20,000.00 in the form of moral damages and P10,000.00 for
exemplary damages and is likewise ordered to pay the costs.
“For insufficiency of evidence and on grounds of reasonable doubt,
accused Romeo Paylago and Benjamin Alab are hereby acquitted and they are ordered immediately
released, with costs de oficio.”
The People’s version of
the facts is as follows:
“Sometime in July 1970, appellant Carlito
Sadiwa, a farmer by occupation, and a resident of sitio Balatican, barrio Inclanay, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, visited his friend Leon Holgado
at the latter’s residence in poblacion Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, to
inform him that he knew of a suitable land for sale in Mindoro
for his (Holgado’s) uncle, Anastacio
Castillo of Tanauan, Batangas,
who was looking for a property to buy in that province (tsn.,
pp. 3-4, 7-9, Jan. 19, 1972).
After viewing the property, Castillo found it rather small for his
purpose but liking the land adjoining it requested Sadiwa
to inquire if it was for sale (tsn., pp. 11-12, id; pp. 208-209, Jan. 18, 1972).
Upon being informed that the adjoining land was for sale, Sadiwa, on September
4, 1970, went to see the owner, Visitacion
Cahilig at her house in barrio Bambang,
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Upon being told by the owner that the land
was already committed to Atty. Salvador Venturanza, Sadiwa left. (tsn., pp.
13-14, Jan. 19, 1972; pp. 6-7, July 7,
1971).
“Early in the morning
of September 7, 1970, a Monday, Sadiwa returned to the
house of Visitacion Cahilig,
and asked if the sale to Atty. Venturanza was already
consummated. Answering him in the
affirmative, Visitacion told Sadiwa
that she was taking her buyer to view the property. Sadiwa then asked
her when, and Visitacion replied that she was
visiting the land together with Atty. Venturanza
between the hours of 3:00 o’clock and
4:00 o’clock that afternoon. (tsn., p. 7, July 7,
1971).
“At about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of September 7, 1970,
Atty. Venturanza, along with his young son Eric,
Geronimo Larga and Bernardo Ola,
met Visitacion Cahilig and
the latter’s niece, Nenita Cahilig,
at the crossing of Pambisan in front of the school
house and together they proceeded by jeep to sitio Pansalan, Inclanay, where the
land was located. Upon reaching Inclanay,
the group alighted from the jeep and hiked the rest of way to the land. The path was hilly and portions thereof were
covered with cogon grasses and talahib bushes (tsn., pp.
8-9, July 7, 1971;
pp. 48-49, July 28, 1971).
Walking ahead of the group was Visitacion Cahilig, followed by Nenita Cahilig, Atty. Venturanza, the
latter’s son, Bernardo Ola and Geronimo Larga, in that order.
Suddenly, a shot rang out hitting Atty. Venturanza who fell in a sitting position,
uttering: ‘Dios
Ko, saklolohan ninyo ako, ako’y
may tama.’ (tsn., pp. 9-10, July 7, 1971).
Turning towards the direction where the shot came from, Nenita Cahilig and Bernardo Ola saw appellant standing some 12 meters away holding a
long gun. (tsn., pp. 55-57, July 6,
1971; pp. 7-8, July 28, 1971). Bernardo
Ola also saw a certain Pabling
Chavez hiding behind a coconut tree also holding a gun. (Tsn.,
pp. 7-8, July 28, 1971). Whereupon, Ola crawled towards Atty. Venturanza and, placing the arms of the latter around his
shoulders, started to pull him. After covering a distance of fifteen meters,
three more shots were fired in rapid succession and they both laid down. As Venturanza was lying prosÂtrate on the ground, Ola noticed that the former’s
eyes, ears and mouth were bleeding.
Leaving Atty. Venturanza, Ola
picked up the victim’s son, and together they crawled away. In the meantime, Visitacion
Cahilig, Nenita Cahilig and Geronimo Largo ran away. With Venturanza’s
son, Ola hiked to Inclanay
where they boarded a jeep to the poblacion and
reported the matter to Atty. Romeo Venturanza,
brother of the victim. Together with
some PC soldiers, they returned to the scene of the crime and found Atty.
Salvador Venturanza already dead. (tsn., pp. 7-11, July 28, 1971).
“An autopsy examination conducted by Dr. Aristeo
Baldos, Municipal Health Officer of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, on
the cadaver of Atty. Venturanza revealed that the
latter sustained three gunshot wounds, all of them fatal, and that the cause of
death was severe internal and external hemorrhages due to multiple wounds
(Autopsy Report, Exh. A, p. 95, rec.; tsn., pp.
6-13, July 6, 1971). (Brief, pp. 2-5.)
Carlito Sadiwa assails the
decision against him. He submits that
the trial court committed the following errors:
“I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER
SINCE THE EVIÂDENCE ON RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
“II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE PRESENCE OF THE
AGGRAVATING CIRÂCUMSTANCES OF (1) EVIDENT PREMEDITATION AND (2) IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE.”
He prays that:
“1. The judgment of the trial court under review be
reversed in toto, and appellant Carlito
Sadiwa acquitted of the crime charged.
“2. Alternatively, in the event that this Honorable Court sustains
the finding of the trial court that the crime was committed with the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, that no aggravating circumstance be appreciated as
there is no evidence to prove the same and that the appellant be sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only.”
The first assignment of error, which involves an appreciation of
the evidence, is not impressed with merit.
The appellant claims that
he was at his house when the crime was committed but he does not press his
alibi vigorously in his brief. His
principal defense is that the evidence against him is weak because, it is said, it does not show beyond doubt that he committed the
crime charged.
Carlito Sadiwa executed
three statements wherein he admitted participation in the shooting of Salvador Venturanza. Exhibit
C was sworn before Assistant Provincial Fiscal Gaudencio
Sadicon on September 10, 1970; and Exhibits D and E were sworn before MuniÂcipal
Judge Efren D. Villanueva on September
15, 1970.
It is true that the trial
court expressed skepticism in respect of the confessions introduced by the
prosecution in the following words:
“While the court does not subscribe in full to the theory of
the defense of Alab and Sadiwa
that they did not voluntarily give their sworn statements, alleging that they
were subjected to inhuman punishment by the investigating officers of the
Philippine Constabulary, the fact that from the time of appreÂhension up to the
time that they subscribed to their affidavits of admission, they were in the
custody of the said officials who extracted from them their confession. That alone has engendered in the mind of the
court some serious doubt as to the truth and correctness of said admission,
taking into account that the subscribing officer in the case of the admission
of Sadiwa, Fiscal Gaudencio
Sadicon, was right in the barracks itself and accused
Sadiwa was helpless, being a detainee thereat, if he
would refuse to sign his written confession.
The same is true as in the case of accused Alab. The Court is aware that the defense of threat
and intimidation in the execution of voluntary confessions is a modus operandi
of defense lawyers, but in the instant case, there is no gainsaying the fact
that the accused are unlettered, not even a registered voter at that and
therefore should be given the benefit of the doubt, with respect only to their
admission taken by PC soldiers. ” (Decision, pp.
68-69.)
It should be noted, however, that apart from Exhibits C, D and E
there is testimonial evidence pointing to the appellant as one of the
perpetrators of the crime.
Nenita Monteras
Cahilig, 34 years old, married and a resident of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro,
was one such witness. Her tesÂtimony as
summarized by the trial court is as follows:
“She knew the deceased Atty. Salvador Venturanza,
who was a practicing lawyer in Pinamalayan; aside
from that, the deceased was purchasing a land from her auntie, Visitacion Cahilig and it was in
the house of the said deceased at the poblacion where
she went with her auntie to talk about the sale of the land, that was on
September 6, 1970 which was a Sunday. It
was agreed upon that Atty. Salvador Venturanza would
visit the land located at Pansulan, Pinamalayan, this province, between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon of the following
day, September 7, 1970. She declared further that in the morning of September 7, 1970, she recalls that a
person named Carlito Sadiwa,
called on her auntie at Bambang, Pinamalayan,
inquiring if the land was really for sale and her auntie answered in the
affirmative. Accussed
Sadiwa asked who was the prospective buyer and her
auntie answered that it was Atty. Dading Venturanza; having informed Carlito
Sadiwa that Atty. Venturanza
would visit and buy the land, accused Sadiwa asked
her aunt the specific hour Atty. Venturanza would
visit the land and he was told that it was that same day at 3 o’clock in the
afternoon. Sadiwa,
according to her, told her auntie further that should Atty. Venturanza
fail to buy the land, he was willing to buy the same and left word that he
could be contacted at his place in Dimasacat, located
along the road at barrio Inclanay, Pinamalayan.
Continuing her direct examination, she stated that Atty. Salvador Venturanza arrived in their place around 4 o’clock in the
afternoon, accompanied by a certain Ola, Visitacion Cahilig, a certain
Geronimo and a child of Atty. Venturanza and
proceeded to the land which was offered for sale; on the way she heard a shot
and upon hearing the same, she turned her attention to the direction of Atty. Venturanza who was at the rear while Visitacion
Cahilig was ahead of her, and noticed that the victim
sat down and cried for succor, uttering, ‘Dios ko, saklolohan ninyo ako ako’y
may tama’; thereafter she looked towards the direction where the shot came from
and saw Carlito Sadiwa at a
distance of around 12 meters, holding a long gun and in a standing
position. She further stated that the Carlito Sadiwa she saw that
afternoon holding a gun was the same Carlito Sadiwa she saw in the house of her auntie at Bambang in the morning of the same day; having seen Carlito Sadiwa, she lied down and
immediately thereafter she heard another shot, after which she ran. When Atty. Venturanza
cried for help, Bernardo Ola went to his succor and
when the second shot was fired, she ran and proceeded to her house.
“She admitted that a PC officer investigated her in connection
with the murder of Atty. Venturanza at the PC
barracks, in fact she executed a sworn statement, Exh. “H” and identified the same as her very affidavit. She added that while at the PC barracks, she
saw Carlito Sadiwa arrive
with the PC soldiers and she identified said accused to the PC soldiers
present, telling them that he was the fellow who fired the shot. She stated further that in the place where
Atty. Venturanza was shot, there were no houses
within the area.
“On cross examination, she said that on September 4, 1970, Carlito
Sadiwa went for the first time to her place at Bambang and on September
7, 1970, he returned to inquire from her auntie about the land the
latter was offering for sale. The land
according to her was mountainous, cogonal and with
portions still covered with second growth forest, but the upper part was
level. She said that the interval
between the first and second shot was quite short, and after hearing the first
shot, she said she looked back and saw Atty. Venturanza,
thereafter she noticed Carlito Sadiwa
standing, wearing a hat, with a long firearm, her distance to him being around
12 meters.
“On re-direct examination, she stated that when Carlito Sadiwa arrived in company
with the PC soldiers at the barracks on September
9, 1970, he was still wearing moustache and sporting long
hair. She admitted likewise to the court
that during the conference had in the house of her auntie on the morning of September 7, 1970, she was face to
face with Carlito Sadiwa at
close range.” (Decision, pp. 8-10.)
With respect to the shooting, her transcribed testimony reads:
“[FISCAL ENRIQUEZ]:
Q While you were proceeding
towards the land which Atty. Venturanza was intending
to visit because he was intending to purchase the same, do you know or do you
remember of any unusual incident that took place?
A I
remember, sir.
Q Please tell the Court?
A I
remember that there was a shot, sir.
Q When you heard a shot, what did you
do?
A I
turned towards the direction of Atty. Venturanza,
sir.
Q Why,
where was Atty. Venturanza then in connection with
your relative positions?
A He
was at my rear, sir.
Q Who
was ahead of you?
A Visitacion Cahilig, sir.
Q Who was following Atty. Venturanza?
A Bernardo Ola,
sir.
Q And
who was following Bernardo Ola?
A Geronimo Largo, sir.
Q Now,
you stated that when you heard a shot, your first reaction was to turn around
and you looked at Atty. Venturanza. When you looked at Atty. Venturanza,
what did you see?
A I
saw Atty. Venturanza sit down, sir.
Q Why
did you turn your back to Atty. Venturanza?
A Because immediately after the shot,
Atty. Venturanza cried for succor, sir.
Q More
or less, what were the particular words he uttered calling for assistance?
A He
uttered, ‘Diyos ko, saklolohan ninyo ako at ako’y may
tama’, sir.
Q At
that particular moment, what else happened?
A I
look towards the direction where the shot came from and I saw Carlito Sadiwa, sir.
Q When
you saw Carlito Sadiwa, how
many meters, more or less, was the distance between you and Carlito
Sadiwa?
A 12
meters more or less, sir.
Q When
you saw Carlito Sadiwa,
what were you able to observe from him?
A He
was holding a gun, sir.
Q And
what was his relative position?
A He
was standing, sir.
COURT:
Q What
kind of gun was he holding at that time?
A I
saw that he was holding a long firearm, Your Honor.
Proceed.
FISCAL ENRIQUEZ:
Q You
stated that you saw Carlito Sadiwa
holding a gun in a standing position near a coconut tree. Tell the Honorable Court what is the relation of Carlito Sadiwa, the accused in this case, to Carlito Sadiwa whom you saw on
that particular moment holding a gun and the Carlito Sadiwa whom you were able to talk together with your auntie
in connection with the purchase of the land?
A The Carlito
Sadiwa I met in the morning is the same Carlito Sadiwa I saw in the
afternoon, sir.
Q When
you saw Carlito Sadiwa,
what happened next, if any?
A I
laid down, sir.
Q While
you were lying down, what else happened, if any?
A There
was another shot and after that second shot, I ran, sir.
Q You
stated that after the first shot, you saw Atty. Venturanza
sit down calling for succor or assistance.
Do you know if anything or anybody rendered asistance?
A I
saw someone, sir.
Q Who?
A Bernardo Ola,
sir.
COURT:
Q When
you said Bernardo Ola, are you referring to Mamang Ola which you previously
stated?
A Yes,
Your Honor.
Proceed.
FISCAL ENRIQUEZ:
Q You
stated that after the firing of the second shot, you ran away. Where did you go?
A I
proceeded to my house, sir.
Q Were
you able to arrive at your house?
A Yes, sir.
Q The
following day, that is September 8, 1970, where did you go?
A I
went here in the Poblacion of Pinamalayan,
sir.
Q And
what did you learn in the Poblacion?
A I learned that Atty. Venturanza
is already dead, sir.” (TSN, July 6, 1971, pp. 55-58.)
The other witness was Bernardo Ola, 53
years old, married and also a resident of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro.
His testimony on the shooting as summarized by the trial court is as
follows:
“He knew the deceased Atty. Salvador Venturanza,
being his lawyer in all his cases, stating likewise that he knows all the
accused, Romeo Paylago, Carlito
Sadiwa and Benjamin Alab,
all of whom were correctly pointed to by him in court. He said that on September 6, 1970, at around
4 o’clock in the afternoon, he was in the house of Atty. Venturanza
with two women who were landowners talking about a certain parcel of land
offered for sale and an agreement was reached to visit the land the following
day, so that at 4 o’clock in the afterÂnoon as agreed upon, they proceeded to
visit the land, together with Geronimo Largo, Atty. Venturanza
and the latter’s small child, and at the crossing of Pambisan,
they met Visitacion and Nenita
Cahilig and together, they proceeded to sitio Pansulan, Inclanay, where the land is located, but on the way, he
heard a shot and when he looked over his shoulder, he saw Pabling
Chavez hiding behind a coconut tree and accused Sadiwa
who was by the right of Pabling Chavez, both of them
holding guns which looked like carbine, his distance to the two being more or
less 10 meters only, while the distance between Pabling
Chavez and Sadiwa was 3 meters. After the first shot, he heard Atty. Venturanza say: ‘Compadre, may tama ako, saklolohan ako at si Eric’, for which reason he crawled towards where Atty. Venturanza was and as to the position of Atty. Venturanza when the latter cried for help, he said that the
victim was in a semi-squatting position with the left hand pressed to his
breast, and having placed the arms of Atty. Venturanza
around his shoulders, he pulled him, covering approximately a distance of
fifteen meters when he heard another shot and as far as he could remember,
there were three successive shots, after which he and Atty. Venturanza
lied down, and when the latter was lying prostrate on the ground, he noticed
that he was wounded, his eyes were bleeding as well as his ears and mouth. Thereafter, he picked up the child, left
Atty. Venturanza and crawled away with the boy while Nenita Cahilig, Visitacion Cahilig and Geronimo
Largo ran away. He stated further that
when he saw Carlito Sadiwa
holding a firearm, which was a carbine, he observed him to be with long hair
and had a beard. Having picked up the
son of Atty. Venturanza, he went to Inclanay where he called for a jeep to bring him to the poblacion to report the matter to Atty. Romeo Venturanza, brother of the deceased and upon arrival, they
then proceeded to the Philippine Constabulary headÂquarters, and with PC
soldiers, they went to the scene of the incident where they found Atty.
Salvador Venturanza already dead, for which reason,
the PC soldiers requested someone to get a hammock.
x x
x x
x x x x x
“On cross examination, he reiterated having proceeded to the
house of Atty. Romeo Venturanza to report the
incident and admitted that that same night and up to the following day
thereafter, he sought sanctuary in the PC
barracks because he was afraid and where in the course of his stay, PC officers
were interrogating him about the incident that transpired on September 7, 1970,
but during the first night and the following few days, although he was being
interrogated, he could not give any statement because his mind was
confused, by reason of which he was unable to reveal what really happened in
the afternoon of September 7, 1970. He
stayed, according to him for more than a month at the barracks shortly after
the incident, and although he did not reveal the facts of the case to the PC
investigators, although he told everything to Fiscal Enriquez who required him
to execute an affidavit, he did not do so and just told the Fiscal that he
would give the narration in court. He
denied being present when the PC authorities were interÂrogating Carlito Sadiwa and Benjamin Alab, but during his entire stay at the PC barracks, he had
occasion to converse with Benjamin Alab and Carlito Sadiwa about the incident
and the reason why he did not give any information to the PC authorities was
that accused Romeo Paylago had a son-in-law who is a
member of the PC outfit in Pinamalayan and now
because he is telling the truth before the court, he is no longer afraid.
“He made it clear that the incident happened when they were already
atop the hill, meaning on the level part thereof, with the shots coming from
his right, stating further that he saw Carlito Sadiwa wearing a balangot hat, a
little bit covering his forehead, he had a very long hair and recognized Sadiwa as he had known him from the beginning as a resident
of the barrio of Inclanay. Testifying further, he stated that there were
many coconut trees within the vicinity of the incident, and there were likewise
bushes, cogon and talahib grasses, but a little bit
farther from the scene of the incident, there is a forested area and asked
about the interval of the first shot to the three successive shots, that
subsequently were fired, he could not tell, but he could state with certainty
that after covering a distance of 15 meters, more or less, the 3 successive
shots were fired. (Decision,
pp. 12-17.)
The particular testimony
of Bernardo Ola on the shooting reads:
“[FISCAL ENRIQUEZ]:
Q While
you were proceeding on your way to visit the land which Atty. Venturanza was intending to purchase, what happened?
A I
heard a shot, sir.
Q When
you heard a shot, what did you do?
A I
looked over my shoulder and I saw Pabling Chavez
hiding behind a coconut tree, sir.
Q What
else did you see?
A I
likewise saw Carlito Sadiwa,
sir.
Q Where
was Carlito Sadiwa then?
A He
was towards the right direction of Pabling Chavez,
sir.
Q Is
this Carlito Sadiwa the
same Carlito Sadiwa you
pointed to a while ago inside the courtroom?
A That man, sir. (Witness pointing to the
accused Sadiwa).
Q When
you saw Pabling Chavez and Carlito
Sadiwa in the place you mentioned, what were you able
to observe from them?
A Holding a gun, sir.
Q Both of them?
A Both, sir.
Q Could
you tell more or less, the type or the kind of gun they were holding at the
time?
A It
looked like a carbine, sir.
Q Could
you tell us more or less, your distance from the accused Carlito
Sadiwa and Pabling Chavez
when you heard a shot and you saw them?
A 10
meters more or less, only, sir.
Q How
about Carlito Sadiwa which
you stated was on the right side of Pabling Chavez,
could you tell us more or less, the distance between Carlito
Sadiwa and Pabling Chavez?
A 3
meters more or less, sir.
Q After
that first shot and after you saw Pabling Chavez and
the accused Carlito Sadiwa
holding that gun, what else transpired?
A I
heard Atty. Venturanza utter this wise: ‘Compadre, may tama ako, saklolohan
ako at si Eric.’
Q When
you heard that cry for help of Atty. Venturanza, what
did you do?
A I
crawled towards where Atty. Venturanza was and after
reaching him I placed his hands around my shoulders, sir.
Q When
Atty. Venturanza cried for help, what was his
relative position then?
A He
was in this position, sir. (Witness indicating the position by semi-squatting position with
his right hand resting on the ground while the left hand was pressed to his
breast.)
Q After
you placed the arms of Atty. Venturanza around your
shoulders, what else happened?
A I
pulled him and after covering approximately a distance of 15 meters, I heard
another shot coming from their direction.
Q How
many shots did you hear?
A 3 successive shots, sir.
Q After
those 3 successive shots and while the arms of Atty. Venturanza
were on your shoulders, what happened to him?
A I
lay down and Atty. Venturanza also lay down while I
brushed aside the son of Atty. Venturanza.
Q When
you and Atty. Venturanza were both lying prostrate on
the ground, what were you able to observe from Atty. Venturanza?
A When
the firing ceased, I tried to pull away Atty. Venturanza
and when I noticed that he was wounded on his eyes and that his eyes were
bleeding, including his ears and mouth, I picked up the child, left Atty. Venturanza and crawled away with the boy.
Q How
about your companions, Nenita Cahilig,
Visitacion Cahilig and
Geronimo Largo, do you know where they were at the time?
A They
run away, sir.
Q You
said that you saw Carlito Sadiwa
holding a firearm, which in your opinion was a carbine, aside from that, what
else were you able to observe from the person of Carlito
Sadiwa?
A His hair was long and his beard was
also long, sir.
Q After
picking up the son of Atty. Venturanza, where did you
go?
A I
ran towards barrio Inclanay, sir.
Q And
after reaching Inclanay, where did you go?
A I
called for a jeep and requested someone to bring me here to the poblacion to report that Atty. Venturanza
was shot and reported the matter to Atty. Romeo Venturanza
to the effect that Atty. Salvador Venturanza was
shot.
Q After
reporting the matter to Atty. Romeo Venturanza, what
did the latter advise you, if he did advise you?
A He advised me to proceed directly to
the PC and to hurry.” (TSN, July 28, 1971, pp. 7-10.)
It should be explained that Pabling
Chavez who was AL (at large) was
one of the defendants named in the caption of the information. He was not included in the body of the
information apparently because he was AL.
The testimony of Carlito Sadiwa as summarized in his brief is as follows:
“On or before September 7, 1970, he was residing in the land
owned by Felipe Venturanza in Balatican,
Inclanay, Pinamalayan; that
he knows Leon Holgado who was the overseer of the
land of Felipe Venturanza, uncle of the deceased
Atty. Salvador Venturanza; and that he had a
transaction with Leon Holgado who together with his
uncle, Anastacio Castillo, saw appellant at his
(appellant’s) place and appellant was asked to look for a rolling land for sale
suited for calamansi.
Appellant informed them of the land
of Jimmy Reyes he was then overseering which was for sale. Appellant then inquired from Jimmy Reyes the
price for the land and the latter told him that he would be willing to sell his
land for P13,000.00.
Appellant relayed this information to Leon Holgado. Thereafter, appellant and Leon Holgado went to Tanauan, Batangas to inform Anastacio
Castillo that Jimmy Reyes was agreeable to sell his land for P13,000.00. (t.s.n., pp. 4-11, Hearing of January 19, 1972)
“At Tanauan, Batangas,
Castillo told appellant that if there was another rolling land adjoining the land
of Jimmy Reyes, Castillo would buy
the same. Appellant looked for another
land and having received information that the land of Visitacion
Cahilig was for sale, he personally went to see her
on September 4, 1970 at Bambang, Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro.
When appellant met Visitacion Cahilig, the latter told him that her niece had already
offered the land to someone else so appellant just went home. But in the morning of September 7, 1970, appellant went back to see Visitacion Cahilig to inquire
from her if she had already conferred with her niece. Appellant again saw Visitacion
Cahilig on September
7, 1970 because the latter told him to return on that partiÂcular
day to talk on finalizing the transaction.
Visitacion Cahilig
also told him that she and her niece had no underÂstanding yet as to whom Cahilig’s niece offered to sell the land. With that information, appellant asked Visitacion Cahilig to see him in
his residence if the sale is not conÂsummated with the prospective buyer. Appellant then proceeded home and plowed
his field near his house up to 3:30 P.M.
(t.s.n. , pp. 11-19, Hearing
of January 19, 1972)
“At around 6:00 or 6:30 in the evening of September 7, 1970, appellant went to his brother in
Inclanay who was then a barrio captain. Upon reaching his brother’s place, appellant
met a group of persons from whom he learned that Atty. Venturanza
was shot on top of a hill. Appellant’s
brother advised him to go home because there were P.C. soldiers in the mountain
and his family might be afraid of them.
(t.s.n., pp. 19-20, Hearing of January 19, 1972)
“The following day, September 8, appellant testified that he
was in his place near his house plowing until afternoon and on September 9, 1970, he was also plowing
near his house. In the afternoon of September 9, 1970, appellant’s brother
summoned appellant to go to his brother’s place as P.C. soldiers would like to
ask appellant some questions. At 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, appellant
proceeded to his brother’s place but was unable to reach his brother’s house
because on the way, appellant met Sgt. Guinto of the
P.C. and a police companion, Cpl. Regencia, riding on
a jeep. Sgt. Guinto
asked appellant to board the jeep and appellant was brought to the P.C. camp in
Pinamalayan. Appellant
described how he was severely maltreated and threatened to be killed by the
P.C. soldiers which led him to submit unwilling
statements and to involuntarily execute affidavits of admission. (t.s.n., pp. 21-56,
Hearing of January 19, 1972)
“Asked by the trial court whether he knows how to read and
write, appellant answered ‘no,’ and explained that he only knows how to write
his name. Appellant admitted having
finished Grade IV but he did not learn how to read. The last time appellant voted was in 1950
when he only copied from a sample ballot and after that he did not vote
anymore. (t.s.n.,
pp. 58-59, Hearing of January 19, 1972)
“Appellant stated that he heard Nenita
Cahilig when she testified and unequivocally declared
that her testimony was false. Likewise,
appellant denied the truth of the testimonies of Visitacion
Cahilig and Bernardo Ola.
“Appellant stated also that he knows Bernardo Ola and the deceased, Atty. Salvador Venturanza,
because the latter in fact appeared in a case, as counsel for his
brother-in-law. Appellant further
testified that there was no enmity existing between him and Atty. Venturanza. On the
contrary, appellant was indebted to Atty. Venturanza
because were it not for him, appellant’s brother-in-law would now be in jail. Appellant admitted that he knows Visitacion Cahilig and Nenita Cahilig but he denied that
he knew Geronimo Largo. Appellant admitÂted
having acted as agent in a transaction involving the land
of Jimmy Reyes with a certain Leon Holgado who testified in his favor. Appellant denied that in his two visits with Visitacion Cahilig at her house,
appellant was told that Atty. Salvador Venturanza was
going to visit Cahilig’s land on September 7, 1970 at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. (t.s.n., pp. 92Â-110,
Hearing of January 19, 1972)
“Testifying further, appellant declared that he was surprised
when the P.C. soldiers arrested him. He
reiterated that when he was in the P.C. barracks, he was maltreated by
Sgt. Guinto and company. (t.s.n.,
pp. 120-132, Hearing of January 19, 1972).”
(Appellant’s brief, pp. 15-17.)
The foregoing shows that the defense of the appellant is
alibi. But such alibi, which is a weak
but often invoked defense, has been destroyed by the testimony of Nenita Cahilig and Bernardo Ola who
positively idenÂtified him as present and holding a long firearm at the scene
when Atty. Venturanza was fatally shot several
times. Cahilig
and Ola had no reason to testify falsely against the
appellant. Hence, their credibiÂlity
cannot be seriously questioned.
The question of motive has been satisfactorily answered in the
People’s brief as follows:
“As for the possible motive for the killing, the evidence
discloses that appellant was bent on getting Visitacion
Cahilig to sell her property to his buyer, thereby,
making for himself some money from the transaction. But upon learning that the owner had already
committed the land to Atty. Venturanza, appellant
must have thought that the only way to stop the sale to Atty. Venturanza was to liquidate him. Of course, this may not be cause
enough for most individuals to kill another but persons have been known to
commit crimes for lesser reasons than this.
Besides, the question of motive is only important in cases where there
is doubt as to whether the accused is or is not the person who committed the
act (U.S. vs. M’Mann, 4 Phil. 561, 563; People vs. Divina Gracia, G.R. No. L-11060, March 13, 1959). But where the witnesses for the prosecution,
though they did not actually see the shooting, heard the firing of shots and
immeÂdiately thereafter saw appellant standing nearby with a carbine in hand,
proof of motive is not indisÂpensable.” (Pp. 12-13.)
The killing of Atty. Venturanza was
qualified by treachery because the attack was sudden and gave him no chance to
defend himself.
The trial court held that the murder was aggravated by evident
premeditation and despoblado.
Both the appellant and the appellee
agree that there was neither premeditation nor despoblado
and they are right. There is no eviÂdence
that the killing of Atty. Venturanza was the result
of meditation, calculation, reflection or persistent attempt. And there is likewise no evidence that the
site of the killing was purposely selected so that succor would not be available. In fact, the victim was with several persons
when he was shot.
The appropriate penalty for murder absent mitigating and aggravating
circumstances is reclusion perpetua.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in
all respects with the sole modification that the appellant shall suffer reclusion
perpetua only.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera,
Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez,
Jr., JJ., concur.