G.R. No. L-15256-57. October 31, 1963
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PASCUAL CURIANO, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
BARRERA, J.:
Marcelo Tafalla, Santos Tafalla, Herminigildo Tafalla, Olimpio Tafalla,
and Pamfilo Balasbas, were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Samar with the crimes of murder (Crim. Case No. 4535), for the killing of Rafael Yboa and multiple murder (Crim Case No. 4565)[2] for
the killing of Daniel Errabo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo. On
arraignment, they pleaded not guilty and, upon motion of the Provincial
Fiscal consented to by defense counsel, the cases were jointly tried in
said court. After trial, defendants were found guilty of the crimes of
murder and multiple murder as charged and, considering the presence of
four (4) aggravating circumstances in the murder case and five (5)
aggravating circumstances in the triple murder case, without any
mitigating circumstance in either of the two cases, were sentenced each
to the maximum penalty of death, with the accessory penalties inherent
in said crimes, and to pay indemnity (jointly and severally) in the sum
of P5,000.00 to the heirs of Rafael Ybao, P5,000.00 to the heirs of
Daniel Errabo, P5,000.00 to the heirs of Engracia Salazar, and
P5,000.00 to the heirs of Mario Errabo, and to pay the corresponding
costs.
Both cases are now before us for review, in accordance with Section 9, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court.
Pending appeal in this Court, counsel for appellants submitted a
motion for new trial, based on newly-discovered evidence, consisting of
the affidavits of (1) appellant Herminigildo Tafalla, to the
effect that only he and three others who are still at large, namely,
Sebastian Loyo, Rodolfo Catalan, and Jose Catalan, were the real
authors of the murders [Annexes A and A-1]; Remedios Rojas,
Herminigildo’s common-law wife, corroborating to a substantial degree
said affidavit of appellant Herminigildo Tafalla [Annexes B and B-1];
(3) Andres Caber, to the effect that said Rodolfo Catalan told him and
several others that only he [Rodolfo], his brother Jose Catalan,
Sebastian Loyo, and appellant Herminigildo Tafalla committed the
murders [Annexes C and C-1]; (4) Cornelia Chan, wife of accused
Francisco Tafalla, to the same effect substantially as the affidavit of
Andres Caber [Annexes D and D-1]; (5) Floro Opiniano, relating how his
cousins Jose and Rodolfo Catalan came to him in Ormoc City looking for
jobs, and how seeing them restless, asked Rodolfo what the matter was,
and tie latter confided that he and Herminigildo Tafalla participated
in the killing of Rafael Yboa [Annex E]; and (6) appellant Santos
Tafalla, to the effect that it was not true, as he was wrongfully
advised to state in court, that he saw that Olimpio, Lucilo and
Herminigildo Tafalla sailing in a banca towards the scene of the crime
[Annexes F and F-1]. Action on said motion for new trial was deferred
by resolution of this Court on July 13, 1959.
These affidavits, we now find, are without merit. Appellant
Herminigildo Tafalla’s affidavit is, evidently, a last-minute attempt
to save the lives of his co-appellants, most important of whom are his
brothers Francisco, Olimpio, and Lucilo Tafalla, who with him have been
sentenced to death for the commission of the gruesome crimes at bar.
Likewise, since the crimes could not have been committed by only one
person as observed by the trial court, it has been deemed expedient to
implicate the Catalan brothers (Jose and Rodolfo) who, anyway, could
not be apprehended since their whereabouts are unknown: Appellant
Herminigildo Tafalla, also, had to implicate Sebastian Loyo, who
according to witness Sgt. Primitivo Gonzales, has been, of so much help
in the solution of the cases. It is to be noted that the conviction of
the other appellants had not been based on appellant Herminigildo
Tafalla’s testimony, since the latter had all along relied on an alibi.
It is, therefore, now too late for him to present for the first time a
different theory of the said cases. Besides, the story of these
affiants cannot be considered as newly-discovered evidence because it
appears from the affidavits that as early as June, 1957, or only over a
month after the incident, the admission of the Catalans was already
known to the wives of two of the accused, but nothing has been done to
present the evidence to the court until long after the conviction of
the appellants. In fact the motion for new trial was only filed here in
this Court.
Evidence which merely seeks to impeach the evidence upon which the conviction was based (U.S. vs. Smith, 8 Phil., 674; US. vs. Valdez, 30 Phil., 290; U.S. vs. Lee, 39 Phil., 466; U.S. vs. Singuimoto, 3 Phil., 176), or retractions of witnesses (People vs. Olfindo, 47 Phil., 1; US. vs. Dacir, 26 Phil., 503; People vs.
Follantes, 64 Phil., 527), will not constitute grounds for new trial,
unless it is shown that there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of
conviction except the testimony of the retracting witness (U.S. vs. Dacir, supra; People vs. Gallemos, 61 Phil., 884; People vs.
Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil., 906). The reason for this rule is that if new
trial should be granted at every instance where an interested party
succeeds in inducing some of the witnesses to vary their testimony
outside of court after trial, there would be no end to every litigation
(Reyes vs. People, 71 Phil., 598). It has been held that an
affidavit, which a person convicted of a crime (as in the instant case)
executed subsequent to his conviction, to the effect that another
person, also convicted of criminal participation in the same offense,
did not actually take part therein, furnishes no ground for a new trial
(U.S. vs. Smith, 8 Phil., 674). And, it is unnecessary to grant
a new trial when there is no assurance that the witness to be
introduced could not have been presented at the original hearing; and
his testimony will not materially improve defendant’s position (People vs. Torres, 73 Phil., 107). In People vs. Parol (G. R. Nos. L-9423 & L-9424, prom. May 30, 1958), we declared:
“* * * resort to the use o£ affidavits of
recantation * * * is becoming rather common. Appellate courts must
therefore be wary of accepting such affidavits at their face value,
always bearing in mind that the testimony which they purport to vary or
contradict was taken in an open and free trial in the court of justice
and under conditions calculated to discourage and forestall falsehood,
those conditions being as pointed out in the case of U.S. vs.
Dacir (26 Phil., 507) that such testimony is given under the sanction
of an oath and the penalties prescribed for perjury; that the witness’
story is told in the presence of an impartial judge in tho course of
solemn trial in an open court; that the witness is subject to
cross-examination, with all the facilities afforded thereby to test the
truth and accuracy of his statements and to develop his attitude of
mind towards the parties, and his disposition to assist the cause of
truth rather than to further some personal end; that the proceedings
are had under the protection of the court and under such conditions as
to remove, so far is humanly possible, all likelihood that undue or
unfair influences, will be exercised to induce the witness to testify
falsely; and finally that under the watchful eye of a trained judge his
manner, his general bearing and demeanor and even the intonation of his
voice often unconsciously disclose the degree of credit to which he is
entitled as a witness. Unless there be special circumstances which
coupled with the retraction of the witness really raise a doubt as to
the truth of the testimony given by him at the trial and accepted by
the trial judge, and only if such testimony is essential to the
judgment of conviction so much so that its elimination would lead the
trial judge to a new trial based on such retraction would not be
justified. Otherwise. there would never be an end to a criminal
litigation and the administration of justice would be at the mercy of
criminals and the unscrupulous. * * *”
In People vs. Ubiña (G. R. No. L-6969, prom. August 31,
1955), we said that “it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject
testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the
witnesses who had given them later on change their mind for one reason
or another, for such a rule would make solemn a mockery and place the
investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses”. We have
consistently refused to entertain motions for new trial based on the
affidavits of retraction by witnesses, due to the inherent
improbability of the alleged new versions of the commission of the
crime, and the easiness and facility with which such affidavits are
obtained (People vs. Monadi, 97 Phil., 575; People vs. Aguipo, G. R. Nos. L-12123-24, prom. July 31, 1958; People vs. Ulita, 108 Phil., 730), and the probability of their being repudiated later (People vs.
Galamiton, G. R. No. L-6302, prom. August 25, 1954). It is likewise not
improbable that such schemes are conceived and carried out for a
consideration, usually monetary (People vs. Francisco, 94 Phil., 975). There is, therefore, no reason for acceding to appellants’ motion for new trial.
Coming now to the merits of the cases, according to the evidence
for the prosecution, and as found by the trial court, in the early
morning of April 30, 1957, Rafael Yboa (of Barrio Mercedes, Catbalogan,
Samar) and his wife Juanita Yboa went to Sitio Cagutsan, Barrio
Mahacob, Tarangnan, Samar, where they have a big parcel of land. At
said sitio, the only dwelling place was the little shabby hut, where
their tenant Daniel Errabo lived with his wife Engracia Salazar and
their two-year old son Mario Errabo. Rafael Yboa and Juanita Yboa
arrived at the hut at around 10:00 o’clock in the morning. Said hut,
which was partly walled by roughly woven coconut leaves, measured 10
feet on the frontage, by about 6 feet wide, with a floor made of coarse
bamboo splits 15 inches above the ground. It had a very low roof made
of nipa. It was erected near the still standing posts of a destroyed
house of Rafael Yboa (Exh. NN). It was only 85 feet away from the
shoreline (Exh. MM).
Rafael Yboa and his wife went to Sitio Cagutsan that day to verify
the information given by Daniel Errabo that appellant herein Pascual
Curiano had been cutting some trees for posts from Rafael Yboa’s land
in Sitio Talabon not far from Sitio Cagutsan, which property was the
subject of a pending litigation between Rafael Yboa and appellant
Pascual Curiano. Rafael Yboa, his wife, and Daniel Errabo proceeded to
the land at Sitio Talabon, where they found some trees already cut. But
only the stumps were there; the trunks were already carried away.
Having been told by Daniel Errabo that appellant Herminigildo Tafalla
also cut some trees, they hastened to said appellant’s house at Sitio
Sogod, a place very near and odjoining Sitio Cagutsan. They found on
the yard of appellant Herminigildo Tafalla’s house some split wood
intended for firewood. Rafael Yboa confronted said appellant, who
angrily retorted saying “These splits of wood are not from your land
but from our land.”
From the house of appellant Herminigildo Tafalla at Sitio Sogod, the
trio proceeded to Barrio Mahacob, one kilometer away, to report to the
barrio lieutenant about the cutting of the trees. Rafael Yboa requested
the latter to admonish appellant Pascual Curiano to stop cutting the
trees in the land while the litigation was pending. The time was about
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Leaving Barrio Mahacob at dusk, the trio
proceeded to Sitio Cagutsan.
Sitio Cagutsan is a short and narrow tongue of land extending
northward to the sea. From the shore on the West where the hut was
located to the opposite shore on the East, is a trail 138 regular paces
long (Exh MM). The nearest dwelling place to that hut is another hut in
the adjoining sitio, with a distance of more than 100 meters, which is
covered by tall trees and thick shrubs growing wild. The way from the
one place to the other is along the seashore. Said way is reached by
the water during high tide.
At around 8:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day (April 30,
1957) while Rafael Yboa, Juanita Yboa, Daniel Errabo, and Engracia
Salazar were taking their supper inside the hut, appellants Francisco
Tafalla, Pamfilo Balasbas, and Candido Violante, stealthily approached
the hut, snatched the basket which was by the door, and ran away with
it. Daniel Errrabo ran after them, but was unable to overtake them. The
basket contained some rice, and tobacco and the eyeglasses of Rafael
Yboa.
At around 11:00 o’clock that night, the inmates of the hut stopped
conversing, put out the lights, and prepared to retire. Rafael Yboa was
seated on the floor with his back against the north wall of the hut
(point 6 on Exh. G). Juanita Yboa was also in that position on his
left, while Daniel Errabo and Engracia Salazar were leaning against the
other wall. Only the little boy Mario Errabo was lying on the floor.
Suddenly, Juanita Yboa observed light-beams from flashlight, and heard
repressed voices from the nearby beach. After calling the attention of
her husband, she and Engracia peeped through the holes or slits in the
walls and observed the approaching group of people, eight in number. As
they came nearer they were flashing their flashlights and from these
light beams as well as the glow of the many lights from the several
fishing boats along the beach, Juanita recognized the appellants who
were all residents in the place, headed by accused Curiano who was
bearing a firearm. As they got at a short distance from the hut,
Curiano fired his gun, hitting Rafael Yboa who was then in a kneeling
position reaching for matches in the pockets of his trousers perched on
the wall. Appellants Candido Violante, Santos Tafalla, and Pamfilo
Balasbas, stood behind appellant Pascual Curiano. Rafael Yboa fell to
the floor. Juanita Yboa jumped out of the hut, ran a short distance,
and hid. Daniel Errabo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo, also jumped
out of the hut, but appellant caught up with them. From her hiding
place, Juanita Yboa heard Daniel Errabo and Engracia Salazar crying
aloud thus: “Aroy, Paping (referring to appellant Pascual Curiano),
please do not kill us because we have not committed any fault”, and saw
appellant Pascual Curiano standing by with the butt of his rifle (Exh.
3) resting on the ground, while the Iatter’s companions, including
appellants Olimpio Tafalla and Herminigildo Tafalla (who earlier were
left at the seashore, but by now had joined their companions), hacked
and stabbed to death with their boloes Daniel Errabo, Engracia Salazar,
and their two-year old son Mario Errabo behind the hut, near the
tamarind tree. Juanita Yboa then heard appellant Pascual Curiano
directing his companions to look for and kill her, whereupon,
appellants Santos Tafalla, Olimpio Tafalla, and Francisco Tafalla
searched the vicinity with their flashlights, but failed to locate her.
Moments later, Juanita Yboa saw appellants dragging the bodies of the
victims to the beach. Juanita Yboa thereafter crawled from her hiding
place until she reached the opposite shore, following the shoreline
northward and, upon reaching the point, crossed to the islet called
Moropuro (Exh. MM) and there hid about the cemetry until dawn. From
that point of Sitio Cagutsan to the islet Moropuro is about 200 meters.
The water was shallow. From Moropuro, she retraced her steps to Sitio
Cagutsan from where she hiked to Barrio Mahayag, went to the house of
her son Severino Yboa, and informed him of the tragic incident. Juanita
and Severino Yboa hurried to Catbalogan and immediately reported the
gory incident she had witnessed to the Philippine Constabulary
authorities.
A Constabulary patrol was dispatched to Sitio Cagutsan that same day
(May 1, 1957) to investigate. Arriving at the scene of the crime, they
made the sketch (Exh. G), found the slug (Exh. I at point 7), the empty
shell (Exh. 1-I at point 8), blood stains, and the traces on the ground
to the seashore, left by the bodies of the victims (Rafael Yboa, Daniel
Errabo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo) as they were dragged by
appellants to the beach (Exh. G).
Three days after the killing, “or on May 3, 1957, at around 12:00
o’clock noon, the bodies of the victims were found floating on the sea,
about 200 brazas from Cagutsan beach. Rafael Yboa’s neck was tied to a rope the other end of which was weighted with stones. About 100 brazas
from Rafael Yboa’s body, were the bodies of Daniel Errabo, his wife
Engracia Salazar, and their two-year old son Mario Errabo, joined
together by a piece of rope tied around their stomachs and necks, while
the other end was tied to four big stones. It appears that after the
victims were killed and their bodies dragged to the beach, they were
loaded on a banca, tied to heavy stones to constitute as sinkers, and
cast into the sea away from the beach for the purpose of concealment.
But the sinkers could not hold the bodies at the bottom of the sea
after the process of putrefaction had started. For the formation of gas
brought about by the decay of the bodies, caused them to swell, making
them more buoyant. Hence, their coming to the surface and their
recovery.
On May 3 and 4, 1957, a post-mortem examination of the cadavers was
performed by Dr. Tomas 0. Ricalde, municipal health officer of
Catbalogan, Samar. He made the corresponding reports of his findings,
drew the sketches showing the location of the wounds sustained by each
of the victims, and issued their respective death certificates. His
findings are as follows:
(1) Rafael Yboa: 72 years old, in advanced state of decomposition, with the following wounds:
- Wound, gunshot, left midclavicular region, about ½ an inch below the left nipple.
- Wounds, gunshot, 7 in number located close to each other at the region of the right breast and epigastric region.
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, epigastric region.
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, right iliac region.
- Wound, gunshot (point of exit), right scapular region.
- Wound, gunshot (point of exit), left lumbar region.
Cause of death: Shock due to severe hemorrhage, secondary to the abovementioned wounds. (Exh. A.)
(2) Daniel Errabo: 30 years old, in advanced state of decomposition, with the following wounds:
- Wounds, 16 in number, stabbed scattered at the posterior portion of the body.
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, left supraclavicular region.
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, one inch to the right of the nipple.
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, right hypochondriac region.
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, right iliac region.
- Wound, stabbed, left wrist, dorsal surface.
- Wound, stabbed, right wrist, ventral surface.
Cause of death: Shock due to severe hemorrhage due to above wounds. (Exh. B)
(3) Engracia Salazar: 25 years old, in advanced state of decomposition, with the following wounds:
- Wound, stabbed, penetrating, left lumbar region.
- Wounds, stabbed, penetrating, 6 in number, located at he right iliac and lumbar regions.
Cause of death: Shock due to severe hemorrhage due to above wounds. (Exh. C)
(4) Mario Errabo: 2 years old, in advanced state of decomposition, with the following wounds:
- Wound, stabbed, left upper arm cutting the humerus and almost severing the left arm.
- Wound, stabbed, right hypochondriac region, penetrating the liver.
Cause of death: Shock secondary to severe hemorrhage due to above-mentioned wounds. (Exh. D)
Appellants Pascual Curiano, Herminigildo Tafalla, Santos Tafalla,
Francisco Tafalla, Candido Violante, and Pamfilo Balasbas were arrested
on May 1, 1957, after Juanita Yboa had narrated the incident.
Appellants Olimpio Tafalla and Marcelo Tafalla were arrested on May 4,
1957.
Sometime prior to the date of the killing, there existed serious
land troubles between the deceased Rafael Yboa and appellants, as
disclosed by the following complaints, which were filed in court: On
January 21, 1955, a complaint for theft of bamboos was filed by the
deceased Rafael Yboa against appellants Pascual Curiano and three (3)
others in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exh. FF).
On April 1, 1955, a complaint for forcible entry and detainer was filed
by the deceased Rafael Yboa against appellant Pascual Curiano in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exh. DD-1). On February
23, 1956, complaint for the theft (cutting of timber trees) was filed
by the deceased Rafael Yboa against appellant Pascual Curiano and seven
(7) others in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exhs.
GG and GG-1). On the same date, a complaint for the theft of bamboo
post and firewood was filed by the deceased Rafael Yboa against
appellants Pascual Curiano and Candido Violante and one Mateo Balasbas
in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exhs. HH and
HH-1). On March 16, 1957, a complaint for theft was filed by the
deceased Rafael Yboa against appellant Pamfilo Balasbas and one Rufino
Verzosa in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exhs. JJ
and JJ-1). Lastly, on April 1, 1957, the deceased Rafael Yboa filed a
complaint for theft (cutting of timber trees) against appellants
Pamfilo Balasbas and Candido Violante, and one Lucio Balasbas in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exhs. II and II—1).
On the other hand, appellant Pascual Curiano and two others as
plaintiffs, filed on March 2, 1956, a complaint against the deceased
Rafael Yboa as defendant, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 4512 of
the Court of First Instance of Samar, involving the piece of land which
is the subject matter of the forcible entry and detainer case (Exh. EE)
aforementioned.
Appellants’ defense is alibi, to wit:
Pascual Curiano in the evening of April 30, 1957, rode in a motor
boat to a fish corral out in the sea of Mahacob, Tarangnan, Samar,
about 2 kilometers from Sitio Cagutsan. After dropping the net at about
9:00 o’clock in the evening, he and his companions in the motor boat,
as well as the men who were in charge of the fish corral, went to sleep
until 5:00 o’clock of the following morning. Then they loaded 4
canastas of fish in the boat, proceeded to another fish corral in
Talbo, where they loaded another 3 canastas of fish, after
which, they sailed for Catbalogan, where they sold all the fish to one
Vicente Alabat for P60.00. As witnesses he presented Jorge Cortan,
Maximo Latoja, Jaime Acain, and Vicente Alabat. Their narrative
follows: Appellant Pascual Curiano and Sgt. Acain of the PC stationed
at Catbalogan, Samar, were co-owners of the fish corral, the motorboat,
and the fish business which was then managed by appellant Pascual
Curiano. The fish corral was about 2 kilometers from Sitio Cagutsan. To
that fish corral went Jorge Cortan and his 7 helpers, leaving Barrio
Silanga on a big banca (sampan) on the night of April 30, 1957. Upon
reaching it at about 9 P.M., they dropped the net to catch fish.
Shortly after, the motorboat manned by appellant Pascual Curiano,
Maximo Latoja, Jaime Acain and one Julian arrived. It was moored to the
fish corral and the crew went to sleep. Cortan slept soundly and woke
up at 5 A.M. May 1, 1957. Latoja woke up at about 12 P.M. midnight and
Jaime Acain at about 2 A.M. and the last two, to urinate. Both Latoja
and Acain saw appellant Pascual Curiano sleeping at the time each stood
up to urinate. Both returned to sleep after urinating and woke up at
about 5 A.M. May 1, 1957. After loading the catch in that fish corral
(4 canastas) and buying 3 canastas of fish in Talbo, they
sailed to Catbalogan arriving at 7 A.M. and sold their load of fish to
one Vicente Alabat for P60.00.
The alibi of appellant Pascual Curiano deserves no credit. As observed by the trial court:
“* * * the alibi of Pascual Curiano has all the
aspects of fabrication. It has all the characteristic of a story
designed to fit the intended purpose of showing the whereabouts of the
defendant to be in a place other than that where the crime was
committed at the time of its commission. The uniformity of the
declarations (of his witnesses), the lack of documentary record, and
the omission of the necessary witnesses prove it to be a made-up story.“It is strange that in spite of more than one and a half
years that had elapsed, the witnesses could be so accurate not only as
to different hours of their movement, but also as to the quantity and
the quality of the fishes which were alleged to have been taken by them
from two different fish corrals. As was said above, such uniformity
even in the details given by the several witnesses, connotes, an
agreement among them on the story they would tell the Court.“If it were true that Curiano had a fish corral and was engaged in the
business of selling fish on April 30, 1957, he should have exhibited a
license for the said fish corral, or a license for the business he
claims to have had. Such documents cannot be fabricated. If he had them
he would have shown them. By not showing them, the inference is that he
had not that business on April 30, 1957. It might be that he had it
another time; and the story now given could have referred to that other
time.“No one of the seven men alleged to have been with
Jorge Cortan was presented to testify. It was not shown that they could
not be available. Since an alibi needs all the possible evidence
because it can easily be fabricated, those men should not have been
omitted. Again, it can be said that from their omission logically rises
the inference that if they testified they would have told that the fish
corral they served with Jorge Cortan was one on business before April
30, 1957.“Even conceding that at that time Curiano had a
fish corral and arrived thereat at nine o’clock that evening of April
30, 1957, slept in the motorboat at ten o’clock and was found by
Cortan, Acain and Latoja to be still there when they woke up at five
o’clock the following morning, still the alibi is imperfect. The
witnesses said to have slept at ten o’clock and Cortan claimed to have
woke up at five o’clock in the morning; Latoja woke up at twelve
midnight, stood up to urinate, saw Curiano, slept again, and woke up at
five o’clock in the morning; and again woke up at two o’clock to
urinate, saw Curiano slept again, and woke up also at five in the
morning. The declarations of Latoja that he woke up and saw Curiano
when he urinated at twelve o’clock and that of Acain at two o’clock are
declarations without any support to keep them upright as a good and
credible proof. Both are without corroboration. Each stands by itself.
How and why could they remember that they urinated at those hours? That
they saw Curiano? Could it not be another? The evidence adduced had no
answer to these questions. It is believed that in an alibi, these
points are relevant indeed. Only their declarations that they woke up
at five o’clock in the morning have some color of proof; each
corroborated the other. Such being the case, they slept from ten to
five o’clock or for seven hours. Considering the distance of the
fish corral to the scene of the crime, even a period of two hours was
sufficient for one to go from the fish corral and return to it after
the assault. His companions could have done the disposal of the bodies.” (Italic supplied, pages 49-52).
Candido Violante and Pamfilo Balasbas loaded 260 bundles of
firewood in their banca in the afternoon of April 29, 1957 and sailed
for Catbalogan at about 3 A.M. April 30 to sell those firewood. They
failed to sell them to one Marcelino Tuazon of Catbalogan as the latter
had plenty of them in stock. So, they carried and peddled them around
the town and were able to dispose of 100 bundles on the same day April
30. In the evening, until the morning (May 1), appellant Pamfilo
Balasbas and his wife slept in the kitchen of Marcelino Tuazon’s house
at Catbalogan, while appellant Candido Violante slept in the banca to
watch the remaining firewood. On May 1, 1957, they sold the remaining
160 bundles of firewood, after which, they went shopping and left
Catbalogan at 7 A.M. of the same day, reaching their house at noontime.
As witnesses they presented Marcelino Tuazon, Encarnacion Bblos,
and Porfiria Bellasana. Their narrative follows: Appellants Candido
Violante and Pamfilo Balasbas were together in Catbalogan, Samar, from
the morning of April 30, to the morning of May 1, 1957. Violante and
Balasbas had 260 bundles of firewood in the yard of their houses at
Sitio Dalongdong, Mahacob, Tarangnan, Samar, to be brought to
Catbalogan. They loaded them in the banca in the afternoon of April 29,
1957. At about 3 A.M. April 30, Violante and Balasbas sailed for
Catbalogan. Porfiria Bellasana, wife of Violante, went with them. They
arrived at Catbalogan at 8 A.M. that morning and docked near the house
of Marcelino Tuazon, a firewood dealer at Catbalogan. The latter did
not buy the firewood as he had still some in stock. Violante and
Balasbas then peddled them around the town and then went to the market
the whole day until all of the firewood were sold. In the meantime,
Porfiria Bellasana went to a photographer to have her picture taken
(Exh. 8-a) and then proceeded to the Justice of the Peace Court for the
contract Exhibit 6 which she made with a recruiter of an employment
agency. Violante, Balasbas and Porfiria ate their 3 meals that day at
the house of Tuazon. After taking their supper at 7 P.M., Violante and
his wife Porfiria slept in the kitchen of Tuazon’s house and Balasbas
slept in the banca. They left Catbalogan at 7 A.M. May 1, 1957 and
reached their homes in Dalongdong at noon. Porfiria Bellasana took that
trip to Catbalogan to make the necessary arrangement with the recruiter
about the employment of her cousin Engracia Cabarles. On that trip,
Engracia was in another boat with Peling, Cleto and Filomena. The banca
where Engracia and other companions boarded and that where Porfiria,
Violante, and Balasbas were, sailed together from Dalongdong until
Catbalogan. The two vessels were side by side and only about 5 meters
apart during the whole trip.
Also, the alibi of appellants Candido Violante and Pamfilo
Balasbas is unconvincing. We agree with the following observation of
the trial court:
“The story is faulty. The declaration of the
witnesses show that the story is fabrication. It has the following
flaws and cracks:“1. Marcelino Tuazon lied throughout his
declaration. He claims to be engaged in business dealing in firewood. *
* * But he had no license for that business * * * nor kept any record
of his transactions. * * * In all his answers, in the direct as well
as in the cross-examination, he could not give dates, much less hours,
when he purchased firewood from several sellers. But yet he could give
not only the date, April 30, 1957, but also the hours; and further, the
movements of Violante and Balasbas even if he did not buy firewood from
them. And no reasons were shown for so remembering that particular
date, the hours and their movements.“2. If it were true
that they were at Tuazon’s house during the whole night of April 30-May
1, 1957, Violante, Balasbas, and/or Porfiria could have told the
constables who held the first two that afternoon for the murder that
took place in Cagutsan. None of them told the soldiers. Not even when
they were kept in the Constabulary barracks which was only a few meters
to the house of Tuazon. Even Tuazon was not informed of their arrest by
any one of them although they could do so had they wanted to. They
could not make that information because it did not happen. They had to
fabricate an alibi, the only feasible defense in this case. Tuazon was
the only stranger available for the fabricated story. Encarnacion Bolos
and Porfiria Bellasana are the wives of the two accused.“3.
Why Engracia Cabarles and/or any of her companions in the other banca
(Peling, Cleto, Filomena) were not called to testify, was not shown;
they knew them; and they know where they were at the time of the trial
of the case. * * * Porfiria Bellasana who was used to make trips to
Catbalogan without her husband was alleged to have a trip with him for
the first time only that day; and for a purpose which had no concern
with him. * * * Porfiria accompanied her cousin Engracia to Catbalogan.
She was her guardian; and she expected money from the transaction she
was to have with Peling. * * * Peling was interested in her recruitment
work. Porfiria was interested in the money she could get out of the
deal. Peling hired Cleto to bring them to Catbalogan. Filomena, the
wife of Cleto, accompanied her husband. So in the early morning of
April 30, 1957, Cleto and the four women (Porfiria Bellasana, Engracia,
Peling, and Filomena) in one banca, left Dalongdong for Catbalogan on
April 30, 1957, when the contract Exhibit G was executed. Engracia,
Peling, Filomena, and Cleto would have thus testified if called to the
witness stand. Hence, their omission.“4. Porfiria’s
declaration about the picture taking she and Engracia had on April 30,
1957, proved her to be lying, x x x The figure on the right of the
picture marked Exhibit 8-A is that of Porfiria, and that on the left
marked Exhibit 8-B is that of Engracia. Porfiria referred to this
picture when she declared that she and Engracia posed for it before the
photographer. The figure below Porfiria’s figure (Exh. 8-A) is the head
of a woman. It is clear that the picture was not posed by Porfiria and
Engracia alone as claimed by Porfiria in her declaration, but one taken
from a group picture of at least three women.“That
declaration of Porfiria about she and Engracia only posing on April 30,
1957, is of substance as it affects the date which is relevant to the
issue. It is therefore a material declaration; one which tries to make
evident a point of consequence. Having lied, and knowingly, on a
material point, she made her whole testimony incredible. (Falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus).“Our experience shows that
several persons witnessing an incident, and later give a description of
it, they will surely differ widely as to details or collateral matters
while agreeing on the particular thing which is the incident itself.
But in this alibi of Violante and Balasbas, we have the declarations of
all the witnesses agree on all the details regarding the movements of
the persons concerned and the time when such movements were alleged to
have taken place; and, in spite of the lapse of one year and seven
months. Such a perfect narration connotes an agreement among the
witnesses of the story to be told; a fabrication of the alleged alibi.”
(Italic supplied; pages 40-44, Decision.)
Olimpio Tafalla and Marcelo Tafalla attended a meeting held in the
house of councilor Joaquin Nabaunag at Barrio Mahacob, Tarangnan,
Samar, from 8 to 12 P.M. April 30, 1957, after which, they went home
and slept till the next morning May 1, 1957.
As witnesses, appellants presented Joaquin Nabaunag, Leoncio Beato,
and Paciencia Molito, whose story follows: Nabaunag was the municipal
councilor for Barrio Mahacob ; Beato was the assistant barrio
lieutenant of Mahacob; and Paciencia Molito is the wife of appellant
Olimpio Tafalla. On April 30, 1957, from 1 to 4 P.M., the councilors of
Tarangnan were at Mahacob and had its session attended by many
residents of the barrio including women and, among those who attended,
were appellants Olimpio Tafalla and Marcelo Tafalla. Thereafter, the
residents of the barrio returned to their homes; after the merienda,
the visitors left Mahacob. Then at about 8 P.M., Nabaunag called the
officials of the barrio to his house to talk about means to be used in
gathering funds needed to defray the expenses for the transportation of
a driller to Mahacob. Among those present thereat were appellants
Olimpio Tafalla and Marcelo Tafalla.
The last persons to leave the house at around 12 P.M., midnight,
were five, including appellants Olimpio Tafalla and Marcelo Tafalla.
Likewise, appellants’ alibi is unworthy of belief. We concur with the
following findings of the trial court:
“* * * there is nothing in the testimony of the
witnesses to show they could not have been mistaken about the time.
Could the meeting referred to not have been some time before April 30,
1957? What categorical proof was shown that it was on that day and not
on another? Could it have been that the municipal council did not hold
any session in Mahacob? Or if it had, was it not on a day other than
April 30, 1957? The human memory is short. A meeting must have some
minutes. It may be argued that the alleged meeting from eight o’clock
to midnight was one without any record because it was only a meeting of
the barrio residents who could talk, discuss and agree without need of
any written reminder. But there was an alleged session of the municipal
council. It must not be without minutes. Since the testimony of the
witnesses was intended to show that the alleged meeting of the barrio
residents followed a session of the municipal council, proof of such
council session should be produced, for precision as to time to avoid
uncertainty.“And the unreliability of the memory of the
witnesses is shown by the discrepancy of their testimony about the date
when the constables went to Mahacob to arrest Olimpio Tafalla and
Lucilo (Marcelo) Tafalla. While Olimpio Tafalla said that he was taken
by the soldiers on May 4 (p. 414, t.s.n.) and Lucilo on May 11 (p. 439,
t.s.n.), the municipal councilor Joaquin Nabaunag1 said that they were
taken on May 1; and he was present when they were so taken (p. 349,
t.s.n.).” (Pages 53-54, Decision).
Santos Tafalla attended the same meeting aforementioned from 6 to 10
P.M. on April 30, 1957.
As witnesses, he presented his father-in-law
Elias Magallanes, whose narrative is as follows: After taking supper in
the night of April 30, 1957, appellant Santos Tafalla went to attend
the meeting in the house of councilor Nabaunag.
On this alibi of appellant Santos Tafalla, the trial court aptly observed:
“With respect to his going to the house of the
Councilor that evening of April 30, 1957, Santos Tafalla contradicted
his father-in-law who said that he (Santos) went after taking supper. *
* * But yet none of those four persons he mentioned was called to
testify to his alibi; and no reason was shown for that omission. It can
be said that if called, they would belie him.“Then he went
on in his direct testimony that he went home from the house of
Councilor Nabaunag at about ten o’clock that evening, and before going
up the house he stopped to urinate. * * *Still in direct examination
Santos Tafalla admitted having executed the affidavit Exhibit U
(translation Exh. U-l).“Santos Tafalla who knew the
commission of the crime is now excusing himself by throwing the blame
to some of his co-defendants. But his alibi is indeed very poor. Since
an alibi can easily be fabricated, it should have a strong support in
the way of all available proofs. Failure to present such proofs without
justifiable excuse, makes this kind of defense suspicious. In an alibi,
the testimony of disinterested persons is the most needed. Elias
Magallanes is certainly a person who is very much interested in the
liberty of Santos Tafalla. Circumstances make him so.” (Pages 45-48,
Decision.)
Francisco Tafalla went home to Barrio Mahacob, Tarangnan,
Samar, at 7 P.M. on April 30, 1957, took supper, and went to sleep
until 8 A.M. the following day May 1, 1957.
As witnesses, he presented his wife Cornelia Chan,
Aniceto Camas, and Dolores Aquil, whose narrative is to this effect:
Cornelia Chan, wife of appellant Francisco Tafalla went to get Dolores
Aquil at 7 P.M. on April 30, 1957, and brought her to their house
because her grandmother was complaining of severe stomach pain. At that
hour, Dolores entered the house, administered to the sick woman, and
she saw Francisco Tafalla sleeping thereat. Aniceto Camas stated that
the stains in the trousers (Exh. V) of appellant Francisco Tafalla was
caused by chicken blood.
We agree with the observation of the trial
court as to the incredibility of appellant Francisco Tafalla’s alibi; to wit:
“How the trousers Exhibit ‘V’ of Francisco Tafalla happened to be
stained with blood as narrated by him and Aniceto Camas is somewhat
unusual; some happening that does not run parallel to the ordinary way
of man’s behavior. It is much of a coincidence that Francisco Tafalla
would cut the neck of a dying and beaten chicken and splashed his
trousers with blood only several hours before the blood of four persons
(the victims) was split. However, he was not picked because his pair of
trousers had blood-stains. The trousers were found to have the stains
after he was pointed out to be one of the assailants. * * *.“Granting that Dolores went to Francisco’s house for the sick woman,
could it not be that she went on a night other than the night of April
30? It could have been possible. For with respect to dates, both
Cornelia and Dolores were not attentively particular. Neither could
tell the date when their patient died. In fact Dolores even went to
admit repeatedly that it was on March 30 and not on April 30, when she
went to Francisco’s house to administer the sick woman (p. 331, t.s.n.)
which she repeated after she tried to show that she knew how to
remember dates (p. 337, t.s.n.).“And on May 1, when the
constables went to take along Francisco Tafalla for the murders
committed the previous night, both Cornelia and Dolores were there face
to face with the constables. Dolores did not say anything; and Cornelia
did not make any move to make known to the arresting soldiers the
presence of her husband and Dolores in the house that evening. Cornelia
persisted on being evasive in her answers until the last moment she was
on the witness chair.” (Pages 55-57, Decision.)
Lastly, Herminigildo Tafalla
went home from his farm, slept beside his wife and children in their
house at Sitio Sogod, Tarangnan, Samar, from 8 P.M. April 30, to 6 A.M.
May 1, 1957. In the afternoon of the latter date (May 1) he was
arrested by soldiers.
He did not present any witness to support his alibi and we are with the trial court that said alibi should not be believed.
Apart from the trial court’s observations above-quoted regarding the incredibility of appellants’ alibi
in this case, we note from a cursory examination of tha map (Exh. 00)
showing the relative distances between the scene of the crimes at bar
in Sitio Cagutsan and the sea near Barrio Mahacob, Tarangnan, Samar,
where appellant Pascual Curiano allegedly was, and Barrio Mahacob,
where appellants Olimpio, Marcelo, Santos, and Francisco Tafalla
allegedly were at the time of the commission of said crimes, will
clearly show that it has not even established by said appellants’ alibis
that it was physically impossible for them to be present in nearby
Sitio Cagutsan. In a long line of eases, it had been held that in order
to establish an alibi, a defendant must not only show that he
was present at some other place about the time of the alleged crime,
but also that he was at such other place for so long a time, that it
was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was
committed, either before or after the time he was at such other place.
(People vs. Alban, G.R. No. L-15203, prom. March 29, 1961, citing People vs. Oxiles, 20 Phil., 587; People vs. Palamos, 49 Phil., 601; People vs. Resabal, 50 Phil., 780; People vs. Niem, 75 Phil., 668.)
The appeal presents no issues of law. It merely involves the
credibility of the various witnesses, and the rules is well-established
that when the issue involves credibility of witnesses, appellate courts
will not, generally disturb the findings of the trial ccurt, as the
latter is in a better position to decide the question, having seen and
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner
of testifying during the trial, except when it is known that ths trial
court has overlooked certain facts of “substance and value that, if
considered, might affect the result of the case (People vs. Alban, supra, citing People vs. Berganio, 110 Phil., 322; People vs.
Binsol, 100 Phil., V13.) The trial court in the case before us has made
a complete and thorough analysis of the various testimonies, which we
find to be properly and well-supported by the evidence adduced.
Said alibis
of appellants, to our mind, cannot overcome the testimony of Juanita
Yboa, wife of the deceased Rafael Yboa and eyewitness to the bloody
incident, who testified to a clear, credible, straightforward, and
convincing manner and who positively identified appellants as the
perpetrators of the crimes in question. On this point, the trial court
observed:
“The direct evidence come only from the widow of the deceased” Rafael Yboa (Juanita de Yboa), the lone survivor in ths group, Considering
her intelligence, her opportunity of knowing the fact, her memory, the
heart-rending ordeal she passed, the probabilities and improbabilities
of her testimony, the character of her testimony, the long hours of
taxing and confusing cross-examination, and her way of answering the
question and general behavior while testifying, the Court finds no
reason to doubt her declaration. * * *“Juanita de
Yboa recognized six of the accused immediately, preceding the fatal
moment. When she heard low voices and saw light-beam from the
flashlights on the beach immediately in front of the hut, she looked
through the holes of the wall of the roughly woven ccconut leaves. She
recognized the six men approaching the hut from the beach to be Pascual
Curiano, Francisco Tafalla and Pamfilo Batasbas, Lucilo (Marcelo)
Tafalla, Santos Tafalla, and Candido Violante, Pascual Curiano was
holding the rifle that fired it her husband. At the time she was hiding
in the bushes, she saw Olimpio Tafala stabbed Engracia Salazar and
Herminigildo Tafalla Daniel Errabo.“The Court went to
the scene of the crime after the testimony of Juanita de Yboa. From the
observations of the Court about the make of the hut and the field
around, the declaration of Juanita was possible.” (Italic supplied, Pages 58-59J, Decision.)
Needless
to say, said testimony of Juanita Yboa regarding the incident is amply
supported by “strong circumstantial proofs which took place before and
after” the commission of the crimes. Said the trial court:
“That direct evidence is supported by strong circumstantial proofs which took place before and after the incident.
“As
was said above, the motive of the crime was resentment against Rafael
Ybao uho continuously annoyed, harrassed and humiliated the defendants.
That resentment is briefly expressed by Pascual Curiana in paragraph 9
of his complaint Exhibit ‘EE’ to wit:‘9. That every time the plaintiffs herein and their laborers nre
cutting lumber and gathering bamboos and forest products and firewood
from the said land of Ramona Moreno, the herein defendant is
continuously molesting them by filing either criminal or civil cases
against the said plaintiffs particularly Pascual Curiano and his
laborers.“Earlier on that fatal day,
Rafael Yboa, Juanita and Daniel Errabo went to that part of the land to
verify the report about the recent cutting of trees by Pascual Curiano;
then they went to the house of Herminlgildo Tafalla who was confronted
thereat by Yboa about the pieces of trees on his yard, and then they
proceed to the barrio to report to the barrio lieutenant about the
recent cutting of trees. Yboa requested the barrio lieutenant to stop
Curiano from further cutting any thing in the land until the
termination of their litigation about the land pending in court.“And then at around eight o’clock that evening Sebastian saw the four
accused (Pascual Curiano, Herminigildo Tafalla, Olimpio and Lucilo
[Marcelo] Tafalla) pass by his houre in Sogod walking Cagutsan ward.
Hermenegildo Tafalla was cararrying rifle. At about three o’clock
following the time when they passed by his house, he met them again.
This time it was on the beach. They were in a banca which docked in
front of the house of Hermenegildo Tafalla. Afraid of the threat of
Pascual Curiano, he allowed the rifle to be left in his house. The
presence of the rifle therein made him and his family move to
Dalongdong.“On May 10, 1957, Herminigiido Tafalla
revealed to Sergeant Gonzales that the gun was hidden in the house of
Loyo. It was found in that house. The gun is now marked Exhibit ‘E’.“A ballistic examination showed that the slug (Exh. T) and the empty
shell (Exh. 1-1) which were found about the scene of the incident, were
fired from the rifle Exhibit ‘E’.“On May 2, 1957, Olimpio
Tafalla, referring to the blood-stains in the banca told Encarnacion
Bolos to tell any one who might inquire about those bloodstains that a
butchered pig was loaded in the banca.“The laboratory examination showed the stains to be ‘positive for blood’.
“It is important to note that Olimpio Tafalla was one of the four who
was seen by Sebastian Loyo at about three o’clock dawn boarded in a
banca.“And Josef Nabaunag said so in Exhibit ‘KK’ that he
saw Olimpio Tafalla at about two or three o’clock that morning sailing
in the banca of Encarnacion Bolos.“Two events are
noteworthy: (1) It was about eight o’clock that evening when Juanita
saw Francisco Tafalla, Pamfilo Balasbas, and Candido Violante snatched
the basket from the door of the hut; (2) it was also about that time
when Sebastian Loyo saw Pascual Curiano, Herminigildo Tafalla, Olimpio
Tafalla and Lucilo Tafalla passed by his hptre in Sorod walking towards
Kagutsan. So that while some of the accused were on their way to
Kagutsan the others were already there to perform some preliminaries
for the main objective.“The examination about the
presence of the blood stains on the trousers Exhibit ‘U’ of Candido
Violante and on the trousers Exhibit ‘V’ of Francisco Tafalla, were
silly.“Against the strong and convincing
proofs which clearly and directly point at the accused to be the
perpetrators of the heinous. and savage murders, the defendants put in
several and separate alibis which were made incredible by the absurb
stories told to support them.“By the evidence, there
is no doubt in the mind of the Court-that the defendants are guilty of
the crimes they stand charged in both informations: (Italics supplied, Pages 59-62, Decision.)
There was conspiracy on the part of appellants in the commission of the
crimes, which make each of them liable the crimes committed and for as
many victims killed.
As pointed out by the trial court:
The manner of the commission of the crime shows a concerted action
by several persons who conspired and confederated together and helped
each other in its execution.
“That there was a previous planning about the
execution of the crime, is clear enough. The perpetrators must have met
that evening at a given place, and from there went together to the
place where they knew their victims were to be found at the time. The
act was impelled by revenge. Robbery could not nave been the motive.
There wao nothing to take with intent to gain from the intended
victims. Nothing of value would be kept in such a frail hut which was
in an isolated place. * * *.” (Pages 9-10. Decision.)
There was treachery, which qualified the killing of the four
victims, to murder, as the attack was so sudden and unexpected, thereby
insuring the accomplishment of the crimes, without risk to appellants
arising from the defense which they (victims) might have offered (People vs. Alban, supra, citing People vs. Godinez Martinez, 106 Phil., 597; People vs. Ambahang, 108 Phil., 325). The trial Court stated thus:
“That the act was committed with treachery, cannot
be doubted. The victims were surprised. They were not given the least
warning. The attack was instantaneous. They were not afforded the least
chance to escape. They fired at Rafael Yboa. When the other inmates
jumped from the hut to escape, the offenders were arcund to meet and
assault them at that time when they could not offer any resistance or
defence. The offenders employed means which tended to insure the
execution of the intended crime. (Page 11, Decision.)
There was evident premeditation in the commission of the crimes. According to the trial court:
“***The pieces of rope and stones were objects
which could not have been picked up anywhere at that time of the night
and in that isolated place. The rope and the stones were in the banca
before they went to the place of the incident. This was another part of
the plan. They synchronized movements of the actor which made possible
the successful termination of their acts, from the killing to the
disposal of the bodies, during such a brief period, must be the result
of a pre-conceived plan. All the preparations to carry cut the
conceived plan could not have been effected in a short expanse of time.
It could have taken at least hours, possibly days. In premeditation,
there is no fixed period of time. The period of time necessary to
justify the inference that there is known premeditation is a period
sufficient in the judicial sense to give the accused full opportunity
for meditation and reflection, and sufficient to allow the conscience
of the actor to overcome the resolution of this will if he desires to
harken to its warnings. (U.S. vs. Blanco, 18 Phil., 208.)***(Pages 10-11, Decision.)
Abuse of superior strength was also attendant, it appearing that
appellants, aside from being all armed with deadly weapons, were
decidedly superior in number [8 in all] in relation to the number of
the assaulted parties [only 3 and a boy of 2 years] (U.S. vs. Tandoc, 40 Phil., 954; People vs. Caroz, 68 Phil. 521).
The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited piaca attended the
commission of the crimes. On this point, the trial court pointed out
that—
“Considering the trees that abound and the thick
shrubbery which was growing between the place of the incident and the
nearest house which was more than one hundred meters away, the
circumstance of uninhabited place has to be taken into account as it
was was apparent that at such a place the victims did not have a chance
of being seen and helped by another person.” (Page 12, Decision.)
The circumstance of dwelling may, further, be considered as to the
killing of Daniel Errabo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo, as it
occurred in their dwelling place (the hut) or on the ground thereof
(U.S. vs. Macarinfas , 40 Phil, 1).
The aggravating circumstance of nighttime, although present, may
not be taken into account, inasmuch as it is absorbed in treachery
(People vs. Balagtas, 68 Phil., C75). Neither may we consider
the circumstance of cruelty as found by the trial court, because there
is no showing that the other wounds found on the bodies of the victims
were inflicted unnecessarily while they were still alive in order to
prolong their physical suffering. The number of wounds found upon the
corpse does not, by itself alone, justify the acceptance of the
circumstance of cruelty, it being necessary to show that the accused
deliberately and inhumanly increased the sufferings of the victim
(People vs. Aguinaldo, 55 Phil-, 610; See also People vs. Dayug, 49 Phil., 423; People vs.
Dequña, 60 Phil., 279). Lastly, the circumstance of lack of provocation
was incorrectly considered by the trial court as aggravating in the
killing of the Errabos; the same is not one of the aggravating
circumstances enumerated in the Revised Penal Code.
In the circumstances, we find each of the appellants guilty of four
(4) crimes of murder in the two (2) cases reviewed. However in view of
the lack of the required number of 8 votes, the death penalty imposed
by the trial court upon each of the appellants is hereby reduced to
life imprisonment for each of the four crimes committed, the maximum of
which shall not exceed forty years. The indemnity adjudged by the trial
court is, however, increased from P5,000.00 to P6,000.00.
Modified, as above indicated, the judgment of the trial court, is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Bengzon, C. J., Paredes, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] G.R. No. L-15256.
[2] G.R. No. L-15257