THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SATURNINO MABAGA, AMBROCIO MABAGA AND TEOFILO MABAGA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Defendants Saturnino Mabaga, Teofilo Mabaga and Ambrocio Cabillo, seek the reversal of a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Laguna insofar as it convicts them of the crimes of murder
and frustrated murder and sentences them, for the first, to life imprisonment,
with the corresponding accessory penalties, to jointly and severally indemnify
the heirs of the deceased, Montano Matanguihan, in
the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency,
and to pay one-third (1/3) of the costs, and, for the second, to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years, eight
(8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, with the
corresponding acces­sory penalties, and to pay one-third (1/3) of the
costs.  The same decision acquitted
appellants of the crime of frustrated murder as regards the person of Zoilo Matanguihan, with the
corresponding part of the costs de oficio,
and provided that the service of the penalties imposed for the first two (2)
offenses shall not exceed 40 years.

On April 18, 1963, between 9 and 9:45 p.m., Zoilo
Matanguihan, Montano Matanguihan
and Felix Decillo were in the latter’s house, in the Sitio Mahabang-Pulo, Barrio of Majada, Municipality of Canlubang,
Laguna.  They were seated on the floor of
the “balcony” or extension of the kitchen, which had a brightly
lighted kerosene lamp on a table, and was about four (4) feet from the ground.  While they were drinking coffee in that
place, four or five men approached that part of said extension which had no
siding, where the bamboo stairs were. 
Felix Decillo recognized among them his
neighbors, appellants Saturnino Mabaga,
Teofilo Mabaga, Ambrocio Cabillo and Bruno Cabillo.  He invited
them to partake of the coffee as well as inquired where they were going, but
they replied with a burst of gunshots, and then began to run away, although
they kept on shooting as they did so.

Estanislao Decillo,
a brother of Felix Decillo, was then in his (Estanislao‘ s) house, about 20 meters away from that of
Felix, listening to a radio program. 
Upon hearing the first shots, coming from the direction of the latter’s
house, Estanislao hurriedly descended his kitchen
stairs and, lying down on the ground, watched five (5) men pass by – at about
one-arm length (2 yards) from him, firing their guns as they fled – among whom
he recognized appellants Saturnino Mabaga and Teofilo Mabaga.

A few minutes later, members of the constabulary arrived.  They found Montano Matanguihan
mortally wounded and Felix Decillo injured seriously
in the neck.  Together with Zoilo Matanguihan, who sustained
no injury by dropping to the floor, they immediately brought Montano Matanguihan and Felix Decillo to
the hospital of the Canlubang Sugar Estate, where Montano
died about 30 minutes later.  Thereupon,
the constabulary agents, accompanied by Zoilo Matanguihan, returned to the scene of the occurrence, and
inquired about the details thereof from, among others, Zoilo
Matanguihan and Estanislao Decillo.  The formal
investigation seemingly began the next day. 
Felix Decillo was hospitalized for over a
month, although medical treatment continued thereafter.  In fact, on January 6 and March 11, 1965, or
about two (2) years after the occurrence, he gave his testimony in Court lying
down on a stretcher, because he had not, as yet, fully recovered from his
aforementioned injury.

Soon after the occurrence, a complaint charging appellants Saturnino Mabaga, Teofilo Mabaga and Ambrocio Cabillo, as well as
Bruno Cabillo, with murder and frustrated murder, was
filed with the Justice of the Peace of Canlubang,
who, after conducting a preliminary investigation, found the existence of
probable cause and forwarded the records to the Court of First Instance of
Laguna, where the corresponding information was thereafter filed against said
four (4) defendants.  After due trial,
with respect only to appellants herein, for Bruno Cabillo
has not been apprehended as yet, said Court rendered the decision adverted to
above.  Hence, this appeal, upon the
ground that the lower court had erred: 
(1) in finding appellants guilty of having murdered Montano Matanguihan, with the qualifying circumstance of treachery;
(2) in convicting appellants of frustrated murder as regards Felix Decillo; and (3) in not acquitting said appellants of both
charges.

In this connection, appellants assail the sufficiency of the
evidence for the prosecution identifying them among the culprits, and
establishing treachery, apart from evident premeditation, on their part.  With respect to the identity of the culprits,
Felix Decillo and Zoilo Matanguihan testified positively that they recognized
appellants Saturnino Mabaga,
Teofilo Mabaga and Ambrocio Cabillo among the
persons who fired at them in the evening of the occurrence.  In fact, Felix Decillo
recognized a fourth man, Bruno Cabillo, who, the for­mer
noticed, carried also a “long gun”. 
Their testimony was substantially corroborated by Estanislao
Decillo, who identified appellants Saturnino Mabaga and Teofilo Mabaga among the five (5)
armed men he saw at the scene of the occurrence, while they were hurriedly
leaving the same.

The veracity of these witnesses for the prosecution is beyond
doubt, for they had no possible reason to falsely incriminate appellants herein.^[1]
Moreover, the former could not have mistaken the latter for other persons,
because they were not only acquaintances of long standing, but, also, barrio
mates.^[2]
Again, the place where Felix Decillo and his guests
were taking coffee was brightly lighted with a kerosene lamp; the evening was
clear; an almost “round” moon was shining; their assailants were only
from one (1) to four (4) arms length from them, when the former
began shooting, and one-arm-length from Estanislao Decillo, when they beat a hasty retreat; the faces of said
assailants were not covered; and, although they wore hats, the brims thereof
did not hide their faces, apart from the fact that the extension of the kitchen
of Felix Decillo stood on a depression of the soil,
so that the culprits must have been on a ground higher than the latter.  In other words, the conditions were favorable
to the recognition of the culprits or, at least, of some of them, by the
witnesses for the prosecution.  Likewise,
their testimony is plain, simple and straightforward.  It bears all the earmarks of being frank,
candid and honest.^[3]
In fact, Zoilo Matanguihan
is illiterate, whereas Estanislao Decillo
has hardly completed the first grade in school and Felix Decillo
has barely reached the second grade.

Upon the other hand, the defense has merely set up an alibi.  It would have us believe that, in the evening
of April 18, 1963, appellants
were in the house of Pio Crisostomo,
president of the Laguna chapter of the Federation of Free Farmers, in the
barrio of Mamatid, Municipality
of Cabuyao.  Alibi is, however, the weakest of all
defenses^[4]
and it is well-settled that it can not prevail over direct positive evidence on
the presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence.^[5]
This is especially true in the case at bar, for appellants admit that they know
of no possible motive for the witnesses for the prosecution to perjure against
them (appellants) and, imme­diately after the occurrence, Zoilo
Matanguihan and Estanislao De­cillo revealed to the authorities appellants’
participation in the commission of the crimes involved in this case.^[6]
Certainly, appellants’ testimony regarding their alleged conference with Pio Crisostomo can not be taken
on its face value.  Besides, Crisostomo appears to have testified, also, in support of
the alibi set up by the defendant in another criminal case involving a member
of the Federation of Free Farmers in Laguna, to which appellants are, likewise,
affiliated, he being the president of the Laguna chapter of said Federation.  In other words, Crisostomo
seems to be a professional witness for “Free Farmers” who are accused
of crimes and have no other defense than an alibi.  The testimony of Exequiel
Pagaspas, who similarly tried to corroborate
appellants’ alibi, merits no greater weight, he being the vice-president of
said chapter of the Federation.

It may not be amiss to note, also, that Canlubang
is barely 30 minutes away, by jeep, from Cabuyao;
that the precise time at which appellants were allegedly in Cabuyao
on April 18, 1963, has not been positively established, for Teofilo
Mabaga said that he and the other appellants arrived
at that place “more or less past 8:00 o’clock x x in the evening”, whereas Saturnino Mabaga affirmed that
they were there since 6:00 p.m., and, although Pio Crisostomo declared that appellants were in Cabuyao up to 10:30 p.m., Teofilo
Mabaga said that they left the place at 10:00  p.m. and Saturnino Ma­baga testified that they arrived at Canlubang at about 10:00 p.m., so that they must have left Cabuyao – assuming hypothetically that they had really been
there – at around 9:30 p.m., or a little before; and that, according to Estanislao Decillo, the shooting
happened at about 9:45 p.m., which is the very information given by the Constabulary
investigators to a laboratory technician who conducted paraffin tests for the
defense.  In short, the witnesses for the
defense merely made an estimate of the time alluded to in their testimony and
it is not certain that appellants could not have been in Canlubang
at the time of the occurrence, after their alleged conference with Crisostomo in Cabuyao.

Needless to say, the evidence for the defense has corroborated,
in one important respect, that of the prosecution, and that is that appellants
were together at the time of the occurrence, thus bolstering up the
prosecution.^[7]
At that time, Teofilo Mabaga
said, evidently in an unguarded moment, he was in his house in Canlubang.  On
direct examination by counsel for the defense, Teofilo
testified:

“ATTY. DIMAANO

x x x

“Q   Can you explain to the Honorable Court why
the witnesses for the prosecution pointed to you as the assailant?

“A    I do not really know about that, sir, I was
surprised why I was pointed to as the assailant, sir.

“Q   Witness for the prosecution testified before
this Honorable Court that he was drinking coffee together with two others and
that this happened on the night of Apr. 18, 1963, and said that you were about
4 to 5 meters from him when you fired your carbine.  What can you say as to that testimony?

“A    Those are lies because I was in our house, how could it be possible that I was
the one who fired at them?”

Since Teofilo was then with his
co-appellants and his house is in Canlubang, it
follows that all of them were
in that municipality, not
in Cabuyao, when the attack upon Felix Decillo and his guests took place.

Furthermore, a motive has been duly established.  Indeed, Felix Decillo
testified that, about two (2) weeks prior to the occurrence, appellants herein
and Bruno Cabillo had urged him to join them in a petition
for the expropriation of the lands of the Calamba
Sugar Estate, parts of which were held by them, and that he (Felix Decillo) turned down their request, despite their warning
that “something wrong” would happen to him if he did not acquiesce
thereto.^[8]

The defense attaches much weight to the negative result of
paraffin tests conducted on Saturnino Mabaga, Teofilo Mabaga and other members of their family, and to the fact
that the striations on some .30 caliber discharged cartridges picked up at the scene
of the occurrence were not congruent with those of similar cartridges fired
from a carbine found in the house of Teofilo Mabaga the next day. 
Commenting on the paraffin tests, His Honor, the trial Judge said:

“x x x It will
be noted that the test was made about 13 hours after the commission of the
crime and there is enough opportunity for the accused to have employed means
and methods to have caused the disappearance of gunpowder residue, not counting
that the use of gloves or other devises could have easily foiled such chemical
test.”

As regards the carbine subjected to ballistic test, the decision
appealed from contains the following observation:

“x x x It
could well be that this firearm was not the firearm used in the commission of
the crime otherwise the accused Teofilo Mabaga would not have been as careless or stupid enough to
keep it in his house and in a place easily to be discovered.  Besides, the said carbine according to Teofilo Mabaga, has a permit from
Governor Leviste and as this gun could easily be
traced, this firearm was not one of those used in the commission of these
crimes.”

Under the circumstances, and considering that the veracity of the
witnesses for the prosecution is incontestable; that they could not have
possibly committed a mistake in identifying appellants herein among the
culprits; that appellants were, admittedly, together in the evening of the
occurrence; that immediately after the occurrence said witnesses for the
prosecution informed the Constabulary of defendants’ participation in the
commission of the crimes charged; that, soon thereafter, before the evening was
over, the authorities began to look for the defendants, and some of them were,
in fact, apprehended that same evening; and that the defendants had a motive to
attempt against the life of Felix Decillo, it is
clear that His Honor, the trial Judge, has not overlook or misconstrued any
circumstance of weight and importance in the determination of the credibility
and weight of the testimonial evidence on record, and that, accordingly, we are
not justified in disturbing his findings of fact, based upon the veracity of
the witnesses for the prosecution, whose behavior he had an opportunity, denied
to us, to observe.^[9]

Inasmuch as the victims were shot while they were drinking
coffee, immediately after one of them had invited appellants to partake of this
beverage, it follows that the latter had acted with treachery, their attack
having taken place suddenly, under conditions eliminating any possibility of
defense on the part of their victims.^[10]
Similarly, the fact that appellants went together, provided with firearms, to
the scene of the occurrence and that, upon reaching the same and, without any
provocation from their victims, they (appellants) simultaneously fired at them,
coupled with the threats made to Felix Decillo two
(2) weeks before, establish the existence of conspiracy among appellants, as
well as evident premeditation on their part.^[11]
The crimes committed were, therefore, murder and frustrated murder, qualified
by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, apart
from that of dwelling, as regards the frustrated murder against Felix Decillo.^[12]

Owing to the evident premeditation attending the commission of
both offenses, the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder must be
imposed in its maximum period, which is death, and the decision appealed from
should be modified accordingly.  The retribution
therein meted out for the frustrated murder is, however, within the statutory
range.

WHEREFORE, modified as to the penalty for murder, which is
raised to the extreme penalty, and as to the indemnity to the heirs of Montano Matanguihan, which is hereby increased to P12,000,^[13]
the decision appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, in all other respects, with
costs against the defendants-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, and Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Fernando and Barredo, JJ., did not take
part.

^[1]
People v. Reyes, L-21445, May
30, 1967.

^[2]
People v. Belchez, L-21196, March 28, 1968;
People v. Simon, L-18035, Feb. 28, 1964; People v. Mohamad, L-14583, Dec. 28, 1963.

^[3]
People v. Tansianco, L-19448, Feb. 28, 1964;
People v. Castelo, L-10774, May 30, 1964;
People v. Fontillas, L-25298, April 16, 1968.

^[4]
People v. Gilvera, L-19421, May 29, 1967.

^[5]
2 People v. Tansianco, L-19448, Feb. 28, 1964; People
v. Reyes, L-18892, May 30, 1966; People v. Pelagio, L-16177,
May 24, 1967; People v. Ubaldo, L-19490, Aug. 26, 1968.

^[6]
People v. Belchez, L-21196, March 28, 1968; People v. Genilla,
L-23681, Sept. 3, 1966;
People v. Llurca, L-14030-31, July 31, 1963.

^[7]
People v. Elizaga, L-23202, April 30, 1968.

^[8]
See People v. Jaravata, L-22029, August 15, 1967.

^[9]
People v. Diva, L-22946, April 29, 1968; People v. Fontillas,
L-25298, April 16, 1968; People v. Panganiban, L-22476,
Feb. 27, 1968; People v. Estrada, L-26103, Jan. 17, 1968; People v. Gumahin, L-22357, Oct. 31, 1967; People v. Clemente, L-23463, Sept. 28, 1967; People v. Orzame, L-17773, May 19, 1966; People v. Secapuri, L-17518-19, Feb. 28, 1966.

^[10]
People v. Tiongson, L-9866-67, Nov. 28, 1964; People
v. Macatembal, L-17486-88, Feb. 27, 1965; People v. Sagario, L-18659, June 29, 1965; People v. Pasilan, L-18770, July 30, 1965; People v. Casalme, L-18033, July 26, 1966; People v. Villalba, L-17243, Aug. 23, 1966; People v. De Gracia, L-21419, Sept. 29, 1966; Bernabe
v. Bolinas, L-22000, Nov. 29, 1966; People v. Bato, L-23405,
Dec. 29, 1967.

^[11]
People v. Pedro, L-18997, Jan. 31, 1966; People v. Asilum,
L-19380, June 30, 1965; People v. Sagario, L-18659,
June 29, 1965; People v. Castro, L-17465, Aug. 31, 1964; People v. Simon, L-18035,
Feb. 28, 1964.

^[12]
People v. Cabellon, 51 Phil. 846.

^[13]
People v. Pantoja, L-18793, Oct. 11, 1968; People v. Gutierrez, L-25372, Nov. 29, 1968; People v. Buenbrazo, L-27852, Nov. 29, 1968.