G.R. No. L-34036. November 29, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIEGO ESTRADA, JUANITO ESTRADA AND LUIS ESTRADA, DEFENDANTS, DIEGO ESTRADA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
In the Municipal Court of Gubat, Sorsogon, a complaint for Murder
was filed against DIEGO ESTRADA, JUANITO ESTRADA and LUIS ESTRADA. After a preliminary examination of the witÂnesses,
the Municipal Court ordered their arrest and fixed bail at P20,000.00 each. They were arrested on August 17, 1967; they
did not post bail.
On August 25, 1967, the accused waived their right to a preÂliminary
investigation for which reason the case was elevated to the Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon where it was docketed as CriÂminal Case No. 3865.
On September 15, 1967, an assistant provincial fiscal of Sorsogon
filed a motion for the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 3865 on the
ground “[t]hat upon a diligent perusal of the evidence and stateÂments of
the witnesses attached to the record of this case, the undersigned is of the
belief that no sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction could be had in this
case.” (Expediente, p. 41.) At that time no information had been
filed in court. The motion was granted
and the accused were released.
On May 23, 1968, the case was revived by the filing of an
information for Murder against the three ESTRADAS. The information which now bears Criminal Case No. 400 alleges:
“That on or about the 9th day of August, 1967 in the Municipality
of Gubat, Province of Sorsogon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above named accused conspiring, confederating, and helping one
another, with intent to kill and armed with a club and lead pipe, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with treachery and eviÂdent
premeditation and use of superior strength, ganged up and delivered fist and
club blows (using bahi and pipe) on the different parts of the body of Romeo
Escurel from behind and infront resulting to Multiple physical injuries, and
thereafter dumping the body of Romeo Escurel into a well to conceal the crime
and as a result thereof Romeo Escurel died instantly.” (Expediente,
p. 45.)
Diego Estrada was tried but Luis and Juanito were not tried
because they had left Sorsogon. An
alias order of arrest failed to bring them to court.
On March 5, 1971, the trial court promulgated its decision which
contains the following judgment:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Diego Estrada guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with which he is charged, and
hereby sentences him: [1] to suffer reclusion
perpetua; [2] to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased Romeo Escurel
in the amount of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos; and [3] to pay one-third
of the costs.” (Expedience, p. 308.)
The case is now before this Court on appeal.
The People’s version of the facts is as follows:
“At about 7:00-8:00 o’clock in the evening of August 9, 1967,
two friends, Romeo Escurel and Romulo Endaya, took a walk to the market place
of their hometown, Gubat, Sorsogon. After a while, they entered the store of one Lilia located at the market
place. They bought a small flat bottle
of Tanduay Rhum and drank the same at a table inside the store (pp. 3-4, 6, 12,
Tsn, Feb. 24, 1969; p. 273, Records). They noticed inside the store Luis Estrada nicknamed “Oyet”
with 5 companions who were already drunk. Estrada called to the newcomers, Escurel and Endaya, asking the latter
to drink with him but the two friends did not answer and just continued to
drink at their table. After drinking,
Escurel and Endaya went out of the store (pp. 4-7, Tsn, Ibid; p. 273, Records).
As they left the store
at about 9:00 o’clock that evening, Escurel and Endaya were followed by Estrada
and his companions who provoked a fist fight. Estrada first hit Escurel and they fought. A companion of Estrada hit Endaya on the mouth and the latter
fell unÂconscious on the ground. For
about 10 minutes Endaya was stunned and when he recovered his senses, Escurel
was no longer around. Neither was
Estrada and his companions (pp. 7-8, 12-13, Tsn, Ibid.) He looked for Escurel
but when he could not locate the latter, he went home. The following morning, he learned that
Escurel was dead. He went to the public
dispensary of Gubat, Sorsogon and there saw the lifeless body of Escurel (pp.
8a, 15, Tsn, Ibid.).
At about 9:00 o’clock that same evening of August 9, 1967,
Patrolman Wilfredo Esguerra of the Gubat Police Force was pinch-hitting for
Patrolman Ramon Eva as guard in the office of the Chief of Police (pp. 17-19,
tsn, Ibid.) Presently, Escurel whom he knew for a long time already, came
asking for help because there was a fight. Escurel did not enter the office but left in a hurry. Pat. Esguerra followed immediately at a
distance of about 5 meters behind Escurel. As Escurel reached Zulueta Street he was met by Luis Estrada and Antonio
Estropia who immediately pummelled Escurel with fists. Pat. Esguerra tried to pacify them and fired
his gun to make them stop. Thereafter,
he took Estrada and Estropia into custody as the aggressors. Meanwhile, Escurel backed up and left (pp.
19-20, 23-30, Tsn, Ibid.).
Pat. Esguerra delivered the two men to Pat. Eva who had already
arrived at the office of the Chief of Police. Estrada had some wounds on the face and elbows while Estropia had
none. Thereafter, Pat. Esguerra,
accompanied this time by Pat. Esquivias went back to the scene of the fight to
look for Escurel. However, although
they scoured the scene of the fight and the premises of the market, they did
not find Escurel. Hence, the two
policemen returned to the office of the Chief of Police (pp. 20-21, 30-33, Tsn,
Ibid.). Before reaching the office of
the Chief of Police, they found Estrada and Estropia outside on the street. Upon Pat. Esguerra’s inquiry, Estrada and
Estropia told him they were already sent home by Pat. Eva. At the office of the Chief of Police, Pat.
Eva informed Pat. Esguerra that he allowed the two detention prisoners to leave
because they wanted to secure a medical certificate on Estrada’s injuries (p.
12, Tsn, Ibid.).
That same evening of August 9, 1967, at about past 9:00 o’clock,
Espiridion Policarpio was on his way to fetch a midwife to assist his wife who
was about to give birth. While he was at
Manook Street, Gubat, Sorsogon, he saw persons fighting at the corner of Manook
and Herrera Streets. He stopped some 10
meters away from them. The corner was
lighted by an electric lamp post. He
recognized Diego Estrada, Luis Estrada
and Juanito Estrada holding
clubs, boxing and beating Romeo Escurel until the latter ran away in zigzag
manner towards Herrera Street (pp. 3-5, 19, Tsn, Feb. 25, 1969). The Estradas chased Escurel. After witnessing what happened, Policarpio
went home because he was afraid. At
home he waited for the deliÂvery by his wife and boiled some water. While doing so, he noticed some persons
passing beside his house. He peeped
through the window and saw Juanito Estrada and Diego Estrada pass by going
towards Manook Street (pp. 6-8, Tsn, Ibid.). The following morning, he noticed an unusual event in the neighborhood
and saw Escurel dead and being placed inside a car (p. 9, Tsn, Ibid.). Policarpio knew Diego Estrada for the latter
had a store in the public market. He
also knew Juanito Estrada because the latter worked for him as a mechanic
helper (pp. 10-11, Tsn, Ibid.).
That same evening also, at about 9:30 o’clock, Marianito Estocado,
tricycle driver, was on Manook Street, about to pass Herrera Street. Upon reaching Herrera Street, he saw Escurel
half-naked, running towards Herrera Street, chased by three persons, on of whom
he recognized as Diego Estrada (pp. 38-42, Tsn, Feb. 26, 1969). Escurel passed in front of him by 2 arms
length. He turned right at Herrera
Street and overtook the three persons
chasing Escurel. He saw Escurel running
in a staggering manner and then suddenly turn right in front of him, near the
house of one Dado, a butcher (pp. 40-44, 61, Tsn, Ibid.). He first recognized Escurel and Estrada when
they came under an electric lamp post (pp. 42, 65, Tsn, Ibid.). He knew Escurel since 1966 for Escurel also
used to ride his tricycle (p. 48, Tsn, Ibid.). He also knew Diego Estrada who he used to see tending a store at the
public market (p. 51, Tsn, Ibid.). After
Estocado had brought his passenger to his destination, he went home without
passing by Herrera Street anymore (p. 45, Tsn, Ibid.). The following day, he saw the lifeless body
of Escurel at the muniÂcipal building (p. 46, Tsn, Ibid.).
That same evening also, at about 10:30 o’clock Policarpio Tapia,
tricycle driver, was conducting his passengers to Herrera Street. While along Manook Street and about 100
meters from the junction of Manook Street and Herrera Street, he was stopped by
Diego Estrada and Juanito Estrada who were shirtless and wanted to ride in his
tricycle. However, when informed that
he had passengers already, the Estradas did not insist anymore. He recognized the two persons because they
were lighted by the lamp from his tricycle and a nearby electric lamp post (pp.
80-82, Tsn, Ibid. and p. 31A, Appellee’s Brief. Note: There is no
transcript of stenographic notes on the direct examination of Policarpio Tapia).
Early the following morning of August 10, 1967, Patrolman Teofilo
Domasian of the Gubat Police force was informed by a certain Mrs. Espadilla
that she found a person inside a well. Pat. Domasian went to the well to verify the report and found a man
inside the well with his head down in the water and his feet up. Because curious persons started to come,
Pat. Domasian cordoned off the area. Some thirty minutes later, the Chief of Police, Pats. Domingo Acuña,
Carlos Escurel and Dr. Marciano Ra Hermo, Jr. arrived. The body was removed from the well and they
recognized it to be that of Romeo Escurel who was already dead. Escurel’s fists were clenched and raised to
face level. He was half-naked and
barefoot (pp. 3-5, 15, Tsn, March 18, 1969; p. 4, Tsn, June 2, 1969). Pictures
were taken of the body after it was retrieved from the well (pp. 2-3, Tsn, July
14, 1969). Pat. Escurel made a sketch
of the scene of the crime (pp. 19-20, Tsn, March 18, 1969; Exhibits A, B, pp.
183-186, Records).
The body of Escurel was brought to the public dispensary where an
autopsy was conducted by Dr. Hermo, Jr. His findings were as follows:
“EXTERNALLY:
The body is that of a fairly nourished, well developed individual
which was found inside a well in the upside position. The said body was already in
the state of ‘rigor mortis’ with half of the torso (upper half and upper
extremities) submerged in the water. The skin presented a dark discoloration more prominent in the regions of
the head and neck. The epidermis of the
hands were swollen, bleached and wrinkled.
HEAD AND NECK:
Presence of multiple abrasions mid-frontal supra-orbital area,
right; alae nasae, right and left; fronto-temporal border, left.
Hematoma, right half, upper lip.
Hematoma with abrasion, mid-mental area and floor of mouth.
Wound punctured, 3mm.
width, buccal surface involving the nucosal and subcutaneious layer, right
half, upper lip.
CHEST AND THORAX:
Hematoma with abrasion on the midscapular area, left.
Hematoma, more or less 2
cm. in width and about 13 cm. long, extending from the interior border on the
scapula on the right, directed interiorly, medially and laterally up to the
level of the 7th intercostal space on the posÂterior axillary line on the left.
ABDOMEN:
Apparently normal.
UPPER EXTREMITIES:
Hematoma, multiple; upper
third, posterior surface, forearm, right; medial surface, middle third,
forearm, right; middle third posterior surface, forearm, right.
Forearm, right and
left, flexed.
Hands, semi-clenched.
LOWER EXTREMITIES:
Hematoma, with abrasion, upper third, anterior surface, left.
INTERNALLY:
RESPIRATORY:
Presence of about 400 seru-sanguinous fluid in the chest cavity.
Lungs was pale in color and foamy in consistency.
Presence of multiple red
patches of various sizes scattered over the lung field. Sizes of said patches vary from that of a
pea size to about a five-centavo piece.
Increase of the volume and size of the lungs and also the presence
of fluid.
Blood vessels engorged.
Lung pits on pressure.
HEART:
Presence of blood in the right and left cavities of the heart.
STOMACH:
Stomach is apparently normal and on cutting it revealed the absence
of stomach contents. There was no fluid
content.
INTESTINES-LIVER AND KIDNEYS-PANCREAS:
Intestines, liver, kidneys and the pancreas are all apparently
normal.
BRAIN:
Engorgements of the blood vessels.
URINARY BLADDER:
Presence of about 60
cc urine.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Asphyxia
due to drowning secondary to shock.
ESTIMATED TIME OF
DEATH: 10:00 P.M. August 9, 1967.’
(Exhibit C, pp. 3-5, Records).
The abrasions and hematoma were caused by blows on the body with a
blunt instrument. The punctured lips
were caused by fist blows. Escurel was
still alive when placed inside the well although unconscious. The well was small enough to admit a person
but if such person was thrown inside it in a nerve position, such person would
not be able to stand up. These were the
findings of Dr. Hermo, Jr. (pp. 6, 8,
9-10, 12-13, 24, Tsn, June 2, 1969).
On August 16, 1967, Diego Estrada and his sons, Juanito and Luis
were investigated by Philippine Constabulary operatives headed by Sgt.
Silvestre Espedido at the PC headquarters at Sorsogon, Sorsogon. The statement of Diego Estrada was taken in
writing but he refused to sign the same (pp. 12-17, Tsn, July 14, 1969; pp.
2-5, Tsn, Aug. 22, 1969; Exhibits E, E-7, pp. 196-204, Records).” (Brief, pp. 3-12.)
The trial court stated the following in its decision:
“Although there are three accused persons in the case at bar,
only Diego Estrada, the father of the family, had his day in court as his two
sons, Luis and Juanito, both surnamed Estrada, precipitately left the province of Sorsogon immediately after the
dismissal of the first case filed against them. The trial of the instant case commenced some two years after the
two brothers had left the town of Gubat. It is rather strange that Diego Estrada and his wife maintained that up
to the present they do not know the whereabouts of Luis and Juanito who have
never written to them since their departure. It is said, however, that flight is an indiÂcation of a troubled conscience.”
(Expediente, p. 308.)
The appellant complains that the trial court erred “in
finding that the accused Luis Estrada and his brother, Juanito, both sons and
co-accused of appellant Diego Estrada, had fled from the jurisdiction of the
court.” It should be noted, however, that when the court spoke of “a
troubled conscience” it was referring to Luis and Juanito not to the
appellant. Hence, if there is reason to
complain, the brothers, not the father, should do so. It should also be noted that the statement is but a passing
remark and was not made to support the finding of the court that the appellant
had a hand in the death of Romeo Escurel.
The other assignments of error deal with the credibility of witÂnesses
and will be taken up seriatim.
The appellant claims that “the trial court erred in finding
that the accused Luis Estrada and his companions provoked Romeo Escurel and his
companion, Romulo Endaya to a fist fight.” The trial court did not err in
its finding because of the unrebutted testimony of Romulo Endaya as follows:
[FISCAL PERALTA]
“q- After you have consumed that
wine which you have bought, what else did you and Romeo Escurel do, if you did
anything?
a- We
went home.
q- Did
you go out of the store?
a- Yes,
sir.
q- What
about Luis Estrada and his companions did they also leave the store or they
remain thereat?
a- They
followed us.
q- When
you were thus going out of the store and Luis Estrada and his companions were
following you, what happened next?
a- We
had a fist fight.
q- Who
started the fight?
a- Luis
Estrada and his companions.
q- How
did it begin?
a- It
just happened that we had a fist fight.
q- Do
you recall as to who was the first one to
box who and who?
a- Yes,
sir.
q- Please
tell the Court.
a- Luis
Estrada gave a blow to Romeo Escurel.
q- Who
is this Bebot?
a- Romeo
Escurel.
q- Is
that the nickname of Romeo Escurel?
a- Yes,
sir.
q- Did they exchange fistic blows?
a- Yes,
sir.
q- What
about you were you also boxed?
a- Yes,
sir.
q- Who
hit you?
a- I
do not know the name.
q- Did
you fight back?
a- When
I was hit I got unconscious.” (TSN, pp. 6-8.)
The appellant also claims that “the trial court erred in
giving credence and probative value to the testimonies of prosecution witÂnesses,
namely, Espiridion Policarpio, Marianito Estocado and Policarpio Tapia.”
The testimony of these witnesses has been sumÂmarized in the People’s statement
of the facts. There is no dispute on
what they said. What is questioned is
their credibility. On this score, the
finding of the trial court must be sustained for there is no fact or
circumstance of weight or influence in the record which was overlooked or the
significance of which was misinterpreted. The fact that their testimony contained inconsistencies is of no moment
for they refer to minor matters which are not easy to remember. With regard to Esperidion Policarpio in
particular, the fact that he was a friend of the deceased but failed to notify
the police promptly does not impair his credibility. Friendship in itself does not disqualify a person to be a witness
albeit it is a factor in determining the truth of his testimony. As to the delay in reporting the matter, the
acceptable explanation is that he was initially afraid.
It should be
recalled that when the appellant was investigated by the Philippine Constabulary, he was asked questions and he
answered them. The questions and
answers in the Bicol dialect were recorded in long hand by Sgt. Amador
Loberes. (Exh. E; English translation
E-4, and E-5.) However, the appellant refused to sign the document which reads
as follows:
“1. Q – Will you please give your name and other personal circumstances?
A
– DIEGO ESTRADA Y ESCOBEDO, 57 years old, married, laborer, of Gubat, Sorsogon.
2. Q – In what street in Gubat, Sorsogon, do you live?
A – In Quezon Street,
Gubat, Sorsogon.
3. Q – At about 9:30 in the evening of August 9, 1967, where were you?
A – I was at home.
4. Q – While thus at home, do you remember of any incident that happened?
A
– Nothing happened at home. My son,
Luis, arrived and said, ‘Father, you help me because I was stabbed’.
5. Q – What did you do upon hearing what Luis said?
A
– I looked at Luis to see if he was really stabbed; upon finding out that he
was not, I told him, ‘Where is that stab wound of yours?’ But Luis really had severe injuries. So I asked him what happened. He said that they had a fist fight with
Bebot Escurel, Romulo Endaya, Tony Estropia, and Monding Esquijo. The police arrested him (Luis and Tony
Estropia).
6. Q – Now, what did you do after learning of what happened to your son,
Luis?
A – I let him eat.
7. Q – Who were the other persons who came to
the aid of Luis when he gave the alarm that he was stabbed?
A – My son, Juanito, also arrived.
8. Q – How did you feel after learning of what
happened to Luis and upon seeing his condition with such severe injuries?
A
– I was hurt; he was too much the underdog; he was the one boxed, and was the
one arrested by the police, while these who gave the blows were left alone.
9. Q – Because your son was oppressed, what did you do?
A – What else would I
do, if my son died, will they pay because they are rich?
10. Q – What I want to say is, what did
you do, if you did anything?
A – Retaliated.
11. Q – What did you do when you
retaliated?
A – If you will allow me, before I tell what
happened, I would like to confer with my son; what I would like is that we are
not all imprisoned because nobody will be left to take care of our family. If you will allow it, we will let Luis
confess because it is better that way because he is not married.
(Investigators allow Diego Estrada to
talk with his sons, Luis and Juanito.)
Diego
Estrada then told Luis and Juanito: ‘What else . . . I have already said so . . . you Luis, because you are
not married, admit it, had it not been for you, this should not have happened.’
At
this instance, Luis and Juanito start crying and Luis uttered the
following: ‘Why did you tell . . . We
are not guilty.’
Then
Diego Estrada answered: ‘My sons do not
like because what happened was not their fault. This is the fault of the police – had they arrested that son of
Nando nothing should have happened. Why
was it that inspite of his serious injuries, my son was the one arrested. Had my son died, will they pay?’ The
investigator again brought Luis Estrada to the Guardhouse and Juan Estrada to
the Office while Diego Estrada remained in the Investigation Section. Then another question was asked by the
Investigator.
12.
Q – What I would like to know, when you retaliated, who was the object of your
retaliation?
A
– It was that person who died because Luis did not have any other enemy.
13.
Q – I want you to name the victim of your retaliation and to tell what happened
to him after your retaliation.
A – What happened . .
. he died.
14. Q – Who died?
A – That person with
whom Luis fought.
15. Q – What is the name of that person
with whom Luis fought, as you said?
A – I do not know the name.
16. Q – How did you kill him?
A
– My sons do not want to tell, we would rather die than tell how it was done
because they do not want (to tell).
17.
Q – What you want to say is that you three. Luis Estrada, Juan Estrada, and you, helped one another in killing Romeo
Escurel?
A – We did not help
each other.
18.
Q – You have already stated that you retaliated, that is why I want to find out
how, or in what way, did you retaliate?
A – I will not tell – that should be up to the
Courts.
19.
Q – How could it be up to the Courts when your case has not been filed, you are
only being investigated?
A
– The aggrieved party may file the case in Court. I have already stated that this (incident) could have been
avoided had the police arrested the two.
20. Q – Who are the two persons you mean?
A – Luis and that
person with whom he fought.
21. Q – But the police arrested Luis and
Antonio Estropia?
A – Those were the persons who were boxed . .
. they were arrested, but the one who boxed them was not arrested.
22.
Q – Now, do you really want to be accused . . .that you do not want to tell
what really happened?
A
– That is all . . . what I have said . . . my sons do not like because they
have no fault.
23. Q – Are you willing to sign this
statement of yours?
A – No, not
yet.”
The trial court considered the above “statement in the
nature of an oral confession given to the peace officer who testified about it
in open Court.” The appellant now claims that “the trial court erred
in giving probative value to the alleged extra-judicial confession.” The
basis of his claim is not altogether clearly perceived but it seems the
statement is impugned on the ground that it
does not expressly admit guilt.
A reading of the statement will not clearly yield an expressed
admission of guilt. It can, however, be
considered as containing admissions relevant to the death of the victim which,
taken with other evidence, point to the appellant’s guilt.
The appellant’s defense is alibi which he attempted to prove by
his testimony and that of other witnesses. He now claims that the trial court erred in rejecting the alibi. We do not agree for the same reasons which
the trial court gave, namely:
“It was established that the house of Diego Estrada is located
inside the poblacion of Gubat, Sorsogon, partiÂcularly at the southern end of
Quezon street. The disÂtance between
his house and the places where he was seen by no less than three different
persons near the vicinity of the scene of the crime, is less than a kilometer – a distance which he could have easily
negotiated that evening with or without the knowledge of his spouse. Indeed, Diego’s defense of alibi is too weak
to be favorably entertained, taking into account the strong circumstantial evidence
obtaining in the case at bar. Furthermore, Diego Estrada was identified by positive, clear and
explicit testimony of several witnesses to the effect that he was seen in the
premises of the scene of the felony participating in the inception of the fight
against Romeo Escurel. His alibi,
therefore, can not be credited nor given any weight or value.” (Expediente,
pp. 300-301.)
The information alleges the following qualifying
circumstances: treachery, evident
premeditation and use of superior strength. The trial court rejected treachery but found superiority and evident preÂmeditation
to have been present. We agree that
superiority was present for it was a
case of three armed men against a helpless victim. We cannot accept the presence of evident premeditation for there
is no affirmative showing that the appellant coolly and reflectively resolved
to commit the crime. On the contrary,
it appears to have been committed on impulse when Luis Estrada
complained to his father about the injuries he received. The crime committed by the appellant is
murder with no mitigating or aggravating circumstance for which reclusion
perpetua is the appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, finding no substantial error to have been
committed by the trial court, its judgment is affirmed in its entirety. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De
Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.