THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IGNACIO MERCADO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Together with Nemesio Bulahan – who is still at large – defendant Ignacio Mercado
is charged with the crime of murder.  It
is alleged in the information:

“That on or about the 26th day of May, 1965, in the Barrio of Bulakin, Municipality of Dolores, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Hon. Court, the said accused, Ignacio Mercado together with Nemesio
Bulahan who is still at large, with intent to kill
and with evident premeditation and treachery, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a blunt instrument one
Escolastica Amparo, thereby
inflicting upon the latter mortal stab wounds in the different parts of her
body which caused the instantaneous death of the said Escolastica
Amparo.

“That in the commission of the above described crime, the
following aggravating circumstances were present:

“1.    that the offense was committed at night
time;

“2.    that it was committed in an uninhabited
place;

“3.    taking advantage of their superior strength
and

“4.    that the act was committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of her sex.”

After due trial, under a plea of not guilty, the Court of First
Instance of Quezon convicted Mercado of the crime
charged, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with the accessory penal­ties
prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Es­colastica
Amparo in the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary impri­sonment,
in view of the nature of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs.  Hence, this appeal by Mercado.

It is not disputed that early in the morning of May 27, 1965, the dead body of Escolastica Amparo, about 42
years of age, was found a few meters from the road, in the barrio of Bulakin, muni­cipality
of Dolores, province
of Quezon.  The necropsy report of Dr. Myrna C. Montilla, the local health officer who examined the body of
the deceased, contained the following findings:

“1.    Post mortem rigidity at the neck and lower
and upper limbs.  Both upper limbs were
flexed at elbows.

“2.    Incised wound antero-lateral
aspect of the neck.  Measuring 8 inches
long, 1 inch deep.  The following
structures were cut namely the great vessels of the neck, jugular veins and
arteries, the trachea and esophagus.

“3.    Stab wound 1 inch just above the left nipple
measuring 1 inch long and 1 inch deep.

“4.    Stab wound along the left sternal line at the level of the 9th rib an inch long and 2
inches deep.

“5.    Stab-wound along the left anterior axillary line at the level of 10th intercostal
space 1 inch long and 2 inches deep.

“6.    Lacerated wound along the left posterior axillary line at the level of 10th intercostal
space 2 inches long and 2 inches deep.

“7.    Stab wound below the right nipple 1 inch
long and 1 inch deep.

“8.    Lacerated wound below the left elbow 2
inches long and 1 inch deep.

“9.    Lacerated wound at the thenar
aspect of left hand an inch long 1 inch deep.

“10.  Lacerated wound right four fingers (1st to the
4th) 1/2 cm. long 1/2 cm. deep, at the level of second phalanx.

“11. Stab wound
epigastric region 3/4 inch long and 6 inches deep,
the opening having chan cut edges and directed inward
it penetrated the anterior wall of the abdomen and the stomach.

“12.  Lacerated wound at the region of the left knee
1/2 inch long and 1/2 inch deep.

“13.  Lacerated wound 2 inches below the left knee
1/2 inch long and 1 inch deep.

“14.  Lacerated wound 1/2 inch long and 1/2 inch
deep region of the left scapula.

“15.  Lacerated wound below the left scapula 1/2
inch long and 1/2 inch deep.

“16.  Stab wound at the popliteal
region 1/2 inch long and 1/2 inch deep.

“17.  Internal examination findings – admits 2
fingers with whitish mucoid discharges no lacerations
uterus and adnixae normal.”

Dr. Montilla testified that Escolastica Amparo had died about
nine (9) hours before her autopsy, which took place on May 27, 1965, at about
8:00 a.m.; that the nature and position of her wounds indicated that she had
fought, in self-defense, her assail­ant or assailants; and that her death was
due to hemorrhage owing to multiple stab wounds.

The main witness for the prosecution was Jose Pamarez,
a 43-year old herb healer or “herbolario“.  He testified that in the afternoon of May 26, 1965, his nephew, Porfirio Rodriguez, went to his house, at San Vicente, San
Pablo City, and
asked him to treat his child who was sick. 
Rodriguez and Pamarez left San Vicente, at
about 6:00 p.m., and arrived at the
house of Rodriguez, in the barrio of Bulakin,
Dolores, Quezon, around 8:00
p.m.  After examining the
sick child, Pamarez went out of the house and
gathered some herbs in a coconut plantation nearby and then applied the herbs
to the child.  Thereafter, Rodriguez and Pamarez chatted until 11:00
p.m., when he (Pamarez) left the house
and headed for that of his brother-in-law, to spend the night therein.  Along the way, he heard somebody calling for
help.  Focusing his flashlight at the
place from which the call had come, he saw Escolastica
Amparo, about three (3) fathoms away, embraced by
appellant Ignacio Mercado and one Nemesio Bulahan.  Having
noticed that Mercado had a sharp-bladed weapon in his right hand and held with
his left hand the right hand of Escolastica Amparo, whose breast was bleeding, he yelled at them,
“Bitiwan ninyo yan“. 
Thereupon, Bulahan bade appellant to go after
the man with the flashlight, referring evidently to Pamarez,
who, accordingly, ran away, for fear of being stabbed by appel­lant, and
proceeded to his brother-in-law’s house, where he slept.  As he left Bulakin
the next morning to return to San Pablo
City, he learned that Escolastica Amparo had been found
dead.

The only evidence for the defense consisted of the testimony of
Mercado, who denied having committed the acts charged and asserted that he was
in his house in Bulakin, Dolores, Quezon,
together with his parents and children, during the whole evening of May 26, 1965.

The lower court did not believe this testimony, and, rely­ing
upon that of Pamarez, rendered the aforementioned
judgment of conviction.  Hence, this
appeal in which appellant maintains that the lower court erred in giving
credence to the testimony of Pamarez, despite the
contradictions allegedly found therein and the fact that he did not report to
the authorities, until a little over a month after the occurrence, what he had
allegedly witnessed in the evening of May 26, 1965.

Appellant maintains that, on July 2, 1965, Pamarez told the
Chief of Police of Dolores that he (Pamarez)
“was in Dolores, Quezon, in the house of Porfirio Rodriguez in order to pay the
said.  Porfirio
Rodriguez a call ‘Nagugumusta‘ which translated in
English (is) ‘asking how they are’,” whereas on the witness stand, Pamarez claimed to have been “fetched by Porfirio Rodriguez x x x for the purpose of curing the child of the latter as he
is an herbolario.” The first statement imputed
by appellant to Pamarez is inaccurate.  Pamarez did not
say that he had gone to the house of Porfirio Rodri­guez
“in order” to inquire how he was. 
The Chief of Police having asked him where he was in the evening of May
26, 1965, Pamarez answered that he was in the house
of Rodriguez “nangungumusta“, which means
that they engaged in conversation on how they were getting along.  This, in fact, is what he stated, on the
witness stand, he did after applying some medicinal herbs to the sick child
of Rodriguez, who had fetched him earlier from his house at San
Pablo City, in
order that he may treat said child.

Appellant further alleges that, in his direct examination, Pamarez claimed to have heard the call for help, “Saklolohan mo ako,” whereas,
on cross-examination, the words used were, “Ako’y
saklolohan ninyo,” and
prior thereto, or on July 2, 1965, when the Chief of Police investigated him,
the words he (Pamarez) quoted were, “Ako ay sakluluhan“.  We do not find any contradiction in the foregoing,
since the three expressions have the same conno­tation – “Help!”
Moreover, the phrase “Saklolohan mo ako” was used, not by Pamarez,
but by the prosecutor, in the course of his direct examination of Pamarez.  Then,
again, minor variations, and even discrepancies, in the testimony of witnesses
– particularly unenlightened and simple country folks like Pamarez,
a mere herb healer – are often indicative of their good faith and veracity.^[1]

It is true it took Pamarez a little
over a month to reveal to the authorities in Dolores, Quezon,
what he saw in the evening of the occurrence. 
We should, however, bear in mind that he is a resident of San Pablo,
Laguna; that he knew how ruthless appel­lant and Bulahan
could be; that, in the evening of May 26, 1965, he heard Bulahan
tell appellant to go after him; that Bulahan and
appellant had not been apprehended as yet; and that up to now Bulahan is still at large. 
Being understandably fearful that the culprits may turn their ire at
him, it is not strange that Pamarez was somewhat
apprehensive about reporting to the authorities, until his friend, Andres Eranzo – to whom he had confided his predicament – advised
him, sometime later, that he could do so.

What really is of vital importance in this case, is the admitted
fact that Pamarez had, for many years, known Escolas­tica Amparo, Nemesio Bulahan and appellant
herein, so that Pama­rez could not possibly be
mistaken as to the persons he had seen in Bulakin,
Dolores, Quezon, in the evening of May 26, 1965, and
that he had no motive whatsoever to falsely incriminate appellant and Bulahan.  In the
language of U.S. v. Pajarillo,^[2]
which was reiterated in People v. De Otero,^[3]
“the absence of all evidence as to an improper motive actuating the
principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the
conclusion that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimony is
worthy of full faith and credit.”

Needless to say, the alibi set up by appellant, based upon his
uncorroborated testimony, cannot prevail over the testimony of Pamarez who was positive as regards appellant’s presence at
the scene of the occurrence.  On the
contrary, since his house, where he allegedly spent the evening of May 26, 1965, is barely 200 meters
away from said place, it would have been a simple matter for him to return to
his house immediately after the assassination of Escolastica
Amparo.

Appellant would have Us believe that late in June, 1965,
Patrolman Melchor Loreto, a member of the local
police force, interrogated him concerning the whereabouts of Bulahan, and later warned him that he would be implicated
should he persist in refusing to reveal where Bulahan
was, because the prosecution already had several witnesses, one of them Jose Pamarez, and that the latter had “possibly” been
paid to testify as he did.  This was,
however, not merely a speculation on the part of appellant, but, also, an im­plied
admission that he could not justifiedly attribute the
testimony of Pamarez to any improper motive.  Indeed, appellant acknowledged the fact that
there was no ill-feeling between him and Pamarez, and
that he (appellant) did not know whether he (Pamarez)
had been paid or not.  Neither did he
even try to explain why anybody should be interested in falsely accusing him of
a crime as grave as that charged in this case, to the point of paying a witness
therefor.

Under the circumstances, We find no plausible reason to disturb
the findings of fact of His Honor, the trial Judge, who had an opportunity,
denied to Us, to observe the behavior of the wit­nesses in the course of their
testimony and was, accordingly, in a better position to gauge their veracity.

We agree, therefore, with the lower court that the guilt of
herein appellant, Ignacio Mercado, has been established beyond reasonable
doubt.  Owing to the abuse of superior
strength with which the assailants of Escolastica Amparo had acted, the crime committed is that of
murder.  The disregard of the respect due
to her on account of her sex may be considered absorbed by the abuse of
superior strength.  Although the crime
was committed at night­time, the record does not sufficiently show that her
assailants had sought it purposely or taken advantage of it.  And, there being no modifying circumstance to
affect the corresponding criminal res­ponsibility, the penalty prescribed by
law for said offense was properly imposed by the trial court in its medium
period.

WHEREFORE, except as to the indemnity, which should be
increased from P6,000 to P12,000,[1] the decision appealed from should
be, as it is hereby, affirmed in all other respects, with costs against
appellant Ignacio Mercado.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

^[1]
People v. De Otero, 51 Phil. 201, 208-209; People v. Quimbo, 49 Phil. 94, 99.

^[2]
19 Phil. 288, 314.

^[3] Supra,
at p. 208.

[1] People v. Pantoja,
L-18793, October 11, 1968.