PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NORBERTO CATAO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. FELIX NACUA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

During the elections of November, 1949, two young Nacionalistas,
Dioscoro Nacua and his brother, Quirino Nacua, were killed in barrio
Napo, Carcar, Cebu.

The Court of First Instance of Cebu found Adolfo Canoy, Norberto
Catao and Policarpio Tantano guilty of the murder of Quirino Nacua
(Criminal Case No. V-2501); and on appeal, this Court affirmed the
judgment imposing the penalty of life imprisonment on each of the
accused (People vs. Canoy, et al., G. R. No. L-6037, promulgated September 30, 1954).

For the death of Dioscoro Nacua, the same three aforementioned
defendants, with the addition of Felix Nacua, were charged with murder
in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After trial, all the four
accused were found guilty of the crime charged and each was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Dioscoro Nacua in the sum of P6,000 and to pay the costs.

From said judgment only Felix Nacua appealed.

As established by the prosecution evidence and found out by the
trial court, the circumstances surrounding the death of the Nacua
brothers, with more emphasis on the killing of Dioscoro, are: In the
evening of November 7, 1949, Norberto Catao and Adolfo Canoy,
policemen, and Iluminado Nacua, special policeman of Carcar, Cebu, were
invited by appellant to his house in barrio Napo, Carcar, Cebu. In the
kitchen of appellant’s house, the three ate their supper, after which,
appellant called them into the living room where they talked. During
their conversation, appellant told them in Visayan, “whoever of you
could kill the two Nacua brothers (referring to Quirino and Dioscoro),
I will give you money.” Catao and Canoy replied that they were willing
to undertake the liquidation of the Nacuas, while Iluminado Nacua, who
was disgusted by the evil proposal, hastily went down the house and
there waited for his two companions. Not long thereafter Catao and
Canoy also came down, and the three of them went to the Napo police
sub-station located near appellant’s house. They were there but a short
while when appellant sent for Catao and Canoy, so these two went back
to appellant’s house. Because Catao and Canoy also sent for him,
Iluminado likewise went back to appellant’s house.

That same evening, Catao, Canoy, Iluminado Nacua and Dioscoro
Caballes, another special policeman, roamed barrio Napo. Headed by
Canoy, they went to the place of Atty. Delfin Nacua, prominent
Nacionalista leader in Napo, and fired shots at his house. Then they
went to the houses of Basilio Alegado, Placido Nacua and Restituto
Claraeay, all Nacionalista leaders. The four also fired random shots at
their houses. Afterwards they went to the adjoining barrio, Ocaiia, in
search of Olimpio Tamarra, who had openly campaigned for the
Nacionalista Party candidates, but unable to find his house, the four
returned to the Napo police sub-station.

Early the next morning, election day, Catao, Canoy and Iluminado
Nacua returned to appellant’s house where they took their breakfast.
After eating, the three went, to electoral precincts Nos. 1 and 2 of
barrio Napo, both located in the barrio school building.

Between ten and eleven o’clock of that same morning Dioscoro Nacua
went to Precinct No. 1, barrio Napo, and presented to the inspectors
his appointment paper as watcher for the Nacionalista Party, which was
duly admitted by the inspectors. On noticing that Canoy was inside the
polling place and was peeping at voters preparing their ballots,
Dioscoro called the attention of the inspectors thereto. This aroused
the ire of Canoy who belligerently asked: “Who can prevent me from
going inside?” Dioscoro calmly answered that he was not preventing him
from entering the precinct since he was already inside the same. Canoy
challenged him: “What do you want?” Dioscoro attempted to pacify him,
but Canoy started shouting for a carbine, and when nobody came with
one, he ran out of the polling place and grabbed the carbine of
Faustino Catao, a special policeman who was nearby. Canoy then rushed
back into the polling place. Close on his heels was Norberto Catao
armed with a .45 caliber revolver. The two pointed their weapons at
Dioscoro. To protect himself, Dioscoro ran behind poll clerk Jose
Caballero and held him tightly by the shoulders. Not wishing to be used
as a shield, Caballero forcibly released himself from Dioscoro’s
desperate grasp and ran away. Dioscoro also tried to escape. But while
he was leaping down the schoolhouse stairs, Canoy and Catao, who were
running after him, opened fire at him. Though hit on the back by
Canoy’s shot, Dioscoro still ran towards the yard in front of the
school building. Catao and Canoy ran after him, firing at him as they
ran. At this juncture, Policarpio Tantano, armed “with a Japanese
rifle, joined in the chase and also fired at Dioscoro, who still
succeeded in running a distance of thirty meters towards a lot
adjoining the school grounds. Appellant, who was in the yard near his
house, saw him pass behind a mango tree, and probably thinking that he
might escape from his assailants, fired al him with his .32 caliber
revolver. Dioscoro was hit on the neck and fell face down. The
appellant ran to the helpless victim and hit him on the head with a
piece of wood he had picked up. Afterwards, appellant, Canoy and Catao
repaired to appellant’s house. There appellant told them to look for
and liquidate Quirino Nacua to prevent any revenge he might attempt to
make against them. Catao, still armed with his revolver, immediately
left, while Canoy first drank some wine before joining’ him in
searching for Quirino Nacua. A short time after Canoy and Catao left
appellant’s house, shots were heard from the direction of the nearby
school house. After the firing ceased, Policarpio Tantano arrived in
front of appellant’s house, shouting “long live the Liberals!” Canoy
and Catao were close behind him. The three said that they had already
disposed of the Nacua brothers.

Medical examination of Dioscoro Nacua revealed that he suffered (1)
one penetrating gunshot wound on the costal region, right side; and (2)
one mortal gunshot wound on the cervical region, right side. Death was
due to the nature of the wound on the cervical region and the
hemorrhage resulting from the wounds (Exhibit G, medical certificate).
When the cadaver was exhumed, a fracture on the scalp was found
(Exhibit I).

It is appellant’s claim that he never plotted against Dioscoro
Nacua’s life. During the trial, he testified that on the eve of
election day, it was true that he was at home but that he neither saw
nor talked to Norberto Catao, Adolfo Canoy and Iluminado Nacua; that
early in the evening he made an inventory of his copra business; and
later in the evening his friend, Atty. Luis Ladonga, and some
companions, came to confer with him on the matter of teaching his
tenants and supporters to vote properly for their candidates.

Appellant denied any active participation in the killing of Dioscoro
Nacua. He declared that in the morning of November 8, 1949, after he
had cast his vote at Precinct No. 1, barrio Napo, he returned home and
stayed there until 10 o’clock when he went down to supervise the repair
of his house located near his residence; that at about 10:30 he heard
shots Coming from the direction of the school house; that he then saw
Norberto Catao pursuing Dioscoro Nacua; and that impelled by fear, he
ran to his house, where he hid behind boxes and trunks until the firing
ceased.

In exculpation, appellant averred that it is Norberto Catao who was
solely responsible for the death of Dioscoro Nacua. We think this
contention is untenable. There is ample proof of appellant’s
complicity. His part in the conspiracy was established by the testimony
of Iluminado Nacua who was present when appellant made his infamous
proposal to Canoy and Catao, and the latter two agreed to execute the
criminal plot. And appellant’s active participation in the killing was
related by two eyewitnesses, Arcadia Alcantara and Dioseoro Caballes.

Appellant claims that Iluminado Nacua, Arcadia Alcantara and
Dioscoro Caballes all lied and were moved by ulterior motives in
testifying against him. He said that he dismissed Nacua as conductor in
his truck because the latter stole the collections. But apparently
Iluminado did not resent his dismissal. As admitted by appellant,
Iluminado was even smiling when he left appellant’s employ. Under the
circumstance, Iluminado would have been thankful, instead of resentful,
because appellant merely dismissed him instead of having him criminally
prosecuted as he could very well have done.

Appellant brands as incredible Iluminado Nacua’s testimony
respecting the plot to kill the Nacua brothers. There could not have
been such a conspiracy, appellant maintains, first, because appellant
did not know that the Nacua brothers would be coming to barrio Napo on
November 8, 1949; second; it was Dioscoro Nacua himself who had
provoked Adolfo Canoy into attacking him; and third, Policarpio
Tantano, who also chased and fired at Dioscoro Nacua, was not present
in appellant’s house when the criminal plot was hatched. Politics was
the motive behind appellant’s wish to have Dioscoro Nacua liquidated.
When he broached the subject to Catao and Canoy, he did not have in
mind any definite method for the consummation of his design. He simply
wanted Dioscoro killed at any opportunity that presented itself. The
three, appellant, Catao and Canoy, agreed as to the victim and the
crime that would commit. And while they had no definite foreknowledge
that Dioscoro Nacua would be in Napo the next day, they could guess,
with a great degree of certainty, that Dioscoro would be coming to Napo
on election day because he was interested in elections there.

When he did come, appellant and his co-conspirators were ready for
him. Contrary to appellant’s claim, it was Adolfo Canoy, not Dioscoro
Nacua, who provided the provocation. Canoy, fully knowing that he
should not do so, deliberately stationed himself inside the polling
place and kept peeping at the voters as the latter were writing on
their ballots. Dioscoro, who was a Nacionalista watcher, was perfectly
within his rights when he called the attention of the inspectors to the
unwarranted presence of Canoy inside the polling place. This action of
Dioscoro provided Canoy with the chance he needed to execute their
criminal plan. So he attacked Dioscoro, and in this, his
co-conspirators helped him. If there were really no conspiracy then
Catao, Tantano and appellant would not have joined in the attack
because they had no quarrel with Dioscoro.

From Tantano’s absence at appellant’s house on the eve of the
elections, we cannot reasonably conclude that there was no conspiracy.
Tantano’s actuations during the execution of the criminal plot
adequately show that he was in on the conspiracy. To prove conspiracy,
the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed
to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were
actually together at all stages of the conspiracy. It is enough that
from the individual acts of each accused, it may be reasonably deduced
that they had a common plan to commit the felony. Besides, it appears
that it was appellant who masterminded the criminal plot. Hence,
Tantano’s absence at the time appellant offered to reward Catao and
Canoy if they would undertake to kill Dioscoro did not prevent the
three from agreeing” to the commission of the crime.

It is true, as appellant, claims, that Iluminado made a retraction
(Exhibit 1) to the effect that contrary to what he stated during the
trial of People vs. Canoy (which was tried ahead of this
case), appellant had nothing to do with the death of Dioscoro Nacua.
However, Ilominado Nacua explained to our satisfaction that he signed
said affidavit under threats of death made by appellant’s son, Benjamin
Nacua. Consequently this retraction (Exhibit 1) has no probative value.

The record discloses that appellant knew that Iluminado Nacua had
knowledge of the role he played in the criminal plot, so he coerced
Iluminado into hiding at the house of his relative, Emilio Ernbalsado,
in Davao City. Thus he prevented the authorities from further
investigating Iluminado. Appellant admitted that he sent someone to
Davao City, but insisted that this was a certain Joan Decoreon not
Iluminado. But from the tenor of his letter to Embalsado (Exhibit C) it
is clear that the person referred to therein was Iluminado. Appellant
instructed Elmbalsado to burn the letter after reading it—a precaution
he would not have troubled to take with respect to Decoreon, but a
precaution made necessary by his desire to conceal Iluminado’s
whereabouts.

Arcadia Alcantara testified against appellant, as the latter so
claims, because the former belongs to a different political party and
her son was appellant’s business competitor. These alleged reasons,
even if true, are too flimsy and inadequate to impel an old and simple
barrio woman like Arcadia to perjure herself. Appellant also alleges
that Dioscoro Caballes bore him a grudge because it was he who secured
witnesses for the government in a robbery case wherein Caballes was one
of the suspects. Granting that this were true, it does not appear that
even with appellant’s efforts the case against Caballes prospered in
any way. So Caballes had no reason for harboring ill feelings against
him.

Appellant maintains that if Arcadia Alcantara and Dioscoro Caballes
really eyewitnessed his active participation in the crime then they
would not have, as they did, waited three years before volunteering
such information. Delay of a witness in revealing to the authorities
what he knows about a crime does not render his testimony false, for
the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and
their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. But more than
this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal (People vs.
Santos Umali, et al., G. R. Nos. L-8866-8870, promulgated January 23,
1957), which is quite understandable especially when, as in the present
cases the accused is a man of power and influence in the community.
These considerations prevented Arcadia Alcantara and Dioscoro Caballes
from disclosing their knowledge to Carcar Chief of Police Anastacio
Alcordo, when the latter was gathering evidence in this case. Iluminado
Nacua, too, did not mention in his affidavit (Exhibit 10) appellant’s
part in the criminal conspiracy. In answer to appellant’s contention
that this silence on the part of the prosecution witnesses is an
indication of falsity, we repeat what this Court stated in disposing of
a similar contention in the case of People vs. Canoy (supra)
for the murder of Quirino Nacua: “This silence has been satisfactorily
explained, for appellants were members of the police force of Carcar,
and two of them, namely, Norberto Catao and Adolfo Canoy, were present
at the time of the taking of said affidavits. So after the tragic end
of the Nacua brothers, said witnesses could hardly be expected to risk
meeting the same fate, until at least after the appellants were
suspended from office which took place several months later or on
February 9, 1950.”

Appellant argues that if, as stated by Arcadia Alcantara, her
purpose in going to Barrio Napo was to bring food to her son who was an
election inspector there, then why did she also declare that she went
to Napo without bringing the food Arcadia really intended to bring the
food to her son, but when she learned that election inspectors were
provided with food, she went there just the same without bringing any
food with her. Anyway her own barrio was near Napo, and it was easy for
her to walk to the latter barrio in order to see her son.

Arcadia Alcantara never went to barrio Napo on the clay in question,
but she was in her store in the market place of barrio Ocaסa, appellant
alleges. To support this contention, the defense presented Anatalia
Navares who allegedly occupied a store near that of Arcadia. Navares
testified that Arcadia was in her store in Ocaña from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
November 8, 1949. There are strong reasons for not granting credence to
Navares. Foremost among them is that the lower court, whose finding on
credibility is entitled to great weight, found her behavior and manner
of testifying not impressive of veracity. To test her credibility, the
trial court propounded questions to her, but her answers according to
the court “were not convincing”.

It is further argued by appellant that even if Arcadia was in barrio
Napo on the day in question, she was in the house of Basilio Alegado, a
place from where she could not have seen the shooting because of the
lush of vegetation in that vicinity. Arcadia did not stay long in
Alegado’s house. From there she proceeded to the precinct. While she
was on her way, she saw the attack on Dioscoro Nacua. She saw Dioscoro
attempting to eseape from Catao, Canoy and Tantano. And then appellant
joined the attack.

According to appellant, Arcadia incurred contradictions in her
statements. He pointed out that while she testified that she saw
Dioscoro Nacua veer towards the left when he saw appellant, she also
declared that the first time she saw appellant was when he was pointing
his gun at Dioscoro. These statements do not contradict each other, and
may easily be reconciled. Events happened fast on that fatal election
day. At practically the same time that Arcadia saw Dioscoro running
away and then veer towards the left upon seeing appellant, she also saw
appellant firing at Dioscoro.

According to appellant, the statements of Arcadia Alcantara and
Dioscoro Caballes that appellant hit Dioscoro Nacua en the head cannot
be true because Dr. Ildefonso Ybud, who performed the medical
examination, failed to find any laceration, bruise, or abrasion on the
head of the victim. However, the testimony of Arcadia Alcantara and
Dioscoro Caballes is supported by the finding of Dr. Jose Rubi who
examined the corpse after it was exhumed. He found “on the crown of the
head there was a loss of continuity, which is an elongated shape about
1 ½ inches long and ¾ inches wide where the two parietal bones meet and
near the frontal suture.” This fracture, according to Dr. Rubi and
confirmed by NBI medical expert Dr. Rizalino Reyes was not the result
of exhumation, but was an injury suffered before the corpse was buried.

There is an explanation for Dr. Ybud’s failure to find the head
injury. Knowing that Dioscoro Nacua died from gunshot wounds, he did
not take the trouble of making a very thorough examination of the
victim’s head. It is possible, according to Drs. Rubi and Reyes, that
there was no outward sign of the head injury. The blow might not have
produced an open wound because the instrument used was a blunt, not a
sharp one and the thick hair of the victim probably cushioned the blow.
Besides, even if there were outward manifestations of the head injury,
they were probably covered by the thick hair so that they entirely
escaped Dr. Ybud’s attention.

Appellant impugns the veracity of Dioscoro Caballes. To discredit
him, the defense relied on Alfonso Torres who testified that in the
morning-of November 8, 1949, he was in Maximina Nacua’s store near the
Napo barrio school, when he suddenly heard a shot so, he ran to a
nearby river; and that he saw Caballes also running towards the same
river. If this were true, then Caballes could not have seen appellant
take part in the commission of the crime. However, Torres’ statement as
to the time he heard the shots struck the false note in his testimony.
The shooting took place at a little past 11 a.m., November 8, 1949, but
Torres declared that he heard the shots about fifteen minutes after he
arrived at nine o’clock at the store. And this is not all. There is
sufficient proof that Torres was not in Napo on that day. Records of
Precinct No. 1, barrio Mangyan, Sibonga, Cebu (Exhibits W and W-1)
reveal that on election day, Torres was present in said precinct,
discharging his duties as chairman of the board of inspectors thereof.
These records were corroborated by the testimony of poll clerk Irenea
Nacua and substitute poll clerk Diosdado Barsinas, of the same
precinct, that from early morning of November 8, 1949 to early dawn of
November 9, 1949, Torres was continuously present in said precinct.
Hence, the defense failed in its attempt to establish that Caballes was
not an eyewitness to the occurrence.

In assailing Caballes’s testimony, appellant avers that he could not
have been, as alleged by him, a special policeman on that occasion
because he was illiterate and not known to the chief of the police, so
that latter could riot have appointed him as such. Whether or not
Caballes was a special policeman during the incident is of no moment.
The fact remains that he was present during the attack on Dioscoro
Nacua. And his testimony was corroborated by Arcadia Alcantara as well
as other evidence of record.

The lower court granted credence to the three prosecution witnesses,
Iluminado Nacua, Arcadia Alcantara and Dioscoro Caballes. It found
Iluminado Nacua a “quiet, fairly intelligent young man”. By his conduct
and behavior, the court, in its own words, “was strongly convinced that
he was telling the truth”. Arcadia Alcantara and Dioscoro Caballes
likewise impressed the court with the clear and natural manner of
testifying. Knowing the importance of their testimony, the court took
special pains to observe them closely while they were testifying. Its
finding as to their credibility expresses strongly its conviction that
they were telling the truth. Said the court: “Their answers to the
clarification questions of the Court and their answers to the
cross-examination of the defense counsel convince the Court that they
have been actually at the scene of the crime and have actually seen the
participation of Felix Nacua”. Considering that the trial court was in
a better position to determine the question of credibility, and
inasmuch as the record fails to disclose any imperative ground for
reversing the finding of the lower court, we, therefore, adopt its
conclusion that said three witnesses merit credence.

We find appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the killing of Dioscoro Nacua.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant.

Paras, C. J. Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.