THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEOPOLDO ZABALA AND BENJAMIN LUSANTA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Leopoldo Zabala and his son-in-law Benjamin Lusanta were convicted
by the Court of First Instance of Capiz of homicide and were sentenced
each to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal;
to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Serafin
Narce, in the amount of P2,000; and to pay the costs. They appealed to
the Court of Appeals, which tribunal, after conducting a hearing where
representatives of the prosecution and defense appeared, and after
studying the case, arrived at the conclusion that the penalty imposable
on the appellants was beyond its jurisdiction, pursuant to paragraph 4,
Sec. 138 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Sec. 3 of
Commonwealth Act No. 259, and so elevated the case to us for
determination.

From a review of the record of this case, particularly the evidence
presented during the trial, we find the following facts to have been
duly established: In the month of May 1946, and prior thereto, Primo
Narce and his younger brother Serafin Narce were both living in the
same house built on a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Medina,
Libacao, Capiz. They claimed the land as an inheritance from their
parents. Appellants, however, equally claimed the parcel as part of the
29 hectares bought by them from one Teresa Rimon in the year 1944.
Because of these conflicting claims there seems to have developed a
grudge or feud between the two appellants on one side and the brothers
Primo and Serafin on the other, culminating in the drastic steps taken
by the former to drive away the two brothers from the land, on May 15,
1946.

On that day, Leopoldo and his son-in-law Benjamin, accompanied by
Federico Lusanta (a brother of Benjamin) and one named Bienvenido
Ortega, went to the land and presumably tried to eject Primo Narce. His
brother Serafin happened to be absent. When Primo refused to leave the
land, the four intruders with their bolos cut down all the posts of the
house of the two brothers until it tumbled down. Then they,
particularly the two appellants herein, proceeded to manhandle and
ill-treat Primo who had to abandon his house and retreat to and find
refuge in the house of his uncle Isidoro Ventura who lived about a
kilometer away. Both Primo and Serafin reported the outrage to the
authorities, including the Chief of Police and the Justice of the
Peace, but it seems that they found no redress to their grievance, for,
according to Primo, the Justice of the Peace told him that the Chief of
Police would settle their case and the Chief of Police in his turn
advised Primo that they should try to settle their trouble amicably
with the two appellants.

When Primo had sufficiently recovered from the effects of his
ill-treatment on the part of the appellants and their two companions,
because of fear, he left barrio Medina and went to live in the barrio
of Panibiasan. His younger brother Serafin, however, decided to remain
in the house of his uncle Ventura in order to look after their plants
around their destroyed dwelling. At the same time, in defiance of the
threats made by the appellants, he began to reconstruct his ruined
dwelling. His attitude and conduct obviously did not please the two
defendants herein.

On May 28th of the same year 1946, said two appellants Leopoldo and
Benjamin, accompanied by the latter’s brother Federico Lusanta, went to
the house of Ventura where Serafin was then staying. They came,
ostensibly, on a peaceful mission, informing Serafin that they should
all go to the house of the barrio lieutenant for a definite and
satisfactory settlement of their conflicting claims over the
aforementioned parcel of land. They sent for one named Mariano Zaquita,
a son-in-law of Ventura who lived a few meters away from Ventura’s
house, to accompany them. So, the whole party of five—Leopoldo Zabala,
Benjamin Lusanta, Federico Lusanta, Serafin Narce, and Mariano Zaquita
took the road or trail in the direction of the barrio lieutenant’s
house.

Mariano Zaquita, lone witness for the prosecution, in his testimony
related to the court what happened afterwards, thus: When the party
neared Agbatuan brook and before reaching the house of the barrio
lieutenant, the two appellants asked Mariano Zaquita to return home and
not to tell anyone that Serafin Narce was with them. Mariano, however,
suspecting that the appellants had some evil intention or design
against Srafin who was all alone, after separating from the party,
instead of returning home, ascended a hill on one side of the trail and
from its top, through the bushes and unknown to the appellants and
Federico, he observed the progress of the party down below. Upon
arriving at the Nalihug brook, Serafin was suddenly surrounded by his
three companions. Benjamin. Lusanta struck Serafin with his wooden cane
commonly called “taratara”, hitting him on the head and causing him to
stagger. After that, Leopoldo and Federico struck at him with their
wooden canes on different parts of the body until Serafin crumpled to
the ground apparently dead. The three assailants then threw his body
into the Nalihub brook. Soon thereafter, however, and evidently after
some reflection, they recovered his body from the creek and then,
carrying it some distance, they dumped it into the Dumalaylay river of
which the Nalihug brook is only a branch or tributary. Thereafter, they
left the scene.

Due to fear, Mariano made no attempt to intercede for and help
Serafin while he was being attacked by his companions. When he felt
sure that the assailants were already far from the place, he returned
home and reported what he had seen to his father-in-law Isidore
Ventura. The following morning the two reported the killing to the
barrio lieutenant who, in the company of his informers, went to the
Dumalaylay river and after following its course in search of the body,
finally found it washed up and ashore on a shallow part in the middle
of the river. The barrio lieutenant then sent for Primo, the brother of
the deceased and, after some delay, the town authorities were finally
notified. It was only after four or five days that said authorities,
represented by a policeman and a sanitary inspector, went to the
Dumalaylay river to view the body which in the meantime had been left
undisturbed on the very spot where it had originally been found by the
barrio lieutenant and the two informers. The sanitary inspector after
examining the body issued a death certificate which reads as follows:

The skull was broken at the right side of the
forehead. The ribs at the right side of the back also broken. Contusion
at the left forearm. Contusion at the left arm above the elbow. The
said injury caused the death of Serafin Narce. He died of hemorrhage.

Jaime Inocencio, the Sergeant of Police who conducted the
investigation at the scene of the killing, told the court that Nalihub
brook, where the body was first thrown, was visible from the top of the
hill from which Mariano claims to have witnessed the killing and the
dumping of the body.

The trial court gave full credit to the testimony of Mariano
Zaquita and held the two appellants responsible for the death of
Serafin Narce, although it convicted them only of simple homicide.
After scrutinizing the testimony of Mariano Zaquita, we agree with the
trial court that the story told by him should be accepted. Appellants
claim that about the month of April, 1945, Mariano Zaquita and the
Narce brothers went to them asking for a loan of four cavanes of palay
and forty pesos, at the same time making known their desire to work on
the former’s land in Medina, which request was refused by Leopoldo and
Benjamin. This story was calculated and intended to show resentment on
the part of Primo Narce and Mariano Zaquita which impelled them to
testify as they did during the trial against appellants. This claim was
apparently not believed by the trial court. Besides, even if true, it
is not enough to make Primo and Mariano falsely impute the crime of
murder to the two defendants.

We believe that the deceased Serafin Narce was attacked and killed
by the appellants in the manner described by Mariano. This witness was
found by the lower court to be a simple man, ignorant and untutored;
and that he testified with sincerity. His conduct after actually seeing
the killing amply supports his story. After witnessing the tragedy, he
immediately informed his father-in-law Ventura. The following day
Ventura and Mariano reported the killing to the barrio lieutenant.
Furthermore, in the course of the investigation of the death of Serafin
by the authorities, Mariano thumb marked an affidavit dated June 3,
1946, which in substance corroborates his testimony in court.

It is true that there was only one witness to the attack and
killing of the deceased by the appellants; but, if said lone witness
merits the credulity, of the court and his testimony appears
reasonable, the same is sufficient to convict. There is a long line of
cases decided by this Court to the effect that the testimony of a
single witness which satisfies the court in a given case is sufficient
on which to base a conviction. (People vs. Sope and Cruz, 42 Off. Gaz., 1811, and many cases cited therein.)

Counsel for the appellants contends that his clients were denied
speedy trial and that, because of the delay, the case should have been
quashed. We have examined the record on this point and we have found
that the delay in the trial was due mainly to the fact that, at first,
the star witness for the prosecution could not be found, he, at one
time, being in Manila. Moreover, even after the witnesses for the
prosecution had been located, it was hard for them to come to court to
testify because of the difficulty of transportation as well as their
financial inability to make the trip from their distant town and barrio
to the capital. Because of the bad weather and swollen rivers, even the
Military Police had difficulty in making the trip to bring said
witnesses to the capital. At one time, even counsel for the defendants
had to ask for postponement of the trial because of the nim-appearahce
of his own witnesses due to the bad weather and impassable streams.
Another reason was the change in judges, or rather the transfer from
Capiz of the judge who was to try the case. It is also a fact that the
Court, at the time, was trying cases sometimes in the town of Calivo
and at other times in Capiz, the capital.

Considering the fact that the provincial fiscal filed the
Information in court in July 1946, and that trial was begun on December
10, 1946, and after several hearings was finished on December 20, 1946,
and considering further the reasons for the delay, we find that the
appellants have not been denied the speedy trial guaranteed to them by
the Constitution.

“* * * a speedy trial has been construed to mean
one that can be had as soon after indictment as the prosecution can
with reasonable diligence prepare for it, a trial conducted according
to fixed rules and proceedings of law, free from vexatious, capricious
and oppressive delays.” (II Moran, Rules of Court, pp. 637-638, citing
16 C.J. pp. 439-440, and Mercado vs. Santos, 37 Off.Gaz., 904; Kalaw vs. Apostol, 64 Phil. 852.)

“The
right to speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with
delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a
defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice. (Mercado vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga et al., G.R. No. 45629, September 22, 1938; V Lawyers’ Journal, p. 887).

Appellants also contend that Serafin Narce might have been drowned
and they point to his distended and swollen abdomen as seen by some
witnesses for the defense. This contention is not supported by the
evidence. It will be remembered that the examination of the body by the
sanitary inspector showed that the skull was broken, including the ribs
on the right side of the back, and that the left arm above the elbow
and left forearm bore contusions. A person who dies by drowning alone
does not suffer from these injuries. As to his distended abdomen, it
will be remembered that the body was viewed by the witnesses for the
defense about four or five days after death and that when putrefaction
sets in, the abdomen generally swells because of the gas produced
inside..

The appellants also interpose the defense of alibi,
claiming that on May 28th when Serafin died, the tqo of them at 6
o’clock in the morning went from their barrio of Ditana to the barrio
of Mamba about ten kilometers away to attend a fiesta in the house of
Francisco Madua, brother-in-law of Leopoldo Zabala, and that they
stayed in said house all day. The trial court did not give credence to
said story. Neither are we inclined to do so. According to the very
appellants, the weather that day was extremely bad and the streams
which they had to cross to get to Mamba were swollen; so, it was very
unlikely that they would make a trip to a distant barrio and according
to them make the return trip to their own barrio at 11 o’clock in the
evening, all in utter disregard of their safety and, comfort, just to
attend a fiesta to which, according to themselves, strangely enough, no
one else had been invited.

According to the evidence the killing was attended by the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. At the time of
the attack, Serafin was surrounded by his three assailants who made a
sudden and concerted attack with their clubs or canes. The contest was
clearly unequal, let alone the fact that Serafin was, presumably, not
expecting the assault. He was in no condition to put up any resistance
even assuming that he was also provided with a cane.

We cannot agree with the Solicitor General that evident
premeditation accompanied the killing. True, when the two appellants
and Federico invited or rather took Serafin from his house ostensibly
to go to the house of the barrio lieutenant for a peaceful settlement
of their case, their action and representations may have merely been a
ruse to lure the victim away from his house in order to have him at
their mercy once on the road. At the same time, it was also possible,
even likely, that the appellants really intended to go to the barrio
lieutenant for an investigation and determination of their conflicting
claims over the land and that, for this reason, they invited Mariano
Zaquita to accompany them and to assure Serafin Narce of their good and
peaceful intentions, but that on the way the appellants may have
changed their minds or else, a disagreement or misunderstanding may
have developed between the parties, resulting in their decision to do
away with their adversary, but first taking the precaution of sending
Mariano Zaquita home.

In conclusion, we find the appellants guilty of murder, with
neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. Applying the penalty
in its medium degree, the appellants are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the deceased fixed by the
lower court is raised from P2,000 to P6,000. With these modifications,
the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuazon, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Mr. Justice Padilla voted for this judgment.

MORAN, C. J.: