THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN JISTIADO ET AL., DEFENDANTS; BENJAMIN JISTIADO APPELLANT.

Benjamin Jistiado, Pedro Floralde alias Pedring, and Timoteo
Floralde alias Tiyoy were charged in the Court of First Instance of
Samar with the crime of robbery with double homicide. After trial, the
court acquitted Pedro Floralde and Timoteo Floralde, but convicted
Benjamin Jistiado who was sentenced to reclusvon perpetua, to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased Pedro Badillo and Ana Onato in the sum of
P4,000, and to pay one-third of the costs. From this judgment Benjamin
Jistiado has appealed.

The evidence for the prosecution is substantially to the following
effect: At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of August 2, 1931, the
spouses Pedro Badillo and Ana Onato, who were living with their
three-month child in barrio Caaguit-itan, municipality of Allen,
Province of Samar, were killed and robbed in their house where they
also had a sari-sari store.

Avelino Contridas, shortly before the event, met on his way home
from the seashore of barrio Caaguit-itan, Benjamin Jistiado and two
companions proceeding towards the house of Pedro Badillo. Baltazar
Mahinay, a neighbor, went to the store of Pedro Badillo to buy
petroleum and he saw then and there Benjamin Jistiado and his
co-accused, although Baltazar had returned home unable to discover any
unusual occurrence. Florentina Villamor, a mid-wife summoned to the
house of a patient, heard Ana Onato cry from her house, “Help, the
child”—this scream being heard also by Baltazar Mahinay soon after he
had reached home. Florentina rushed to Pedro Badillo’s house and,
peeping through a hole on the nipa wall, saw Benjamin Jistiado holding
a revolver aimed at Pedro Badillo who at the moment told Benjamin, “The
key is there, the trunk is there, and the money is there. I did not
take anything. Do not kill me, Benjamin.” Florentina, who also saw the
two companions of Benjamin in the room where Ana Onato was sitting, ran
out of fear to the house of Baltazar Mahinay and reported that Pedro
Badillo was being robbed. Marciano Ortega, another neighbor who also
heard the call of Ana Onato, proceeded to the tatter’s house but, as
the door was closed, merely peeped through the wall and saw Benjamin
Jistiado training his revolver at Pedro Badillo who was then seated on
the floor of his store. Marciano thereupon left and accordingly
informed his neighbors Julian Ollado, Apolonio Ollado and Meliton
Francisco. The four rushed back and, ten meters away from the house of
Pedro Badillo, they heard a gun discharge emanating therefrom.
Deploying themselves on the ground, they heard two other gun shots,
followed by the exit from Badillo’s house of three persons who, with
their flashlights towards the seashore, walked towards sitio Among.

After Benjamin Jistiado and his two companions had left, Marciano
Ortega and other neighbors fetched barrio lieutenant Bonifacio Ciago
and together they went to the scene of the crime where they found Pedro
Badillo dead near the door of the kitchen and Ana Onato dead in the
bedroom, with the three-month child on her left arm. The locker of the
trunk was found destroyed. Eutiquio Badillo, son of Pedro, was
thereupon summoned and, arriving at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening,
was informed by Marciano Ortega that Benjamin Jistiado was in his
father’s house shortly before the shooting. Eutiquio immediately sent a
telegraphic report to the Philippine Constabulary detachment.

The next day, August 3, 1951, Primitivo Buensalida sanitary
inspector, together with the chief of police and two policemen,
examined the dead bodies. Pedro Badillo had a bullet wound on the lower
left shoulder penetrating through the side of the right back and
passing through the heart and this must have been fatal. Ana Onato had
seven wounds, two on the right breast and the others on the lower jaw,
left face, left ear, right side of the back and on the throat. The
wound on the right breast, penetrating the heart, was caused by a
bullet, while the other injuries by a sharp instrument

The chief of police in turn conducted an ocular inspection. When the
family trunk was opened by Eutiquio Badillo, he found missing the
canvass handbag where his father’s money was being kept, although
another trunk and five Hill Bros, coffee cans containing P220 in coins
were intact. At this inspection, Eutiquio relayed to the chief of
police the information previously received by him that Benjamin
Jistiado was seen in his father’s house when the crime was committed.

On August 1,1951, Pedro Badillo called his son Eutiquio, then
residing in barrio Calagundian, Allen, Samar, and asked the latter to
close the former’s sale and purchase books and to be present at the
execution of a certain mortgage between the Badillo spouses and
another. On said occasion Eutiquio counted his father’s money and
delivered P274 to the mortgagor, leaving a balance of P3,200 including
coins which he placed in a canvass bag and kept it in a trunk.

The defense of appellant Benjamin Jistiado is an alibi to the effect
that he and his co-accused were in sitio Among, barrio Calagundian,
municipality of Allen, Province of Samar, from five in the afternoon of
August 2, 3951, upon invitation of Cornelio Fugado, in connection with
the celebration of the novena in the latter’s house. When the appellant
and his companions arrived at Fugado’s place, and finding that the
prayer was still going on, they went to the house of Ricardo Sabordo
where they drank tuba up to about 8:00 o’clock in the evening, when
Cornelio Fugado arrived, informing that dinner was ready. The appellant
and his co-accused accordingly drank and ate at Fugado’s house for four
hours, leaving only at about midnight. On their way home they dropped
by the house of Timoteo Floralde, conversing and again eating therein
until nearly four in the morning, when the appellant returned to his
home situated some two and one-half kilometers from that of Pedro
Badillo in barrio Caaguititan.

Upon a thorough examination of the record, we have found the
judgment of conviction to be correct. Appellant’s alibi, a defense
commonly and easily resorted to, cannot overcome the positive testimony
of various witnesses for the prosecution who were not shown to have had
any motive for testifying during the trial. Moreover, as well pointed
out by the Solicitor General, inasmuch as there is a trail from
appellant’s house in sitio Among to barrio Caaguititan which can be
covered by a 40-minute walk, it was not impossible for him to have left
Fugado’s house, committed the crime in question, and thereafter
returned to the place of celebration.

Counsel argues that appellant’s co-accused were acquitted by the
trial court on the ground that the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses was not sufficient to connect them with the crime, with the
result that the same testimony cannot be relied upon for appellant’s
conviction. Suffice it to state that the failure of the prosecution
witnesses to identify appellant’s co-accused, does not necessarily
discredit their testimony with respect to the appellant’s
participation. Obviously, the two co-accused were not known due to
varying circumstances under which the three male-factors were seen or
observed by the prosecution witnesses.

Certain contradictions in the testimony of Florentine Villamor are
adverted to by counsel for the appellant, but we consider the same to
be insufficient to outweigh the main detail of her story. Moreover, it
is not surprising for said witness, being ignorant and subjected to
extensive cross-examination, to fall into the state of confusion as to
various details, particularly dates. Her veracity is in a way confirmed
by her frankness in admitting that she recognized only the appellant
both in her affidavit and during the trial, not to mention the fact
that her testimony on appellant’s identity counts with corroboration.
Marciano Ortega’s version is assailed by the defense, because when he
was investigated by the chief of police he denied having recognized the
persons in the house of Pedro Badillo; but this discrepancy is
explained by the witness by saying that he was afraid of the presence
of appellant’s brother, apart from the circumstance that appellant was
still at large. Moreover, Baltazar Mahinay also saw Benjamin Jistiado
and two companions when Baltazar bought petroleum from the store of
Pedro Badillo, and although he then saw nothing unusual, he also heard
the successive shots from the house of Pedro Badillo. The failure of
Baltazar to reveal what he knew about the crime when he was
investigated by the authorities on the day following the commission of
the crime, finds explanation in his apprehension about reprisals both
from the appellant and his companions who were still at large and from
appellant’s brother.

It is further insisted that Eutiquio Badillo filed the charge
because he once caught the appellant cutting a piece of bamboo from the
property of the Badillos. This alleged incident, admitted by the
appellant to be a “small thing”, could hardly induce a man in his right
senses to falsely accuse another of a capital offense. Upon the other
hand, as intimated by the Solicitor General, this might have been the
motive for the robbery, as the appellant must have considered the
Badillos, by their refusal to spare even a piece of bamboo, as being
inconsiderate.

The crime committed is robbery with double homicide, with the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nocturnity, without any
mitigating circumstance; but for lack of necessary votes, the penalty
should only be reclusion perpetua. It being understood that
the appellant shall pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased in the
sum of P2,980, the amount robbed, and the indemnity of P4,000 imposed
by the trial court, the appealed judgment as thus modified is affirmed.
So ordered with costs against the appellant.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.