THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RECARIDO JARDENIL, RICARDO BLAQUIO, RESTITUTO PEROJO, MANUEL DE LA PEÑA, ELEUTERIO DE LA PEÑA, ALIAS ELEUTERIO MAGTOLI…

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental in Cases Nos. 5021 and 5039, thereof, which were
jointly tried.

In case No. 5021, Recarido Jardenil, Ricardo Blaquio, Restituto Perojo, Manuel de la Peña, Eleuterio de la Pena, alias Eleuterio Magtolis and Santiago N., alias
“Tagoy”, were accused of having murdered Bayani Sarmiento, whereas in
Case No. 5039, the same defendants were charged with frustrated murder
committed upon the person of Johny Marco or Jose Marco. Inasmuch as
Restituto Perojo, Eleuterio de la Peña alias Eleuterio Magtolis and Santiago, N., alias
Tagoy were not apprehended by the authorities, the trial took place
with respect only to the other defendants, one of whom, namely, Manuel
de la Pena, was discharged as an accused and used as state witness. In
due course, the lower court rendered judgment finding Jardenil and
Blaquio guilty as charged in Case No. 5021 and of attempted homicide in
Case No. 5089, and sentenced each: (a) in Case No. 5021, to
life imprisonment, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Bayani
Sarmiento in the sum of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment, and
to pay the proportional part of the costs; and (b) in Case No: 5039, to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor to four (4) years and two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional,
mth the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the
proportional part of the costs. Hence, this appeal taken by defendants
Jardenil and Blaquio.

The version of the prosecution is set forth in the decision appealed from, from which we quote:

“Entre el acusado Recarido Jardenil y el occiso
Bayani Sarmiento existia una enemistad personal. Bayani Sarmiento y
Jose Marco eran amigos que frecuentaban la taberna de tuba de los
esposos Julio Aguilar y una tal Andang sita en la Calle Lacson de la
Ciudad de Bacolod. En la noche del Domingo dia 22 de Abril de 1956,
encontrandose Jose Marco en la referida taberna, Recarido Jardenil se
le acerco a Marco preguntandole donde se encontraba Bayani Sarmiento, a
lo que Marco contesto diciendo que aquel vivia en el barrio de Sto.
Niño. Dicho esto, Recarido Jardenil le increpo a Marco diciendo: ‘Tu
tambien eres valiente, y eres uno de los que molestan y detienen a los
transuentes en esta calle.’ Como quiera que Jardenil hizo ademan de
arrancar algo de su cinto, Marco se escurrio del lugar. Cuatro dias
despues, o sea, hacia las seis de la tarde del dia 26 de Abril de 1956,
los seis acusados, capitaneados por Recarido Jardenil, reunieronse en
la tienda del Chino Iwa situada en la esquina de las calles San
Sebastian y Lacson, y alli planearon matar a Bayani Sarmiento y Jose
Marco. Despues de inquirir de sus co-acusados por las armas que cada
uno portaba, Jardenil les invito a beber tuba en la taberna de un tal
Oscar Cruz en la Calle Smith en donde permanecieron cosa de una hora y
media, despues de lo cual Jardenil invito a su coacusados para ir a la
taberna de Aguilar en la Calle Lacson y buscar a Bayani Sarmiento y
Jose Marco. Al llegar a dicha taberna los acusados no les encontraron a
Sarmiento y Marco, por lo que Jardenil volvio a invitar a sus
companeros a la taberna de Oscar Cruz para volver a tomar tuba. Los
acusados permanecieron en dicha taberna hasta eso de las 11:00 de la
noche en que, por disposicion de Jardenil, el grupo se dirigio de nuevo
a la taberna de Aguilar. Delante del grupo iban Jardenil y Ricardo
Blaquio, y Jardenil dio la consigna a sus compañeros diciendo que para
el caso de encontrarles a Sarmiento y Marco, tres de ellos se situarian
enfrente y los otros tres detras. En esta ocasion Bayani Sarmiento y
Jose Marco ya se encontraban cerca del mostrador en el exterior de la
taberna de Aguilar bebiendo tuba en compañia de Arturo Filiu. En
llegando cerca de la taberna, Jardenil se detuvo en medio de la calle
frente de la taberna, y desde alla le llamo a Bayani Sarmiento. Este se
le acerco a Jardenil, y Jardenil arranco de su cinto la bayoneta
Exhibito ‘B’, visto lo cual Sarmiento puso en alto sus dos manos
diciente: ‘Arreglamos esto, nosotros no nos hemos peleado.’ En este
instante Restituto Perojo, quien se situo a espaldas de Bayani
Sarmiento, cogio por los hombros de este y le empujo hacia Jardenil.
Simultaneamente Jardenil dio un pinchazo con la bayoneta que portaba
cogiendole a Sarmiento en el abdomen. Al sentirse herido, Sarmiento
medio se encorvo cogiendo con sus dos manos su abdomen. Jardenil volvio
la vista hacia la taberna, y al divisar a Jose Marco que se hallaba
parado en la puerta, dijo a sus compañeros: ‘Marco esta alla,’ y, como
movidos por un resorte, Jardenil y sus compañeros se avalanzaron contra
Marco. Este se introdujo en el interior de la tienda, trato de huir,
pero Jardenil le dio con la bayoneta un golpe en la frente derribandole
al suelo. Asi caido, Jardenil le volvio a asestar otro bayonetazo
tocandole en el lado izquierdo de la espalda. Los otros acusados
tambien le agredieron a Marco y le arrastraron fuera de la tienda hasta
llegar a una pequeña puente en donde le dejaron por muerto, marchandose
todos del lugar. Despues que las acusados se marcharon, Arturo Filiu se
le acerco a Marco y le ayudo a incorporarse de la tierra. A pocos pasos
del lugar Filiu y Marco le encontraron a Bayani Sarmiento tendido en
tierra y jadeante. Con la ayuda de otra persona Filiu y Marco le
embarcaron a Sarmiento en una calesa que a la sazon pasaba por el
lugar, y le condujeron al hospital provincial. Despues de algun tiempo
de llegar al hospital Bayani Sarmiento expiro a consecuencia de sus
heridas.

“Practicada la autopsia del cadaver de Bayani
Sarmiento por el Dr. Antonio Mota, medico residente del hospital, dicho
facultativo testifico haber encontrado las siguientes lesiones:

‘1.
Wound, stabbed, 1½ inches long, costal arch, right, running obliquely,
sharp edges, pointed extremities, directed slightly upwards, forwards
and to the right lacerating the ensiform cartilage of the sternum and
lacerating the pericardium.

‘2. Hemopericardiuf, about 100 cc. bloody fluid and blood clots.

CAUSE OF DEATH

‘1. Cardiac tampeonade, secondary to stabbed wound.’

“Por
otra parte, Jose Marco fue puesto bajo el tratamiento medico del Dr. R.
P. Zulueta, otro medico residente del mismo hospital, quien certifico
haber encontrado en aquel las siguientes lesiones:

‘1. Wound, incised, 2 inches long, back, left at level of 10th thoracic vertibrae; 2 inches long, frontal left.

‘2. Contusion with abrasion, neck, anterolateral, left.

‘3. Wound, lacerated, ½ cm., suprasternal notch.

‘4. Wound, punctured, non-penetrating, lumbar, left.

‘5. Contusion, interscapular region, right.’ (Exh. (C.)

“Declarando
como testigo de la acusacion el Dr. Zulueta asevero que las lesiones
sufridas por Jose Marco eran curables de 7 a 9 dias, y que ninguna de
ellas pudo haber causado su muerte.”

Upon the other hand, appellant Jardenil testified that, as he was
walking homeward, in the evening of the occurrence, Johny or Jose Marco
and Arturo Filiu lunged at him near the door of said store, where Filiu
held him, while Marco was giving him fist blows; that being unable to
bear the pain caused by said blows, he (Jardenil) shook off Filiu’s
hold and grabbed Marco’s bayonet, which was on one of the tables inside
the store, and hit Marco with it; and that, thereafter, he (Jardenil)
went to his house.

Appellant Blaquio, in turn, disclaimed any participation in the
occurrence and said that his presence at the scene thereof was purely
coincidental. He asserted that, as he was about to buy food, which he
intended to bring home, in the evening of April 26, 1956, he found
Sarmiento, Marco, and Filiu, together with Sem Escobar, Manuel de la
Peña, Eleuterio de la Peña, alias Eleuterio Magtolis, and Santiago N., alias
“Tagoy”, in Andang’s store, where he heard Marco remark: “Tonight, I am
going to kill that person, if I see him;” that Sarmiento, replied: “Go
ahead. Let us go back to Muntinglupa;” that shortly afterwards, he
noticed a commotion and then saw Jardenil running towards the store,
pursued by Marco and Filiu; that Marco overtook Jardenil at the
threshold of said store and hit him on the back; that soon later,
Sarmiento came running to the store, followed by Manuel de la Peña,
Eleuterio de la Peña, alias Eleuterio Magtolis, and Santiago N., alias
Tagoy; that the latter stabbed Sarmiento in the stomach; and that
forthwith, he (Blaquio) ran away from the scene of the crime.

The issue in this appeal hinges on the credibility of the evidence
introduced by both parties. On the one hand, the main proof for the
prosecution consisted of the testimony of Manuel de la Peña, Arturo
Filiu, Johny or Jose Marco and Lina Navarro, who were substantially
corroborated by the physicians who examined Sarmiento and Marco, by
detectives Amado Torres and Cesar Policarpio, of the city police force,
who investigated the occurrence and apprehended Jardenil in the evening
of April 26, 1956, and by William Estiller, a bystander who happened to
be at the scene of the crime, shortly before its commission.
Considering that Lina Navarro, a 16-year old daughter of the owner of
Andang’s stored was there at the time of the occurrence, and had no
possible motive to favor either party to the dispute, it is clear, that
His Honor, the Trial Judge, did not err in giving credence to the
evidence for the prosecution.

On the other hand, the theory of appellant Jardenil is inherently
incredible. He claims to have hit Marco with his (Marco’s) own bayonet,
which he (Jardenil) found on a table inside said store. If, as Jardenil
would have us believe, Marco and Filiu were looking for him to attack
him, said complainant would not have left his alleged bayonet beyond
his reach, much less where his alleged intended victim could get it and
then turn it against its owner (Marco). Moreover, the violence
allegedly used upon him by Marco was not borne out by any injury,
contusion or other external marks which would have been left upon his
person by the beating said to have been administered upon him.

Then, again, Jardenil’s testimony suggests that he had no
participation whatsoever in the injuries sustained by Sarmiento. Yet,
upon being investigated by the police, in the evening of the
occurrence, Marco pointed to Jardenil as the person who stabbed
Sarmiento, before hitting him (Marco) on the forehead, and then on the
back, with the bayonet Exhibit B, whereupon the peace officers
proceeded to the house of Jardenil and found said bayonet therein. In
fact, on April 2, 1956, he subscribed, before the municipal judge of
Bacolod City, the affidavit Exhibit I admitting that it was he who
stabbed Sarmiento.

Similarly, the testimony of appellant Blaquio is contradicted by the
affidavit made by him before said municipal judge, substantially
confirming the version of the prosecution.

The Court, is, therefore, convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that
appellants herein have performed the acts alleged in the informations
filed in the present case. Although there is reason to believe that
appellants intended to have a showdown with Sarmiento and Marco in the
evening of April 26, 1956, the Court does not feel the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation has been sufficiently
established. In short, it finds that the crime committed in Case No.
5021 (L-11795) is merely homicide, with the generic aggravating
circumstances of intoxication, purposely sought to facilitate the
commission of the crime, and abuse of superior strength, for which
reason the appellants should each be sentenced, in said case, to an
indeterminate penalty, ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, apart from the accessory penalties and the indemnity ordained in the decision appealed from.

Thus modified, as to the nature of the crime committed, and the
penalty in Case No. 5021, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, therefore, in all other respects, with costs against the
appellants. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J. Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., took no part.