THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN DELGADO, JUANITO TRINIDAD, AND RICARDO VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

PARAS, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
convicting the defendants (Edwin Delgado, Juanito Trinidad and Ricardo
Villanueva) of homicide, and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for
an indeterminate period of from eight (8) years and one (1) day, prision
mayor, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day,
reclusion temporal, with the accessories prescribed by law; to
indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased (Restituto Bragat) in
the sum of P2,000, and to pay the costs.

The facts of this case, as found by the trial court and stated in the
Solicitor General’s brief, are more or less as follows: On June 8, 1945, at
about 8 o’clock in the evening, while Restituto Bragat and Ramon Chavez were
occupying A table in the store of Dolores Macabosque in Madridejos, Cebu, the
three defendants arrived. All of a sudden, Juanito Trinidad gave Restituto
Bragat a fist blow which landed on the back of the latter’s neck and which was
followed by another that hit Restituto’s mouth and sent him to the ground. In
the meantime, Edwin Delgado held Ramon Chavez by the shirt and the attempt by
Ricardo Villanueva to strike Restituto Bragat failed only because of the table
that separated them. Before Restituto could stand, he was kicked by Juanito
Trinidad on the hip. Somehow the former managed to arise and to leave the store,
but no sooner had he reached the middle of- the street when he was overtaken by
the defendants, one of whom (Edwin Delgado) boxed Restituto. This again caused
the latter to fall, face downward, whereupon the defendants stepped on and
pounded him with their heavy army shoes. Upon noticing the arrival of policeman
Marcelo Seville, who was summoned to the scene by Anastacio Chavez, the three
defendants ran to the house of Pepe Ybanez, where they were arrested by Marcelo
Seville. From the time Restituto Bragat was abandoned by his assailants until
his death at about 9 o’clock in the municipal building to which he was brought
by Anastacio Chavez, he continued to be in an unconscious state.

While the appellants admit that the three of them were present at the time
Restituto $ragat was attacked, they contend that it was Juanito Trinidad and
Federlco Macahilo who actually participated in the fight that proved fatal to
Restituto. It is thus alleged that as the latter and Juanito Trinidad were
exchanging fist blows, Federico Macahilo intervened by boxing Restituto who,
then in a crawling position, was next kicked on the hip by Federico. As
Restituto ran away, he was chased by Juanito Trinidad and Federico Macahilo and,
upon being overtaken, was again kicked by Federico, Juanito now saying to
Federico, “Bedic that is enough.”

The witnesses for the prosecution were Anastacio Chavez, Ramon Chavez,
Dolores Macabosque and Marcelo Seville. They deserve full credit. There is
absolutely no intimation that they testified against the appellants for any
reason other than their desire to tell the truth. Indeed, it is improbable that
policeman Marcelo Seville and the store owner Doloxes Macabosque would have
dared and chosen to show any preference in favor of Restitute Bra-gat, Ramon
Chavez and Anastacio Chavez, who are strangers to them and in Madridejos, in
much the same way as the appellants.

Dolores Macabosque and Ramon Chavez personally saw the incident in question,
and as they were able to identify the appellants and particularize their
respective roles, the contention, urged by the appellants to the effect that the
government has not duly proven their motive for wanting to attack, much less to
kill, Restituto Bragat, becomes unimportant. The existence and sufficiency of
motive may be essential and indispensable in making out certain offenses, but
surely not in instances where, as in the present case, the appellants’
connection has been fully established by the testimony of eyewitnesses. At any
rate, it seems that Restituto Bragat (nicknamed Totong) was mistaken by the
appellants for one Fortunato Borac (nicknamed Totong).

If, as likewise pretended by the apellante, Federico Macahilo was the
principal assailant of Restituto Bragat, their first impulse and natural
reaction upon being arrested by Marcelo Seville and later questioned, would have
been to disclaim responsibility and to mention Federico as the author of the
offense; and yet it was only during the trial that they had thought of
interposing that defense. Again, under their theory, Federico appears to be a
good friend of, or in some way related to, Juanito Trinidad. Otherwise, Federico
would not, without as much as being asked to do so, have allegedly come to the
aid of Juanito. Not only that; he would not have excelled Juanito in assaulting
Restituto Bragat. It may therefore be assumed that the appellants were in a
position to present Federico, by themselves or under subpoena from the court, as
a witness with a view to establishing the truth and administering justice. Their
failure in this regard engenders the suspicion that their story is only an
afterthought.

The next point raised in this appeal is that conspiracy has not been proven,
with the result that appellants’ criminal liability should be measured only by
their individual and separate participations. It is obvious, however, that
community of purpose on their part is plainly inferable from these
circumstances: (1) The appellants came together to the scene of the occurrence.
(2) While Juanito Trinidad struck the first blow, Edwin Delgado held Ramon
Chavez, and the other defendant (Hicardo Villanueva) unsuccessfully attempted to
hit Restituto Bragat. (3) As the latter’tried to run away, he was pursued by the
appellants who trampled on his body after he had been boxed by Edwin Delgado.
(4) The appellants together left Restituto unconscious on the ground and,
together also, went to the house of Pepe Ybañez.

The injuries received by Restituto Bragat, according to the certificate of
the examining physician, were as follows: (1) Fractured frontal bone, left side;
(2) Fractured left parietal bone; (3) Fractured occipital bone; and (4) Several
traumatic contusions in the face, neck and trunk. The appellants argue that said
injuries are more than what would result naturally if the versipn of the
prosecution were true, at the same time intimating that the injuries other than
those on the back of the neck and on the mouth of Restituto Bragat must
necessarily have been inflicted by Fede-rico Macahilo, in conformity with what
the evidence for the defense tended to show. Appellants’ contention is again a
mistake. It is enough to recall that, in addition to the fist and pedal blows
struck by the appellants on the neck, mouth and hip, they mercilessly trampled
on the body of their vie- . tim while it lay on the ground face downward, and
their total assault was more than sufficient to have produced the injuries
specified in the aforementioned medical certificate.

Nevertheless, we cannot accept the observation of the Solicitor General that
the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present and should elevate the
offense attributed to the appellants to the category of murder. Mere suddenness
of the attack is not enough, because the mode adopted by the appellants does not
positively tend to prove that they thereby knowingly intended to insure the
accomplishment of their criminal purpose without gry risk to themselves arising
from the defense that Restituto Bragat might offer. As a matter of fact, Juanito
Trinidad began his offensive by merely using his bare fist when, if his design
was to be relatively, if not absolutely, safe from a possible counterattack, he
could have brought into play some weapon capable of rendering Restituto harmless
after the initial blow. The same consideration may be said with respect to the
other appellants. Moreover, the deceased was not without a companion, and there
is nothing in the record from which we may infer treachery by reason alone of
great disparity between appellants’ physical strength and stature and
Res-tituto’s fighting ability.

As the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the facts and the law,
the same is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Moran, C, J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla,
and Tuason, JJ., concur.