THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. SEVERINO CORPUZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. LUIS ARDANIEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In Criminal Case No. 385 of the Court of First Instance of Abra,
Severino Corpuz, Luis Ardaniel and two other unidentified persons were
charged with the crime of robbery with homicide, while Pascual Gallardo
was accused of the same offense in Criminal Case No. 406 of the same
court. Upon arraignment all of them pleaded not guilty. After a joint
trial, the court acquitted Gallardo on the ground of reasonable doubt,
while it found Corpuz and Ardaniel guilty as charged and sentenced them
as follows:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
the Court finds the accused Severino Corpuz and Luis Ardaniel, in
Criminal Case No. 385, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
robbery with homicide provided and penalized in article 294, paragraph
1, of the Revised Penal Code and the Court sentences them to suffer
each the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify jointly
and severally the heirs of the deceased Antonio Castañeda in the sum of
P6,000.00 for his death; to return to their respective owners the
articles taken by them above set forth by the Court and failure to do
so, to pay jointly and severally the corresponding value thereof proven
namely: P40.00 to Carmen Rodriguez, P370.00 to the heirs of Antonio
Castañeda, P140.00 to Juanita Balicao and P25.00 to Aniceta Castañeda,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in view of the
nature of the principal penalty imposed. The accused Severino Corpuz
and Luis Ardaniel shall further suffer the accessory penalties provided
for by law and to pay the costs.

“The Court acquits the accused Pascual Gallardo in Criminal Case No. 406 with costs de oficio.”

Corpuz and Ardaniel appealed, but, upon the former’s motion, his appeal was dismissed on June 24, 1959.

The prosecution evidence shows that between 11:00 and 12:00 o’clock in
the evening of May 2, 1952, while ex-mayor Antonio Castañeda was
sleeping at his residence in barrio Alimodong, La Paz, Abra, together
with his wife Carmen, daughter Aniceta, son Jovencio and sister-in-law
Juanita Balicao, they were awakened by the presence of two men armed
with carbines. When Castañeda asked them if they were policemen,
instead of answering the query, they ordered the occupants to stand up
and fix them something to eat. Castañeda’s wife recognized one of the
intruders as Severino Corpuz “having known him for a long time because
I usually rode on his truck, he being a conductor of Zambrano having
route to La Paz” (trans. p. 14, Nov. 23, 1954). His daughter, Aniceta
was able to identify the other man as appellant Ardaniel. According to
her, the latter was “very familiar, he was a student in La Paz
Elementary School” (trans. p. 27, Nov. 23, 1954). The two men started
searching the place taking the family’s savings of P130.00 which was
hidden under their mat. The intruders took from Carmen her earrings and
ring worth P70.00, and from Juanita Balicao her earrings and ring worth
P70.00. Thereafter appellant Ardaniel turned his attention to
Castañeda’s daughter, Aniceta, and asked her if they had any left-over
food, to which she answered in the affirmative. Taking Aniceta to the
kitchen with him, Ardaniel ate some of the food found therein and then
asked her if she had already menstruated, to which she answered that
she had not. Sensing that Ardaniel was out to abuse her, she tried to
run out of the kitchen but was held back by Ardaniel who got hold of
her dress, pointed a gun at her and kicked her. Hearing his daughter
cry for help, Castañeda warned Ardaniel not to harm her. The robbers
then made Castañeda remove his clothes, and ordered all the victims to
lie face downward. Then the men ransacked the family’s aparador, taking
therefrom a Bulova wrist watch valued at P200.00 belonging to
Castañeda. As Castañeda did not heed the malefactors’ order to lie face
downward and was lying on his side with his head looking up, Ardaniel
fired two shots at him, followed by three others fired by Corpuz.
Castañeda died of the wounds thus inflicted upon him. After picking up
the empty cartridges, the men left together with their other companions.

A post mortem examination of the victim’s body was conducted by Dr.
Julio P. Valera, the municipal medical and charity clinic physician of
La Paz, the corresponding medical certificate issued by said officer
(Exhibit 10) showing the death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused
by the following wounds on the deceased:

“1. Gunshot wound, through and through, entering at the right side of
the top of the head about 2 inches directly above the right ear, and
coming out at the left occiput about 1 ½ inches lateral to the
occipital protuberance;

“2. Gunshot wound, through and
through, entering the face at the junction of the right ala nasae and
the right cheek; and coming out at the left occiput about ½ inch medial
and slightly above the level of the exit of wound (1). The entrance of
this wound is surrounded by a burn about 1 ½ inches in diameter;

“3. Gunshot wound, through and through entering at the left
infraclavicular fossa, and coming out at the left back at the point
just medial to the inferior angle of the scapula;

“4.
Gunshot wound, through and through entering at the right umbilical
region about 2 inches lateral and 1 inch above the navel, and coming
out at the left lumbar region about 2 inches lateral to the midline and
just above the iliac crest;

“5. Lacerated wound about 2
inches long and 1 inch wide at the medial surface of the distal end of
the upper half of the right forearm. The wound is oblique in
direction—from the radial side upwards to the ulnar side of the forearm.

“Wounds 1, 2, 3, and 4, are fatal.” (Exh. A, p. 10, rec.; pp. 4, 7, t.s.n., Orencia)

Appellant Ardaniel’s defense consists of an alibi. He claims that from
early evening on May 2, 1952 up to daybreak of the following day he was
at the house of one Esperanza Barsuela in barrio Balintong, San Juan,
Abra, playing the trumpet in a band which participated in a death
anniversary celebration and dance held at said house. Appellant’s
testimony and that of his witnesses—Esperanza, Barscuela, owner of the
house where the alleged dance was held, and Alejandro Billedo, who
claimed to be one of. the musicians who, with Ardaniel, furnished the
music—cannot overcome the positive testimony of prosecution
witnesses—whose credibility has not been successfully
assailed—identifying him as one of the malefactors who killed Castaneda
and robbed his household. Carmen Castañeda, the widow, testified that
she knew Ardaniel very well, the latter having eaten several times in
their house during fiestas. Her daughter, Aniceta, likewise testified
that she had seen Ardaniel prior to the incident as a student of La Paz
Elementary School. Juanita Balicao, sister-in-law of the deceased
Castañeda, testified that she recognized Ardaniel as the person who
took her earrings and ring valued at P70.00. Rosalina Tawagan, a
neighbor of the Castanedas, also testified that during the fatal night
in question she heard five gun shots and later saw Ardaniel going down
a ladder of the house of the Castañedas.

The credibility of
Aniceta Castañeda cannot be doubted because while she admitted not
having immediately recognized the person who was holding a
flashlight—evidently he was the accused Corpuz—she, nevertheless,
immediately pointed to Ardaniel as the malefactor who attempted to
abuse her in the kitchen.

There is no merit in the contention
that she and her mother are necessarily biased witnesses and that,
therefore, their testimonies should be scrutinized and received with
caution. We believe that precisely because of their relationship with
the deceased Castañeda, who was killed before their eyes, these
witnesses were only interested in seeing the real guilty parties
punished. We cannot assume that in seeking justice and the punishment
of the assassins, they would indiscriminately and without any motive,
point to the wrong parties. In addition, it must be noted that the
facts testified to by them during the trial were substantially the same
as those contained in their sworn statements made before investigators
the day following the commission of the crime. This prompt
identification precludes all possibility of bad faith and fabrication.

Lastly, it is the alibi relied upon by appellant that should be
received with caution. In this case, it is not supported by indubitable
evidence.

The crime committed by appellant is punishable with reclusion perpetua
to death. It was committed with the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity, which appellant and his companions sought to facilitate the
commission of the crime, and treachery, because of the manner in which
the brutal slaying of Antonio Castaneda was carried out; but in view of
the lack of the required number of votes for the imposition of the
death penalty, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.