G.R. No. L-47118. May 21, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUAN LAGANZON, SEBASTIAN LAGANZON AND ALEX CHALLOY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
MAKASIAR, J.:
murder in Criminal Case No. 7653 in the then Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur, thus:
“That on or about the 31st day of January, 1962, in the
Municipality of Bato, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with
pieces of wood and bamboo, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and with evident
premeditation and taking advantage of the nighttime and superior
strength to better accomplish their purpose, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strike with
the said weapons one Francisco Pega, thereby inflicting upon him fatal
wounds which directly caused his instantaneous death” (p. 4, rec.).
All the accused pleaded not guilty.
After trial, in a decision promulgated on February 26, 1974, the lower
court found the accused Alex Challoy, Sebastian Laganzon and Juan
Laganzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified
by abuse of superior strength and sentenced “each to suffer the penalty
of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as
minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum of reclusion temporal,
and to indemnify the heirs of the late Francisco Pega, the sum of
P15,000.00 Philippine Currency, to be paid solidarity by the accused,
plus the costs” (p. 9, rec.).
On appeal to the then Court of Appeals (now Intermediate Appellate Court
under BP 129), the decision was affirmed on September 1, 1977 as
follows:
“The evidence for the prosecution, considered in the light of
surrounding circumstances, point conclusively to the guilt of the
appellants of the crime of murder with grave abuse of superior strength
as a qualifying circumstance. The number of aggressors here point to
the attending circumstance of superior force, not treachery (U.S. vs.
Banagala, 24 Phil. 69). The penalty for murder as defined and punished
in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion temporal maximum to death. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the proper penalty should be reclusion perpetua.“PREMISES CONSIDERED, considering that the penalty of reclusion perpetua
should be imposed, We hereby certify this case to the Supreme Court for
final determination, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 12, Rule 124 of
the New Rules of Court” (pp. 74-75, rec.).
Considering the penalty imposed upon accused Juan Laganzon, Alex Challoy
and Sebastian Laganzon, the case against them is now before Us for
final determination, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 12, Rule 124 of
the New Rules of Court which states that:
“Whenever in any criminal case submitted to a division the said
division should be of the opinion that the penalty of death or life
imprisonment should be imposed, the said court shall refrain from
entering judgment thereon and shall forthwith certify the case to the
Supreme Court for final determination, as if the case had been brought
before it on appeal” (Rule 124, Sec. 12, par. 2, Rules of Court).
The facts according to the prosecution are as follows:
Irenea Elpides declared that in the afternoon of January 31, 1962 at
about 5:30 o’clock, Francisco Pega arrived at the store owned by her
located in barrio Sta. Cruz, Bato, Camarines Sur. Upon arrival thereat,
Pega bought one (1) bottle of Pepsi-Cola. Moments later, Juan Laganzon,
Nicasio Almasgo, Cornelio Timbang and Gabriel Gonzales also arrived. As
it was already getting dark, Braga lighted the petromax lamp (T.S.N.,
Aug. 31, 1964, pp. 30-34).
In the meantime, Irenea went inside their kitchen. Once inside the
kitchen, Irenea heard a thud from the place where the group was
drinking. When she looked, she saw Francisco Pega hanging from the
bench where he was seated while his feet were perched on the bench. Pega
stood up meekly and immediately Sebastian Laganzon approached him and
asked why he, Pega, fell down, to which Pega replied that Juan Laganzon,
brother of Sebastian Laganzon, hit him on the nose. Forthwith,
Sebastian Laganzon escorted Pega to the house of Escolastico Solares
while Almasgo, Timbang and Gonzales went home. Only Alex Challoy stayed
in the Braga store for a while as he proceeded later to the PNR station
which was about 200 meters from their house (pp. 36-42, t.s.n., Aug 31,
1964).
Irenea also declared that at about 7:20 o’clock of the evening of
January 31, 1962, she saw Sebastian Laganzon and Francisco Pega passed
by her store presumably on their way to the railroad station (t.s.n.,
Aug. 31, 1964, p. 43).
After the Manila-bound train had left, she and her husband learned from
one of their customers that Francisco Pega was ran over by the train
(pp. 44-45, t.s.n., Aug. 31, 1964). Sotero Braga, Irenea’s husband,
substantially corroborated his wife’s testimony (t.s.n., June 22 &
Aug. 31, 1964).
Vitaliana Orasa, a 37 year-old fisherman, declared that in the evening
of January 31, 1962, at about 7:30 o’clock he was walking on the road on
his way home from the market when he saw Francisco Pega being beaten by
Sebastian Laganzon, Juan Laganzon, and Alex Challoy beside the railway
near the house of Tanay (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965, pp. 3-4). He was only 10
meters from where the three accused beat Pega and was therefore in a
vantage position to witness the incident; that is, he saw the accused
alternately beat Pega with blows to the head with pieces of iron and
bamboo until the latter fell down to the ground (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965,
pp. 5-6). Afterward, the accused left. Juan Laganzon proceeded to the
direction of Iraya, while Sebastian Laganzon and Alex Challoy went
towards the PNR station (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965, pp. 5-6).
Orasa testified further that after the accused had left the scene of the
crime, he likewise proceeded home to take his supper. It took him only
two minutes to eat his supper and not long after, he went to the PNR
station in time for the arrival of the Manila-bound train in which he
did work as a baggage boy. He arrived at the railroad station ten
minutes before 8:00 o’clock in the evening, and found out that the
Manila-bound train had already arrived (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965, pp.
23-25).
Not long after, he was asked by a passenger to carry his baggage
consisting of several bundles and obligingly he took the task of
carrying said baggages to the fifth coach of the train. After performing
his job, he immediately went down from the train for the purpose of
moving his bowel. He defecated beside the fence of Solares. While he was
moving his bowels, he saw Juan Laganzon and Sebastian Laganzon carrying
the body of Francisco Pega to the railroad track between the second and
last coach (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965, pp. 24-26). Immediately after Pega’s
body was placed across the railroad track, Sebastian Laganzon went
inside the railroad station while Juan Laganzon went to the direction of
his house. Orasa declared that when Pega was brought under the train he
was already dead. After the Manila-bound train had left, somebody
shouted: “Someone was ran over by it.” (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965, pp. 9-10).
“Sonia Mota was presented who testified under oath that she was 13
years old, single, and resident of Divina Pastora, Bato, Camarines
Sur. That on the evening of January 31, 1962, her father sent her an
errand for the purpose of buying cigarettes at the store of Trinidad
Estoque at about 7:00 o’clock; that in going to the said store from
their house, one had to pass the railroad track and upon reaching in
front of the railroad station, one had to cross the railroad track and
pass towards the side of the national highway. After buying the
cigarettes and while walking along the national highway, she saw three
persons under a big acacia tree beating another person at a distance of
12 meters from her, more or less; that she was notable to recognize the
fourth person as they were under the acacia tree and getting scared she
ran home (p. 6, CFI decision; p. 9, rec.).
On February 1, 1962, an autopsy of the body of Francisco Pega was
conducted by Dr. Theo Jayme Santy, medico-legal officer of the NBI, in
the municipal hall of Bato, Camarines Sur. The findings are as follows:
“EXTERNAL FINDINGS:
“1. Clean cut lacerated wound, 3 inch. circular arch, involving
the whole substance of the scalp incl. the superficial surface of the
skull,
producing fracture depression, 2 inches in length along the line
of the wound at the occipital region to left on the median line at the
level of the super-Nuchal line;“2. Clean cut lacerated wound forehead, 1 1/2 in hairline,
cutting the whole thickness of the scalp including the bone, frontal;“3. Multiple lacerated wounds, ragged with abrasions on the malar and periorbital area of the left side;
“4. Lacerated wound 1 in. hairline, forehead, right side;
“5. Multiple abrasions, malar right side, and lateral side eyes;
“6. Multiple abrasions, upper lip, with echemosis;
“7. Multiple abrasions, upper extremities (hands, forearms and arms);
“8. Amputating wound, upper third of thigh, left;
“9. Ragged lacerated wound, undersurface big toe, left;
“10. Amputating wound, distal third or left, incl. fibula and tibia, right; and
“11. Multiple abrasions chest at the level of the 3rd rib, anterior clavicular line, left side.
“INTERNAL FINDINGS:
“1. Fracture of the occipital bone left side;
“2. Fracture of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs left side; and
“3. Hemorrhage of the brain (Petechial) scanty.
“CAUSE OF DEATH: SHOCK, ACUTE HEMORRHAGE” (pp. 59-60, rec.).
The accused appellants interposed the defense of denial and alibi.
Juan Laganzon testified that he joined the drinking spree held at the
store of Sotero Braga on the night of January 31, 1962. He told the
court that he never had any quarrel with the deceased during the
drinking session. His wife arrived a little later and they went home
together where he spent the rest of the night (t.s.n., Nov. 12, 1973,
pp. 57-63, 74-76).
Sebastian Laganzon testified that he was never at the store of Sotero
Braga that night nor did he join the drinking spree. He told the court
that he was an employee of the Philippine National Railways and his tour
of duty was from 4:00 to 9:00 o’clock in the morning and then from 3:00
to 9:00 o’clock in the evening. He was at his office when he heard that
somebody was ran over by the train. The person ran over by the train
turned out to be Francisco Pega (t.s.n., April 4, 1970, pp. 46-65).
Alex Challoy testified that he came to know the deceased on the night of
January 31, 1962 at the store of Sotero Braga. He contended that
Sebastian Laganzon was his companion and they joined the drinking spree
held in the store. He further testified that Juan Laganzon boxed
Francisco Pega and that after the incident, Sebastian Laganzon and
Francisco left the group. He himself left later with a baggage boy named
Bonifacio Pureza and went to the PNR station to load his cargo. After
the loading was done, he left on the train that night (pp. 6-10, Brief
for Alexander Challoy; p. 38, rec.).
The trial court, in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged, relied heavily on the testimony of the eyewitness,
Orasa. Moreover, the lower court conducted an ocular inspection to
insure a thorough understanding of the facts testified to in court. The
then Court of Appeals agreed with the findings of fact made by the trial
court.
Presented before Us are the allegations of accused Sebastian Laganzon
and Juan Laganzon that the trial court erred: 1) in giving credence to
the testimony of Vitaliano Orasa, the supposed eyewitness to the
incident; and 2) in considering the information the lower court obtained
during the private talks at the ocular inspection (Brief for Sebastian
and Juan Laganzon; p. 34, rec.).
On the other hand, Alex Challoy assigned the following errors:
“1. That the trial court erred in holding that the late Francisco Pega was a victim of foul play;
“2. That assuming arguendo that the said Francisco Pega
was indeed the victim of foul play, the trial court erred in holding
that the accused-appellant Alex Challoy was among his assailants;“3. That the trial court erred in disregarding totally and
absolutely the testimony of accused-appellant Alex Challoy and his sole
witness, Tomas Talisay;“4. That the trial court erred in giving credibility and
evidentiary weight to the testimony of prosecution witness, Vitaliano
Orasa, notwithstanding the irreconcilable conflicts in the material
points in the said testimony as well as the improbable and ridiculous
facts testified to;“5. That assuming arguendo that the accused-appellant is
indeed guilty as held by the trial court, the trial court erred in
imposing the corresponding penalty in its maximum period;“6. That assuming arguendo that the late Francisco Pega
was indeed the victim of foul play, the crime committed by his assailant
was homicide and not murder as held by the trial court; and“7. That assuming arguendo that the late Francisco Pega was indeed assaulted and that further assuming arguendo that
the assailants are the three (3) accused, the trial court erred that
accused-appellant Alexander Challoy has committed the same kind of crime
as the other two (2) accused, Juan Laganzon and Sebastian Laganzon,
considering that there is no evidence proving conspiracy and that it is
not shown that it was the said accused who inflicted the fatal injury”
(pp. 1-3, brief for appellant Alexander Challoy; p. 38, rec.).
WE find the appeal devoid of merit.
In finding the appellants Juan Laganzon, Sebastian Laganzon and Alex
Challoy guilty with the crime of MURDER qualified by abuse of superior
strength, emphasis was placed on the testimony of the eyewitness,
Vitaliano Orasa.
What is the testimony of Orasa? The following is relevant:
xx xx xx
“Fiscal Nepomuceno:
“Q – In what particular place were you in that evening of January 31, 1962?
“Orasa – I was beside the road.
“Q – At what time was that in the night when you were beside the road?
“A – About 7:30 in the evening.
“Q – Why were you there beside the road at that time?
“A – Because I just came from the market.
“Q – And what were you doing there at that time?
“A – I was on my way home.
“Q – Then at that time when you were on your way home, do you
remember if you have witnessed any unusual event on that evening?“A – I saw that late Isko was being beaten.
“Q – Will you state the full name of that Isko who was being beaten according to you?
“A – Francisco Pega.
xx xx xx
“Q – How do you know that it was Francisco Pega who was being beaten?
“A – Because I saw.
“Q – By whom was Francisco Pega being beaten?
“A – First Juan.
“Q – Will you indicate to the court who is that Juan whom you saw beating Francisco Pega?
“INTERPRETER –
Witness indicating Juan Laganzon.
“Q – With what did Juan Laganzon beat Francisco Pega?
“A – A piece of iron.
“Q – After Francisco Pega was beaten by Juan Laganzon, what happened next?
“A – Then Sebastian Laganzon struck the head of Francisco Pega.
“Q – Will you indicate to the Honorable Court that Sebastian Laganzon who struck Francisco Pega?
“A – This one (witness indicating the accused).
“Q – With what did Sebastian Laganzon strike the head of Francisco Pega?
“A – Piece of bamboo.
“Q – And what happened next after Sebastian Laganzon struck the head of Francisco Pega with a piece of bamboo?
“A – Then came next, Challoy struck also Francisco Pega with a split bamboo.
“Q – Indicate to the Honorable Court this Alex Challoy if he is here now.
“A – There.
(Witness indicating the accused Alex Challoy).
xx xx xx
“Q – When beating was taking place, how far were you from them?
“A – 10 meters more or less.
“Q – And how were you able to recognize Juan Laganzon, Sebastian
Laganzon and Alex Challoy at the time they were beating Francisco Pega?“A – The night was bright” (t.s.n., January 5, 1965, pp. 3-6).
Prosecution witness Orasa testified clearly and positively on the
criminal overt acts of the appellants. While there might be some
inconsistencies in his testimony, the same involved minor and
inconsequential details. WE agree with the Solicitor General that
Vitaliano Orasa; who never went to school, was in all likelihood
testifying in court for the first time. He took the witness stand almost
three (3) years after the occurrence of the incident and in all
probability, he must have forgotten some details as to how the crime was
committed by the appellants. It is a truism that the most candid
witness oftentimes commit mistakes and incur inconsistencies on his
declarations, but such honest lapses do not necessarily impair his
intrinsic credibility. Moreover, well-settled is the rule that
inconsistencies and contradictions incurred by an illiterate witness in
the course of a lengthy examination will not affect the credibility of
his testimony (People vs. Provo, L-28347, 37 SCRA 19 [Jan. 20, 1971]).
The contradictions in the declarations of a witness when trivial, cannot
be ascribed to an insidious attempt to distort the truth. Far from
being evidence of falsehood, they could justifiably be regarded as a
demonstration of a good faith and a confirmation of the fact that the
witness was not a rehearsed witness (People vs. Alcantara, L-26967, 33
SCRA 812 [June 20, 1970]).
The primordial consideration is that a witness must have no motive to
implicate an accused to the commission of a serious crime. The records
show that Orasa had no such motive. If he did testify for the
prosecution, it was all due to his desire to tell the truth. As held in
People vs. Borbono (76 Phil. 702), “the absence of evidence as to an
improper motive actuating the principal witness for the prosecution
strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive
existed and that his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.”
Against the case presented by the People, the defense of alibi was set up by the accused.
The evidence of record demonstrate that the alibi of the three accused
cannot be given any weight. WE quote with approval the findings of the
trial court which show clearly the material inconsistencies of the
defense witnesses:
“The corroborating witness for accused Alex Challoy, Tomas
Talisay, contradicted the testimony of the accused Alex Challoy in that
there were only two (2) baggage boys who helped him with his two (2)
cartons and three (3) small sacks. While Challoy said, he had the other
seven (7) sacks of dried fish taken to the station at 6:00 P.M., and
accused Challoy did not mention the other baggage boys except Bonifacio
Pureza in direct testimony but merely said, and another one; that Pureza
was with him until the train came and until the same left. In fact, he
did not identify Tomas Talisay.xx xx xx
xx xx xx
“One patent and material inconsistency is the fact that the
accused, Alex Challoy, was with him (Talisay) at the station January 31,
1962, from 7:45 to 8:20 o’clock that evening for the strong reason that
the accused Alex Challoy testified that at about 7:00 P.M of January
31, 1962, he was introduced to the late Francisco Pega at the store of
Mr. and Mrs. Sotero Braga located at the barrio of Sta. Cruz, Bato,
Camarines Sur, and drank wine with Francisco Pega, Juan Laganzon,
Sebastian Laganzon, Cornelio Timbang, Nicasio Almasgo, and Gabriel
Gonzales. He left the store after the incident between Juan Laganzon and
the late Francisco Pega with Bonifacio Pureza to the PNR Station at
8:20 o’clock that same evening of January 31, 1962. In fact, Mr. and
Mrs. Sotero Braga positively stated that Alex Challoy and Sebastian
Laganzon came together before 6:10 P.M. that same evening at their
store. Moreover, the whole record of this case, there is no showing that
the train was delayed at the station of Bato up to 8:20 P.M. of January
31, 1962. On the basis of the testimonies of Tomas Talisay and the
accused Alex Challoy, the Court is not convinced that the accused
Challoy took the Bicol Express that evening of January 31, 1962.“On his side, accused bastian Laganzon alleged that on January 31,
1962, he was a regular employee of the PNR Station of Bato, Camarines
Sur as station helper x x.xx xx xx
“On January 31, 1962, the train that was expected to arrive was
the Bicol Express and scheduled to come at 8:04 P.M.. On this date,
January 31, 1962 he (Sebastian Laganzon) went to the PNR Station at 3:20
P.M. to take charge of the freight cargoes. He denied that at about
6:20 o’clock P.M., he was with Alex Challoy at the store of Sotero Braga
where they drank wine. xx xxx xx xx
“How could the accused Sebastian Laganzon be in his office at 6:00
P.M. of January 31, 1962, when at about 6:10 P.M., he and Challoy
joined the drinking spree at the store of Mr. and Mrs. Sotero Braga?
This fact was not only testified to by the owners of the store but by
the accused, Alex Challoy, no less,xx xx xx
xx xx xx
“The testimony of Juan Laganzon that Alex Challoy and his brother,
Sebastian Laganzon, were not at the store of Sotero Braga drinking wine
with Cornelio Timbang, Nicasio Almasgo, Gabriel Gonzales and Francisco
Pega between 6:10 P.M. to 7:20 o’clock P.M. of January 31, 1962, was a
deliberate lie for the indisputable fact that not only Sotero Braga and
his wife testified positively that Alex Challoy and Sebastian Laganzon
were at their store on this precise time but no less than the accused
Alex Challoy said otherwise. The allegation of the accused, Juan
Laganzon that the reason why he did not return to the PNR Station after
he was fetched by his wife from the drinking spree at the store of
Sotero Braga was the fact that he had no chickens that afternoon of
January 31, 1962. This point of fact is -- likewise — a pathological
lie because Demetrio Magalona sold to him ten (10) chickens at the
parada which is 1/2 kilometer away from the PNR Station. For the ten
(10) chickens, Magalona categorically testified, Juan Laganzon paid
him P20.00 at P2.00 each” (pp. 27-33, decision of CFI; p. 9, rec.).It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court relative
to the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the
witnesses themselves, are entitled to high respect, and therefore,
generally sustained by the appellate court. The only exception arise
when it could be shown that the trial judge has overlooked or
misinterpreted any fact or circumstance or weight and value as to
impeach his findings or call for a different finding (People vs. Surban,
123 SCRA 232-233; People vs. Balmaceda, 87 SCRA 94; People vs. Cunanan,
75 SCRA 15; People vs. Ancheta, 60 SCRA 333; People vs. Geronimo, 53
SCRA 246; People vs. Abboc, 53 SCRA 54; People vs. Espejo, 36 SCRA 400).
Such findings of facts by the lower court should not be disturbed
unless for strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a
better position to examine the real evidence (People vs. Amoncio,
L-49069, 122 SCRA 687 [June 22, 1983]; People vs. Barros, L-34250, 122
SCRA 34-35 [May 3, 1983]; People vs. Chavez, L-55830, 121 SCRA 806
[April 28, 1983]; People vs. Santos, 94 SCRA 277; People vs. Balili, 92
SCRA 552; People vs. Macaraeg, 53 SCRA 285; People vs. Catalino, 22 SCRA
1091). The mater of assigning value to declarations at the witness
stand is best and most competently performed by a trial judge who,
unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of
the defendant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is
thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the
true and the false (People vs. Bermudez, 57 SCRA 629). WE find no
reason to depart from the above rulings as the trial judge took pains to
separate the relevant testimonies from the irrelevant.WE have repeatedly held that alibi is unavailing once the accused
is positively identified by one without motive to charge falsely said
accused especially with a grave offense that could bring the death
sentence to the culprit (People vs. Remollo, L-31330, 123 SCRA 210 [June
29, 1983]; People vs. Dimatulac, L-35099, 122 SCRA 47 [May 3, 1983];
People vs. Gamayon, L-25486, 121 SCRA 643 [April 28, 1983]; People vs.
Moreno, 85 SCRA 649; People vs. Jamero, 75 SCRA 131; People vs. Esmael,
37 SCRA 601; People vs. Mabaga, 28 SCRA 780; People vs. Reyes, et al.,
17 SCRA 309; People vs. Dasig, 93 Phil. 618; People vs. Pili, 51 Phil.
965). Alibi is taken with caution because it is easy to concoct and
fabricate. In the instant case, riot only were the accused identified
by the prosecution witness, their defense of Alibi yielded material
inconsistencies as well.The trial court even went to the extent of going to the place of the
incident, particularly where the People’s principal witness Vitaliano
Orasa defecated and from which place he saw herein appellants maul and
beat up Francisco Pega. WE find nothing irregular with the procedure
adopted by the trial Judge. When the prosecution presented its evidence,
the trial court was presided by Judge Perfecto Palacio, but when the
defense presented its evidence, the court was already presided by Judge
Delfin Vir. Sunga because the former Judge had retired. An ocular
inspection was conducted by Judge Sunga on February 8, 1974. If at all,
the trial Judge should be commended. The said ocular inspection removed
whatever doubts the trial court had. WE add to this the fact that the
observations of the counsels for the defense were included in the report
made by the court (pp. 924-927, Crim. Case No. 7653 rec.).
On the question as to whether Francisco Pega died as a result of the
beatings made by the accused or because he was ran over by the PNR
train, Vitaliano Orasa testified that Francisco Pega was already dead
when the latter was carried by the Laganzon brothers to the railroad
tracks. The following testimony of Orasa to that effect is relevant:
“FISCAL NEPOMUCENO:
Do you know what was the condition of Francisco Pega when he was
brought by Sebastian Laganzon and Juan Laganzon to the railroad track?“A – The two of them carried Francisco Pega, one holding the head aid the other the feet.
“Q – How did they place the body on the railroad track, parallel to the railroad track or what?
“A – Across the railroad track.
“Q – What I want to know what was the condition of Francisco Pega
when he was placed on the railroad track, was he alive or was he dead
already at that time?“A – He was dead already.
xx xx xx
“Q – How do you know that Francisco Pega was already dead at that time when his body was being placed across the rail?
“A – Because they were carrying him.
“Q – When Francisco Pega was being carried by Juan Laganzon and
Sebastian Laganzon, do you know if Francisco Pega was moving or not?“A – Not moving.
“Q – At the time they laid his body across the rail, was his body moving?
“A – Not moving.
xx xx xx
“Q – When they left the body of Francisco Pega across the rail,
did Francisco Pega move after his body was left across the rail?“A – No sir” (t.s.n., Jan. 5, 1965, pp. 10-11.
Further, Dr. Theo J. Santy declared that relative to the injuries
suffered by the deceased, wound no. 1 in Exhibit “A” (Necropsy Report)
involved “the whole substance of the scalp including the superficial
surface of the skull, producing fracture depression, 2 inches in length
along the line of the wound at the occipital region to the left of the
median line at the level of the supernuchal line”; that the said wound
could have been caused by a hard blunt instrument like a “palomaria” or a
piece of wood; that the wound was fatal because of the internal
injuries; and that death could be the consequence of said wound. Thus,
WE quote the relevant portions of Dr. Santy’s testimony:“FISCAL ALFREDO REYES:
“Q – In this Exhibit ‘A’ you have your external findings, 1 clean
cut lacerated wound, 3 inches circular arch involving the whole
substance of the scalp including the superficial surface of the skull,
producing fracture depression, 2 inches in length along the line of the
wound at the occipital region of the left of the median line at the
level of the supernuchal line. Will you please show that to your body?“A – This wound is located on the head. Wound no. 1 left of the
median line in the level of the supernuchal line at the back of the
head. Circular wound 3 inches involving the whole substance of the
scalp, skin and hair, the skull, producing a deep fracture.“Q – What instrument could have been used in wound no. 1?
“A – This wound being clean cut could have been caused by a hard blunt instrument.
xx xx xx
“Q – With that kind of wound, it is fatal?
“A – Because of the internal injury sustained, this could have
been not necessarily immediately fatal, but it may result to death.“Q – In your estimate how long will the victim live?
“A – Because this wound is situated immediately within the
region of the cerebellum or the small brain being the balancing organ as
well as the prolongation of the brain to the spinal cord where the
center of the circulation as well as the respiration, this may not take a
long time before the individual dies. It will not take time before the
person dies. It will not take time before the individual dies. It is not
necessarily immediate, but it will result to death later.xx xx xx”
(pp. 16-17, June 21, 1966 t.s.n.).
WE now go to the issue of conspiracy.
“A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it” (par. 2,
Art. 8, Revised Penal Code).
In the earlier case of People vs. Ging Sam (94 Phil. 140), it was held
that “for conspiracy to exist, there must be an agreement among the
conspirators concerning the commission of a felony.” But this
requirement does not actually mean that agreement must be in writing or
express, it being sufficient that it be implied from the acts of the
conspirators tending to show their common design to commit the crime.
Previous acquaintance among the conspirators is not even necessary, nor
is it required that each take part in every act, or that all shall know
the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the
conspiracy. Conspiracy need not be established by direct proof as it can
be inferred from the acts of the appellants (People vs. Balane,
L-48319-20, 123 SCRA 614-617, [July 25, 1983]; People vs. Muñoz, 107
SCRA 313; People vs. Cercano, 87 SCRA 1; People vs. Roncal, 79 SCRA 509;
People vs. Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285; People vs. Ogapay, 66 SCRA 210). It
is enough that, at the time the offense was committed, participants had
the same purpose and were united in its execution, as may be inferred
from the attendant circumstances (People vs. Garduque, L-10133, July
31, 1958; People vs. Binasing, 53 O.G. 5208).
WE find that there was conspiracy because the accused had the same
purpose and were united in the execution of the crime of MURDER. The
evidence point to the conclusion that all the accused attacked the
deceased with the intention of killing him. While it is true that
accused Alex Challoy was not seen with the two other appellants
carrying the body of the deceased and placing it across the railroad
tracks to simulate a train accident, the fact is that the victim was in
all probability already dead because the victim did not move before the
train ran over him. The crime had already been consummated and the
subsequent act of the Laganzon brothers was to cover up the crime. And
even if the victim was still alive when placed across the railroad
tracks, he was so unconscious or so helpless that he could not move to
avoid the oncoming train. The crime is still murder.
Moreover, We already held in the case of People vs. Cagod (81 SCRA 110)
that the finding of abuse of superiority implies conspiracy. The
evidence for the prosecution, considered in the light of the attendant
circumstances, point conclusively to the guilt of the appellants of the
crime of murder with grave abuse of superior strength as a qualifying
circumstance. The three accused, armed with clubs and truncheons, took
advantage of their combined strength to maul and kill Francisco Pega.
MURDER as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is punished with reclusion temporal to death. Article 64 of the same Code provides:
“In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three
periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with
the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:“1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its
medium period.”
The then Court of Appeals, speaking through then Justice Lorenzo Relova
(now Associate Justice of this Court), correctly meted out the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to the accused.
On February 27, 1984, We received from the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal of Camarines Sur a letter informing this Court of the death of
accused Sebastian Laganzon in Bato, Camarines Sur on January 16, 1980
(p. 313, rec.). The death of Sebastian Laganzon as shown in the
Certification of the Local Civil Registrar of Bato, Camarines Sur dated
July 29, 1983 (pp. 232, 234, rec.) is also confirmed by the widow of the
victim (p. 223, rec.). Under the circumstances, the case against
Sebastian Laganzon is dismissed only insofar as his criminal liability
is concerned.
WHEREFORE, THE DECISION APPEALED FROM IS HEREBY AFFIRMED WITH THE
MODIFICATION THAT THE THREE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS INDEMNIFY THE HEIRS OF
THE DECEASED FRANCISCO PEGA IN THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY THOUSAND
(P30,000.00) PESOS. THE CASE AGAINST THE DECEASED APPELLANT SEBASTIAN
LAGANZON IS HEREBY DISMISSED ONLY INSOFAR AS HIS CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS
CONCERNED. COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JUAN LAGANZON AND ALEX
CHALLOY. SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., concurred. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua as opined by the Court of Appeals.
Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.
Abad Santos, J., concurred with the outstanding that the decision appealed from and which is affirmed in that of the then Court of Appeals.
Relova, J., no part.