THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE REPATO AND FELICIANO NATAD, DEFENDANTS. JOSE REPATO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Jose Repato and Feliciano Natad were charged before the CFI of Pangasinan,
with the crime of Murder. After trial, the court a quo returned a
verdict of guilt against Jose Repato and sentenced him to suffer reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Prudencio Vallo, in the
sum of P6,000.00 and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs, and acquitted Natad, on
reasonable doubt.

In the early morning of September 1, 1960, the body of Prudencio Vallo was
found on the side of the barrio road at Bacacleo, Aguilar, Pangasinan. An
autopsy performed by the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Cecilio Balbao, showed
that Vallo sustained three bullet wounds, thru and thru, one in the brain, one
in the chest and one in the back; the skull (frontal region) was crushed up to
the temporal region; left eye swollen with ecchymosis and the right eye
ecchymotic (Exh P.). Five (5) empty shells and three (3) lead slugs, the latter
dug out of the ground (Exhibits B, B-1 to B-4, C, C-1 to C-2), were found about
1 1/2 feet to 3 meters away from the body of the victim.

The prosecution, thru the testimony of Crispin Vinluan, proved that on the
evening of August 31, 1960, a picnic was held in the house of his son Macario
Vinluan, and attended by Primitivo Daño, Eliseo de la Cuadra, Fidel Rosario,
Hipolito Rosario, accused Jose Repato and Feliciano Natad, councilor Bonifacio
Tamesa, barrio lieutenant Florentino Ordoña, and Dominador Repato. Dog meat and
gin were served. After the eating and drinking, the deceased Prudencio Vallo
begged leave to go ahead. When Vallo was still at the stairs, Jose Repato told
the crowd, “Do not consider that Prudencio Vallo was among us in this picnic”,
and thereupon followed Vallo, accompanied by Feliciano Natad. After Jose Repato
and Natad had left, the remaining members of the group also dispersed, witness
Crispin Vinluan following Tamesa, Ordoña and Hipolito Rosario. Five or ten
minutes later, Crispin heard a gun report coming at a distance of about 20
meters from where he was. He knew Jose Repato was the one who fired the shot
because he saw him (Repato) carrying a carbine caliber 30 (Exhibit A) at the
picnic and he actually saw him fire at Vallo. He recognized Repato, because the
moon was clear and bright (at full moon). After the first two shots, Vallo fell
and while in such position, the other accused Natad struck Vallo with a stone,
although witness did not see what part of the body of Vallo was hit, because he
then ran away. While running away, he heard three (3) more gun reports coming
from the direction where Vallo was shot. He knew both Repato and Natad since
childhood and they were all from the same barrio.

Macario Vinluan, Crispin’s son, affirmed that the persons mentioned by his
father attended the picnic; that after the deceased Vallo left, he was followed
by the two accused; that later on, the other visitors left; that 3 or 5 minutes
sooner, he heard two gun shots, followed by three more. Some 5 minutes, after
the shooting, Jose Repato and Feliciano Natad ran to his house and the former
told him: “Keep silent because we have killed Doding and do not mention that he
was one among those who came here”, and requested him to hide the carbine
(Exhibit A); and as Macario refused to do so, the accused themselves hid it near
his (Macario’s) house under a banana plant and covered it with grasses; that on
the following day, he reported the matter to the PC Headquarters, and guided the
constabulary officer to the spot where the carbine was concealed; and that he
had known the accused Repato and Natad for a long time. Eliseo de la Cuadra
corroborated Macario’s declaration.

Anastacio T. Zamuco, Justice of the Peace of Bugallon, Pangasinan, testified
that he is the owner of the carbine (Exhibit A); that on August 12, 1960, he
sent a note (Exh. Q) to the Chief of Police of Aguilar, asking him to fetch the
two accused Repato and Natad, because they forcibly took the carbine, then being
used by his guards in his mine at Maralitan. Luciano Paulo, the guard, declared
that the carbine (Exhibit A) was forcibly taken by the accused Repato and Natad
from him, in the afternoon of August 5, 1960; and that he only reported the
incident to the owner (Judge Zamuco), 8 days thereafter, because he was waiting
for Lorenzo Fernandez, the other guard, to arrive from Manila.

The carbine Exhibit A, the blank cartridges and lead slugs (Exhibits B, B-1
to B-4, C, C-1 and C-2) gathered from the scene of the crime, were sent to Camp
Crame for ballistics examination and it was found that the said blank cartridges
and slugs were fired from the same carbine Exhibit A (Exhs. D, to M).

Appellant’s defense is alibi. Denying participation in the crime, appellant
testified that on August 5, 1960, he went to Manila to look for a job and stayed
in the house of Nora Ayeras at 1480 Franco, Tondo, until September 5, 1960, when
he returned to Aguilar where he was apprehended by the PC Officers; that Macario
and Crispin implicated him, because they entertained a grudge against him; that
said grudge arose when a certain Raymundo Austria was accused of acts of
lasciviousness committed on the wife of Macario; that when Macario asked him to
testify and he refused, Macario said he was siding with Austria; and as a result
of this refusal, they had a heated discussion which almost ended in a fist
fight. To support his alibi, the appellant presented his brother Miguel
Repato, his co-accused Feliciano Natad and Nora Ayeras, a housewife from Franco
street, Tondo, Manila. Miguel Repato declared that there was no party in the
house of Macario Vinluan on the night of August 31, 1960 and that the party
which he attended was held at and earlier date, but his brother Jose Repato
(accused) was not present then. Nora Ayeras told the court that during the
period from the first week of August, 1960 to September 5, 1960, the accused
Jose Repato lived in her house in Manila, but used to go out, morning and
afternoon, everyday, looking for a job.

The appellant contends that the lower court erred—(1) In lending credence to
the State witnesses; (2) In disregarding the defense of alibi; and (3) In
holding that the guilt of appellant had been established beyond reasonable
doubt.

As appropriately stated by the Solicitor General:

“The denial by appellant of his presence at the picnic is of doubtful
veracity and cannot overcome the positive testimony of the eyewitness who saw
and identified him during the killing. The settled-rule is that negative evidence
cannot overcome the state’s positive proof, especially in view of the absence of
adequate motive for the state witnesses to testify falsely against the accused
(U.S. vs. Bueno, 41 Phil., 452; People vs. Lacson, 111 Phil., 1).

Of course, appellant claims that the principal witnesses of the State
entertained some grudge against him. Even if we grant, for purposes of
discussion, the truth of this claim, we still believe, that the alleged grudge
mentioned by the appellant, is not sufficient to prompt the said witnesses to
concoct evidence and falsely implicate the appellant in so grave a crime as
murder.

It was fully established that appellant and his co-accused Natad, had
snatched the carbine Exhibit A, from Luciano Paulo on August 5, 1960; that the
loss of the firearm was reported to the police authorities by its owner, Judge
Zamuco, who requested said authorities to recover the same from them; the same
carbine was used in the killing by the appellant; the cartridges and lead slugs
found in the body of the deceased and in the vicinity, were fired from the same
gun which the appellant and Natad wanted Macario to hide for them, immediately
after shooting the deceased and which was hidden by the accused in the place
where the peace officers had retrieved it.

Appellant’s pretension that he was not within the vicinity at the time of the
killing as, according to him, he was in Manila, was belied by his first cousin
Artemio Daño, who asserted that Repato was in Aguilar in the evening of the
killing (August 31, 1960), as said Repato passed his (Daño’s) house in Bacacleo,
at dawn of the following day (Sept. 1), on his way to Manila. The trial court
was correct in discrediting defense witness Nora Ayeras. From her very
admission, it was revealed that while the accused Repato was looking for a job,
she too was busy doing the same thing. She was not therefore, in position to
state categorically, that appellant was actually present in Manila, so as to
preclude his having gone to Aguilar. With all these facts, the defense of
alibi vanishes in oblivion. (People vs. Linde, et al. 110 Phil.,
637).

Reliance is placed by the appellant on some alleged inconsistencies in the
testimony of the state witnesses and their failure to report the matter of the
killing immediately to the authorities. We have gone over the records of the
case and while some inconsistencies may be noted, they are, however, not so
material and substantial as to effect the credibility of the said witnesses, who
had also explained to the satisfaction of the trial court, their inaction.

“The initial reluctance of witnesses in this country to volunteer information
about a criminal case, and their unwillingness to be involved in or dragged into
criminal investigation is common, and has been judicially declared not to affect
credibility (People vs. Villamin, 64 Phil., 884; People vs. Delfin, et al., 112
Phil., 807).”

The above doctrine finds a fitting application in the case at bar.

The decision appealed from, being in conformity with the evidence and the law
on the matter, is hereby affirmed in all respects, with costs against
defendant-appellant Jose Repato.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Dizon, and
Makalintal, JJ., concur.