G.R. Nos. L-33604-05. October 30, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESUS G. RUIZ AND ALFREDO GUNO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is an automatic review of the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City,
Branch II, in Criminal Cases Nos. 3323 and 3324, the dispositive
part of which reads:
“FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court hereby
renders judgment finding accused Jesus G. Ruiz and Alfredo Guno:
In Criminal Case No.
3324
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of frustrated homicide, provided for and punished under Art. 249, taken in
conjunction with Art. 50 of the Revised Penal Code, and taking into consideration
the aggravating circumstance of nighttime which said accused took advantage of
in order to commit the crime of frustrated homicide more easily and with
greater impunity as provided for in Art. 14(6), of the same Code, with no
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, hereby sentences said accused to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS of prision
correccional as minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum, with all the accessory penalties
provided for by the law, to indemnify offended party, Amado
Felias, mancomunadamente
and in solidum, in the sum of P12,000.00 by way of
actual and moral damages, P5,000.00 for expenses of the litigation, all without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus their proportionate share
of the costs.
The accused being detained are hereby entitled to the FULL period
of their preventive imprisonment which shall be deducted from their term of
imprisonment if each of them agrees in writing to abide by the disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, or shall be credited with FOUR-FIFTHS
(4/5) of their period of detention if they do not agree in writing to abide by
the rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, all in accordance with R.A. 6127
approved by the President only yesterday, July 15, 1970;
In Criminal Case No.
3323
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of murder, provided for and punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, and taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
which said accused took advantage of in order to commit the crime of murder
more easily and with greater impunity as provided for in Art. 14 (6) of the
same Code, with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, it becomes the
painful but imperative duty of the Court to render sentence condemning said
accused to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH by electrocution, to indemnify
the heirs of deceased Alfredo Bito, mancomunadamente and in solidum,
the sum of P12,000.00 and the further sums of P50,000.00 as actual and moral
damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, P10,000.00 for expenses of the litigation,
plus their proportionate share of the costs; and
In both Criminal
Cases Nos. 3323 & 3324
ACQUITTING accused Melquiades
Ruiz from the charges of murder and frustrated murder on reasonable doubt, his
guilt in both cases not having been proved beyond moral certainty, with costs
de oficio.
PER CONSEQUENCES, the bail bond posted by accused Melquiades Ruiz for his temporary liberty in the amount of
P129,600.00 is hereby ordered CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED.
DICTATED in open Court this 16th day of July, 1970 at Butuan City, PhiĀlippines.
(SGD) MANUEL LOPE
ENAGE
Judge”[1]
Jesus G. Ruiz, Alfredo Guno, Jose Inutan, Melquiades Ruiz, Romeo Dumancas, Peter Doe and John Doe were charged in the Court
of First Instance of Agusan with murder in the
following:
“1st Amended
I N F O R M A T I O N
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Agusan
accuses JESUS G. RUIZ, ALFREDO GUNO, JOSE INUTAN, MELQUIADES RUIZ, ROMEO
DUMANCAS, PETER DOE and JOHN DOE of the crime of ‘MURDER’, committed as
follows:
That on the 16th day of December, 1966, at about 9:45 o’clock in
the evening, at Barrio Talisay, municipality of Nasipit, province of Agusan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with treachery and
evident premeditation, taking advantage of the night and with superior
strength, armed with assorted high caliber weapons, and in contempt of public
authority, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously with intent to kill, attack, assault and shoot one Alfredo A. Bito, a sergeant of the Nasipit
Police Force, while on his official duty, inflicting upon upon
him, wounds which caused his instantaneous death:
Contrary to law.
Butuan City,
Philippines, January 5, 1967.
(SGD) ELMO M.
FAMADOR
First Assistant
Provincial Fiscal”[2]
The information was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 3323.
Jesus G. Ruiz, Alfredo Guno, Jose Inutan, Melquiades Ruiz, Romeo Dumancas, Peter Doe and John Doe were charged with double
frustrated murder in the Court of First Instance of Agusan
in the following:
“FIRST AMENDED
INFORMATION
The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Agusan,
accuses JESUS G. RUIZ, ALREDO GUNO, JOSE INUTAN, MELQUIADES RUIZ, ROMEO
DUMANCAS, PETER DOE & JOHN DOE of the crime of ‘DOUBLE FRUSTRATED MURDER’,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 16th day of December, 1966 at about 9:45
o’clock in the evening, in the premises and vicinity of Talisay,
Nasipit, Agusan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, confabulating, and helping one
another, with treachery, evident premeditation, taking advantage of night-time,
with superior strength, in band, acted together, armed with assorted high
caliber weapons, and with the use of a vehicle, to wit: International Scout, Pick-up, painted green
and bearing plate No. T-26867, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously with intent to kill, attack, assault and critically wounding the
said Police Lieutenant Amado A. Felias,
and Corporal Leonardo G. Galve, both members of the Nasipit Police Force while in the performance of their official
duties, thus commencing and performing all the acts of execution necessary to
commit the crime of MURDER but were not able to produce the said crime by
reason of causes other than the accused’s own
desistance and that is, by reason of early medical attention on the part of
Police Lieutenant Amado A. Felias,
and by the reason that Police Corporal Leonardo A. Galve
chased and pursued one of the assailants who escaped from the scene of the
shooting thus said Corporal Leonardo A. Galve did not
suffer any injury.
All contrary to law: with
the qualifying circumstances of alevesia, the generic
aggravating circumstances of known premeditation and other aggravating
circumstances to wit: taking advantage
of night time, with superior strength, in band who have acted toĀgether and
with the use of a motor veĀhicle, and in contempt of public authoĀrities.
Butuan City,
Philippines, January 25, 1967.
(SGD) ELMO M.
FAMADOR
First Assistant Provincial Fiscal”[3]
The information was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 3324.
These two criminal cases were prosecuted and tried jointly under
their respective amended informations. Before the informations
were amended, there were three other accused originally included, namely, Tony Zarcal, Manuel Timcang and Jesus Maunes Jr., but with leave of the trial court, they were
excluded by the fiscal on the ground that the benefit of the second stage of
preliminary investigation before the Nasipit
Municipal Court was not extended to them.
The cases against the two accused Jose Inutan
and Romeo Dumancas were dismissed. The former died while deĀtained in the
provincial jail of Agusan del Norte while the latter
had died even before these cases were actually filed with the trial court.
The facts, as stated in the appellee’s
brief, are:
“At about 9:30 o’clock
in the morning of September 16, 1966,
while Sgt. Alfredo Bito, Cpl Jalop,
and Pat. Leonardo Galve, all members of the Nasipit Police, were at the police station (p. 29, tsn, May 31, 1971), accused Jesus G. Ruiz, who is the President
of the Victory Stevedoring and Labor Union, commonly known as the VISLU,
arrived thereat with Ben Abian riding in a pick-up
car (pp. 29, 30, tsn, May 31, 1967). Then and there, Jesus G. Ruiz angrily
questioned Pat. Galve, to wit: ‘Galve, where is
that Honda which I donated, why do you alĀlow it to be used by civilians?’ Galve replied:
‘Because it was used by Sgt. Alota‘ (p. 30, tsn, May 31, 1967).
Upon hearing this answer, Jesus G. Ruiz said: ‘You policemen are all stupid.’ Sgt. Bito stood up and inquired of Jesus G. Ruiz, ‘What is
that?’ and Pat. Galve also asked the latter, ‘What is
that Bay, what are the mistakes of the policemen?’ Then Jesus G. Ruiz said,
‘Bay, you have nothing to do with this.’ Sgt. Bito,
answered Jesus G. Ruiz: ‘Why did you say
we policemen are stupid. I am angry
because I am a policeman also.’ Thereafter, Jesus G. Ruiz, in disgust,
immediately rode on his pick-up and went away (p. 31, tsn,
May 31, 1967) criss-crossing the town streets (p. 33,
tsn, May 31, 1967) until his pick-up was stopped and
checked at the Nasipit Cubi-Cubi
Check point which was then guarded by Pat. Iglesias
who later reported to the police station that Jesus G. Ruiz was mad at him for
effecting the check on his (Jesus G. Ruiz’s) pick-up car (p. 3, tsn, June 1, 1967).
That same night at around eight o’clock, Mrs. Libertad
Bito Ruiz was at her home located at Talisay, Nasipit Agusan del Norte (pp. 162, 163, tsn,
Jan. 31, 1967), preparing something as it was the birthday of her sister, Nenita. Among the
people present in her house were her sisters Nenita
and Cleotilde.
Mr. & Mrs. Teofisto Olamit,
and her younger brother, Sgt. Alfredo Bito, who was
with Lt. Amado Felias and
Cpl. Galve of the Nasipit
Police force (tsn, pp. 165-166, Jan. 31, 1967; p.
144, Jan. 23, 1967). These three members
of the Nasipit Police arrived in Libertad’s
house in a police patrol jeep they parked on the right side of the road, its
rear beside the edge of the hallow blocks near the driveway of the VISLU office
located in front of the house of Libertad and
partially blocking the driveway (pp. 11-12, tsn, Feb.
24, 1967).
Before finishing their supper, Libertad
heard the sound of a pick-up stop in front of the VISLU office, (p. 169, tsn, Jan. 31, 1967).
Thereafter, she went to the sala and heard the
loud voice of her uncle, Jesus G. Ruiz, shouting ‘wrong parking, wrong parking’
(p. 170, tsn, Jan. 31, 1967). Libertad
at once informed Sgt. Bito of what she heard (p. 171,
tsn, Jan. 31, 1967) and the latter and his police
companions transferred to the sala and continued
eating there (Id.). At this juncture a
cousin of Libertad’s husband Melquiades
Ruiz arrived (tsn, p. 141, Jan. 23, 1967; pp.
171-172, Jan. 31, 1967) and told Cpl. Galve to come
down as as accused Jesus G. Ruiz had something to
tell him. Cpl. Galve
obliged and went down, followed by Melquiades and Lt.
Felias (p. 7, tsn, June 6,
1967).
Libertad who, at that moment was by her
window near the door opposite the VISLU office (p. 173, tsn,
Jan. 31, 1967) saw the police patrol jeep along the other side of the street
facing towards the poblacion and Jesus G. Ruiz’ green
Scout International pick-up facing towards the wharf (pp. 173-176, tsn, Jan. 31, 1967).
When Lt. Felias and Cpl. Galve reached their parked police patrol jeep, a heated
exchange of words ensued between Cpl. Galve and
accused Jesus G. Ruiz. The latter asked,
‘Why is it that this jeep is parked in front of the VISLU office when this is
not a parking place?’ Lt. Felias approached Jesus G.
Ruiz, patted the latter’s shoulder and told him it was not Galve
but he who drove the jeep and offered to push the jeep, as it had no starter,
if the same obstructed the view of the VISLU office (pp. 7, 8, tsn, June 6, 1967).
At this juncture, Sgt. Bito came down the
house of his sister Libertad, and admonished accused
Jesus G. Ruiz to talk softly and not to shout (Id.). Sgt. Bito told
Jesus G. Ruiz that the latter was abusive (‘abusador‘)
and challenged him to a draw (p. 206, tsn, Nov. 21,
1968). Accused Jesus G. Ruiz replied ‘Let
us see tomorrow. All of you will be
fired out.’ (p. 9, tsn, June 6, 1967) and immediately
rode on his green pick-up and drove to town at full speed (Id.). After Jesus G. Ruiz had left, Lt. Felias, Sgt. Bito and Cpl. Galve pushed the jeep and was able to start the same. However, they did not immediately leave for
the poblacion because Sgt. Bito
had to get his jacket he left in the house of Libertad. While the latter’s companions were waiting
for Sgt. Bito, with the jeep’s motor already running,
the accused Jesus G. Ruiz returned from the poblacion
with accused Alfredo, Guno, Antonio Zarcal, Jesus Maunes, Jr., Romeo Dumangcas (p. 11, tsn, June 6,
1967) and Jose Inutan (p. 12, tsn,
June 6, 1967) riding on the same green pick-up and stopped in front of the
VISLU office (pp. 10-11, tsn, June 6, 1967). They stepped down from the pick-up, scattered
themselves and took their respective positions:
Alfredo Guno went to the Ebarle
dilapidated truck near the house of Libertad (p. 14, tsn, June 6, 1967). Dumangcas together with the others went to the VISLU office
(Id.); while Jesus G. Ruiz stayed
near the pick-up and shouted: ‘Tell Sgt.
Bito that I want to encounter him.’ (p. 15, tsn, June 6, 1967).
At that time Lt. Felias was sitting on the
driver’s seat of the jeep with Patrolman Galve seated
beside him, while Patrolman Granada was leaning on the jeep. All of a sudden, a burst of gun fire came
from Alfredo Guno who was by the dilapidated
truck. Sgt. Bito
who had just reached the road on his way to the patrol jeep was hit on the leg,
Lt. Felias alighted from the left side of the jeep
and while going towards the front, he saw Sgt. Bito
already limping (p. 16, tsn, June 6, 1967). In the meantime, Patrolman Galve has jumped out of the jeep upon being fired upon by
Jose Inutan. Galve returned the fire prompting Inutan
to flee towards a dark alley with Galve in hot
pursuit (pp. 33-36, tsn, June 2, 1967; p. 2 of Exh. ‘6’,
p. 16, Rec). Gunfires directed towards the patrol jeep were also seen
coming from the office of the VISLU and the green pick-up truck (p. 24, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967).
Patrolman Granada took cover
and crawled under the jeep (p. 23, tsn, Feb. 24,
1967) from where he saw Sgt. Bito drew his pistol and
fired, but thereafter the latter ran out of bullets. Patrolman Granada
threw his revolver to Sgt. Bito, who, however, was
not able to catch it. By the time Sgt. Bito turned his face towards Patrolman Granada, he was
immediately shot at the mouth by accused Jesus G. Ruiz (p. 26, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967), killing him (Sgt. Bito)
on the spot (p. 27, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967). Thereafter, accused Jesus G. Ruiz nudged and
prodded with his right foot Sgt. Bito’s body and
after finding him already dead, he (Jesus G. Ruiz) moved backward (p. 29, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967).
With the lights coming from the electric lamp post of the VISLU
office, as well as from Libertad’s home and the other
houses, Lt. Felias saw accused Jesus G. Ruiz fire at
him with a Thompson submachine gun that hit both of his thighs (p. 17, tsn, June 6, 1967).
When he fell, he saw Patrolman Granada crawling under the jeep (p. 18, tsn, June 6, 1967) and called the latter for help (tsn, p. 30, Feb. 24, 1967); p. 19, June 6, 1967). Patrolman Granada
went to the succor of Lt. Felias and tried to load
him in the patrol jeep, but in the midst of gunfire coming from the VISLU
office, they were obliged to take cover (p. 31, tsn,
Feb. 24, 1967).
After the firing subsided, Patrolman Granada shouted for help. Jesus G. Ruiz approached them and Pat. Granada
pleaded with Jesus G. Ruiz not to finish Lt. Felias
who was then already unconscious (p. 32, tsn, Feb.
24, 1967). At this, Jesus G. Ruiz
returned to his green pick-up (tsn, p. 33, Feb. 24, 1967; p. 214, Nov. 21, 1968) and together with the
wounded Inutan, he hurriedly drove to the Butuan City
Hospital (p. 216, tsn, Nov. 21, 1968).
Civilians came later and helped Patrolman Granada load the
unconscious Lt. Felias in the jeep. They proceeded to the police station leaving
behind Sgt. Bito lying on the very spot where he was
killed (p. 34, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967).
Upon reaching the police station, Patrolman Granada reported the
incident to the police guard who advised him to take Lt. Felias
to Butuan City
for immediate treatment (pp. 34, 35, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967). At Cubi-Cubi along
the way to Butuan City, their jeep was bumped by a
green painted vehicle which not only did not stop but also fired upon them (pp.
35, 36, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967) hitting the left arm of
Manuel Hao who was then holding Lt. Felias in his arms and causing the jeep to fall on a ditch
(p. 37, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967). Fortunately, the jeep of Sinforoso
Ayuma was passing by on its way to Butuan City. They loaded Lt. Felias
in Ayuma’s jeep that brought him to Butuan City
(p. 38, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967).
Lt. Felias was confined at the Butuan City
Hospital from December 17 to 31, 1966 (p. 20, tsn, June 6, 1967) where he was treated to the following
injuries:
‘1
& 8 – Gunshot wounds, thru and thru
left thigh subcutaneous
‘3 & 4 – Gunshot wounds,
thru and thru right thigh with fracture of the femur at about its middle’
(Exhibit ‘U’, p. 17, Rec.)
Thereafter he was given further treatment at the National
Orthopedic Hospital
and was released only on February 8,
1967 when he was placed on plaster cast (Id.).
According to Dr. Francisco Yazon who
physically examined Lt. Felias at the Butuan City Hospital, the latter would have died from his
wounds were it not for the timely medical intervention, due to (a) infection of
the fractured bones and blood poisoning due to that infection; or (b) loss of
blood (pp. 41, 42, tsn, June 9, 1967).
As per post mortem findings by Dr. Lydia San Pedro, Municipal
Health Officer of Nasipit, Agusan,
the deĀceased Sgt. Alfredo A. Bito sustained the
following injuries:
‘FINDINGS: EXTERNAL PHYSICAL
FINDINGS:
‘A. Circular wound
about two (2) cm. in diameter with contused edges at the medial surface of the
leg piercing the gastrochemius muscle about five (5)
inches below the knee.
Slit like wound about
four (4) cm. length posterior surface of the gastrochemius
muscle with slight evertion of the edges.
‘B. Oval wound below
the nasal septum about 1-1/2 cm. length with inverted edges. All upper teeth with alveolar arch destroyed
and palatine bone (hard and soft palate).
Four (4) teeth and all left lower molars were removed from their
sockets.
‘Lacerated wound 1-1/2
inches at the left parietal bone.
‘REMARKS:
‘Time when
Examined: 1:00
A.M. December 17, 1966
‘Estimated Time of
Death: 9:00
A.M. Dec. 16, 1966
‘STATE OR CONDITION OF
THE BODY: RIGOR MORTIS
‘Cause of Death: Cerebral hemorrhage
‘Internal
Findings: Not Performed’
(Exh. ‘L’; p. 26, Rec).”[4]
According to the lower court, the accused Jesus G. Ruiz testified
to the following:
“x x x
that Bito answered that he was abusing and challenged
him to a draw; that their distance from each other was more than two meters at
this very moment; that he answered him that he will not challenge Bito to a draw because he is a policeman; however, he will
meet him the next day in front of the office of the mayor and the police if he
wants a draw; that his purpose was to deter him in Bito’s
desire to fight him to a draw; that he turned his back on Bito
and drove his pick-up and went to his house arriving there at past 8:30 in the
evening; that he went upstairs and told his wife about what happened; that his
wife laughed and remarked: ‘Is there a
policeman who will challenge you?’; that he stayed in his house sitting for
almost an hour; that he noticed that there were policemen coming from the jeep;
that he rode on his pick-up for Talisay passing by
Eugene Restaurant at about 9:30 P.M.; that upon arriving at Talisay
for the second time that very night, he saw the police jeep moved already from
where it was parked by the policemen; that his purpose in going to Talisay was to verify the relief, the night shift of VISLU
laborers at 10:00 o’clock then loading on a Japanese boat; that the policemen
he saw were Felias sitting at the rear of the jeep, Galve by the side of the jeep, and Bito
beside Galve; that he saw Granada after he parked his
pick-up in front of the house of Luis Faelnar, and
when he went down his pick-up, he was met by Granada who told him the jeep was
already moved forward; that it was while he was conversing with Granada for a
few minutes that he heard a loud voice challenging him to a draw; that at that
moment, he moved backward with his left foot so he would be in a position to
face his challenger, but when he moved backward, he heard a shot; that the
gunshot came from the rear of the police patrol jeep; that he did not see Felias, Galve and Bito, but the gunfire came from behind the patrol jeep;
that he sought cover by hitting the ground; that after the first shot, came
several shots. So he continued crawling
on the ground in order to escape from the gunfire; that he slid because the
ground was slippery and sandy; that he continued rolling towards his pick-up;
that the several shots that followed the first shot came from the patrol jeep;
that when he reached his pic-kup, he turned to the
front, crawled to the front of his pick-up; that he did not hear any shots
anymore; that he stood and observed the situation from where he could not be
seen from where the shots came from.
Thereafter, shots rang again.
Fearing he was in danger, he immediately ran in a stooping position passing
by the side of the VISLU office to its back.
He went to the back of his office because the wall at the back is
cemented. He thought of reporting the
incident to the authorities, and was thinking of escaping at the other passage,
but there were a few shots still so he thought of going back to his
pick-up. He went running back to his
pick-up, again in a stooping position.
Upon reaching his pick-up, he opened the door, started immediately its
motor, and drove away towards the wharf; that on the night of the incident he
had with him a .38 cal. revolver, Smith & Wesson. During the shooting, he held his revolver
which was in its holster to prevent it from falling; that he does not know
where the gun-fires came from; he does not know who was being fired upon; that
he knows Jose Inutan; that he remembers having met
him on the night of December 16, 1966; that after he drove his pick-up to a
distance of about ten meters, somebody tapped the body of his pick-up; that he asked
who it was; that the answer was ‘Tokloy.’ He said he
was wounded and would like me to bring him to the hospital; that he allowed Inutan to ride with him and proceeded to Butuan City. He drove his pick-up straight to the PC
barracks and stopped in front of the guardhouse. He asked the guard if Capt. Collado was in but the Guard replied: ‘No, he is at the Elite Restaurant.’ So the
witness asked the guard that he be provided with a PC guard so that Capt. Collado will believe him.
Upon remembering that he was not able to bring with him his permit to
carry a firearm, he left his firearm at the guardhouse; that that was the
firearm he carried with him on the night of the incident; that he deposited the
same with Jose Cabillo of the PC; that said PC examined
the number of rounds and gave him a receipt for it, Exhibit 10; that he drove
to the Elite Restaurant with the PC; that the PC went upstairs and he waited
downstairs; that he met Capt. Collado; that he told
Capt. Collado of the incident at Talisay;
that they went back to the PC headquarters; that upon arrival, Capt. Collado ordered that the bugle be sounded; that the men
assembled and Edmundo Esparagoza
was ordered to take him to the guardhouse; that he wanted to go to Talisay with Capt. Collado, but the
latter told him to stay; that he stayed at the guardhouse from the evening of
December 16, to 28, 1966; that on December 17, 1966, he was investigated
relative to the Talisay incident; x x x “[5]
Accused, Alfredo Guno, on the other
hand, testified as follows:
“x x x
that on December 16, 1966, after 3:30 PM., he went home to the house of his
elder brother; that Eliazar Esparagoza
brought him to the other wharf near the government wharf; that they took Eliazar’s jeep; that they stayed for about thirty minutes
there at a small store owned by a certain Fely; that
from there, he went home; that Tiburcio Guno lives at and is the owner of the Eugene Restaurant;
that they took supper there and went to the dance at Talisay
near the house of Joe Jimenez; that while waiting for a tricycle, a green pick-up
passed by owned by accused Jesus G. Ruiz; that he was driving it; that he saw,
among others inside the pick-up, Jesus Maunes, Jr.;
that upon knowing it was going to Talisay, and upon
being invited by Maunes, Jr., he rode on it at the
rear; that Maunes Jr. and he were at the rear; that
there were three persons in front, Dumangcas and Inutan among others; that they drove towards Talisay; that the pick-up stopped at the VISLU office; that
he heard somebody say: ‘By golly, Bay,
they are coming back’; that he saw two men running towards him; that he ran
towards Pisto Olamit’s,
house; that he heard a shot; that he was frightened so he headed for the canal
of the Veneer Plant; that Eslabon, a security guard
of the Veneer Plant, asked: ‘What is
that?’; that he identified himself by saying:
‘Bay, Eslabon‘ and asked where the faucet was
because he wanted to wash; that he went home after washing himself; that the
next morning he was arrested by the police; that his affidavit was taken by
Sgt. Pates of the PC; that when he was shown to Mrs. Libertad
Bito Ruiz, she said ‘It seems that he is the one.’;
that he was placed in jail in Nasipit; that he was
asked by Libertad to testify against accused Jesus G.
Ruiz; otherwise, she will implicate him; x x x that the PC took him to the PC barracks where his second
affidavit was taken again by PC Sgt. Pates; that he did not sign his second affidavit
because the PC did not let him sign it because they crumpled it as the contents
were the same as his first affidavit taken at Nasipit;
x x x “[6]
The accused Jesus G. Ruiz and the accused Alfredo Guno were represented by two different counsels de oficio before this Court. Counsel de oficio
for the accused Jesus G. Ruiz assigns the following errors:
“I
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INHERENTLY INCREDIBLE AND UNCORROBORATED
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
“II
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.”[7]
The counsel de oficio for
accused Alfredo Guno contends that the trial court
committed the following errors:
“FIRST ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT GUNO
SHOT AT AND HIT SGT. ALFREDO BITO IN THE LEG.
“SECOND ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISREGARDĀING THE TESTIMONY
OF APPELLANT GUNO AND HIS WITNESS AND IN RELYING SOLELY ON THE BIASED,
IMPROBABLE, UNBELIEVABLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
“THIRD ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE EXISTED A
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN APPELLANT GUNO AND APPELLANT JESUS R. RUIZ, AND IN FURTHER
HOLDING APPELLANT GUNO LIABLE FOR ACTS ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED AND INJURIES
INFLICTED BY APPELLANT JESUS RUIZ.
“FOURTH ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ALLOWING ITSELF TO BE SWAYED
IN RENDERING THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW BY ITS UNCONCEALED PREJUDICE AND BIAS
AGAINST APPELLANT GUNO, MADE MANIFEST BOTH BY HIS ACTUATIONS DURING THE TRIAL
AND THE DECISION ITSELF.
“FIFTH ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT
GUNO.
“SIXTH ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
ON THE ASSUMPTION, ARGUENDO, THAT THERE WAS GROUND FOR
CONVICTING APPELLANT GUNO, THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT HOLDING
THAT HE IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3323, WHERE HE IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE PERSONALLY INFLICTED A LEG INJURY UPON ALFREDO BITO, BUT NOT IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3324 BECAUSE HE INFLICTED NO INĀJURIES UPON AMADO FELIAS AND
LEONARDO GALVE, AND IN FURTHER FAILING TO HOLD THAT APPELLANT GUNO COMMITTED
ONLY THE CRIME OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INSTEAD OF MURDER,
“SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
ON THE ASSUMPTION, ARGUENDO, THAT APPELLANT ALFREDO GUNO
COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF ALFREDO BITO IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3323
ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT INFLICT MORTAL WOUNDS UPON BITO, THE COURT A QUO
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE KILLING OF BITO WAS MURDER INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE
MERELY.
“EIGHT ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR
ON THE ASSUMPTION, ARGUENDO, THAT THERE WAS GROUND FOR
FINDING APPELLANT GUNO LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES INFLICTED UPON AMADO FELIAS AND
LEONARDO GALVE BY PERSONS OTHER THAN SAID APPELLANT, THE COURT A QUO
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SAID INJURIES CONSTITUTED THE CRIME OF FRUSTRATED
HOMICIDE, INSTEAD OF PHYĀSICAL INJURIES ONLY.”[8]
The assignment of errors of the accused Jesus G. Ruiz will be
discussed first.
Contrary to the contention of the accused Jesus G. Ruiz, the
lower court did not err in giving credence to the evidence of the
prosecution. There is nothing increĀdible
in the testimony of prosecution witness Libertad Bito Ruiz in so far as it points to the accused. Jesus G. Ruiz as the person who shot her
younger brother, Sgt. Alfredo Bito. She testified on direct examination thus:
“A And when I saw my younger brother (referring
to Sgt. Alfredo Bito) turning his head towards his
right, I saw my uncle Jesus G. Ruiz went near and fired at my younger
brother. (p. 191, tsn,
Jan. 31, 1967)
x x x
‘Q At
this point, after you saw the accused Jesus G. Ruiz fire at your younger
brother, Sgt. Alfredo Vito (Bito), you were still in
the window?
‘A Yes,
sir.
‘Q Were
you still looking toward the street?
‘A Yes,
sir.
x x x
‘Q You
said that you were still in the window.
Where were you looking (to what direction) after you saw the accused,
Jesus G. Ruiz?
‘A I
was still looking at my younger brother, Sgt. Vito (Bito).
‘Q Since
you were still looking at that particular direction, will you tell the Court
what did you see, if any? (p. 4, tsn, Feb. 1, 1967)
‘A Uncle
Jesus G. Ruiz kicked the left knee of Sgt. Vito (Bito)
by his right foot (p. 5, tsn, Feb. 1, 1967)’ “
On cross-examination, Libertad declared
as follows:
“Q When
you saw Jesus G. Ruiz, to what direction was he directing his fire?
‘A On
the face of my brother.
‘Q Did
he have his arm automatically stretched when he fired?
‘A Quite
bent.
‘Q And
how many times did he fire?
‘A When he was near Sgt. Bito,
I heard only one shot.
(p.
53, tsn, Feb. 21, 1967)
x x x
‘Q And
afterwards, what happend to Sgt. Bito?
‘A He
slumped down.
‘Q After
Sgt. Bito slumped down, what else did Jesus Ruiz do?
‘A He went near Sgt. Bito
and kicked with his right foot the left knee of my brother.
(p.
55, tsn, Feb. 21, 1967)'”[9]
The foregoing testimony of Libertad
that the accused Jesus G. Ruiz fired at the face of Sgt. Bito
is corroborated by Pat. Granada who
declared thus:
“Q What
happened next after you went under the jeep?
‘A Sgt.
Bito draw his pistol and fired.
‘Q And
what happened next?
‘A After
he fired because he has no more bullet, he threw his pistol to me.
‘Q And
what did he do?
‘A He
told me he has no more bullet, give me your revolver.
‘Q When I threw my revolver to him he was not
able to catch it and then when he faced to me, when he turned his face to me,
he was immediately shot by Jesus G. Ruiz at the mouth.
(p.
26, tsn, Feb. 24, 1967)’ “[10]
The testimonies of Libertad Bito Ruiz and Pat. Granada that the accused Jesus G. Ruiz
fired the fatal shot at Sgt. Bito is confirmed by the
physical facts as reflected in the post mortem report of Dr. Lydia San Pedro
who found that among the injuries sustained by the deceased Sgt. Bito is an “oval wound below the nasal system about
1-1/2 cm. length with inverted edges”[11]
which is within the area of the face.
Dr. San Pedro testified that judging from the nature and characteristic
of the wound found on the upper lip near the nose (nasal system), it is a
bullet wound.[12]
Likewise, the testimony of Libertad
that the accused Jesus G. Ruiz was near Sgt. Bito
when the former fired upon the latter is confirmed by the presence of the
“blackened area in the nasal system”[13]
of the deceased. According to Dr. Lydia
San Pedro, this is indicative of the short distance of not more than 24 inches
between the muzzle of the gun used and the deceased.[14]
The contention of the accused Jesus G. Ruiz that the testimonies
of Patrolman Galve and Libertad
show that the real perpetrators of the killing of Sgt. Bito
are Alfredo Guno and Romeo Dumancas
fails to take into account the physical facts as regards the nature, characteristics
and locations of the wounds sustained by the victim. Furthermore, there is nothing in Pat. Galve’s entire testimony that would implicate Romeo Dumancas in the killing of Sgt. Bito.
While it is true that Libertad
testified that Alfredo Guno and Romeo Dumancas also fired at Sgt. Bito,
they could not have caused the fatal wound sustained by Sgt. Bito. Guno could have only hit the leg of Sgt. Bito who was seen limping immediately after the first shot
fired at him by said Guno. On the other hand, Romeo Dumancas
only fired towards Sgt. Bito and also towards the
jeep which was more than five (5) meters.
Therefore, Dumancas could not have been
responsible for the fatal wound which was caused by a bullet fired from a gun
at close range or at a distance of not more than 24 inches.
In order to discredit Libertad, the
accused Jesus G. Ruiz brands her as a biased witness because of her
relationship with the victim.[15]
The fact that Libertad is the sister of the deceased
Sgt. Bito does not necessarily make her a biased
witness. The prevailing jurisprudence on
the matter is that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the victim
does not necessarily vitiate their otherwise credible testimonies[16]
nor does it impair their positive and clear testimonies.[17]
Besides, Libertad is also related to
the accused Jesus G. Ruiz, the former being married to the latter’s nephew,
Manuel Ruiz. Moreover, Libertad had been working in the VISLU office for several
years. Her continued employment with
VISLU must have been with the blessings of her uncle, the accused Ruiz, its
perennial president. Hence Libertad was not likely to testify falsely against the
accused Ruiz.
The prosecution witness, Pat. Granada,
had no motive to testify falsely against the accused Jesus G. Ruiz. Pat. Granada
was the friend of Jesus G. Ruiz. Pat. Granada
had been allowed by Ruiz to stay in the latter’s house for about two months.
There is no merit in the contention that Sgt. Bito
sustained only one bullet wound.[18]
Dr. Lydia San Pedro stated in her medical certificate (Exhibit “L”)
and declared that the deceased, Bito, sustained at
least two bullet wounds of entry, one on the left leg below the knee and
another oval wound below the nasal system about 1-1/2 centimeters in length
with inverted edges.[19]
The argument of the counsel of the accused, Jesus G. Ruiz, that
the prosecution failed to present any other witness to corroborate the direct
participation of accused Jesus G. Ruiz in the killing of Sgt. Bito and the wounding of Lt. Felias,[20]
merits scant consideration because:
(1)
Libertad’s
testimony that Jesus G. Ruiz fired at Sgt. Bito is
not only corroborated by the testimony of Pat. Granada,
but also by that of witness Antonio Zarcal [21];
and
(2)
Lt. Felias
testified that he saw the accused Jesus G. Ruiz fire and hit him on both thighs[22]
and this is partly corroborated by Pat. Granada
who declared, among others, that he saw gunfire from the green pick-up where
Jesus G. Ruiz was and which was directed at the police jeep where Lt. Felias was sitting behind its steering wheel.
In an effort to minimize the penalty for the crimes committed by
the accused, Jesus G. Ruiz, the defense claims that the lower court failed to
appreciate in favor of Ruiz the mitigating circumstances of (1) voluntary
surrender, (2) drunkenness which is not habitual and (3) having acted in
vindication of a grave offense.[23]
This Court finds that ‘the first two alleged mitigating circumstances cannot be
appreciated in favor of said accused.
There is nothing in the affidavit and testimony of Jesus G. Ruiz
that he intended to surrender when he went to the PC headquarters late in the
evening of December 16, 1966. The idea of surrender must have been far from
his mind because according to him he just reported the shooting incident to
prevent further bloodshed.[24]
As observed by this Court in the case of People v. Rogales:[25]
“x x x
appellant did not go to the PC headquarters after the shooting to surrender but
to report the incident. Indeed he never
evinced any desire to own the responsibility for the killing of the
deceased.”
The defense claims that the accused Jesus G. Ruiz was intoxicated
at the time of the shooting incident because he was allegedly drinking Tanduay liquor.
He even offered prosecution witness Antonio Zarcal
to join him. This conĀclusion is without
any basis. Not all persons who drink Tanduay liquor get drunk. In fact, prosecution witness Zarcal did not testify that Jesus G. Ruiz was drunk or
intoxicated.
The record has no evidence that shows that the liquor taken by Jesus
G. Ruiz was of such quantity as to have blurred his reason and deprived him of
self control. Said circumsĀtance must
first be established before drunkenness may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. Although the last
paragraph of Art. 15, Revised Penal Code, fails to provide for the degree of
intoxication needed to mitigate the penalty for an offense, it should be such
an intoxication that would diminish the agent’s capacity to know the injustice
of his acts, and his will to act accordingly.[26]
In the case at bar, the behavior of accused Jesus G. Ruiz, from
the time he was seen at his house in the poblacion
by prosecution witness Zarcal drinking Tanduay liquor up to the shooting incident, did not
show that he was in such a state of intoxication that would mitigate his
liability.
It is significant to note that the defense only interposed on
appeal the alleged mitigating circumstance of drunkenness of Jesus G.
Ruiz. Said accused never claimed during
the trial that he was drunk at any time during the shooting incident in
question. There is nothing in the testimony
of accused Jesus G. Ruiz to show that he was drunk or intoxicated during the
said incident.
However, this Court finds that the mitigating circumstance of
having acted in vindication of a grave offense should be appreciated in favor
of the accused Ruiz in so far as the killing of Sgt. Bito
is concerned. The lower Court made the
following findings and conclusions:
“14. That accused Jesus
G. Ruiz and Bito were caught in an argument over the
parking of the jeep that caused Jesus Ruiz to leave the place hurriedly in his
green pick-up towards town;” (p. 70, Sentence; p. 641, Rec.)
“x x x. But as admitted by both the prosecution and
the defense, it ended up in an argument between accused Jesus G. Ruiz and Bito where the prosecution contends that Bito advised accused Jesus G. Ruiz to talk softly, and not
to shout and where accused Jesus G. Ruiz contends Bito
asked him what he wanted, called him ‘abusador‘,
culminating in his being challenged by Bito to a
draw. If a balance of probabilities is
struck, the only rational conclusion consistent with the natural order of
things and the experience of man, is that accused Jesus G. Ruiz must have felt
insulted, if not slighted, if not hurt, if not deeply offended, inconvenienced
as he was by the jeep and then ending up only to be called ‘abusador‘
and challenged to a draw by Bito (Exh.
X-12), which doubtless, fired in accused Jesus G. Ruiz a desire to get even
with Bito.” (pp. 81-82, Sentence, pp. 652-653, rec)
“The evidence shows beyond moral certainty that accused Jesus
G. Ruiz deeply offended as he was then called ‘abusador‘
and challenged by Bito to a draw, came minutes later
to Talisay with deceased Inutan
and Dumangcas and accused Guno,
with Zarcal and Maunes Jr.
x x x.” (pp. 101-102,
Sentence; pp. 672-673, rec)[27]
The question of whether or not a certain personal offense is
grave is dependent upon such factors as the social standing of the person, the
place, and the time when the insult was made.
In the case at bar, the accused Ruiz was the President of the Victory
Stevedoring and Labor Union (VISLU).
Considering that he was called an ‘abusador‘
and challenged to a draw by the deceased, Sgt. Bito,
in the presence of Lt. Felias and Cpl. Galve and right in front of his own office building where
his laborers were then supĀposed to be reporting preparatory to a loading job,
the act of the accused Ruiz in subsequently killing Sgt. Bito
is attended by the mitigating circumstance of having acted in vindication of a
grave offense.
This Court will now discuss the errors assigned by the accused,
Alfredo Guno.
Anent the first error assigned, the accused Alfredo Guno contends that:
“x x x The
Court a quo, therefore, erred grievously when a concluded that,
because appellant Guno ran away from the two men who
were running toward him that night, he was guilty of shooting at and hitting
Sgt. Bito’s leg.”[28]
The accused Alfredo Guno
submits that the foregoing conclusion is based on mere suspicion.
This contention proceeds from the erroneous assumption that the aforequoted portion of the decision constitutes the sole
basis of the lower court in convicting the accused Guno. The aforequoted
observations are mere justifications for the court’s refusal to believe accused
Guno’s pretensions that he did not have prior
knowledge about the forthcoming showdown between them and Sgt. Bito and his police companions.
The conviction of Alfredo Guno is
anchored on the strong evidence adduced pointing to him as the person who shot
Sgt. Bito on the left leg. It is not only the testimony of Mrs. Libertad Bito Ruiz which proves
this point. The corroborative
testimonies of Panfilo Granada,[29]
Lt. Amado Felias,[30]
and Manuel Timcang[31]
stand unassailed.
Therefore, the allegation of the accused Guno
that Mrs. Libertad Bito
Ruiz could not have possibly seen accused Guno fire
at Sgt. Bito because of the presence of the manzanita tree which obstructed her view, as testified to
by Collado, cannot affect the conclusion of the lower
court.
As regards the second error assigned, the accused Guno attempts to discredit the testimony of witness Libertad Bito Ruiz by invoking
the maxim or rule of falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus. It is pointed out that a portion of her
testimony implicating the accused Melquiades Ruiz was
disregarded by the lower court because Libertad
“was testifying more from emotion than what she actually saw from the
window of her house in the semi-darkness of the night of the incident,
specially if we are to remember that Bito was her
younger brother.”
The cited maxim deals only with the weight of evidence and is not
a positive rule of law or of universal application.[32]
It should not be applied to portions of the testimony corroĀborated by other
evidence, particularly where the false portions could be innocent mistakes.[33]
Furthermore, the rule falsus in unos, falsus in omnibus is
not mandatory but merely sanctions a disregard of the testimony of a witness if
the circumstances so warrant. For the
complete disregard of all the testimony of witness on this ground, his
testimony must have been false as to a material point, and that the witness
must have conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point.[34]
In the case at bar, the lower court disregarded that portion of Libertad’s testimony implicating Melquiades
Ruiz because she was then testifying more from emotion so that it cannot be
said that she consciously and deliberately intended to falsify a material
point. Hence, her entire testimony need
not be disregarded. Her testimony that
accused Guno shot Sgt. Bito
at the left leg is sufficiently corroborated by the testimonies of Pat. Panfilo Granada, Lt. Amador Felias
and Manuel Timcang.
The contention of the accused Guno that
the prosecution witnesses Pat. Granada, Pat. Galve and
Lt. Felias are biased because they are the brothers
in arms of Sgt. Bito is untenable. Testimonies of interested witnesses are not
necessarily biased and incredible, for on the contrary, it would be unnatural
for such persons interested in vinĀdicating the crime to impute the same to any
person other than those responsible.
Under the third assignment of error, the accused Guno assails the lower court’s finding of conspiracy among Guno and Ruiz and contends that inasmuch as the prosecution
evidence shows that the accused Guno boarded the
pick-up at Eugene restaurant without any conversation having taken place
between them and had no chance to confer on the way to Talisay,
there could be no possible meeting of the minds between them to constitute
conspiracy;[35]
that there was no time to reach an agreement to commit the crime since there
was a very short span of time between the time when the accused Ruiz was deeply
offended as he was called “abusador” and
challenged by Bito to a draw and the time when accused
Ruiz came back to Talisay with Inutan
and Dumancas and accused Guno
with Zarcal and Maunes,
Jr.;[36]
and that the accused Guno was only a chance passenger
in the pick-up, because he was going to a party and he took advantage of the
only available transportation then.[37]
The contentions of accused Guno are not
meritorious. It is a well-settled rule
that conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence and may be deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[38]
The finding that there was conspiracy between the two accused
Ruiz and Guno was proven by the following:
“1. In their
boarding together of accused Jesus G. Ruiz’ pick-up minutes after Jesus G. Ruiz
admitted he was called by Bito ‘abusador‘
and was then and there challenged by Bito to a draw;
2. In their proceeding immediately to Talisay where Bito was;
3. In their
alighting immediately from the pick-up upon arrival at Talisay
and their taking of their respective positions in the scene of the crime;
4. In their firing simultaneously and at will at Felias, Bito and Galve;
5. In their getting away in the same pick-up of
accused Jesus G. Ruiz after their shooting of Felias,
Bito and Galve, except
crossing the canal breast deep with sea water behind the house of Libertad;
6. In accused Jesus G. Ruiz’ bringing the wounded
Inutan to the hospital for treatment right after the
incident;
7. In their pattern of feigning total ignorance
as to who were shooting at when on the night of the incident; and
8. In the unexplained failure of Inutan to file, during his lifetime, the proper criminal
complaint against Felias and Galve,
who together with deceased Bito, shot him and wounded
him by his buttocks.”[39]
This Court finds no merit in the contention of the accused Guno that there could be no conspiracy because there was
very little time for them to have reached the agreement to commit the
crime. The prevailing rule is that
“unlike in evident premeditation, where a sufficient time must elapse to afford
full opportunity for meditation and reflection and for the perpetrators to
deliberate on the consequences of their intended deed,[40]
conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.” The
above-enumerated eight circumstances prove the presence of conspiracy.
Since conspiracy has been established, the rule is every
conspirator is responsible for the acts of the others in the furtherance of
conspiracy and are liable as co-principals.[41]
Therefore, although the shot fired by the accused Guno
at Sgt. Bito only hit the latter’s left leg, the
former is still liable as co-principal for the death of said Sgt. Bito. Also, the
accused Guno should be held liable as co-principal
for the injuries inflicted upon Amado Felias and Leonardo Galve.
Regarding the fourth assignment of error, the accused Guno contends that the lower court erred in allowing itself
to be swayed in rendering the decision under review by its prejudice and bias
against him. The accused Guno cited the following incidents to prove his contention:
“(1) When Libertad Bito Ruiz, prosecution witness, was under direct examination
and appeared to be having some difficulty in answering the Fiscal’s
question, the Court a quo told the Fiscal:
‘Reform the question to suit the answer.’ (t.s.n.,
Vol. I, pp. 187-188)
(2) When appellant Guno
was testifying in his own behalf and, on direct examination, was being asked
about the co-accused Dumangcas, who had already died,
the Court, without giving counsel a chance to explain the materiality of the
question, sustained the Fiscal’s objection, saying:
‘Do not show concern
for Roming Dumangcas; he is
dead now. Concentrate your fire on your
client; he is still breathing.’ (t.s.n., Vol. III,
pp. 597-598).
(3) The Court a quo motu
propio ordered the striking out of a portion of
appellant Guno’s direct testimony even though the
prosecution had not moved for the striking out of such testimony (t.s.n., Vol. III, p. 601).
(4) The Court a quo examined
appellant Guno extensively (t.s.n.,
Vol. III, pp. 608-612), and when deĀfense counsel resumed his direct questions,
following the line of the Court’s interrogation on the same matter, the Court a
quo, in sustaining the Fiscal’s objection,
stated:
‘The Court’s privilege is not of the counsel. ReĀform.’ (t.s.n.,
Vol. III, p. 612).”[42]
The contention of the accused Guno is
without merit because, as stated by the appellee:
“1. The incidents cited by appellant Guno (pp. 40, 41, Brief for Appellant Alfredo Guno) are merely innocuous and isolated remarks from the
lower court during the long drawn out trial of these two criminal cases. They were brought about by the lower court’s
obvious desire to expedite the proceedings with regard to the proper
presentation of evidence by both parties.
2. In the interest of justice, courts have
discretion to order the striking out of any portion of a witness’ testimony if
the same is not responsive to the question propounded or touched on matters
that are either immaterial, impertinent or irrelevant. Hence, no prejudice nor bias on the part of
the lower court may be inferred out of a short portion of apĀpellant Guno’s direct testimony (t.s.n.,
Vol. III, p. 601).
3. As to the lower court’s extensive examination
of appellant Guno (t.s.n.,
Vol. III, pp. 608- 612), there is nothing objectionable about it. There is authority to the effect that the
active participation taken by a judge in the conduct of a trial motivated by a
desire to expedite the proceedings and direct the course thereof in accordance
with the real issues involved should not be taken as interest nor partiality
nor hostility on the part of the judge (Ventura vs. Yatco,
L-11223, March 16, 1959).
4. Significantly, while appelĀlant Guno harps on the isolated remarks of the presiding judge
which to him appear to be prejudicial and biased (which of course this
representation does not admit), as could be expected, said appellant chose to
ignore the other remarks and or rulings of the lower court which are favorable
to his cause.
5. We agree with the proposition that judges
should refrain from showing partiality to one party and hostility to
another. This does not mean, however,
that he should keep mum throughout the trial and allow the parties to ask
questions even if they are improper, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues
involved. If trials are to be expedited,
judges should take a leading part by directing counsel to submit evidence on
facts, by asking clarifying questions and by showing an interest in its speedy
and fair termination. Unless they do,
the speedy administration of justice which is the aim of the government and of
the people cannot be attained.”[43]
The foregoing discussion also disposes of the fifth and sixth
errors assigned.
The contention of the accused Guno
under the seventh error assigned that the killing of Sgt. Bito
was not murder but only homicide on the ground that there was neither treachery
or evident premeditation is well taken.
After analyzing the testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution and the defense, the trial court found that the shooting incident
took place in the following manner:
“TO begin with, the whole incident on the night of December 16, 1966 started with the
partial blocking by Felias, Bito
and Galve of their police patrol jeep by the driveway
of the VISLU office. This prompted accused
Jesus G. Ruiz to verify as to who drove the same, and to ask that the jeep be
moved forward. But as admitted by both
the prosecution and the defense, it ended up in an argument between accused
Jesus G. Ruiz and Bito where the prosecution contends
that Bito advised accused Jesus G. Ruiz to talk
softly, and not to shout, and where accused Jesus G. Ruiz contends Bito asked him what he wanted, called him ‘abusador,’ culminating in his being challenged by Bito to a draw. If a
balance of probabilities is struck, the only rational conclusion consistent
with the natural order of things and the experience of man, is that accused
Jesus G. Ruiz must have felt insulted, if not slighted, if not hurt, if not
deeply offended, inconvenienced as he was by the partial blocking of his
driveway by the jeep and then ending up only to be called ‘abusador‘
and challenged to a draw by Bito (Exhibit X-12),
which, doubtless, fired in accused Jesus G. Ruiz a desire to get even with Bito.
BUT finding himself alone before Felias, Bito and Galve, who were armed as
they were supposed to be being police officers, could not make a move
then. This prompted accused Jesus G. Ruiz
to leave hurriedly in his green pick-up for town, and minutes later came back
with deceased Inutan and Dumangcas,
accused Guno, Zarcal, and Maunes, Jr. Be it
remembered that accused Jesus G. Ruiz left Talisay
after being called ‘abusador‘ by Bito,
and to top it all, after he was challenged by Bito to
a draw, as testified to by him. So, the
only rational conclusion consistent with the natural order of things and the
experience of man is that accused Jesus G. Ruiz, in his second going to Talisay, this time in company with Inutan,
Dumangcas, Guno, Zarcal, and Maunes, Jr. was
hell-bent for a showdown with Bito.
SO, it was not a surprising thing, in the considered opinion of the
Court, that upon accused Jesus G. Ruiz’ second arrival in Talisay
minutes after he was called by Bito ‘abusador,’ and was challenged by the latter to a draw, this
time in company with Inutan, Dumangcas,
Guno, Zarcal, and Maunes, Jr., all hell broke loose all of a sudden.”[44]
From the foregoing facts, it is clear
that there was neither treachery nor evident premeditation.
Evident premeditation was not present in the case at bar because
there was no “sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.”[45]
As borne by the record, the accused Ruiz was called an “abusador” and was challenged to “a draw” by Bito at around 8:30 o’clock
in the evening. The shooting took place
at about 9:00 o’clock that same night
or after a half hour had elapsed. There
was not sufficient time for the two accused to coolly and serenely think and
deliberate on the meaning and the consequences of what they planned to do. One half hour is not long enough for them to
reflect and deliberate on the crime they planned to commit.
The attack on the policemen by Jesus G. Ruiz and Alfredo Guno was not sudden.
Moreover, there was already a previous altercation between the policemen
on the one hand, and the two accused and their companions on the other
hand. A heated exchange of words had
taken place between Sgt. Bito and the accused Jesus
G. Ruiz over the parking of the police jeep in front of the VISLU office. When the accused, Jesus G. Ruiz, and his
companions returned from the poblacion, the accused
Alfredo Guno, Antonio Zarcal,
Jesus Maunes, Jr. and Romeo Dumancas
were riding in the same pick-up. They
stopped in front of the VISLU office, stepped down from the pick-up, and took
different positions. Alfredo Guno went to a truck near Libertad
and Dumancas, together with the others, went to the VISLU
office. The accused, Jesus G. Ruiz, went
near the pick-up and shouted “Tell Sgt. Bito
that I want to encounter him.” The accused gave a warning to the policeman
before the former opened fire. In fact,
Sgt. Bito was able to return the fire. The policemen could seek cover and fire
back. It was a shoot-out, plain and
simple, between the policemen on the one hand, and the two accused and their
companions on the other hand.
From the facts found by the trial court, it is evident that the
two accused did not employ means to commit the crime without risk to
themselves.
Treachery is present when the assault was sudden and unexpected
and the victim did not have the slightest opportunity to defend himself.[46]
There was no abuse of superior strength. The number of persons who shot at the
policemen did not greatly outnumber the victims. Moreover, the incident was a shoot-out where
the protagonists had equal opportunity to defend themselves.
There is no basis for the award of moral and exemplary damages
and expenses of litigation.
WHEREFORE, the decision reviewed is modified in that the
two accused, Jesus G. Ruiz and Alfredo Guno, are
hereby declared guilty of the crimes of homicide and frustrated homicide with
the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense. Hence, the penalties for the crimes committed
should be imposed in the minimum periods.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended, the
following principal penalties should be imposed upon each of the accused:
In Criminal Case No. 3323 for homicide – to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion
temporal, as its maximum.
In Criminal Case No. 3324 for frustrated homicide – to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to eight (8) years of prision
mayor as maximum.
The accused Jesus G. Ruiz and Alfredo Bito
are ordered, jointly and severally, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Alfredo Bito the sum of P12,000.00 and to indemnify,
jointly and severally, the offended party, Amado Felias, the sum of P10,000.00 as actual damages. Costs against both accused.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, (C.J.), Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., took no part.
Aquino and
Antonio JJ., in the result.
[1] Rollo, pp. 170-173.
[2] Rollo, p. 56.
[3] Rollo, pp. 54-55.
[4] Appellee’s Brief, pp. 4-13, Rollo,
p. 279.
[5]
Lower Court’s decision, pp. 52-57, Rollo, pp.
108-113.
[6] Rollo, pp. 117-20.
[7]
Brief for the Accused Jesus G. Ruiz, p. 2, p. 235.
[8]
Brief for the Accused Alfredo Guno, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 262.
[9] Appellee’s Brief, pp. 13-15, Rollo,
p. 279.
[10] Ibid.,
p. 16
[11]
Exhibit “L”, par. B.
[12] T.s.n., pp. 75-76, June
2, 1967.
[13]
Exhibit “K-4”.
[14] T.s.n., p. 79, June
2, 1967.
[15]
Brief for Accused, Jesus G. Ruiz, p. 14, Rollo,
p. 235.
[16]
People v. Constantino, L-23558, Aug. 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 940-941;
People v. Cuadra, L-27973, Oct. 23, 1978, 85 SCRA 576.
[17]
People v. Villalba, L-17243, Aug. 23, 1966, 17 SCRA 948.
[18]
Brief for Accused Jesus G. Ruiz, p. 10, Supra.
[19]
Exhibit “L”, par. B; T.s.n., pp. 75-76, June 2 1967.
[20]
Brief for Accused Jesus G. Ruiz, p. 11, Supra.
[21] T.s.n., p. 109, July
20, 1967.
[22] T.s.n., p. 17, June
6, 1967.
[23]
Brief for Accused Jesus G. Ruiz, pp. 19-23, Rollo,
supra.
[24] T.s.n., pp. 11-12, Nov.
28, 1968.
[25]
L-17531, Nov. 30, 1962, 6
SCRA 830, 835.
[26] U.S.
v. Dodwell, et al., 11 Phil 4; People v.
Noble, 77 Phil 93.
[27]
Brief of the Apellee, p. 28, Rollo,
p. 279.
[28]
Brief for accused Alfredo Guno, p. 34, Rollo, p. 262.
[29] T.s.n., pp. 23-24, Feb.
24, 1967.
[30] T.s.n., pp. 15-16, June
6, 1967.
[31] T.s.n., p. 16, Aug.
1, 1967.
[32]
People v. Refuerzo, 82 Phil 576.
[33] People
v. Dasig, et al., 93 Phil 618.
[34] Ibid.
[35]
Brief for Accused Guno, p. 37, Rollo,
supra; Reply Brief for Accused Guno, p. 8, Rollo, p. 308.
[36]
Reply Brief for Accused, pp. 7-8, Rollo, pp.
307-308.
[37] Ibid.,
p. 8.
[38]
People v. Roncal, L-26857-58, 79 SCRA 509.
[39]
Lower court’s decision pp. 90-91, Rollo, pp.
146-147.
[40]
US v. Gil, 13 Phil 330.
[41]
People v. Angeles, L-23304, May
20, 1969; People v. Bautista, L-23303, May 20, 1969, 28 SCRA 184; People v. Pareja, L-21937, Nov.
29, 1969, 30 SCRA 693.
[42]
Brief for Accused Guno, p. 40, Rollo,
supra.
[43]
Brief for Appellee, p. 41, Rollo,
supra.
[44]
Sentence, Rollo, pp. 136-139.
[45]
People v. Mendoza, 91 Phil 58; People v. Roncal,
L-26857-58, Oct. 21, 1977,
79 SCRA 509.
[46]
People vs. Plateras, L-37162, May 30, 1970, 83 SCRA 401.