PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WELMO ROMERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Masbate, finding Welmo Romero
guilty of murder and sentencing him “to the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Charlie Relano in the amount of P12,000.00, with the accessory
penalty provided for by law and to pay the costs.”

Appellant and his brothers Jose and Pludino,
likewise surnamed Romero, were charged with murder for the death of the
deceased Charlie Relano.  The gravamen of the
accusation is set forth in the information thus:

“That on or about the 25th day of April, 1966, in the sitio of Calawanan, Barrio of Bangad, Municipality of Milagros, Province of Masbate, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, confederating together and helping
each other, with evident premiditation and treachery,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and stab with their bolos, one Charlito
Relano, who was then sleeping, thereby inflicting
upon the latter serious wounds on the right chest and at the left wrist, which
injuries directly caused his death.

“Contrary to law.”

On April 27, 1966, the municipal court of Milagros, Masbate issued the corresponding warrants of arrest against
the Romero brothers, but only Jose Romero was taken into custody on May 2,
1966, his co-accused having eluded arrest. 
The trial of Jose Romero was then commenced with the prosecution
presenting the testimony of Dr. Rodolfo Garde,
municipal health officer of Milagros, who conducted an autopsy of the deceased.

According to Dr. Garde, the deceased sustained two stab wounds:
“one on the right chest, penetrating the second intercoastal
space, about 6 inches in depth and 2 inches wide; and the other, on the left
wrist, passing thru and thru, about 2 inches wide.”^[1]
He further declared that Charlie Relano died of
bleeding due to stab wound on the right chest.^[2]

It appears that on July
11, 1970, the court, on motion of the trial fiscal, issued an order
dismissing the charge against Jose Romero for insufficiency of evidence.

Appellant Welmo Romero was finally
apprehended on July 30, 1971.  At his
trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Filomena
Laguerta and Elena Prasmo,
the victim’s mother-in-law and wife, respectively.  Before closing the prosecution’s evidence,
the trial fiscal offered for admission the testimonies of said witnesses as
well as the declaration of Dr. Rodolfo Garde, who, as
heretofore stated, had taken the witness stand during the trial of Jose
Romero.  Without objection on the part of
the defense, however, the testimonies of all said witnesses as well as the
autopsy report prepared by Dr. Garde^[3]
and the death certificate of the
deceased^[4] were admitted in evidence.

The testimony of Filomena Laguerta, the key
witness for the prosecution, is succinctly summarized by the Solicitor General
as follows:

“At about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of April 25, 1966, Filomena Laguerta, mother-in-law
of the deceased Charlie Relano, was in their house
located in Sitio Calawanan,
Barrio Bangad, Municipality of Milagros, Masbate.  At that
time, Filomena Laguerta was
lying awake on the floor upstairs, while Ena Pagunsan, mother of her son-in-law, was picking lice from
her (Filomena’s) hair (pp. 10, 14, tsn, July 5, 1972, Zurbito).  The two women were just outside the room
where Charlie Relano and his wife Elena Prasmo (Filomena’s daughter) were
then sleeping, the door to which room was open because the house had no locks
(pp. 7, 8, 11, 14, tsn, id.).  Elena was then a newly-delivered mother (pp.
6, 11, tsn, id.).

“Moments later, the two accused, Pludino
Romero and Welmo Romero, entered the aforesaid house,
both armed with bolos, known as ‘talibong‘.  The two men proceeded upstairs, entered the
room of the couple Charlie Relano and Elena Prasmo and then Pludino stabbed
Charlie Relano, who was still sleeping, on the left
breast just above the nipple (pp. 11-12, tsn, id.),
followed by Welmo Romero who also stabbed Charlie Relano in the right breast (pp. 11-12, tsn, id.).  Awakened by the attack against his person, Charlie Relano tried to raise his hand, but Welmo
again hit him on the left wrist (p. 12, tsn,
id.).  Thereafter, Charlie Relano shouted: 
‘Mother, you get away, you might be included’ (p. 12, tsn, id.).

“Elena Prasmo was still asleep as
her husband was being assaulted by the two accused, and it was only when she
woke up that she noticed that her husband’s assailants had left the house (pp.
6, 9, tsn, id.).

“The three women, Filomena, Elena
and Ena, then tried to carry the wounded Charlie Relano down the house, and in so doing, their clothes were
covered with blood coming from his wounds (p. 12, tsn,
id.).  They managed to bring the wounded man to the poblacion
of Milagros, but it was too far for them to reach any doctor, Relano’s wife just tried to treat her husband with local
medicine, thinking that his wounds were not too serious (p. 8, tsn, id.).  However,
Charlie Relano died that same day, at about 6 p.m.
(pp. 8, 11, tsn, July 5, 1972).  Subsequently, the three women went to the
municipal building of Milagros, and asked the help of the municipal judge for
the purpose of filing the charge against the assailants of Charlie Relano (p. 12, tsn, id.).

“xxx                              xxx                               xxx

“On March 5, 1972, the accused Welmo
Romero, fetched Filomena Laguerta
and Elena Prasmo from their residence in Bo. Bangad, informing them that they were to sign an affidavit,
for which he (Welmo) would pay them P500.00 in order
to help the child of the deceased Charlie Relano (pp.
16-17, 19 tsn, July 5, 1972, Zurbito).  Filomena and Elena Prasmo were brought by Welmo to
the office of Vice-Governor Jesus C. Almero, where an
affidavit (Exh. ‘1’, p. 188, Records) was read to
them, partly in English and partly in the Visayan
dialect.  Filomena
claimed she did not understand the portion of the affidavit read to her in
English because she never went to school, while as to the portion read to her
in the Visayan dialect, she understood the same as
having to do with the promise of Welmo Romero to give
her the amount of P500.00 (pp. 16-18, tsn, id.).  The accused, Welmo
Romero, admitted his promise to give Filomena Laguerta P500.00 in the presence of the provincial guard,
Labastida (p. 17, tsn, id.), for which he signed and
issued to the two women the receipt, Exhibit ‘C’ (pp. 175-176, Records; pp.
18-19, tsn, id.). 
After the signing of said affidavit, Welmo,
however, gave the two women only P150.00 (pp. 17, 19, tsn,
id.).  From the office of the
Vice-Governor, the two women were brought down to the office of Special
Counsel, Pedro Duquino, before whom they subscribed
to the said affidavit, Exhibit ‘1’ (p. 19, tsn,
id.).”

For his part, appellant
denied any participation in the slaying of Charlie Relano.  Setting up the defense of alibi, he stated
that in the morning of April 25, 1966, he and his mother Asuncion Ragasa brought Arturo, the appellant’s brother, to the
clinic of Dr. Castro in the poblacion of Milagros,
Arturo having been stabbed earlier that morning by the brothers Charlie and Joselito, both surnamed Relano;
and that appellant and his mother kept watch over Arturo in said clinic until
the latter died three days later.

Asuncion Ragasa, who corroborated her
son’s testimony, claimed that in the morning of April 25, 1966, immediately after her son Arturo was
stabbed by the Relano brothers, she and her son Welmo brought Arturo to the clinic of Dr. Castro in
Milagros where they stayed for three days.^[5]

The defense further attempted to support the appellant’s alibi by
presenting the testimony of Florido Relano, another brother of Charlie.  Florido declared
that while he was in the house of Charlie in the afternoon of April 25, 1966, Pludino Romero, appellant’s brother, arrived at said house,
entered the room where Charlie was sleeping and there and then stabbed the
latter.  Florido
claimed that the appellant Welmo Romero was not
present during the incident.^[6]

The appeal is devoid of merit. 
A number of weighty considerations culled from the record satisfies that
standard of moral certainty required to hold appellant guilty as charged.

(1)   Appellant was positively identified by Filomena Laguerta.  She was lying down by the door of the
victim’s room, only three meters distant from where Charlie was sleeping, when
he was attacked by the appellant and his brother, Pludino.  Filomena and the
appellant were barriomates; and they had known each other for a
long time.  The fact that the crime was
committed in broad daylight, i.e., between the hours of 2:00 and 3:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, should preclude any possibility of mistake in her
identification.

The appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in
predicating his conviction solely on the testimony of Filomena
Laguerta, the lone eye-witness presented by the
prosecution, deserves scant consideration. 
Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered^[7],
and it is a well established rule that the testimony of a single witness, if
positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in a charge
for murder.^[8]
The trial court characterized Filomena’s testimony as
“reliable and worthy of credence,” and We find no cogent reason to
disturb such findings in view of its unique opportunity to observe the demeanor
of said witness on the stand.  Besides,
We have carefully scrutinized the records and there is nothing therein to
indicate that any fact or circumstance has been overlooked or its significance
misinterpreted by the lower court.

(2)   The warrant of arrest against appellant was issued by the Municipal Judge of
Milagros on April 27, 1966, i.e., just two days after the
commission of the crime.  It appears, however, that his arrest
was not effected until July 30, 1971, because appellant left
his place of residence and went
into hiding.  By his unexplained flight and continuous residence at an
undisclosed place for a period of
five years, appellant betrayed the existence of a guilty conscience on his
part.

(3)   The records further disclose that, after his arrest by the police authorities,
appellant, escorted by a provincial guard, went to the relatives of the deceased and
offered to compromise the charge against him. 
After the negotiations held in the Office of Vice-Governor Jesus C. Almario, appellant executed a promissory note dated March 6, 1972, Exhibit “C”,
in favor of Victor Relano, Filomena
Laguerta and Elena Prasmo,
the father, mother-in-law, and widow of the victim, respectively.  Exhibit “C” reads as follows:

“I WILMO ROMERO, of legal age, married, Filipino, and resident
of Bañgad, Milagros, Masbate,
do hereby promise to Victor Relano, Filomena Laguerta, and Elena Prasmo, that I will pay the amount of THREE HUNDRED
(P300.00) PESOS on the 7th day of March, 1972 and the balance of TWO HUNDRED
(P200.00) PESOS will be paid by me in the month of September, 1972.

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this 6th
day of March, 1972, at Masbate,
Masbate.

(SGD.) WILMO ROMERO”

Appellant lays considerable emphasis on the “joint affidavit
of desistance,” Exhibit “C”, signed on the same day, March
6, 1972, by Filomena Laguerta,
Elena Prasmo and Victor Relano,
wherein they stated that the sole author of the crime was Pludino,
the appellant’s brother, who disappeared after the incident.  It should be stated that said affidavit of
desistance was a part of the deal for the settlement of the charge against the
appellant, for it was the very consideration of the promissory note issued by
the latter.

But while appellant had succeeded in convincing the relatives of
the deceased to compromise the case, it appears that the charge was not
ultimately dismissed because appellant, after having made an initial payment of
P150.00, failed to pay the balance of the amount indicated in his promissory
note.

It seems needless to add that in criminal cases which are not
allowed by law to be settled, an offer of a compromise by the accused
constitutes an implied admission of guilt.^[9]

Upon the other hand, the principal defense put up by the appellant is alibi.  Alibi, being easily susceptible of
concoction, is very common defense in criminal cases.   To be accorded credence, it does not suffice
for the appellant to merely
prove that he was at some other place, but also that the distance was such as to preclude the possibility for him to be at the scene of the
crime at the time it was committed.^[10]
In the case at bar, it appears that the victim and the appellant were residents
of barrio Bangad of the municipality
of Milagros, Masbate. 
The short distance between their houses and the clinic of Dr. Castro in
the poblacion of Milagros does not obviate the
possibility of the appellant being at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.

The testimony of Asuncion Ragasa
corroborating her son’s alibi deserves little probative value.  It is undeniably tainted with bias for it
springs from the natural desire of a mother to exculpate her son from criminal
liability.

Likewise, We entertain
serious doubt as to the credibility of Florido Relano, Charlie’s brother who testified for the
defense.  It took him more than six (6)
years to tell his story.  From the tragic
day of April 25, 1966
up to the time he testified in open court on July 5, 1973 he had not informed either his relatives or
the police authorities of his alleged presence at the scene of the crime.  As correctly observed by the trial court:

“The court cannot give weight to the testimony of Florido Relano, brother of the
deceased.  While he claimed to be pre­sent
at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, such is not supported
by the evidence before this Court.  Filomena Laguerta and Elena Prasmo who were there never mentioned Florido
Relano as being present.  The subsequent events did not show that he
ever took any interest as would be expected of a brother for another brother in
dire straits, as Charlie Relano was at that
time.”

Appellant maintains that the testimony of Dr. Garde
is inadmissible in evidence.  In support
thereof, it is argued that, since Dr. Garde’s
testimony was given during the trial of his co-accused Jose Romero, the
admission thereof by the trial court violated his constitutional right to be
confronted by the witnesses against him.^[11]
We find no necessity to dwell at length on the issue thus raised.  It suffices to state that even if Dr. Garde’s declarations were discarded, as urged by appellant,
the nature and location of the injuries sustained by the deceased^[12]
as well as the fact of his death^[13]
had been sufficiently established by Filomena Laguerta and Elena Prasmo, who
testified and were cross-examined during the appellant’s trial.  The admission of Dr. Garde’s
testimony did not, therefore, materially affect the appellant’s constitutional
right.

There is no question that the crime committed by the appellant
was murder, qualified by treachery, the fatal injuries having been inflicted
while the victim was asleep.  The Solicitor General however
recommends the imposition of the death penalty as the offense was perpetrated
in the victim’s dwelling.  We agree that
the crime was aggravated by “dwelling.” It is, however, undisputed
that in the early morning of the
incident, Charlie Relano and his brother Joselito inflicted serious injuries on Arturo Romero, appel­lant’s brother^[14] and that as a result thereof the latter died
three (3) days later.  In attacking
Charlie Relano, appellant doubtless acted in
vindication of a grievous offense committed by the deceased against the
appellant’s brother.  This circumstance,
which must be appreciated in favor of appellant, offsets the aggravating
circumstance of “dwelling.”

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed,
with costs against the defendant-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De
Castro, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., in the result.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.

^[1]
Exhibit A, tsn, pp. 1-2, March 31, 1969.

^[2]
Exhibit A, tsn, p. 2, Id.

^[3]
Exhibit A.

^[4]
Exhibit D.

^[5]
TSN, p. 22, Sept. 23, 1972.

^[6]
TSN, pp. 26-27, July 5, 1973.

^[7]
Foulke vs. Thalmesinger,
28 N.Y. 684,685.

^[8]
People vs. Argana, 10 SCRA 311; People vs.
Salazar, 58 SCRA 467.

^[9]
Section 24, Rule 123, Rules of Court; People vs. Sope,
75 Phil. 810.

^[10]
People vs. Salazar, 58 SCRA 467; People vs. Bañaga,
1 SCRA 283.

^[11]
pp. 4-6, Appellant’s Brief.

^[12]
TSN, pp. 11-12, July 5, 1972.

^[13]
TSN, pp. 4, 8, 10 and 13, id.

^[14]
TSN, p. 21, Sept. 2, 1972.