PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLANTIFF AND APPELLE, VS. MACARIO CASALME, DEFENDANT AND APPELANT.

Macario Casalme was charged with and convicted of murder in the
Court of First Instance of Laguna (Biñan) for the fatal shooting of
Domingo Veras in the early evening of December 20, 1959. The court
considered the qualifying circumstance of treachery with no aggravating
or mitigating circumstance in attendance and imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and a civil indemnity of P6,000.00. Casalme appealed
and assigns four errors, which pose only two issues: (1) whether or not
his identity as the killer has been established by the prosecution
beyond doubt; and (2) whether the offense was murder or simple homicide.

Macario Casalme and Domingo Veras were both foremen in the Canlubang
Sugar Estate. On December 19, 1959, at six in the morning, Casalme went
with Marc Ian o Tuason to the house of Marcelino Meneses. Tuason was
assistant overseer in the same estate, and Meneses was the Inspector.
On leaving the house, the two met Domingo Veras. Veras gave Casalme a
fist blow on the left cheek, whereupon the latter withdrew and ran to
Meneses’ house, at the same time shouting to veras, “magbabayad ka
rin”. Asked why he acted the way he did, Veras explained to Tuason that
Casalme had called him “sipsip” and spat on his face.

At about seven in the evening of the next day, December 20, Veras
was walking home on the barrio road. There were two stores near each
other on the roadside, owned respectively by Exequlel de Claro and
Albino Patricio, and both of which were well illuminated. Nearby also
was the house of appellant’s sister, Juliana Bijis. As Veras reached a
spot in front of the space between the two stores, he encountered
Casalme, who had just came out of his sister’ s premises. Casalme
uttered just two words “panahon na”, aimed his pistol at Veras and
fired five times In quick succession. Veras could only say “huag”
before the first shot and was soon prostrate on the ground with three
wounds, of which the one on the left side of the head was necessarily
fatal.

Appellant was positively identified by two eyewitnesses, Victor
Atienza and Elpidio Marasigan. Atienza was in front of Fatricio’s store
listening to a radio broadcast when he heard the shooting.
Instinctively he looked in the direction from where it came and was
able to see Casalrae trigger off the last two shots with the gun In his
hand. Casalme had his back turned to him, but Atienza recognized his
familiar figure, having known him for many years, and had him in sight
when he walked back to and re-entered the premises of his sister’s
house immediately after the shooting. Atienza then approached the
fallen man to see who he was, and forthwith reported the occurrence to
the barrio lieutenant.

Even more positive than Atienza’s is the identification made by
Elpidio Marasigan. He was walking only a few paces behind Veras, on his
way home from a visit at his father’s house, when the shooting took
place. He saw appellant come out from his sister’s place and meet
veras; heard him say “panahon na” to his victim; and heard the latter
answer “huag” just before appellant started shooting.

The fact that Marasigan did not relate the incident to the policemen
of Canlubang, or to the persons who gathered at the scene after it
happened, does not necessarily detract from his veracity as a witness.
He did tell the Vice-Mayor, Artemio Gomez, and later on the
Constabulary in Los Baños when he went there with the victim’s widow.
He was scared, he said, and so his reticence is quite understandable.
His Honor, the trial Judge, heard and believed his testimony, and we
find nothing in the record to rule otherwise.

Appellant’s defense of alibi – that on December 20, 1959 he was in
Bataan to visit a sister of his who was residing there, and came back
only on December 23 – cannot prevail over the eye-witness evidence for
the prosecution. The following observations of the trial court are to
the point:

“There are a number of circumstances which militates
against the version of the defense. To begin with, the accused had a
motive to do bodily harm on the person of Domingo Veras as the latter,
the day before the shooting, assaulted the former. The unexplained
disappearance of the accused from barrio Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa,
Laguna immediately after the shooting and his proceeding to
Dinalupihan, Bataan and then to Tagaytay City, were suspicious
circumstances tending to prove guilty. Work in the sugar cane
plantation was suspended only on December 19 and 20, 1959 because of
the rain but in the following three days, work was resumed. Considering
that the month of December was part of the milling season, the accused,
who had been a “capataz” of the estate for a long time, knew that
suspension of the work was only temporary on account of the rain and so
he should not leave the place because the work would be resumed any
time the weather cleared. When he left Sta. Rosa (presumably after the
shooting incident) and went to Bataan without the knowledge and
permission of his immediate supervisor, it was apparently for no other
purpose but to go in hiding. As a matter of fact, his Christmas bonus
which had been in possession of Meneses for sometime was never claimed
by the accused as he did not like to show up nor be seen in Sta. Rosa.
This is confirmed by the attitude taken by the accused when informed by
his brother-in-law that he was merely suspected of the killing of
Domingo Veras when he went post haste into hiding for two weeks in
Tagaytay City. If Macarlo Casalme had a clear conscience, he would not
have been worried of any suspicion that may have been directed against
him. The immediate flight of the accused and his sojourn, first in
Dinalupihan, Bataan and then in Tagaytay City, are circumstances to be
weighed in connection with the other proof on record, as strongly
tending to show that he was the assailant and the person responsible
for the death of Domingo Veras (U.S. vs. Ramos, 23 Phil. 300, 305; U.S.
vs. Alegado, 25 Phil. 510, 511; U.S. vs. Virrey, 37 Phil. 618, 623).”

The commission of the offense was accompanied with treachery, as
found by the trial court. Counsel contends that since the deceased had
been threatened since the day before the shooting, when appellant said
“magbabayad ka rin,” he was not caught by surprise at all. But
treachery does not connote the element of surprise alone, but exists
when the offender employs means, methods, or forms which tend directly
and specially to insure the execution of the offense, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make
(Art. 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code). When appellant accosted his
victim, who could have had no idea as to just how the threat to him
would be carried out, and without warning shot him five times, nothing
could possibly have been done oy the latter in bis own defense.

The Solicitor-General invites attention to the fact that appellant
voluntarily surrendered, first to the Justice of the Peace of Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, with whom he posted a bond, and then to the Constabulary
headquarters of the province. There is indeed no record that the order
of arrest issued by said magistrate was ever served upon him. The
recommendation that this circumstance should be considered in
mitigation is proper.

Where tote, the judgment appealed from is modified, by reducing the
penalty imposed therein to an indeterminate sentence ranging from
twelve(12) years and one (l) day to seventeen (17) years, four (4)
months and one (l) day of reclusion temporal. with the corresponding
accessory penalties. The judgment is affirmed with respect to the
indenmity and costs.

Concepcion, C. J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.