G.R. No. L-37945. May 28, 1984
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADRIANO CAÑETE AND JOSE BILOG ALIAS BOY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
RELOVA, J.:
Instance of Palawan, the two (2) accused, Adriano Cañete and Jose Bilog,
were both sentenced to the maximum penalty of death, and to pay jointly
and severally the heirs of the deceased, Douglas Bilog, in the sum of
P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to
pay proportional costs.
The People’s version of the facts is as follows:
“Accused Jose Bilog and Douglas Bilog were brothers. They were
owners of adjoining ricelands adjacent to the Inagawan Sub-Colony at
Puerto Princesa, Palawan (p. 10, tsn, Jan. 4. 1973, Anonas). They were
not in good terms and always quarreled because Jose resented the fact
that Douglas has received .a bigger share of the lands inherited from
their parents. (pp. 12, 20, tsn., Anonas).The ire of Jose against his brother became unbearable that on or
about April 28, 1971, he got his father’s shotgun and waylaid Douglas at
the bridge leading their house. A tragic incident was averted only
when Concepcion, the wife of Douglas, informed her uncle, Cervancia, of
Jose’s evil scheme. Cervancia immediately went after Jose and
succeeded in retrieving the gun from the latter and tried to settle
their differences (p. 10, tsn, Anonas).Through the intercession of Mr. Aniceto Gamo, a Chief of Section
in the Inagawan Sub-Colony, Jose Bilog had allowed his farm to be worked
by Nicasio Dayao, a prisoner at the Colony (pp. 4-5, 13, tsn, Duero).
Sometime in May, 1971 while Dayao was working in the ricefield, Jose
Bilog offered him P300.00 if he (Dayao) would kill Douglas. Dayao asked
Jose Bilog why he wanted his brother liquidated. Jose replied that
Douglas poisoned their mother and if Douglas would not be liquidated he
(Douglas) would eventually kill all of them in the family (p. 7 tsn.,
Duero). Dayao rejected the proposal and offer of reward. He explained
to Jose that he could not kill Douglas because he has many children to
think about (p. 8, tsn., Duero).On April 19, 1972, at about 5:00 p.m., Concepcion Bilog saw from the
window of their house in the ricefield, Jose Bilog riding on a bicycle
going towards the ricefield. On that occasion she saw Jose Bilog
converse with two colonists (pp. 6-7, 10, tsn., Jan. 4, 1973, Anonas).Almost at the same time on that day, Angel Rebong, a prisoner of the
colony was sent by Aniceto Gamo to get some palay from Roming, who lived
near the ricefield of Jose Bilog (p. 53, tsn., Duero). On the highway,
Angel Rebong met Jose Bilog who was then riding a bicycle. Jose told
him not to mention to anybody what he might see in the ricefield (pp.
35, 49,53, tsn., Duero). Angel, however, did not see anything unusual
in the ricefield so he went directly to the house of Roming. He left
Roming’s place at about 6:00 p.m. and reported to Mr. Gamo that he
failed to get the palay. Thereafter, he returned to the General
Services Barracks in the colony’s compound. He reached his hut at about
7:00 p.m. (pp. 36-37, tsn., Duero).At about 5:00 o’clock that same afternoon, Antonio Cabig, an
inmate of the Colony was on his way from the Colony’s PX to the Coconut
Division (pp. 64-65, tsn, Duero). He passed the ricefield of Jose Bilog
and saw Douglas and Jose drinking wine in the latter’s hut. They were
seated in front of a table with about five bottles of ‘Cuatro Cantos’
gin on it (p. 92, tsn., Duero). When Cabig was 3 or 4 meters from the
hut, Douglas saw him and offered him a drink. He accepted the drink but
stayed outside the hut (pp. 68, 93, tsn., Duero). Not long thereafter,
two persons arrived and joined the drinking party. Appellant Adriano
Cañete also arrived and joined the group. He sat beside Jose Bilog (pp.
90, 93, tsn., Id.).When those around the table were already drunk, Jose (Boy) Bilog
stood up and drew from his waist a ‘laring’, a bladed instrument about
1-1/2 feet long. Suddenly, Jose stabbed Douglas at the front part of
his body (pp. 75, 77, 114, tsn., Id.). Cabig witnessed the incident,
but could not tell how many stab blows Jose Bilog delivered. He noticed
that the knife embedded in Douglas’ body. At this juncture, Cañete got
hold of the knife and stabbed Douglas on the stomach (p. 144, tsn.,
Id.). Douglas stood up and fought his assailants with karate blows (p.
118, tsn., Id.). The two persons who had arrived earlier helped Jose
and Cañete by hitting Douglas with a piece of wood. When Boy Bilog
called for assistance, a colonist, one Roming, came and helped them
until Douglas fell dead. The victim was then dumped in a nearby canal.
Cañete got the ‘laring’ and proceeded to the Colony’s brigade with it
(p. 140, tsn., Duero).When Angel Rebong arrived in his hut, Dugguan Abao, his hutmate,
informed him that appellant Adriano Cañete came to their hut with
blooded clothes. Cañete got Angel’s clothes and wore them and left his
blooded clothes (pp. 37-38, tsn., Duero). Angel then left for the
General Services Barracks because he was to perform guard duty at 8:00
p.m. There he saw appellant Cañete wearing his black pants and Vonnel
T-Shirt. The latter told him that he got his (Angel’s) clothes because
he had no clothes to wear (pp. 39, 44, 59, tsn., Duero).On April 27, 1972, police investigators received information about
the persons seen at the scene of the crime prior to its commission.
They took into custody Adriano Cañete and Angel Rebong and brought them
to Puerto Princesa for interrogation. When they reached Puerto
Princesa, Adriano Cañete informed Angel Rebong that he killed Douglas
Bilog (p. 57, tsn., Duero). Upon investigation, appellant Cañete
readily admitted that he together with Jose Bilog, Pedro Macabihag and
Ramon Dealogo killed Douglas Bilog. Cañete then voluntarily gave a
written statement. (Exhibit “C”; pp. 157, 158-159, tsn. Duero). Later,
he led Sgt. Maduro to his quarters in the Colony and surrendered the
fatal knife (pp. 162, 180, tsn., Id.). On June 22, 1972 Cañete gave
another statement. This time he stated that only he and Jose Bilog had a
hand in the killing of Douglas (p. 177, tsn., Duero).Dr. Oscar Magtang, Rural Health Physician at Puerto Princesa,
Palawan conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of Douglas Bilog. He found
26 injuries, twenty-four (24) of which were incised and stab wounds
scattered all over the body, particularly on the face, head, chest,
abdomen, back, arms, and fingers of both hands. There were abrasions on
the neck and lower abdomen. Death was due to severe hemorrhage (pp.
55-58, tsn. Anonas). Dr. Magtang made a written report, Exhibit “F” (p.
53, tsn. Id.). According to said doctor, the most severe of these
wounds were those inflicted on the left mammary region of the chest
going vertically downward and injuring the heart, and the stab wound on
the abdomen (pp. 60-61, tsn., Anonas).Adela Pereyna, Chief, Record and Document Section and Parcel
Investigation, of the Iwahig Penal Colony testified that per records in
her custody Adriano Cañete was convicted by the Court of First Instance
of Cebu of robbery on September 7, 1960; that he transferred to Davao
Penal Colony for work assignment bearing Serial No. 34831-P; that he
escaped while serving sentence on January 10, 1963, but was captured and
recommitted to prison on the following day; that he escaped again on
April 7, 1964; that on August 6, 1966, he was committed to the Iwahig
Penal Colony after having been convicted of robbery by the Court of
First Instance of Ormoc City; that because he did not reveal his
identity, he was included in the list of new arrivals and given serial
No. 55791P; that at the Verification and Identification Section, his
identity was established as the same Adriano Cañete who was previously
given Serial No. 34831-P and who escaped from the Davao Penal Colony on
April 7, 1964; that he was prosecuted for evasion of sentence in the
Davao Court of First Instance with the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism; and, that his term of sentence Davao Court of First Instance
with the aggravating circumstance of recidivism; and, that his term of
sentence was due to expire on August 23, 1975 (pp. 41-43, tsn, April 16,
1973, Anonas; Exh. “D”, p. 109, Rec).” (pp. 4-10, Appellee’s Brief).
Appellant Adriano Cañete assails the decision against him and submits
that the lower court erred (1) in not rejecting his extra-judicial
confession, Exhibit “C”, notwithstanding that the case was merely
concocted, incredible and in conflict with the People’s evidence; (2) in
not finding that there were at least seven (7) possibilities or
versions as to who committed the crime and in not acquitting him on
reasonable doubt; (3) in finding that the crime was committed in
conspiracy with the attendance of evident premeditation, price,
treachery and in not finding that Cañete should have been found guilty
only of physical injuries or at most homicide.
On the other hand, appellant Jose Bilog claims that the lower court
erred (1) in giving credit to the testimony of prosecution witness
Antonio Cabig, notwithstanding that said witness is “known to be a
confirmed degenerate and an admitted perjurer”; (2) in disregarding his
defense of alibi; and (3) in not acquitting him on reasonable doubt.
Appellant Cañete submits that the extra-judicial admission, Exhibit “C”,
should have been disregarded, not due to violence in the taking
thereof, but on the ground that the same had been successfully explained
by him; that the contents thereof were merely concocted and this is
supported by the evidence of the prosecution; that aside from the
irreconciliable conflict between what is contained in his extra-judicial
confession and what prosecution witness Antonio Cabig testified in
court, said extra-judicial confession contains statements which are
strikingly incredible; and that the credibility of prosecution witness
Cabig as to the participation of appellant Cañete in the killing of
Douglas Bilog is doubtful.
The contention is utterly without merit. The findings of the trial
court is entitled to great weight that Cañete’s retraction was merely a
last minute effort at exculpation, considering that his extra-judicial
confession, Exhibit “C”, given in April 1972, was freely and
voluntarily given. The fact is, there was no evidence presented that
said confession was obtained as a result of violence, torture,
intimidation or promise of reward or leniency, nor that the
investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct facts
narrated in said confession.
Besides, even with the exclusion of said Exhibit “C”, there is the
testimony of Antonio Cabig who witnessed the incident from the time Jose
Bilog stabbed his brother on his breast up to the time Douglas fell
after receiving the thrust of Cañete. Hereunder is Cabig’s testimony
regarding the horrifying incident:
“Q You said that Douglas Bilog was killed, do you know the persons who killed
Q Do you know how Douglas was killed?
A Yes, sir.
Q In what way was he killed?
A Douglas was drunk and he was stabbed by Boy Bilog.
COURT: (To witness)
Q Where?
WITNESS:
A He was stabbed near the hut and near the river.
COURT: (To witness)
Q Did you see by your own eyes when that incident happened?
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL DILIG:
Q Who was the companion of Boy Bilog when he hit Douglas Bilog?
A Cañete.
Q When you said Cañete, was he the same person whom you have just pointed to?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x x x x x xFISCAL DILIG:
Q You said that Boy Bilog hit with this bladed instrument marked as Exh. “B” Douglas Bilog, was Douglas Bilog hit?
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL DILIG:
Q In what part of the body of Douglas Bilog was hit?
A At the back of the body and here at the front.
Q After Boy Bilog hit his brother Douglas, do you know what happened to the knife marked as Exh. “B”?
A Yes, sir.
Q What happened to that weapon marked as Exh. “B”?
A The knife dropped in the hand of Boy Bilog. After the knife was dropped, Douglas Bilog stood up and he was hit again.
COURT: (To witness)
Q By whom?
A He was hit again by Cañete.
FISCAL DILIG:
Q You said that Douglas Bilog was hit by Adriano Cañete. What instrument did Cañete stab Douglas?
A The same knife used by Boy Bilog.
Q And in what particular part of the body of Douglas was stabbed by Cañete with the same weapon marked as Exh. “B”?
A At, the left side and on the breast.
Q And after Douglas was hit and stabbed by Cañete on the side and breast, do you know what happened to Douglas?
A Douglas stood up and the two civilians helped in clubbing Douglas.
Q After that, what happened?
A Douglas fell down.
Q And after Douglas Bilog had fallen down, what did you do, if any?
A I went home already to the Coconut Section.
Q Prior to that incident, did you already personally know Jose Bilog?
A Yes, sir.
(TSN, pp. 77-78, January 8, 1973 hearing)
Likewise, appellant Jose Bilog’s alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of Cabig. He points out that on the day of the
incident, April 19, 1972, he was in his house doing household chores as
his wife was in Puerto Princesa doing some marketing. On this score,
the lower court rightfully observed:
“Jose Bilog’s alibi has no merit. His house is but three
kilometers away from the place of the incident and he was seen by the
widow of the deceased leaving his house on a bicycle about 4:00 o’clock
that afternoon. At 5:00 o’clock, he was met by Angel Rebong at the
highway while riding his bicycle and at 6:00 o’clock late in the
afternoon, Antonio Cabig saw him drinking liquor with the deceased in
his hut in the banana plantation (pp. 154-155, Rec.).
The defense of alibi cannot be believed where the distance between two
barrios is only eight kilometers and can be traversed by walking one and
one-half hour. (People vs. Manangan, L-32733, Sept. 11, 1974, 59 SCRA
31). (pp. 9-10, Appellee’s Brief).
Aside from the fact that courts exercise great caution in accepting
alibi because it is easily concocted, it may be proper to repeat what
one author said about alibi as a defense: “it is a reason with a bad
reputation.”
Again, We agree with the findings of the trial court that “while Jose
Bilog tried to shift the blame at Cañete, Cañete too wanted the Court to
believe that it was Jose Bilog who did the heinous act. Repudiating
his confession, Cañete tried to convince the Court that he was simply
offered P1,000.00 in consideration of his admission of the crime. On
cross-examination, however, Cañete slipped and admitted that the
P1,000.00 consideration was offered for him to execute the killing. It
is therefore evident that cañete’s testimony disowning the crime is but
a last minute attempt at exculpation.”
The killing of Douglas Bilog was qualified by treachery because the
attack was unexpected and sudden, and the victim had no chance to defend
himself. Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of price was present
in the commission of the crime and this affects not only the person who
received the money or the reward but also the person who gave it.
(People vs. Tailedo, 58 Phil. 539).
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED but, for lack of
necessary votes, the sentence is modified in that both appellants shall
each suffer Reclusion Perpetua only, and shall indemnify, jointly and
severally, the heirs of Douglas Bilog in the sum of P30,000.00. Costs
against both appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., and Teehankee, J., in the result.
Aquino, J., no part.