THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TRINIDAD SADAVA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Quezon, finding the defendant-appellant, Trinidad Sadava, guilty of
murder and sentencing him, in view of the mitigating circumstances of
fear of serious injury and resentment analogous to passion and
obfuscation, to an indeterminate penalty of not less than 6 years and 1
day and not more than 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor, to
pay to the family of the offended party one third of the full indemnity
of P6,000.00, plus the costs. Francisco Mendoza and Jose Sadava,
appellant’s co-accused, were still at large at the time of the trial.

According to the evidence for the prosecution, at about 11:00 o’clock
in the morning of June 13, 1946, Valeriano Caraig, residing in barrio
Callejon, municipality of Tiaong, province of Quezon (formerly
Tayabas), went out with Apolinar Hernandez to call Lorenzo Zamora, a
medicine man, in order to treat Valeriano’s sick wife. They were
informed at the house of Lorenzo that the latter was out. Valeriano and
Apolinar did not also find Lorenzo at the place where he was reported
to have gone, and this led them to return home. However, Valeriano
thought of passing by his ricefield and burning the hay therein. After
joining Apolinar who then waited at the road, Valeriano was told by
Apolinar that the latter would eat his lunch before looking again for
the medicine man. On their way they met the appellant carrying an
automatic carbine, his brother Jose Sadava and brother-in-law Francisco
Mendoza carrying long firearms. The appellant, followed by Jose Sadava
and Francisco Mendoza ten meters away from behind, approached and
talked to Apolinar, hitting him on the right lumbar region. As
Valeriano fell, other shots followed, with Apolinar at this instant
throwing himself flat on the ground, face downward. Soon the armed
assailants fled in haste and although Apolinar with some people from
the barrio attempted to pursue them, the assailants were able to
escape. Macario Sandoval and Valentin Basilan, farmers, happened to be
working in a nearby field, heard the shots, and saw the appellant and
his two companions in their flight. These two farmers proceeded to the
spot of the shooting where they found Valeriano Caraig lying wounded on
the ground. After being told by Valeriano that his assailants were the
appellant and his two companions, Macario and Valentin brought
Valeriano to the latter’s house where he died a few hours later.
According to the examining physician, Vicente C. Reyes, Valeriano
received a gunshot wound on the right lumbar region and his death
resulted from internal hemorrhage.

According to the evidence
for the defense, while a shooting affray actually took place in barrio
Callejon on the date in question, wherein Valeriano was fatally
wounded, the participants were Valeriano and an unidentified companion
on one side, and Jose Sadava, Francisco Mendoza and an unidentified
companion on the other; and the appellant was not present. Indeed, on
the date in question, the appellant was in the police headquarters of
San Juan, Batangas, five or six kilometers from the place of the
incident, where he stayed for security reasons in the nights of June 11
and 12 and in the morning of June 13, 1946. Crispin Genove was
presented as a witness in support of the theory that the appellant was
not a participant to the fatal encounter. The appellant testified as to
his stay and presence in the police headquarters of San Juan, and was
corroborated by Sgt. Mercado and Exhibit “Z”, a page of the police
blotter prepared by Sgt. Mercado.

After a thorough
examination of the record, we are convinced that no reason exists for
reversing either the findings of the trial court or its judgment of
conviction. Apolinar Hernandez, companion of the deceased in the
morning of June 13, and a prosecution witness, had personal knowledge
of the shooting; and his version is corroborated by Macario Sandoval
and Valentin Basilan, also prosecution witnesses, in the sense that the
latter heard the shots and saw the appellant and his two companions
flee. It is contended for the defense, however, that Apolinar had a
motive for testifying against the appellant, because he failed to
become the overseer of Bartolome Galit who instead employed the
appellant. If true, Apolinar would have testified against the appellant
in a more damaging way—that the latter fired the fatal shot,—instead of
merely attributing that act to Francisco Mendoza. Moreover, Apolinar’s
testimony finds support in the declarations of Macario Sandoval and
Valentin Basilan.

The appellant alleged that he stayed in
the municipal building of San Juan for security reasons in the nights
of June 11 and 12 and in the morning of June 13, 1946, after he was
threatened by one “Pilato” and Francisco with kidnapping if the
appellant would take his employer’s share in the palay harvest.
Assuming that there was such a threat, he had as yet no plausible
reason for seeking cover in the municipal building, since he admittedly
had not actually taken his employer’s share and consequently not given
any cause for Pilato and Francisco to kidnap him. Besides, the
appellant could have, with perhaps the same safety, stayed in the house
of his employer Bartolome Galit, or in the house of Isabelo Galit,
appellant’s godfather and brother of Bartolome, where he allegedly
brought his wife in the evening of June 11; and it is significant that
the house of Isabelo is only about five hundred meters away from the
municipal building of San Juan. Upon the other hand, the appellant’s
defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of Apolinar
Hernandez, Macario Sandoval and Vicente Basilan, whose testimony the
trial court heard. Even assuming the correctness of the entries
appearing in the police blotter, showing appellant’s presence in the
headquarters, they do not conclusively prove that he did not leave the
building at all times, especially between 10 and 12 o’clock in the
morning of June 15, 1946. In other words, there is no positive
indication that it was impossible for the appellant to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission, considering that
barrio Callejon may admittedly be reached from San Juan in one hour by
walking.

It is pointed out for the appellant that there are
inconsistencies in the sworn statements of Macario Sandoval and
Valentin Basilan and their testimony in court, on the point as to who
told them that the appellant and his two companions Jose Sadava and
Francisco Mendoza were the armed assailants. It is thus alleged that
while in the sworn statements Apolinar Hernandez is said to have given
the information, the testimony of Macario and Valeriano is to the
effect that Valeriano was the informant. As stated by the Solicitor
General, the two statements are not necessarily inconsistent, as both
may probably be true, the omission or variance having been made without
the fault of the affiants who in this case are barrio people.

Counsel for the appellant also argues that the testimony of Apolinar
Hernandez is inconsistent on the detail whether the appellant had fired
any shot. Assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant did not
fire any shot, the fact that he and his two companions appeared
together on the scene of the crime, all armed, and fled together after
the shooting, clearly shows conspiracy among the three, and makes the
appellant liable as a principal. The criticism against the observation
of the trial court that the appellant attacked Valeriano Caraig because
of resentment resulting from threats of certain bad elements in barrio
Callejon, is of little or no moment, because the observation was
intended merely to establish the probable motive for the crime; and
motive is unnecessary where, as in the present case, the death of the
victim and the identity of the appellant have been fully established.

The appellant and his two co-accused who are still at large have
invoked the benefits of Amnesty Proclamation No. 76 issued on June 21,
1948 by the President of the Philippines. This was denied by the trial
court on the ground that the appellant had not registered himself in
accordance with the provision of said proclamation and Circulars Nos.
27 and 27-A and had not surrendered any firearms and ammunitions,
although the evidence shows that he had a firearm; and the Solicitor
General further contends that there is no showing that the crime
committed is one of those specified in the Proclamation or incident to
or in furtherance thereof. We find no reason to differ from the action
of the trial court.

The trial court considered in favor of
the appellant two mitigating circumstances arising from the fear of
being kidnapped and a felling of resentment which drove him and his two
companions to commit the aggression in question, with the result that
the appellant must be considered as having acted in fear of serious
injury and with passion and obfuscation. As the deceased Valeriano
Caraig is not shown to have had any participation in the alleged
threats, these mitigating circumstances may not properly be taken into
account. The proper penalty, therefore, in the absence of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, is reclusion perpetua.
Appellant’s liability for indemnity being in solidum with his
co-accused, he is liable for the full indemnity of P6,000 imposed by
the trial court.

Wherefore, it being understood that the appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Valeriano Caraig in the sum
of P6,000, the appealed judgment is in all other respects affirmed. So
ordered with costs against the appellant.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.