THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. ALEJANDRO BUMATAY, CASIMIRO OBILLO, CAMILO DINGLE, ALFREDO VALDEZ, MARCELO ORPIANO, MARCELINO OBAR AND SALVADOR MONTILLA ALIAS BADI…

This is an appeal, taken by defendants Alejandro Bumatay, Camilo
Dingle, Alfredo Valdez, Casimiro Obillo, Marcelo Orpiano, Marcelino
Obar and Salvador Montilla alias Bading Chan, from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of La Union convicting them of the crime of
robbery in band with homicide and frustrated homicide, with which they
are charged, and sentencing each of them to the death penalty and to
jointly and severally indemnify Alfonso Chan Pinco and the heirs of the
deceased Salvacion Ostrea in the sums of P5,000.00 and P6,000.00,
respectively, as well as to pay the costs proportionately.

It is not disputed that late in the evening of July 15-16, 1958, a
band of thieves, armed with firearms, broke into the bakery and
“sari-sari” store of Alfonso Chan Pinco, in the municipality of
Balaoan, La Union; that, as some of the malefactors were trying, after
firing a Volley of shots, to force their way up to the second floor,
where Chan Pinco, his family and members of his household had taken
refuge, and the police department could not be contacted by telephone,
because Chan Pinco’s telephone line turned out to have been cut off,
presumably by the malefactors, he opened the fire escape and jumped to
the street; that, as Chan Pinco reached the ground, someone fired at
him, hitting him on the left foot; that he, thereupon, rolled to the
pavement, on the opposite side of the road, lay still and feigned that
he was dead; that he then heard somebody remark “patay na, patay na”
and noticed that there were three (3) persons—a boy and two (2) grown
up men—posted near the door of his house; that when he deemed it safe
to move away, he did so and hid under the house of one Mr. Libid, until
about 4:30 a.m., when he asked the help of its dwellers, one of whom
was a nurse who treated his foot; that, meanwhile, as one of the shots
fired by the malefactors broke a window pane of the house across the
street, which belonged to Salvacion Ostrea, the latter focused her
flashlight at said window pane; that, at this juncture, one of the
malefactors in the house of Chan Pinco fired his gun, hitting Salvacion
Ostrea on the breast and perforating her lungs, thereby producing a
hemorrhage that caused her death soon thereafter; that, after tying the
hands of the persons found in the house of Chan Pinco, and compelling
them to lie down on the floor face downward, the malefactors broke the
safe and took and carried away the cash found therein and in other
parts of the premises, as well as a rifle caliber .22, several watches
and pieces of jewelry, 50 cartoons of cigarettes and 2 fountain pens,
the aggregate value of all of which amounted to P4,500.00; and that the
injured foot of Chan Pinco required medical treatment for over a month.

Relying upon information secured from the persons living in the
houses of Salvacion Ostrea and Alfonso Chan Pinco, the Constabulary
investigated, soon thereafter, one Norberto Paguirigan, a boy eleven
(11) years of age, and appellant Marcelino Obar, who made the
statements, Exhibits G, G-1, G-2 and H and H-1 to H-3 respectively, and
subscribed and swore to the truth thereof before the Justice of the
Peace of San Fernando, La Union, in which statements Paguirigan and
Obar admitted having assisted, in the perpetration of the crime above
mentioned, appellants Alejandro Bumatay, Camilo Dingle, Alfredo Valdez,
Casimiro Obillo, Marcelo Orpiano and
Salvador Montilla, who were accordingly apprehended and charged, in the
Court of First Instance of La Union, together with Paguirigan and Obar,
with robbery in band with homicide and frustrated homicide. Upon
arraignment, Paguirigan pleaded guilty, whereupon he was committed to
the National Reformatory School, pursuant to Article 80 of the Revised
Penal Code. The other defendants—including Obar, who retracted his
aforementioned confession—entered a plea of not guilty, in view of
which said court proceeded with the reception of evidence, and, in due
course, subsequently, rendered the aforementioned decision. Hence, this
appeal.

This case hinges on the identity of the persons who committed the
offense charged, for each one of the appellants has set up an alibi. In
this connection Leticia Bangaoil, a maid of Chan Pinco, testified that,
as she screamed, when one of the culprits embraced and kissed her, in
the evening of the occurrence, another malefactor focused his
flashlight at them and she recognized Bumatay as the person holding
her; that she freed herself from Bumatay by pushing him, whereupon
Bumatay proceeded to the window in the living room, from whence he
fired his gun at the house of Salvacion Ostrea; and that, when she
(Leticia) rejoined the other members of the household of Chan Pinco,
she noticed appellant Marcelino Obar near the refrigerator, as his face
caught the light coming from Bumatay’s flashlight.

Likewise, Bonifacio Valdez, the baker of Chan Pinco, declared that,
while he, Mrs. Chan Pinco and other members of her household were
huddled inside a room, in the second floor of the house, the
malefactors pounded on the door of said room so violently and
incessantly that the door began to break; that, to avoid further damage
thereto, Mrs. Chan Pineo bade him to unlock it, whereupon three men,
each armed with a gun and a flashlight, entered the room; that one of
them was appellant Camilo Dingle, who hit him with his (Dingle’s) gun
on the left cheek, saying “Matigas ang ulo mo”; and that he had seen
Dingle several times before in the store of Chan Pinco.

Virginia Bangaoil, an elder sister of Leticia Bangaoil and a sales girl
of the Chan Pincos, stated, on the witness stand, that, among the
malefactors who entered the room above referred to, when Bonifacio
Valdez opened its door, she recognized appellants. Marcelino Obar and
Casimiro Obillo, for Obar had placed his flashlight, which was switched
on, on the floor, in order to open her trunk and read her diary,
Exhibit 2, and Obillo tied her hands and those of the other members of
the household, as well as snatched the earrings of Mrs. Chan Pinco.

Rogelio Untalan, another helper of the Chan Pincos, similarly
recognized appellant Marcelo Orpiano among the malefactors who entered
the store and house of the Chan Pincos and committed the crime charged.

Again, Miguel Ostrea, a brother of the deceased Salvacion Ostrea, and
Francisca Laureaga, a sales girl in their store, identified appellants
Salvador Montilla and Alfredo Valdez, as the members of the band who,
together with a boy (Norberto Paguirigan), stood guard outside the
house of the Chan Pincos, across the street, for Salvador Montilla and
Miguel Ostrea were childhood acquaintances and Montilla, as well as
Valdez, patronized said store of the Ostreas. This testimony was
substantially corroborated by that of Alfonso Chan Pinco, whose
description of the group posted at the door of his house fits
appellants Montilla and Valdez, and the boy Norberto Paguirigan.

Upon the other hand, appellant Alejandro Bumatay claimed to have
spent the whole evening of July 15, 1958, in his house, in the
municipality of Luna, La Union, due to a wound he allegedly sustained,
the day before, between the big and the second toes of the right foot,
which was swollen and infected. By way of corroboration, he introduced,
also, the testimony of: a) his wife; b) Felix Peralta, who said that he
assisted Bumatay in the afternoon of July 15, 1958, in order that he
could board a jeepney and go to a dispensary for medical treatment; c)
Mariano Aragon, the municipal secretary of Luna, and d) Eugenio Nisco,
a member of its police force, who would have us believe that they saw
Bumatay that afternoon, near the Town Hall of Luna, limping on account
of his injured foot; and e) Mrs. Rosa O. Lopez, a public health nurse
of Luna, who allegedly treated said injured foot in the aforementioned
dispensary. Appellant Camilo Dingle declared that he never left his
house at Nagsabaran Norte, Balaoan, in the evening of the occurrence,
because said house was then leaking on account of the heavy rain and he
had to transfer his sick child, Diosdado, from one place to another in
the house, to prevent him from getting wet. His wife and Diosdado tried
to corroborate him.

Appellant Salvador Montilla, alias Bading Chan, a
former member of the armed forces, from which ha was discharged in
1954, testified that he was engaged in the purchase and sale, of
tobacco, jointly with his sister, Mrs. Soledad Ladia, of Rosario, La
Union; that a birthday party was held in the latter’s house on July 15,
1958, from 5:00 p.m. up to midnight; that, during all this time, he was
in said house, with the guests; and that, after their departure, he
went to bed and slept up to the following morning. Mrs. Ladia, her
daughter, Carmencita, and Galicano Espiritu, Jr. and Victoriano
Jaravata, Jr., who claimed to be among the guests in that party,
testified, also, as Montilla’s witnesses.

According to appellant Marcelino Obar, he had spent the whole
evening of July 15, 1958, in the house of Juan Valdez in the barrio of
Bulbula, Bulacan, where he slept, after working, during the day. time,
in the rice field of said Juan Valdez, together with Juan Costales,
Juan Raquedan and a third person, likewise, surnamed Valdez. Obar,
likewise, introduced the testimony of Juan Valdez and his son, Zosimo.

The version of appellant Casimiro Obillo is that, not feeling
well, after working in his rice field during the whole day, he lay in
bed in his house, in the evening of July 15, 1958. At about 9:00 p.m.,
he noticed, however, that the dike near his rice seedlings was breaking
due to the heavy rain. Accordingly, he called his neighbor, Tranquilino
Ortiz, and his cousin, Demetrio Collado, and urged them to fix the
dike. When Tranquilino finished repairing the dike adjoining his own
rice seedlings, said appellant joined his brother Benjamin and Demetrio
in fixing the dike protecting his (appellant’s) own rice seedlings.
Thereafter, Tranquilino, Demetrio, Benjamin and said appellant gathered
beside a small fire appellant had built under his house, to keep
themselves warm and observe the dike for a while. When Tranquilino,
Demetrio and Benjamin departed, at about midnight, said appellant went
up his house and slept till the next morning. Appellant’s wife, as well
as said Tranquilino and Demetrio, tried to bolster up his defense.

Appellant Marcelo Orpiano would have us believe that, while he
was busy at work in the rice field of one Idong Rigpala, in the barrio
of Cabuan Weste, Balaoan, on July 15, 1958, together with Bienvenido
Ordono and Cecilio Vietori, they were served some “basi”, in view of
which he got drunk and felt weak; that between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., he
went home with the assistance of Victori, for he (Orpiano) could not
walk by himself; and that, upon arrival at his house, he vomitted, then
fell asleep, and did not wake up the whole evening. Orpiano’s mother
and Victori tried to corroborate him.

Appellant Alfredo Valdez, in turn, maintained that on July 15,
1958, he tilled a farm in the barrio of Guilong, municipality of
Santol, La Union, and that at 9:00 p.m. he went to bed and stayed there
until the next morning. His father Teodoro Valdez, their relative Jose
Orate and a family friend, Damaso Toralba, likewise, took the witness
stand, on his behalf.

Considering the nature of the evidence in this case, the issue
therein, as regards the identity of the culprits, boils down to one of
relative credibility of the testimony of the opposing witnesses. On the
one hand, those of the prosecution identified appellants herein as the
persons who, together with defendant Norberto Paguirigan, had committed
the crime charged. The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution
is clear, positive, straight-forward and devoid of signs of
artificiality. Moreover, they could not have committed an honest
mistake in identifying appellants herein as the culprits, for most of
them were well known to said witnesses. What is more, it is not claimed
or intimated that any one of them had a possible motive to falsely
incriminate the appellants. It may not be amiss to note, also, that the
testimony of said witnesses has been substantially corroborated by the
affidavits of Norberto Paguirigan (Exhibits G, G—1 and G—2), who
pleaded guilty to the charge, and Marcelino Obar (Exhibits H and H—1 to
H—3)

Upon the other hand, the alibis set up by each one of the
appellant—which are inherently weak, and cannot offset the direct and
positive evidence regarding their presence at the scene of the crime
and their participation therein—are further weakened by the following
circumstances, namely:

1. Most of the corroborating witnesses for the defense are members of
   the immediate family or close relations of the appellants herein.

2. When appellant Bumatay took the witness stand on February 20,
   1959, or a little over seven (7) months after the occurrence, His
   Honor, the Trial Judge, found in his (witness’) right foot no scar, or
   even the slightest trace of a scar of the injury he allegedly sustained
   therein on
   July 14, 1958. In fact, Mrs. Lopez, who claimed to have treated said
   injury, the next day, admitted that Bumatay was “very strong then;”
   that his right foot was only “slightly swollen” at that time; and that
   its condition could not have prevented him from walking.

3. The testimony of appellant Montilla was contradicted by that
   of his sister, Mrs. Ladia, on an important point. Contrary to his
   version, to the effect that he went to the Rosario FACOMA and bought
   1,000 kilos of tobacco
   worth P300.00, in the morning of July 15, 1958, Mrs. Ladia asserted
   that he had not left her house or purchased any tobacco that morning.
   Inasmuch as they were allegedly engaged in the purchase of tobacco as a
   joint venture, it is inconceivable that he could have made the
   aforementioned deal without her knowledge. Hence, either the deal was a
   purely imaginary concoction of Montilla, to justify his presence in
   Rosario, La Union, in the evening of the occurrence, despite the fact,
   that he is a resident of Bangued, Abra, or Mrs. Ladia overdid herself,
   in her desire to show that her brother could not have committed the
   crime charged. In either case, his evidence is unreliable. Indeed,
   although Montilla claims to be innocent of said crime, he did not ask
   appellant Obar why he had implicated him (Montilla) in his affidavit
   Exhibits H and H—1 to H—3.

4. Appellant Obar claimed that peace officers had, on July 27 and
   28, 1958, boxed him on the abdomen and the mouth, the lips of which
   were, as a consequence, lacerated, as well as compelled him, at the
   point of a gun, to sign said statement, before they brought him to the
   Justice of the Peace of San Fernando, La Union, to swear to the truth
   thereof, and yet the latter testified that, when Obilla appeared before
   him on July 28, 1958, said appellant, not only confirmed the contents
   of the statement, and assured him that it had been made freely and
   voluntarily, but, also, showed no visible signs of violence upon his
   person. It is, also, significant that said statement was corroborated,
   by that of Norberto Paguirigan (Exhibits G, G—1 and G—2), who pleaded
   guilty to the charge.

5. Obillo’s witness, Demetrio Collado, affirmed that nobody had
   asked him to testify in this case and that he had not conferred with
   counsel for the defense before taking the witness stand, thus making
   his lack of veracity manifest.

6. Appellant Marcelo Orpiano had, admittedly, been convicted of homicide in 1951 and paroled in 1955.
7. Roberto Martinez, a barrio lieutenant who tried to vouch for
   the good character of Alfredo Valdez, likewise, appears to have been
   previously convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of La
   Union.

In short, upon a review of the records, we do not find
sufficient grounds to disturb the conclusion of His Honor, the Trial
Judge, who found the testimony of the witnesses for the defense
unworthy of credence and, consistently with the established
jurisprudence in this jurisdiction, gave more weight to the positive
testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, who had no possible
motive to commit perjury. What is more, the latter appeared to be
apprehensive to testify in court for fear of acts of reprisal from the
malefactors.

The crime committed and proven is robbery in band with homicide and
frustrated homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, nocturnity and dwelling; Hence, the maximum of the
penalty prescribed for said offense—life imprisonment to death (Art.
294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code)—or the death penalty, was
properly imposed by the lower court. Owing, however, to the absence of
the number of votes necessary therefor, the penalty next lower in
degree, or life imprisonment, must be meted out to appellants herein.
Moreover, the amount of damages sustained by Alfonso Chan Pinco,
according to the evidence of record, is P4,500.00, not P5,000.00 as
found in the decision appealed from.

Wherefore, modified as to the penalty, which should be life
imprisonment, and the indemnity to Alfonso Chan Pinco, which is hereby
reduced to P4,500.00, said decision is, accordingly affirmed, in all
other respects, with costs against the appellants. It is so ordered.

Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.