THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FLORO TILA-ON, BELTRAN AGRAVA AND VICTOR DAZO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Leyte of the crime of murder
and assessed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, plus the usual
concomitants, accused Floro Tila-on, Beltran Agrava and Victor Dazo appealed to
this Court. Subsequently, however, Floro Tila-on moved to withdraw his appeal,
and it was granted by this Court in its resolution of August 6, 1959, thereby
leaving to be resolved only the cause of the two other appellants.

The State’s evidence shows that at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
June 18, 1955, the three defendants Floro Tila-on, Beltran Agrava, and Victor
Dazo came to the store-residence of Severo Agustin at barrio Tangas,
municipality of Burauen , Leyte . Present were Severo and his wife, Margarita
Amarille, their 13 year-old daughter, Visitacion Agustin, who was playing at
their front yard, and Isabel Manasis, who was at the store to buy kerosene.
Margarita and Isabel testified that the three accused pretended to buy some
cigarettes, and when Severo turned his back to the trio to get the merchandise,
Floro suddenly and without warning stabbed the former with a dagger, finding its
mark at the back of the unwary victim. Visitation’s attention was for the first
time attracted when the victim moaned, and instantly turning her gaze in the
direction of the wailing, she saw Floro at the moment he pulled out the dagger
from her father’s back. The stunned witnesses then saw Beltran Agrava almost
simultaneously drive in the second bolo thrust at the victim; and as Severo
reached for his own bolo which was hung in one of the posts, Victor Dazo gave
him the final stab. Despite his wounds, Severo was able to turn around and swing
his bolo, reaching and hitting Victor Dazo on the right thigh as the latter was
attempting to leave. Senseless and confused, the three eyewitnesses finally
scampered to safety.

Coming back later to the scene of the crime, Margarita and Visitation saw the
lifeless body of Severo sprawled by the door of the store.

The autopsy report made by Dr. Jose Lucinario, the municipal health officer,
indicates that death was due to internal hemorrhage caused by the three
stab-wounds inflicted at the back of the victim’s body (Exhibit “A”).

As to the motive for the killing, it was shown that, some time in 1952, the
deceased victim and his family were robbed by Floro Tila-on and consorts (not
his co-accused) and threatened with death should the victims report the matter
to the authorities. But despite the stern warning, Severo nonetheless reported
the incident to the barrio lieutenant and the military police. In this
connection, it may become worthy of note that Floro Tila-on and the appellants
herein are closely related to one another.

The defense gave an entirely different version of the incident, the gist of
which would reveal that Severo Agustin, in a fit of jealously, was the
aggressor, and pictures Victor Dazo as the object of Severo’s assault, and Floro
Tila-on as the mediator who was forced to kill the deceased in self-defense and
in defense of Victor.

Carefully reviewing the evidence for the People and the defense, this Court
is convinced of the guilt of the appellants. In contrast to the testimony of the
witnesses for the prosecution, which we find to be substantially and naturally
coherent, the asseverations of the defense, upon the other hand, vary in
significant respects. Thus, (1) Victor Dazo testified that he was assaulted and
wounded by Severo because the latter was supposedly enraged upon seeing the
former and Margarita Amarillo drink tuba together; but that before stabbing and
hitting Victor on the right thigh, the deceased reportedly remarked, “Why are
you coming here? Are you courting my wife” Defense witness Gorgonio Alipar heard
altogether differently. The witness declared that before stabbing Victor, Severo
exclaimed, “You are boastful! You take a drink!” Compare this with the testimony
of accused Beltran Agrava who attested that no conversation of any kind
transpired before the alleged wounding of Victor by Severo. (2) Victor Dazo
himself stated that during the duel between the deceased and Floro Tila-on,
which supposedly ensued because the latter intervened on Victor’s behalf, he
(Victor) was already lying wounded. Defense witness Rufo Rubino, on the other
hand, insisted that Victor was merely in a sitting or squatting position. (3)
Rufo further claimed that Codrato Agustin allegedly challenged Floro to a fight
after the latter stabbed Severo, and that as a matter of fact, Codrato
unsuccessfuly tried to spear Floro. Others, however, stated that no such
challenge was made and no fight ever ensued between the two because Codrato ran
away after having been stoned by Floro’s companion. (4) After the stabbing
incident, Severo, according to defense witness Gorgonio Alipar, went slowly up
to his house, with the bolo still in his hand. Floro Tila-on himself testified,
however, that Severo fell to the ground after having been critically
wounded.

Certain improbabilities in the defense’s account of the killing are equally
impressive. For instance, despite the alleged close struggle between Severo
Agustin and Floro Tila-on, wherein the former was by and large the armed
aggressor who delivered several blows at Floro, first with a bolo and later with
a scythe, the later emerged unscathed. This accused also claims that he began
stabbing the deceased after he (Floro) successfully wrested the bolo away from
Severo and the latter continued the attacked with a scythe. If this assertion is
true, then it is hardly probable that the stab-wounds received by Severo would
have all landed, as indeed they did, on the rear portion of his body. Appellant
Victor Dazo also declared that in the course of struggle between the deceased
and Floro Tila-on, Codrato Agustin, a son of Severo, assaulted him (Victor) with
a spear; yet inspite of the charges preferred against him by the Agustin family,
Victor neither reported the matter nor made any similar accusation against
Codrato to the proper authorities.

We need not go further into reciting other inconsistencies and
improbabilities in the testimony of the accused and their witnesses before it
can convince us that the theory offered by the defense is but a fiction. In
truth, going over the testimony of Gorgonio Alipar and Rufo Rubino, one cannot
but be assured that they could not have really been with the accused during and
immediately after the incident in question; and why the accused had to resort to
said witnesses to build up their defense merely gives a strong indication of
appellants’ consciousness of guilt.

On the part of the State witnesses, on the other hand, no sufficient motive
was shown or pretended to induce them to falsely implicate the appellants.

Finally, the rule is now firmly established to the point of becoming
elementary in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that where there is an
irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will
not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful
party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed
from.

The commission of the offense was characterized by treachery, considering
that the attack was sudden, achieved from behind the accused who was apparently
misled into remaining passive and unsuspecting, and executed while the latter
was not in a position to offer an effective defense (see Art. 14, par. 16,
Revised Penal Code).

Appellants are guilty as principals by direct participation, it appearing
that they took part in stabbing the deceased victim inflicting wounds which all
proved to be fatal (see Art. 17, par. 1, Revised Penal Code). That each of the
accused knew of the criminal design of the other can be sufficiently inferred
from the circumstances of the assault, such as the arrival of the accused at
the’ same time, their presence from the start and up to the consummation of the
crime, and, most important of all, the fact that the malefactors acted in
concert all throughout its commission pursuant to the same evident objective
(see People vs. Mandagay, et al., 46 Phil., 838). It is thus proved
that there was a conspiracy among the accused, thereby making their criminal
responsibility collective.

There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to take into account,
as none were proved, the penalty imposable is reclusión perpetua, which
is the medium period of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of murder
(Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby
affirmed. Costs in this instance against the appellants.

Bengzon, C.J.,
Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and
Natividad, JJ., concur.