THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISIDORO ESCALONA AND EPIFANIO ESCALONA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

PADILLA, J.:


Isidoro Escalona and Epifanio Escalona appeal from a judgment of
the Court of First Instance of Leyte finding them guilty of the crime
of murder for the death of Protacio Eval and sentencing them to the
supreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the
amount of P6,000 and to pay the costs proportionately (crim. case No.
7097).

At about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of 6 April 1957, while Protacio Eval alias Fruto Eval, his mother Felicidad and sister Patricia were on their way home walking in the order mentioned from the barangay prayer meeting held at the house of Gregoria Homeres in sitio
Apitong, barrio Otap, city of Tacloban, they passed by a group of four
men composed of Isidoro Escalona, Epifanio Escalona, one Piling and
another unidentified man. After passing by, and walking a distance of
about 18 meters away from, the group of men and while they were at the
junction of the road which leads to their house and opposite the parcel
of land owned by Luz Quintero, Isidoro, Escalona, coming from behind,
embraced Protacio and stabbed him on the left forearm with a hunting
knife, Exhibit A. Protacio’s mother, who was barely a foot away from
him, tried to stop Isidoro by grasping the handle of the hunting knife,
Exhibit A, and cried for help. While trying to stop Isidoro, Felicidad
was wounded on the left index finger. Isidoro tightly held Protacio
with his right hand and Epifanio approached Protacio and stabbed him in
the back. After stabbing Protacio, Epifanio withdrew.

Hearing Felicidad’s cry for help Antonio Encomio, assistant barrio lieutenant of sitio
Apitong, who was in the house of Julian Aguirre across that of Luz
Quintero, rushed to the scene. Focusing his flashlight on the scene he
saw four persons grappling with each other and Epifanio holding a
hunting knife, Exhibit B, about two meters away from the persons
grappling. Antonio identified himself to Epifanio as a peace officer
and handed his flashlight to him to focus on the quarreling persons as
he tried to separate them. The latter were Felicidad, Isidoro and
Protacio, the last mentioned person wounded and bleeding. Antonio then
asked somebody to telephone the police and took the knife, Exhibit A,
from Isidoro who held its handle with his right hand and Felicidad who
held its blade with her left hand while clasping the upper part of the
handle with her right hand. After separating them Protacio fell down,
Isidoro ran away and Epifanio ran across the road. Antonio took from
Protacio his bolo which was in its scabbard hanging on his belt.

Upon receipt of the report on the incident from barrio lieutenant
Genaro Aguirre, who called up, sergeant Vicente Aujero, accompanied by
corporal Quiben and patrolman Portillo of the police force of Tacloban
City, went to the house of Aguirre. There he met Epifanio Escalona who
handed to him a knife which, according to him (Epifanio), was the one
used by Isidoro to stab the victim. From Aguirre’s house, sergeant
Aujero and his men repaired to the scene of the incident, two
kilometers away from the house of Aguirre, and brought the victim to
the provincial hospital of Tacloban City. The following Wednesday, 10
April 1957, or four days after the incident, the victim died. According
to Dr. Vicente Ramo, resident physician of the Leyte Provincial
Hospital, who attended to the victim, the cause of death was severe
hemorrhage and peritonitis due to two stab wounds, namely: “one on the
right chest at the level of the 9th intercoastal along the posterior
line, penetrating and perforating the liver; the other wound is on the
left arm; it is equally divided into three parts on the lateral aspect
because it is a through and through wound, that is, there is a point of
entrance and a point of exit.” (Exhibit C.) According to the same
doctor, the wound on the chest was fatal and the wound on the left arm
was fatal but being 2 cms. long, through and through, would have taken
three weeks to heal.

Isidoro Escalona claims self-defense. He swore that between 6:00
o’clock and 7:00 o’clock in the evening of 6 April 1957, he and Piling
Rosillo were at the palay plantation of his uncle in barrio Otap; that
on their way home, they met Protacio Eval who invited them to come to
his house for a drink but he (Isidoro) declined his invitation because
he was tired; that when he declined Protacio’s invitation, the latter
boxed him, unsheathed his bolo and struck him with it; that he dodged
the stroke and he (Isidoro) in turn unsheathed his own and struck
Protacio with it hitting him on the right side of the breast; that
Protacio struck him again but Isidoro returned the stroke hitting him
(Protacio) on the left forearm; that at that juncture barrio lieutenant
Antonio Encomio arrived at the scene and separated them; that after
separating them he seized their respective weapons; that upon seeing
Epifanio Escalona standing on the road; he (Antonio) asked him
(Epifanio) to take Isidoro to Genaro Aguirre, the barrio lieutenant;
that as requested by Antonio, Epifanio brought Isidoro to the said
barrio lieutenant; and that the knife, Exhibit A, was the one with
which he wounded the victim and the knife, Exhibit B, was given to him
by Piling Rosillo on their way home which was taken from him by
Epifanio.

Epifanio Escalona denies complicity in the commission of the crime.
He claims that at about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of 6 April 1957, he
was at his farm; that on his way home, he passed by the house of the
barrio lieutenant of Otap and resumed his way home together with
Constancio Abella, the latter’s wife and daughter; that on the way he
heard a woman’s voice shouting for help and about three brazas
away, he again heard the same voice crying for help; that he asked the
woman whom he did not recognize why she was shouting for help and she
answered that there was a fight; that seeing a lighted house, he
shouted for help; that thereafter a person, who he later on came to
know was Antonio Encomio, came with a flashlight and asked him to hold
and focus it on the persons quarrelling and then proceeded to separate
them; that the persons quarreling were Isidoro Escalona and Protacio
Eval; that after Antonio had succeeded in separating them, Isidoro
remained in a belligerent mood; that Antonio called oil him to help him
disarm Isidoro; that he disarmed Isidoro and stuck to the ground the
knife he took from him; that Antonio took the weapon of Protacio; that
afterwards, Antonio ordered him to take Isidoro to Genaro Aguirre, the
barrio lieutenant, and to report by telephone on the incident to the
police authorities; that he did as requested; that when the police
authorities arrived at the house of the barrio lieutenant, he gave them
the weapons taken from Isidoro and Protacio, Exhibits A and B; that
when he was asked by the policemen where Isidoro was and he turned his
face to look for him, he was already gone; that after conducting the
victim to the hospital, the policemen returned to the barrio
lieutenant’s house and asked him to help them locate Isidoro; and that
when they failed to locate Isidoro, the policemen took him (Epifanio)
to the municipal building.

The appellants’ respective claims and defenses cannot be believed in
the face of the clear, direct and positive evidence for the
prosecution. The incident happened on a starry night and it was not
raining so that it was easy to recognize a person from a distance of
two or three meters away. Felicidad Eval, mother of the victim,
testified that while she was barely a foot away from her son Protacio,
Isidoro came from behind, embraced and stabbed Protacio and while in
that position Epifanio stabbed him (Protacio) in the back. The
testimony of Felicidad that on their way home on the night in question,
they passed by the group composed of the appellants, one Piling and
another unidentified man, is confirmed by the appellants themselves and
Constancio Abella, one of their witnesses. Testifying on direct
examination, Isidoro said that he was with Piling Rosillo visiting his
uncle’s palay plantation; and that on their way home they passed by a
store. On cross-examination, he testified that when he left barrio Otap
he was with Piling Rosillo; that on their way they met Epifanio and
Constancio Abella; and that from their meeting place Epifanio,
Constancio, the latter’s wife and Piling went ahead of him. On
cross-examination, Epifanio testified that at about 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of 6 April 1957, after coming from his farm, he passed by the
house of Isio Martinez, and there saw Piling Rosillo, Isidoro,
Constancio, one Antonio and Isio drinking; that the drinkers offered
him a drink but he refused; that from 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon to
7:00 o’clock in the evening of that day, he was with the group of men
in the house of Isio Martinez because Constancio would not allow him to
leave despite his request to be allowed to depart to look up his
carabaos; that when they left the house of Isio he, Constancio, the
latter’s wife and daughter, Isidoro, Piling and Antonio were together;
and that after drinking the group of drinkers started to sing.
Constancio Abella testified that after a little drink that evening he
went home together with Epifanio, Isidoro, Piling Rosillo and Antonio
Abella. From these statements of the appellants and their witness, and
that of Felicidad Eval, the victim’s mother, it may be concluded that
the appellant Epifanio Escalona took an active part with his
co-appellant in the commission of the crime.

Isidoro Escalona’s claim of self-defense cannot be believed in the
face of the positive testimony of Felicidad Eval to the effect that
without provocation from her and her children, Isidoro came from behind
and stabbed the victim on the left forearm and as he held him tightly
his co-appellant Epifanio Escalona stabbed him in the back, and of
Antonio Encomio to the effect that when he took. Protacio’s bolo from
him it was sheathed or it was inside the scabbard hanging on his belt.

The record does not disclose any motive why Felicidad Eval and
Antonio Encomio would falsely testify against, the appellants. The
appellants themselves claim that they and the victim were friends.
Epifanio added that he knew the victim since boyhood and that they were
acquaintances. He also said that he and the victim’s mother had no
grudge against each other. However, he surmised that the reason why she
implicated him for the death of her son was that she wanted to be sure
that somebody would answer for his death. Another is because after the
incident he rushed to the house of barrio lieutenant Genaro Aguilar to
get from Piling Rosillo the weapon used by Isidoro in wounding the
victim. These reasons besides being too flimsy are unbelievable in the
face of the evidence against them. The fact that Antonio Encomio is a
second degree cousin of the victim (Exhibit 2) is not a compelling
motive for him to testify in the manner he did if what he said were not
true. If a similar relation be taken into consideration, the appellants
being second degree cousins, it is Isidoro who had reason to shield
Epifanio.

The fact that Patricia Eval, a sister of the victim, who was with
him and his mother Felicidad when the incident took place and Mercedes
Eval, another witness listed in the information, were not presented as
witnesses by the prosecution does not detract from the probative value
of the evidence already at hand and does not warrant an inference that
the prosecution had suppressed their respective testimonies because
they were false. The record shows that Patricia’s testimony was
dispensed with because it was merely corroborative. As regards
Mercedes, it appears that she was not with the victim and his mother at
the time of the incident and could not have testified on anything
concerning it.

As regards the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses for
the prosecution pointed out by counsel for the appellants in his brief,
rather than weaken, they strengthen the probative value of their
testimonies. The testimony of the witnesses that jibes in all the
details indicates coaching and rehearsing of witnesses. The nature of
the wounds sustained by the victim, two penetrating wounds, belies
Isidoro’s claim of self-defense when he said that he used a bolo in
defending himself. He used the knife, Exhibit A.

On the other hand, it has been established that before the fateful
incident, the appellants, Constancio Abella and Piling Rosillo were
together at the house of Isio Martinez drinking and that they left
together. This tallies with the testimony of Felicidad Eval, the
victim’s mother, that on the way home she and her children passed by
the group of the appellants, one Piling (who must be Piling Rosillo)
and another unidentified man (who must be Constancio Abella).

Although no motive has been shown why the appellants would kill the
victim, nevertheless the fact that before the incident they had been
drinking in the house of Isio Martinez, together with Constancio
Abella, Piling Rosillo and Isio himself, and they had been singing,
shows that they already had lost their sense of sobriety and must have
inflicted the wounds upon the victim while in that condition, as most
irresponsible young men of the appellants’ age (Isidoro is 20 years old
while Epifanio is 27 years old) are wont to do even for no reason at
all.

The crime committed by the appellants is murder—the qualifying
circumstance of treachery having attended the commission thereof, in
that the victim was suddenly and unexpectedly assaulted and stabbed by
Isidoro from behind and stabbed by Epifanio while he was being held by
Isidoro. Pursuant to article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Since in
this case advantage of superior strength forms part of treachery, the
qualifying circumstance, neither one can be considered as aggravating,
nor should the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be taken into
account for it was not purposely sought by the appellants to commit the
crime. No mitigating circumstance may be appreciated in favor of the
appellants, as they have not proved that intoxication, if they were
intoxicated, was not habitual. Their implied pretense was that they
were not even tipsy because they had not drunk any intoxicating liquid
or alcoholic beverage. The penalty, therefore, should be imposed in its
medium period, which is reclusion perpetua.

The judgment appealed from is modified only as to the penalty to be imposed which is reclusion perpetua. The rest of the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

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

Bengzon, Acting C. J., concurs in the result.