G.R. No. 13340. April 30, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ALEJANDRO GUZMAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
Ilocos Sur convicting the appellant of murder and sentencing him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the accessories of the law, and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000.00 plus costs.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 7 o’clock early
in the morning of August 29, 1953, two primary school boys, Eustaquio
Ibuos, 9 years of age, and his companion Antonio Rosete, age 12, were
on some branches of a tamarind tree by the hillside of Tapao, Sinait,
Ilocos Sur, gathering its fruits. They had accompanied Eustaquio’s
elder brother, Desiderio Ibuos, who took some animals to pasture. From
their positions in the tree, they could see the accused Alejandro
Guzman, in stripe shirts and maong pants, cutting
“comcompitis” shrubs or breaking twigs at a distance of about 40 meters
from the tamarind tree. They could also see the now deceased Patrocinia
Ibuos picking vegetables and squash flowers a short distance from the
accused. Soon, the accused approached Patrocinia and, apparently
becoming bold, placed an arm around her. Patrocinia struggled and
pushed him away. The accused then grabbed Patrocinia by the hair
pulling her to the ground, and while she struggled to free herself, the
accused stabbed her with a short bolo just below the base of the neck,
and slashed her throat. Thereafter, the accused dragged her limp and
apparently lifeless body down to the edge of a precipice, and then ran
in the direction of his house. On their part, the young witnesses
reported what they saw to Apo Col-lit, the grandmother of the deceased,
as they could not find the deceased’s husband.
The slaying having been reported to the authorities, a group of
municipal officials proceeded to the scene of the crime. The body of
the deceased, which was found lying at the place where the young boys
said they saw the accused left it, was taken to the poblacion of Sinait
where Municipal Health Officer Dr. Jose Avelino conducted an autopsy.
Examining the cadaver, Dr. Avelino noted that the woman was pregnant.
He also found that rigor mortis had not yet set in, which led
him to conclude that death occurred just a few hours before. He
certified to the following findings:
“Por la presente certifico que el 29 de Agosto de
1953 de reconocido el cadaver de un tal que en vivo se llamo Patrocinia
Ibuos del barrio Dadalaquitan, Sinait, llocos Sur, de 20 años de edad,
casada y embarazada de seis meses ye he encontrado las siguientes:
“1.
pulgada de profundidad situada inmediatamente por encima del mango del hueso esterno
perforando la faringe, y el esofago.“2.
cuello o region cervical, cuya direccion es horizontal, cortando todos los organos anteriores y
laterales de dicha region (faringe, esofago las arterias y venas carotidas y parotidas y hasta los
musculos esternocleido-mastoideo derecho e izquierdo, extendiende hasta la parte media de la
clavicula en su borde superior.“3.
inmediatamente par detras de la cara posterior de la mandibula derecha en su parte media cuya
profundidad es de una pulguda de profundidad.“4.
todos los dedosen la mano derecha.“5.
mano izquierda.“5.
A).
In his testimony Dr. Avelino declared that death was due to severe shock and profuse hemorrhage.
In the morning of that same day, the accused was apprehended and
later, also on that same day, an information for murder was filed
against him on the strength of the affidavits signed by the two young
witnesses.
The accused, a bachelor and 39 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, set up the defense of alibi.
He testified that during the whole night of August 28, 1953 up to
around 10 o’clock the next morning, when Constabulary soldiers took him
for investigation, he had never gone far from the vicinity of his
house, much less to the place of the killing. To corroborate the
testimony of the accused, the defense presented on the witness stand
Baldomero Guzman, brother of the accused, and Leandro Yoro, their
neighbor.
The trial court, however, discredited the defense of alibi,
and believing the testimony of the two young witnesses for the
prosecution, rendered the judgment of conviction subject of this appeal.
After going over the record, we find the guilt of appellant to have
been, established by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt. There is no
reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the two young
witnesses for the prosecution. Both of them appeared upon examination,
as observed by the trial court, to understand the nature of their oath,
and are of sufficient intelligence and discernment to justify the
acceptance of their testimony and to accord to it full faith and
credence. Thus, the trial court said: “Both of them testified in a
clear and satisfactory manner, and no motive has been shown which would
have impelled these young boys to impute the commission of such a grave
felony on the accused, aside from the promptings of their conscience
and of their desire to state the truth.” Indeed, it has been said that
an intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to be found. He is
little influenced by the suggestion of others, and describes objects
and occurrences as he has really seen them. The child’s naivete and
apparent accuracy make his testimony most impressive. (People vs. Bustos, 45 Phil., 9; People vs. Mangahas, et, al., G.R. No. L-5367-68, May 9, 1949; People vs. Mayo, 45 Off. Gaz., 1366.)
The accused claims that these young boys had testified on what they
had heard as mere gossip. The claim, however, is not supported by the
record. The killing they witnessed was immediately reported to the
authorities and the body of the deceased was found at the place where
they said the accused abandoned it. Their testimony that they saw the
accused gathering “comcompitis” leaves before he killed the deceased
is, likewise, corroborated by the declaration of the accused’s own
brother that the accused went that morning to gather “comcompitis”
leaves to feed his carabao.
Counsel for the defense also charges that coercion was practiced
upon the two boys. We find this hard to believe, considering that they
made their written declarations on the same day and the justice of the
peace before whom they were sworn to did not even insinuate that they
were coerced. It is true that they were rather reluctant to sign their
statements in the house of the justice of the peace, but this is
explained by the circumstances that they could hardly sign their names,
a fact readily admitted by them since they were only in grade II at the
time. This is not to mention the fact that they must have been overcome
by the solemnity of the entire proceedings. In the face of their clear
and positive testimony at the trial and in the absence of any evidence
as to an improper motive why they testified as they did, we see no
valid reason why their testimony should not be accorded full faith and
credit.
On the other hand, the alibi of the accused, which is
inherently weak, is neither satisfactory nor credible. His own brother
Baldomero Guzman admitted that during the time that he was taking his
breakfast he did not see the accused, as the latter had gone to gather
“comcompitis” leaves to feed his carabao. Considering that the place
where the accused tethered his animals to graze was only one and one
half kilometers from the place where the cadaver of the deceased was
found, it is not physically impossible for him to have gone to the
place where the deceased Patrocinia Ibuos was gathering vegetables and
committed the offense in question. The defense of alibi
interposed by the accused cannot, therefore, prevail over the positive
testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution whose credibility has
never been impugned and who have not been shown to have any motive to
purposely falsify the truth.
There is nothing to the argument that the accused was erroneously
convicted of murder. An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon
an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse
of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act
afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.
(U. S. vs. Camiloy, 36 Phil., 757; U. S. vs. Consuelo, 13 Phil., 612; People vs.
Quesada, 62 Phil., 446.). The circumstance of abuse of superior
strength was, therefore, correctly appreciated by the trial court, as
qualifying the offense as murder. There being neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance attending the commission of the crime, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is therefore in accordance with law.
Finding no error in the judgment appealed from the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.