THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FLORO RUBIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The accused Floro Rubia, Macario Teoxon, Eduardo Rubia, and
Juan Rubia were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, for
the crime of murder committed as alleged in the following information:

“That on or about the 13th of September 1927, in the
municipality of Caramoan, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippine Islands, and
within this court’s jurisdiction, the aforementioned accused, confederating and
mutually aiding one another, criminally, unlawfully, and voluntarily, with
treachery and premeditation, attacked and struck one Pedro Suino in the chest
with an oar, and strangled him, in the middle of the sea, with the intention of
killing him, as a result of which, the said Pedro Suino died on the spot.

“Contrary to law.”

After due trial, the court found the defendants guilty of the
crime of homicide, and considering the aggravating circumstances of deceit,
uninhabited place and abuse of superior strength, sentenced Floro Rubia and
Macario Teoxon to twenty years’ reclusion temporal with the accessories of law,
to indemnify the deceased’s heirs in the sum of P1,000 jointly and severally,
and each to pay one-fourth of the costs. And as to the defendants Eduardo Rubia
and Juan Rubia being only 15 and 13 years old respectively, the court suspended
the sentence and ordered their confinement in the Training School for children
at San Juan del Monte, Rizal, until they reach their majority.

Defendants appealed from this judgment. Counsel alleges that
the trial court erred: (a) In finding that the death of the deceased was caused
by strangulation or other violent way; (b) in finding that the defendants had
motives for killing the deceased; and, (c) in convicting the defendants on the
strength of the evidence.

On the night of September 12, 1927, the four defendants, who
then lived at Canlong, municipality of Caramoan, Camarines Sur, went in a
good-sized boat to Malindong Island, in Lagonoy Bay, of the said municipality,
where Pedro Suino lived. The following morning they went in search of Pedro
Suino in his house. As Suino was still asleep, they went away intending to
return later, as, in fact, they did, and Floro Rubia asked Pedro Suino if he was
going fishing, and having received an affirmative reply, they invited him to go
with them, since they, too, were going fishing. At about noon they left for the
sea, Pedro going alone in his banca, while the four went in theirs. At about 4
o’clock in the afternoon, one Pantaleon Cordial, of the same barrio, while
fishing, saw a banca a short distance away, but without any occupant. Fearing
that the owner of the boat had met with an accident, he returned home in haste
and told Pedro’s wife of what he had seen. The woman begged two men to go and
see what had happened to her husband, and they found Pedro Suino dead in his
banca, which was anchored, with scratches around his neck, on the left side of
his chest and on his left arm. The men whom Suino’s wife had called upon,
Geronimo Lopez and Graciano Castor by name, rowed Suino’s banca to the shore.

Undoubtedly Pedro Suino was the victim of a criminal assault. The
defense alleges that Pedro Suino died of an electrical shock. But the body of
the deceased was examined by a health officer who performed an autopsy on
October 11th, and he positively affirmed that death was not produced by an
electrical shock, but by strangling or some other violent means. Not a single
trace of an electrical discharge has been found either in the banca or on the
deceased’s body.

Who killed Pedro Suino?

Pedro and Juan Delloro, brothers, substantially testified that
while they went about in their banca at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon in
question, they saw Pedro Suino in the defendants’ boat, while Suino’s banca lay
alongside of it; that Floro Rubia struck Suino in the chest with an oar and
Macario Teoxon strangled him, after which they lay in the bottom of their boat,
and remained out of sight because at that time it was thundering and raining
hard; and that the said witnesses were about 20 brazas from the defendants’
banca but they were afraid to go near it.

Speaking of these witnesses, the trial judge says that
notwithstanding the defendants’ denial, they are worthier of belief, because, as
they lived in different barrios they could not have had any motive for
testifying falsely against the accused in a crime so grave as that charged in
the information. It is true that there are some contradictions in their
testimony, and at first Julian Delloro denied that he wrote the letter to the
chief of police denouncing the crime, which he admitted later on, when told that
his brother Juan accused him of the crime; nevertheless, the court was satisfied
that in substance, they told the truth.

The slayers of Pedro Suino can be no others than the
defendants. On September 10th, Pedro Suino and some friends went over to
Canlong, the barrio where the defendants lived, in order to serenade a young
lady named Lazara who lived in the house of the accused, and whom the deceased
was courting Floro Rubia, the owner of the house, told Suino and his companions
that they were disturbing him. Some witnesses testify that there was an
interchange of words between Floro and Suino, although their testimony is not
entirely explicit as to this detail. In view of Floro’s attitude, the
serenaders immediately returned to their homes except Pedro Suino, who remained
there until the following morning; but there is nothing in the record to
indicate what happened, if, indeed, anything did happen, after the departure of
Suino’s companions.

The statements made by the defendants under oath before the
justice of the peace who conducted the preliminary investigation corroborate the
testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution, the Delloro brothers.
While Floro Rubia states that Pedro Suino died as a result of a collision
between the two bancas, Eduardo and Juan Rubia, brothers, affirm that Macario
Teoxon and Floro Rubia killed Pedro Suino and put the body in the latter’s
banca.

The defendants pleaded an alibi, but this defense fails to
rebut the positive statements made by the witnesses for the prosecution.

The act proven constitutes the crime of homicide, defined and
penalized in article 404 of the Penal Code, for which the defendants Floro Rubia
and Macario Teoxon are criminally liable by direct participation. The
aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an uninhabited
place must be considered, the incident having taken place at sea where it was
difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the assailants could
easily have escaped punishment, and the purely accidental circumstance that on
the day in question another banca, namely, that belonging to the witnesses, the
Delloro brothers was also at sea, there is no argument against said circumstance
being taken into consideration. (U. S. vs. Angeles, 6 Phil., 480; U. S. vs.
Maharaja Alim, 38 Phil., 1.)

The aggravating circumstances of craft and abuse of superior
strength cannot be considered in this case; the first, because the mere
invitation extended by the defendants to the deceased to venture out to sea with
them, but itself alone does not constitute a deceitful means leading to the
commission of the criminal act; and the second, that is, abuse of superior
strength, because there is no proof that the two accused simultaneously
assaulted the deceased with their oars, with the object of weakening whatever
defense the assaulted party might put up. And there being no extenuating
circumstance present, the penalty must be imposed upon the defendants in its
maximum degree, that is, seventeen years, four months, and one day, to twenty
years’ reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law.

As the guilt of defendants Eduardo Rubia and Juan Rubia has not
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be, and as they are hereby,
acquitted.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment must be, as it is hereby,
affirmed in so far as it relates to defendants Floro Rubia and Macario Teoxon,
with one-fourth of the costs against each; and said judgment is reversed with
respect to the two defendants, Eduardo Rubia and JuanRubia who are hereby
acquitted, with their part of the costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez,
and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.