PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PADILLA, ALIAS “CONANG”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The merciless killing of a couple by three men who thereafter robbed
them of their earnings and valuable possessions is the focus of this
prosecution for robbery with double homicide.

The spouses Crisostomo Amarillo and
Anita Galamgam were residents of San Felipe, San
Nicolas, Pangasinan who were engaged in the business
of buy and sell of gold.  At about 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon of May 6, 1976, they were on their way
home.  They had in their possession about
P40,000.00 and some assorted jewelries and gold valued at about P1,740.00 in
cash.  Some of the money were bundled in
a piece of cloth and tucked at Crisostomo’s waist
while the other items were kept in a paper bag which was placed inside a red
bag.

They were followed by Mateo Padilla, Boy Batin
and Benjamin Padilla.  Suddenly, Mateo
hacked Crisostomo with a bolo.  Crisostomo turned
around and hit Mateo with a cane but thereafter Crisostomo
fell to the ground.  Mateo continued
hitting him on different parts of the body particularly on the right side of
his neck.  Upon seeing the bizarre attack
on her husband, Anita fled but Batin blocked her
way.  Batin hit
her hands with his bolo.  Anita tried to
escape but Batin pursued her and hit her twice on the
back.  She fell to the ground.

While the two were prostrate on the ground, Benjamin Padilla took
from Crisostomo’s waist the piece of cloth containing
the money.  It was at this juncture that
Mateo noticed the presence of Francisco Doton who was
then by the roadside cutting talahib who
witnessed the assault.  Mateo instructed Doton to pick up one of the bags containing money belonging
to the Amarillos and to cover with sand the blood
scattered over the place.  Doton followed the instructions.  He was then ordered to go home with a warning
that he should not tell anyone about what he saw under pain of being
killed.  Doton
hurriedly left for home bringing with him the red bag.  On his way home he met Wilson Retura with whom he exchanged pleasantries.

Before reaching home Doton found that
the red bag contained money.  He took the
money in the bag and he threw the red bag in the river.  He then went to Urdaneta,
Pangasinan and deposited the sum of P9,000.00 in his
bank account.  This was the amount of
money he took from the bag.

Due to the multiple wounds suffered by the Amarillos
they died.  Anita Galamgam,
who sustained multiple wounds on various parts of the body, died due “to
severe hemorrhage particularly the incised wound at the back, base of the neck
with fracture of the spinal column severing the spinal cord and blood
vessels.”^[1] Crisostomo Amarillo also sustained multiple wounds on the
neck, the skull and the head and the cause of his death was due to
“massive hemorrhage due to incised wound base of the neck, right side with
fracture of the spinal column severing the spinal cord and big blood vessel of
the neck.”^[2]
According to Dr. Remedios Santilion,
the rural health officer who autopsied the bodies of the victims, the wounds
inflicted were caused by sharp-edged instruments.^[3]

After due investigation by the police, an information charging
Mateo Padilla, Benjamin Padilla, Francisco Doton and
Boy Batin of the crime of robbery with double
homicide was filed by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal, with the approval of the
Provincial Fiscal, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.  The accused Boy Batin
remained at large, while the others were arrested.  Upon arraignment, said accused entered their
pleas of not guilty.  At the start of the
trial, accused Francisco Doton was discharged as a
government witness upon motion of the prosecution.

After trial on the merits, a decision was rendered by the trial
court on September 25, 1979,
the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, with these considerations, judgment is hereby
rendered finding the accused, Mateo Padilla and Benjamin Padilla, alias ‘Conang,’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ROBBERY WITH
DOUBLE HOMICIDE as charged in the Information and are sentenced to each suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua; to
jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the deceased spouses, Crisostomo Amarillo and Anita Galamgam
in the amount of THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED and FORTY PESOS
(P32,740.00), there being a recovery of NINE THOUSAND PESOS (P9,000.00), as
actual damages; TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) for the death of Crisostomo Amarillo; and another TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P12,000.00) for the death of Anita Galamgam.  With two-third (2/3) of the costs.

The bolo used by Mateo Padilla, (Exhibits
‘D’ and ‘D-1’) is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
government.”^[4]

Mateo Padilla commenced serving his sentence and did not
appeal.  Thus, only Benjamin Padilla
interposed this appeal.  He alleges the
following errors on the part of the trial court:

“I

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BENJAMIN PADILLA ON THE STRENGTH OF THE
TESTIMONY OF FRANCISCO DOTON, A CO-ACCUSED WHO WAS DISCHARGED AS A STATE
WITNESS.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED
IN DISCREDITING THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND HIS WITNESSES IN
THE LIGHT OF THE INCREDIBILITY AND GROSS INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF
THE PROSECUTION WITNESS, FRANCISCO DOTON.^[5]

III

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED
IN FINDING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.”^[6]

In this appeal, the credibility of state witness Francisco Doton is put into issue.

The appellant contends that Doton
should not have been discharged as he is not the least guilty.  From the evidence on hand, it appears that
the participation of Doton is that of a mere
accessory.  Nevertheless, even if he may
be considered a co-principal by his presence during the incident and his
cooperation in the concealment of the fruits of the offense appears to be
indispensable, considering that he was not among those who inflicted the fatal
wounds that led to the death of the victims and that he did not take part in
the robbery the Court is convinced that he not the most guilty.  This is all that the rule requires of a
government witness.^[7]

It is then argued that it is unnatural for Doton
to be present during the incident and to have calmly witnessed the killing and
robbery.  As asserted by Doton, his presence at the time was accidental inasmuch as
he was then cutting cogon grass.  He must
have been hidden behind the talahib bush so
much so that the appellants did not notice him earlier.  And when he was seen, he was threatened and
it was due to fear for his life that he obeyed the instructions that was given
him.  Even assuming that the role of Doton was not just of a mere innocent bystander but that of
a participant in the perpetration of the offense, he had lawfully been
discharged as a state witness and his testimony appears to be credible.

Appellant Benjamin Padilla alleges that he was implicated by Doton only after his father, Juan Padilla, informed the
police authorities about the loot deposited in his bank account in Pangasinan and that, accordingly, Doton
was motivated by revenge.  If Doton was motivated by revenge, he should have implicated
Juan Padilla who made the revelation not appellant Benjamin.  In the sworn statement Doton
executed on May 17, 1979
before the police authorities of San Nicolas, he stated that Benjamin Padilla
took the piece of cloth around Crisostomo’s waist.^[8]
Thus, he identified appellant Benjamin Padilla even before Juan Padilla
informed the police about his bank deposit.

Appellant also points out that the testimony of Doton identifying Benjamin was not corroborated and that he
was not mentioned as a participant in the sworn statement of Mateo
Padilla.  The sole testimony of a witness
if credible, is sufficient basis for conviction.  Mateo Padilla must have withheld Benjamin’s
identity from the investigators as Benjamin is his nephew.

Other alleged contradictions in the testimony of this witness are
indicated by appellant to show his unreliability but the said contradictions,
if at all, are on minor matters.  Rather
than affect his credibility, they are badges of truthfulness and candor.

This view holds true for his earlier statement that he saw the three
accused following the victims on that afternoon and thereafter he said no body
else passed.  He must be referring to
persons other than the accused.  Then
when first asked by the police about the P9,000.00, he said it was part of his
wife’s savings.  Later, he admitted it
was his share in the loot.  He explained
that he did not immediately reveal the source of the money for fear for his
life.  Nevertheless, he opened up later
on.

Another instance is when Doton was
asked if he knew Mateo Padilla and Benjamin Padilla, and he answered that he
only knew Mateo.  Later he said he knew
Benjamin only after the station commander pointed out Benjamin to him.  It is noted that in the sworn statement Doton executed after he was picked up, he identified Mateo
Padilla but he was not able to give the names of the other two.  Be that as it may, he also stated that he
could recognize them if he sees them again.^[9]
Thus, the station commander brought Doton to the
residence of appellant in Barangay Flores, San
Manuel, Pangasinan. 
He identified the appellant as one of the culprits upon seeing him.^[10]

The defense of the appellant is alibi.  In the face of their positive identification
by Doton as the culprits, the alibi cannot
prevail.  Accused Mateo Padilla said he
was at his home in San Felipe, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
at 3:30 P.M. on the fateful day of May 6, 1979.  In the morning, he allegedly went to Binalonan to check on his army claims and dropped at his
sister’s house at Flores, San Manuel, Pangasinan.

On the other hand, appellant Benjamin Padilla claims that there
was a barrio fiesta at Flores, San Manuel, and that he had his son
“Banjo” baptized on that occasion. 
He was allegedly at home the whole afternoon up to 7:00 P.M., entertaining visitors.  Assuming their allegations are true, it is
still possible that appellant and his companions could have gone to the scene
of the crime at nearby Barangay San Felipe to commit
the offense and thereafter return to their respective residences.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
with the only modification that the indemnity for the death of the couple
should be raised to P30,000.00 each, with costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pages 3-10, TSN, July 30, 1979;
Exhibits A, A-1 and A-2, page 12, Record.

^[2]
Pages 10-13, TSN, July 30, 1979;
Exhibits B and B-1, page 13, Record.

^[3]
Pages 7 and 12, TSN, July 30, 1979.

^[4]
Page 32, Rollo.

^[5]
Page 90, Rollo.

^[6]
Page 112, Rollo.

^[7]
Section 9, Rule 119, Rules of Court.

^[8]
Exhibit E, page 5, Record.

^[9]
Exhibit E.

^[10]
Page 77, TSN, August 6, 1979.