THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERTO LAGTU Y VILLALUNA @ “TIKBOY LAGTU”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal by Roberto Lagtu who was
convicted of murder for the death of Rizal Benedicto and sentenced to “cadena
perpetua” in Criminal Case No. 721 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas.

The information against
the appellant reads:

“(That) on or about the 20th day of October, 1975, in Barrio Wawa, Municipality of Nasugbu,
Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
pointed-bladed instrument, a deadly weapon,
together with one John Doe, whose identity and whereabouts are still unknown,
conspiring and confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually
aiding each other, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault, stab and hit,
suddenly and without warning, with the said weapon, one Rizal
Benedicto, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab
wounds in the different vital parts of his body, causing severe hemorrhage
and/or profuse bleeding which directly caused his death.

“That the aggravating circumstance of nighttime deliberately
sought was present in the commission of the crime.”

The judgment under appeal reads as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused,
ROBERTO LAGTU Y VILLALUNA @ ‘TIKBOY LAGTU,’ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity
deliberately sought, and without any mitigating circumstance, and accordingly
imposes on him the penalty CADENA PERPETUA and to indemnify the heirs of the
victim in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the cost of the suit.”

The evidence for the prosecution established that at about 2:15 o’clock in the morning of October 20, 1975, a wounded person, wet and soaked in his own blood, was found in the yard of
the Bayani family at Washington
Street, Nasugbu, Batangas.

Gaudencio Calinawan,
Felipe and Rodolfo Bayani (relatives-in-law of Gaudencio), and Jaime Caparas who
found the wounded man, recognized and identified him as Rizal
Benedicto.

According to Gaudencio Calinawan and Jaime Caparas, Rizal Benedicto had several stab
wounds.  Jaime Caparas
said that in answer to his question, Rizal Benedicto told him that the group of “Tikboy Lagtu” (“sina ‘Tikboy Lagtu‘”)
stabbed him and threw him from a bridge in Bo. Wawa, Nasugbu.

Calinawan and company brought Rizal Benedicto to Apacible Memorial
Hospital in Nasugbu.  And at around 2:45
o’clock that same morning Patrolmen Anselmo
Madrid and Ramos of the Nasugbu Police Force went to the hospital at the request of
Calinawan. 
Seeing Rizal Benedicto
on a stretcher, Patrolman Madrid
asked him questions which together with the answers were embodied in Exhibit B,
thumb-marked by Rizal Benedicto
and witnessed by Geronimo Torres.

Exhibit B reads as follows:

“1.  T – Malinaw ba and pagiisip mo?

S
– Opo.

2.   T – Anong pangalan mo?

S – Rizal Benedicto
y Dimaisip po.

3.   T – Taga saan ka?

S
– Taga Bo. Talagan po, Nasugbu, Batangas.

4.   T – Bakit ka may sugat?

S
– Sinaksak po ako.

5.   T – Sino and sumaksak
sa iyo?

S
– Si Tikboy Lagtu po at ang
mga kasama niya na hindi ko alam
ang pangalan.

6.   T – Saan nangyari ito?

S
– Duon po sa tulay
ng Bo. Wawa, Nasugbu, Batangas.

7.   T – Ano ang isinaksak sa iyo?

S
– Hindi ko po alam, basta’t
matutulis na bagay ang ramdam
kung tumama sa katawan ko.

8.   T – Bakit ka sinaksak?

S
– Hindi ko po alam, basta
na lamang ako hinarang at sinaksak.

9.   T – Kailan nangyari ito?

S
– Kanina po, Oct. 20, 1975.

10.
T – Anong pakiramdam mo sa sugat
mo?

S
– Masakit po.  Masama po.

(THUMBMARKED)
RIZAL D. BENEDICTO”

At around 3:30 o’clock
also that same morning, Rizal Benedicto
was transferred to St. Francis
Hospital for surgery.  He was operated on by Dr. Luis Montemar, who later testified that the victim sustained
eight (8) stab wounds inflicted with a sharp-pointed instrument, the wound
reaching the liver being the most dangerous.

For more than 11 hours after the operation, Rizal
Benedicto fought for his life, and lost.  He expired at around 3:15 o’clock in the afternoon of October 20, 1975.  The death certificate (Exhibit E) shows that
he died of severe hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab wounds.

These facts were testified to by Gaudencio
Calinawan, Jaime Caparas,
Dr. Luis Montemar and Patrolman Anselmo
Madrid.

The prosecution bolstered its case against Roberto Lagtu with the testimony of Patrolman Madrid
that he was indeed “Tikboy Lagtu.”

“FISCAL
FLORENCIO LANDICHO:  Just one re-direct,
Your Honor.

Q:   With the permission of this Honorable Court
Mr. Witness, when you conducted that investigation you were told that Tikboy Lagtu stabbed the victim, is it not?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   Do you know this Tikboy
Lagtu personally?

A:    Yes, sir.

Q:   If, he is here in the court room, will you please point to him?

INTERPRETER:  (Witness pointed to the accused Roberto Lagtu).

FISCAL:

Q:   Mr.
Witness, since when have you known Tikboy Lagtu?

A:    For a long time already, sir.

Q:   And
you fully know that Tikboy Lagtu
and this Roberto Lagtu is one and the same person?

A:    Yes, sir.”

(TSN,
March 1, 1977, pp. 13-14.)

The principal defense of Roberto Lagtu
who was 31 years old when he testified in December, 1977, consists of his claim
that he is not “Tikboy Lagtu.”
He said that his nickname is “Boy,” by which he has been known in the
community (Bo. Wawa) since child­hood, and that he
has never been called “Tikboy Lagtu.” He further stated that “Tikboy Lagtu” is none other
than his nephew Dominador Lagtu.

Roberto also offered an alibi. 
He claimed that he was sleeping in his house at Bo. Wawa from 8:00 o’clock in the evening of October 19, 1975 until 6:00 o’clock the next morning of October 20, 1975.

Dominador Lagtu
was presented as defense witness.  He
stated that he is the real “Tikboy Lagtu“, and the nephew of the accused whose nickname
is “Boy.”

Rosario Lagtu and Romeo Lising, the wife and close friend of the accused
respectively, corroborated the testimony of Roberto and Dominador.

The court a quo gave credence to the evidence of
the prosecution, and concluded that Roberto Lagtu was
the “Tikboy Lagtu”
who stabbed and killed Rizal Benedicto
and sentenced him as aforesaid.

On appeal, the errors attributed by the accused-appellant to the
trial court, boil down to the question as to whether or not the identity of the
assailant of Rizal Benedicto
was convincingly and conclusively established.

We have to answer the question in the affirmative.

Undoubtedly, the ante-mortem statement, Exhibit B, of the victim
was properly admitted as dying declaration. 
It referred to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. 
And it was made under the consciousness of an impending death,
considering that the declarant
who was earlier found bathing in his own blood due to multiple stab wounds, must have
naturally sensed the seriousness of his condition which eventually caused his death.

For the same reason, the revelation made by Rizal
Benedicto to Jaime Caparas
that “sina ‘Tikboy Lagtu‘” stabbed him, also has the nature of a dying
declaration.  Both declarations are
therefore admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.

That “Tikboy Lagtu”
is no other than the accused Roberto Lagtu was
convincingly established by Patrolman Anselmo Madrid.  Madrid
categorically declared that he had known “Tikboy
Lagtu” personally, and for a long time, and that
“Tikboy Lagtu”
and Roberto Lagtu are one and the same person.

Between the testimony of Patrolman Madrid
and those of Roberto and his witnesses, the former should command
credence.  Patrolman Madrid
was a disinterested witness, and there is no showing that he had any ill motive
in testifying against Roberto.  On the
other hand, the testimony of the defense witnesses, relatives and a close
friend of the accused, were naturally tainted with bias.

What adds credibility to Madrid’s
assertion that he personally know Roberto as “Tikboy Lagtu” is the fact
that in small rural communities, everybody knows almost everybody.  And so it was, with a policeman who regularly performs his beat.  More so, when it is considered that according
to Roberto Lagtu himself, he worked at the Interlink
Resort in Bo. Wawa.  In this connection,
it is significant that Roberto Lagtu even admitted
that he knew Patrolman Madrid, though he said that he knew Madrid as “Max.”

Additionally, the difficulty with Roberto Lagtu’s
disclaimer is that he signed a manifestation dated November 3, 1975, addressed to the Municipal Court of Nasugbu wherein he requested for a preliminary
investigation proper.  (Expediente, p. 12.) In that manifestation he
actually admitted that he was “Tikboy Lagtu” by referring to himself
as Roberto Lagtu alias “Tikboy
Lagtu.”

It having been shown that “Tikboy Lagtu” and Roberto Lagtu
were one and the same person, the alibi of the accused has to fall because he
has been positively identified as the assailant of Rizal
Benedicto.

The court a quo held that treachery attended the
slaying of Rizal Benedicto.  The records, however, do not show facts upon
which a finding of treachery can be sustained. 
And it cannot be presumed merely because the victim sustained 8 stab
wounds.

Roberto Lagtu should, therefore, be
held guilty of homicide only.

Although nighttime is alleged in the information, there is no evidence
that nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime.

There being no attendant aggravating nor mitigating circumstances
in the commission of the crime of homicide, the appropriate
penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo
is hereby modified by finding the appellant Roberto Lagtu
guilty of the crime of homicide only and sentencing him to an indeterminate
penalty of seven (7) years of prision mayor
as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum; it is affirmed in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., and
De Castro, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs. The trial court erred in imposing cadena
perpetua. That penalty, which was imposed by the
Spanish Penal Code of 1870, was repealed by the Revised Penal Code.

Convicts serving cadena perpetua “shall
always carry a chain at the ankle, hanging from the waist; they shall be
employed in hard and burdensome labor, and shall not receive any assistance
whatsoever from without the institution” (Art. 106, Old Penal Code). That
barbarous, cruel and unusual punishment belongs to a bygones era and is no
longer imposed in this enlightened age.