PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DENNIS SONG AND ELMO LABRIAGA, ACCUSED, ELMO LABRIAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In the evening of August
29, 1982, a dance was held in the school ground (plaza) of Barangay Resurrection, San Fernando,
Masbate.  At about 10:20
of the same night, outside the dance hall, accused-appellant Elmo Labriaga was seen handing a machete to co-accused Dennis
Song who was under the influence of liquor.

The two accused entered the dance hall.  Ten minutes later, appellant Labriaga, without a word, held Percival Alcovendas.  At the same time, accused Song approached the
victim slowly and stabbed him with a machete on the left side of his back.  Then the two assailants ran away.

The wounded Percival staggered. 
Patrocino Albano who
witnessed the stabbing, tried to help him but she could not do it alone. 
She called for help from the victim’s relatives who were also at the
dance.  Together they brought the still
ambulatory victim to the Ticao
District Hospital
in San Jacinto, Masbate.

Percival was confined in the hospital for five days.  On the fifth day, he developed high fever and hypertension and died.  His body
was not autopsied due to the objections of his relatives.  But Dr. Bailon, the
attending physician, presented her diagnosis as:

“(1)  cardiac
arrest

“(2)  stab wound 1 cm at region of 10th ICS, post axillary line, left

“(3)  acute peritonitis, secondary”^[1]

On the strength of the preliminary examination conducted by the
municipal circuit judge on eyewitness Patrocino Albano, a warrant of arrest was issued for the capture of
Song and Labria­ga.^[2]
The two were subsequently charged with the crime of murder in an information
filed with the then Court of First Instance of Masbate,
now Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, on November 11, 1982.^[3]
Song managed to elude arrest and the case was tried only with respect to Labriaga.

In the decision dated January 10, 1985, Labriaga
was found guilty as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the deceased Percival Alcovendas
P12,000.00 as death indemnity and P20,000.00 as moral damages and the costs of
the suit.  The case against Song was
ordered archived until his capture.^[4]

In this appeal, accused-appellant contends that the trial court
erred in convicting him of murder notwithstanding the fact that the stab wound
inflicted on the victim was not the proximate cause of his death, and also
because appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The instant appeal is devoid of merit.

The case for the prosecution was established by the eyewitness
accounts of Patrocino Albano
and Dominica Alcovendas who were present at the scene
of the crime.

Patrocino (Patrocinio)
Albano, a 37-year old
housewife and a sister-in-law of the deceased, testified that she was at the
dance on the night of the stabbing.  She
was seated with some neighbors and children. 
The victim was then standing by a post, barely two meters away from
her.  She saw appellant approach
Percival, followed closely by accused Song. 
Without a word, appellant held Percival and then Song stabbed the victim
at the back with a machete.  It happened
so quickly.  There was no prior
altercation, no heated exchange between the protagonists.  The victim was unable to put up any
resistance.^[5]

Patrocino witnessed the violent
incident clearly because it occurred near a post where there was a lighted
mantle lamp.^[6]

The other eyewitness, Dominica Alcovendas,
42 years old and elder sister of the deceased, corroborated the testimony of Patrocino.  She
stated that before the stabbing inside the school plaza, she noticed that the
accused Song had been drinking gin at a nearby store.  She also saw the appellant Labriaga hand over a machete to Song who then placed the
weapon inside his pocket.  Then Song
entered the dance hall, followed by the appellant.  Dominica
was about ten meters from Song when the latter knifed Percival who was then
being held by the appellant.^[7]

Despite the milling crowd, Dominica
had an unobstructed view of the killing because there were four lighted mantle
lamps nearby.^[8]

Dominica
had known the appellant for quite some time since they are both from Barangay Resurreccion.

Appellant’s defense is denial. 
Labriaga, 30 years old, fisherman, branded as completely false the statements of Patrocino and Dominica
that he held the victim while the other accused Song stabbed him with a
machete.  Appellant claimed that the two
alleged eyewitnesses were biased because of their close relationship with the
deceased.  Appellant did not deny that on
the evening of May 29, 1982
at about 10:30, he was at the school
dance.  The affair was sponsored by the
Out-of-School Youth Organization of which he was then the president.^[9]

During the fatal altercation, appellant was at the stage making
some announcements on the microphone.  He
only found out about the incident when he noticed people scampering and at that
time he was approximately fifteen meters from the spot where Percival was
knifed.  Appellant also admitted that
prior to May 29, 1982,
there was no grudge or enmity between him and the two prosecution witnesses.^[10]

Pfc. Darlie Alvarez, the policeman
assigned to maintain peace and order at the dance on the night in question,
testified on behalf of the defense.  He
declared that he questioned the victim Percival right after the incident.  Percival told him that it was Song who
stabbed him.  The name of the appellant
was not mentioned at all.  Alvarez wanted
to question Percival further but the victim was in a hurry to get to the
hospital.

The trial court did not err in giving more credence to the
version of the prosecution and in adjudging appellant guilty of the crime of
murder.

Appellant points out that when Pfc. Alvarez asked the victim as
to who wounded him right after the incident, the latter cate­gorically stated
that it was Song.  Never for an instance did
Percival implicate the appellant.  In
other words, as far as Percival was concerned, it was only Song and not the
appellant Labriaga who did him wrong.

Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the testimony of the police
officer does not create any doubt as to appellant’s complicity.  Pfc. Alvarez asked Percival only once as the
latter wanted to be immediately brought to the hospital.  Thus:

“Q:   When Percival Alcovendas
was stabbed, what did you do?

“A:   Somebody approached me and told me that a
person was stabbed and when I go near the place I saw Percival Alcovendas being assisted by a relative and so I asked him
who stab him.

“Q:   What was his answer?

“A:   That he was stabbed by Dennis Song.

“Q:  That was the only utterances that he made to
you, is that correct?

“A:   That was the only answer he made because when
I asked him who were the companions of the persons who stabbed him, he told me
that he should be brought to the Doctor immediately and he will just testify
when a complaint was already filed.

“Q:   In other words you want to impress to this
Honorable Court that you were not able to conduct your investigation right
there and then?

“A:    No more because he was in a hurry to go to
the Doctor.”^[11]

Moreover, as observed
by the trial court, if it were true that the victim had not denounced
appellant, why did Alvarez not exclude appellant’s name from the complaint
filed in the Munici­pal Court when he was deputized to prosecute the criminal
case against Song and Labriaga?  Consider the following testimony:

“Fiscal Alforte:

“Q:   And this particular case when this case was
tried preliminary investigation you were the one prosecuting, is it not?

“A:    Yes, sir as investigator we attended to it.

“Q:   And Dennis Song was. . . and Elmo Labriaga is one of the accused in this case?

“A:    Yes, sir.

“Q:   You did not move that the accused Elmo Labriaga be excluded?

“Marcaida:

“The
witness would be incompetent.

“Fiscal Alforte:

“I’ll
reform Your Honor.

“Q:   Knowing that the victim in this case told
you that it was Dennis Song who stabbed him, why did you not exclude in your
complaint filed by your office Elmo Labriaga?

“A:   I included him in the complaint because the
witness testified that he was seen holding the victim while this ‘Bana‘ was stabbing him.

“Q:  In other words somebody told you that Elmo
the accused was holding the victim when the victim was stabbed by the
co-accused Dennis Song, is that what you want to explain before this Honorable
Court?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“Q:   And can you remember who was that person who told
you that this Elmo Labriaga was holding the victim
when the victim was stabbed by Dennis Song?

“A:   I could not tell whether it was Dominador that
Ningning who stated.”^[12]

Weighed against the denial of the appellant, the positive
identification made by Patrocino Albano
and Dominica Alcovendas deserves full belief.  The school plaza where the killing took place
was well lighted by several mantle lamps. 
Patrocino was only two meters from the victim
while Dominica
stood ten meters away.  Both witnesses unerringly
identified and recognized the appellant whom they knew because they all resided
in the same Barangay Resurreccion.

Appellant likewise raises the argument that the stab wound
inflicted by Song was not the proximate cause of Percival’s
death, but rather the absence of proper medical treatment.  Appellant cites the fact that Percival was
“ambulatory with assistance” when he was admitted at the Ticao District
Hospital.

The argument is
untenable.  As earlier stated, Dr. Bailon declared that the deceased died of acute peritonitis
secondary to the stab wound which injured
his intestines.  The acute
peritonitis was the direct and natural consequence of the three-inch deep stab
wound which perforated the victim’s intestines. 
At any rate, this Court held in People vs. Quianzon,
62 Phil. 162, 169-170, citing 13 R.C.L., that:

“While the courts may have vacillated from time to time it may
be taken to be the settled rule of the common law that one who inflicts an
injury on another will be held responsible for his death, although it may
appear that the deceased might have recovered if he had taken the proper care
of himself, or submitted to a surgical operation, or that unskilled or improper
treatment aggravated the wound and contributed to the death, or that death was
immediately caused by a surgical operation rendered necessary by the condition
of the wound.

“The principle on which this rule is founded is one of
universal application, and lies at the foundation of all criminal
jurisprudence.  It is, that every person
is to be held to contemplate and to be
responsible for the natural consequences of his own acts.  If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly
weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy, and death follows as a
consequence of this felonious and wicked act, it does not alter its nature or
diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the
fatal result.  Indeed, it may be said
that neglect of the wound or its unskillful and improper treatment, which are
of themselves consequences of the criminal act, which might naturally follow in
any case, must in law be deemed to have been among those which were in
contemplation of the guilty party, and for which he is to be held responsible x
x x.”

The crime is murder, with
appellant Elmo Labriaga and co-accused Dennis Song as
principals.  The killing was attended by
the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery.  The fatal attack on the victim was deliberate
— the appellant providing the murder weapon and the other accused making the
deadly thrust in a sudden and unexpected manner, catching the victim by
surprise and rendering him completely powerless to defend him­self.  Song stabbed Percival while the latter was
held by Labriaga. 
The two malefactors made sure that their prey would not be able to put
up a fight.  Their concerted action shows
beyond any question that they conspired to kill Percival for a motive we can
only speculate on.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds that the guilt of the
accused-appellant Elmo Labriaga has been established
beyond reasonable doubt.  The judgment
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with
the sole modification that the death indemnity of P12,00.00 is in­creased to
P50,000.00.  Costs against the
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exh. C, Original Record, p. 97.

^[2]
Original Record, pp. 8-10.

^[3]
Original Record, p. 37.

^[4]
Original Record, p. 144.

^[5]
TSN, April 19, 1983, pp.
7-13.

^[6]
TSN, April 19, 1983, pp.
7-8.

^[7]
TSN, May 24, 1983, pp.
20-25, 31-33.

^[8]
TSN, May 24, 1983, p. 34.

^[9]
TSN, October 15, 1984, pp.
72-74.

^[10]
TSN, October 15, 1984, p.
74.

^[11]
TSN, September 28, 1983,
pp. 51-52.

^[12]
TSN, September 28, 1983,
pp. 58-59.