PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE BRAVANTE AND AUGUSTO ALTAREJOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from an August 16, 1985 judg­ment of the Regional
Trial Court of Masbate which found Felipe Bravante and Augusto Altarejos guilty
of murder and sentenced them as
follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises consi­dered, judgment is hereby entered
finding all the herein accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder and hereby sentences them with the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA with
all the accessory penalties provided for by law; and, to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the heirs of the victim, Miguel B. Nuevo, in the sum of P30,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay their
proportionate share of the costs.” (pp. 8-9, Decision of the trial court.)

In an information dated
May 18, 1984, the two accused-appellants were charged as follows:

“That on or about December 24, 1983, in the evening thereof,
at sitio Burabod, Barangay Resurreccion, Municipality of San Fernando, Province
of Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this court, the said
accused conspiring and helping each other, with intent to kill, evident
premeditation, treachery and super­iority of strength, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, spear, hack and stab with
bolos one Miguel Nuevo, hitting the latter on the different parts of the body,
thereby inflicting wounds which directly caused his instant­aneous death.”
(p. 2, Rollo).

The facts upon which the
trial court based its decision finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt are summarized as follows:

“It is not disputed that on or about 6:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of December 24, 1983, Miguel Bravante Nuevo, the victim in this case,
died of ‘massive hemorrhage secondary to multiple wounds’ (Exh. B-2) as a
result of injuries he suffered in an incident involving him and the herein
accused which took place at sitio Burabod, barangay Resurreccion (also known as
Looc), San Fernando, Masbate, more particularly the following, to wit:

‘1. Hacking wound to the head, “C” shaped about 6 inches
on left temporal area pene­trating the brain;

‘2. Hacking wound to the throat, about 6 inches long, 3 inches deep, along anterior side of the neck;

‘3. Stab wound, right side, thorax, about 3 inches long, 1 inch to
the right of sternum at 3rd intercostal
spine;

‘4. Incised wound, 3 inches long across left palm.

“The post-mortem examination of the victim was conducted at
about 1:00 p.m. of December 25, 1983 by Municipal Health Officer Roger A.
Badillo of Batusa, Masbate (Exhs. B & B-1) who likewise issued the victim’s
Certifi­cate of Death (Exhs. C & C-1). Per testimony of Dr. Artemio Capellan (who was called to the witness
stand in lieu of Dr. Badillo who was unavailable), the fatal wounds were
injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3, inclusive, which could have been respectively caused
by a ‘C-shaped’ spade, a sharp-bladed instrument like a bolo, and a
sharp-pointed weapon like a dagger (tsn-Diano, January 24, 1985, p. 2).

‘The State asserts that late in the afternoon of December 24, 1983,
while victim Miguel B. Nuevo, the latter’s 8-year old son Jose Nuevo and their
companion Nilo (alias Sato) Bauso (also known as Danilo Bauso) were on their
way home to Burabod, Resurreccion, from the Poblacion of San Fernando, Masbate,
(where they bought some food items in preparation for the ‘noche buena’), the
herein accused Felipe Bravante and his co-accused and son-in-law Augusto
Altarejos suddenly approached them while they were in a trail near accused
Bravante’s house, and without any warning, accused Felipe Bravante armed with a
spear attacked the victim Miguel B. Nuevo (who ran then unarmed) hitting the
latter twice – first, on the upper portion
of his left arm below the shoulder, followed by the thrust of the spear
on the middle portion of the victim’s breast. After the vic­tim fell down to the ground face upward, accused Augusto
Altarejos, armed with a bolo, hacked the victim twice hitting him on the
forehead and on the neck. Thereafter,
the two accused chased Nilo (alias Danilo or Sato) Bauso while the victim’s
son, Jose Nuevo, went home to inform his mother, Teresita Aninipot (victim’s
wife) about his father’s death in the hands of the herein two accused. Mother and son returned to the crime scene
where they found the victim lying dead
on the ground, face upward. One named
Leonardo Maro reported the incident to the muni­cipal authorities.

“Jose Nuevo and the victim’s wife were interrogated that same
evening by Patrolman Darlie Alvarez and the latter’s companions, Patrolman
Llacer and Arnulfo Arizala, all of whom failed to reduce into writing the
child’s narration of the incident. Nonetheless, the said policemen prepared a sketch of the crime scene
(Exhs. A & A-1) indicating therein
the location of the victim’s corpse in relation to the house of accused Felipe
Bravante which turned out to be only thirteen (13) meters away (Exh. A-2). The policemen learned, during their
interrogation, that the victim’s assailants were the herein accused Felipe
Bravante and Augusto Altarejos who were both no longer at the crime scene so
they failed to investigate them. They
also failed to investigate that evening the victim’s companion, Nilo Bauso, who
was likewise a suspect in this case.

“On the following day, December 25, 1983, Patrolman Arnulfo
Arizala, on orders of the Station Commander, conducted an investigation of the
two accused but only accused Felipe Bravante executed an extra-judicial
confession while his co-accused, Augusto Altarejos, refused to give any formal
statements, even as it was uncertain whether
the third sus­pect, Nilo (Sato) Bauso, ever gave any written affidavit.

“The victim’s widow, Teresita Aninipot, claims furthermore that sometime in January, 1984,
accused Felipe Bravante, armed with a bolo, gave her P60.00 (which she received
for fear of her life) in her resi­dence at Burabod, Resurreccion telling her to
leave the place with her children for
if she does she would still be paid the additional sum of P300.00 so as to
abandon this case. In fact, accused
Bravante revealed to her that Nilo (alias Sato) Bauso had already left the
place and would no longer be available as a witness in this case, in
consideration of P500.00 given to him by the accused.” (pp. 2-4, Decision
of the trial court.)

The evidence presented by the appellants consisted of their own
testimonies and that of two witnesses – Pelagio Tuca and Patrolman Redempto
Caperino. It con­sisted primarily of
allegations of self-defense on the part
of Felipe Bravante and alibi on the part of Augusto Altarejos.

The accused-appellants summarized their evidence as follows:

“Evidence for the defense shows that at 2:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of December 24, 1983, Felipe Bravante and his hired cook, Melanio
Tuca, were preparing food at the former’s house. Miguel Nuevo and Nilo Bauso arrived uninvited at Bravante’s house
and were entertained with drinks. The
duo left at about five p.m., but returned after an hour and challenged Felipe
Bravante to a fight, threatening to kill the accused and his family. Knowing the victim to be a criminal and a
trouble maker, with a sturdier and bigger body build than the accused, the
latter armed himself with a bolo and a double-bladed spear. As Nuevo tried to go up the house of
Bravante, the latter blocked his way with the spear, hitting the former on the
head and breast. Nuevo died a few
meters away from Bravante’s dwel­ling. The accused surrendered to Pat. Arizala.

“When the quarrel actually took
place, accused Augusto Altarejos already left Bravante’s house. Altarejos, out of fear, ran with his
pregnant wife and mother-in-law towards his own house some two (2) kilometers
away. He denied any participation in
the offense charged and was implicated in the case for being a son-in-law of
Felipe Bravante.”

(p. 3, Appellants’ brief)

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

The accused-appellants raised the following assignments of errors
in their appeal:

I

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING
THAT CONSPIRACY BETWEEN AUGUSTO ALTAREJOS AND HIS CO-ACCUSED WAS ESTABLISHED BY
EVIDENCE.

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREA­CHERY WAS ATTENDANT IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.

III

THE COURT A QUO
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER.

(pp. 4 and 5 of appellants’ brief)

The first assigned error alleges that Augusto Altarejos had no
participation in the killing of Miguel Nuevo. The evidence indicates otherwise. Altarejos was not a mere passive co-conspirator. Much less was he an innocent person two
kilometers away when the crime was committed. After Bravante struck the victim with a spear wounding him in the breast
and in the upper left arm, Altarejos finished him off by hacking him on the forehead with a bolo. The wound was so deep that it penetrated to the brain. The two appellants then chased Nilo Bauso,
the victim’s companion while the victim’s eight year old son, Jose Nuevo, ran
home to report the killing and to seek help. The evidence points to two assailants. There was eye-witness testimony. The number and nature of the wounds corroborate the testimony of the
eyewitness that the two accused — one armed with a spear and the other with a
bolo — perpetrated the killing.

We agree with the findings of the trial court on this point:

“As established by the evidence, the sequence of the overt
acts indi­vidually performed by the accused clearly revealed their unity of
purpose at the time of the commission of the offense and that they were united
in its execution. (See People v. Cadag,
2 SCRA 288; People v. Clarit, 3 SCRA 331; and People v. Pagaduan, 29 SCRA
54). In fact, the victim suffered
numerous wounds – a circums­tance which negatived the defense’ submission that
it was the accused Felipe Bravante who alone inflicted the fatal injuries. Notwithstanding Dr. Capellan’s opinion as to
the possibility that the victim’s various wounds could have been caused by only
one assailant armed with 2 or 3 weapons (tsn., Diano, January 24, 1985, p. 4),
the Court, nonetheless, finds ample justification in the conclusion of
‘plurality of assailants’ in the light of the nature and degree of the victim’s
fatal injuries which, per the doctor’s opinion, were caused probably by at
least two (2) weapons – one, a ‘C-shaped’ instrument, and the other, by a
bladed and sharp-pointed bolo or dagger (tsn., p. 2). As aptly observed by the Supreme Court in one case:

‘Numerous wounds in the body of the victim indicate plurality of
assailants’ (People v. Manzano, 58 SCRA 250).

Having thus cooperated indispensably in
causing the death of the victim,
the herein two accused are liable as co-conspirators (People v. Cutura, 4 SCRA
663) and each of them responsible for the acts of the other in further­ance of their conspiracy
(People v. Pareja, 30 SCRA 693).” (p. 6, Decision of trial court).

The other assigned error questions the finding of treachery.

The appellants claim that the bolo belonged to Miguel Nuevo and
that appellant Bravante was able to arm himself with another bolo and a double
bladed spear to defend himself against an attack by Nuevo.

The findings of the trial court that Bravante and Altarejos
waylaid Miguel Nuevo, Nilo Bauso, and eight year old Jose Nuevo when the three
were passing along a trail near the Bravante’s house is more logical and
believable than the allegation of self-defense. The evidence shows that Miguel Nuevo was bringing food items for
a noche buena when he was suddenly attacked by two assailants, one armed with a
spear and the other with a bolo. The
victim alone suffered the fatal wounds. The attack was so sudden that the victim had no opportunity to defend
himself or to inflict retaliatory blows on the assailants. He just fell down after the spearing and was
then hacked by Altarejos with the bolo. The killing was characterized by treachery.

The Revised Penal Code states:

“ART. 14. Aggravating
circums­tances. – The following are
aggravating circumstances:

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

“(16) That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

“There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and spe­cially to insure its execution, without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.”

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

The waylaying and the sudden attack show that the elements of
treachery or alevosia are present. (See
People v. Estillore, 141 SCRA 456).

To support his self-defense theory, Felipe Bravante alleged
voluntary surrender. This claim is
belied by the trial court which stated:

“The Court also finds defense’ evidence as to the fact of
surrender of accused Felipe Bravante to be unsatisfactory and unconvincing for,
as disclosed by the record, the accused did not surrender but was, in fact,
arrested on March 12, 1984 (more than 2 months after the incident) by Patrolman
Blandino Deinla and was placed in detention in the municipal jail of San
Fernando, Masbate, up to March 16, 1984 when he posted bail for his provisional
liberty (record, pp. 13 to 21). Besides, his assertion of having sur­rendered to Patrolman Alvarez has
not been corroborated by any competent and reliable evidence, muchless by Pat.
Alvarez whose testimony in Court did not bear any suggestion to that effect.

“In this case, the
crime commit­ted is murder qualified by treachery. The two accused, all armed with deadly weapons, suddenly attacked
the victim without any warning, accused Felipe Bravante, using his double-bladed
spear, struck the victim, hitting him on the upper portion of the left arm, and
on the middle portion of the victim’s breast. When the victim fell down, accused Augusto Altarejos hacked him with a
bolo on the forehead and the neck, causing his instantaneous death, without any
opportunity on the part of the victim to defend himself.” (p. 8, Decision
of the trial court).

The third assignment of
error has no merit. The evidence
clearly shows the appellants’ guilt beyond reason­able doubt.

WHEREFORE, the judgment rendered by the court a
quo is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto with costs against the accused
appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concurs.