THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO MARMITA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

It was half past ten
in the evening of June 11, 1983,
in Barangay San Vicente, Municipality
of Alangalang,
Province of Leyte.  There was a public dance and the participants
and onlookers were obviously enjoying themselves.  Suddenly a shot rang out and the people
scampered away in panic.  Two more shots
followed.  Within minutes, a man was dead
with two bullet wounds in his back.  His
name was Nathaniel Quiñones.

The assailant, according to the prosecution, was Alfredo Marmita, Jr.  He was
charged with murder in an information dated September 8, 1983, and underwent trial after he waived
preliminary investigation and pleaded not guilty on arraignment.  On June
3, 1986, he was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and payment of civil indemnity in the amount
of P30,000.00 to the victim’s heirs, plus the costs.  The decision penned by Judge Auxencio C. Dacuycuy of the
Regional Trial Court of Leyte^[1]
is now on appeal before this Court.

The prosecution presented two witnesses who claimed they saw the
actual shooting of the victim by Marmita.

Tomas Quiñones testified that in the
evening in question he had gone to the public dance with his cousin Nathaniel,
who at the time of the incident was standing to his right while they were
watching the people dancing.  Upon
hearing a shot, he saw Nathaniel slumped on the ground with his face down and Marmita standing over him with a drawn gun.  Marmita fired two
more shots at Nathaniel and then fled. 
The witness added that he then went to the fallen Nathaniel, who said to
him, “Tommy, it was Ette.  It was Ette,”
referring to the accused.  Nathaniel died
soon thereafter.^[2]

The other eyewitness was Edgar Pulga,
who corroborated Tomas Quiñones and said he was also
at the public dance that evening.  He was
about two meters from Nathaniel when the shooting occurred and he also
identified the killer as Marmita.^[3]

Testifying for himself, the accused-appellant pleaded the defense
of alibi, claiming he was nowhere at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.  On the contrary, he stated
under oath, he was at his residence in Jaro, Leyte, supervising the unloading of
construction materials he had earlier brought from Tacloban City.  He declared that the unloading was done from 9 to 11 o’clock
of that night.^[4]

For corroboration, the defense presented Pat. Bendolo
Artoza, who said he went to Marmita’s
residence at 10 o’clock that night to
buy gasoline and saw Marmita there;^[5]
Pat. Rodrigo Katangkatang, who said he saw Marmita unloading the construction materials at his
residence that night;^[6]
and Sgt. Jose Catan, who testified to the same
effect.^[7]

Another policeman, Lt. Alfredo Morados,
declared that Tomas Quiñones had informed him that
Nathaniel’s killer was “a man of Ite,”^[8]
while Capt. Mameliano Tiberio
said that Tomas had pointed to Ansoy Marmita.^[9]
For his part, Pat. Ruperto Mesina,
who was present when the crime was committed, swore that when he talked to the
victim the latter had lost his power of speech and could not answer when asked
who had shot him.^[10]

It is curious that all these witnesses of the accused-appellant
belonged to the police force, which is probably one reason why the trial court
did not place much reliance on their testimonies.  To understand this statement, one must first
examine the apparent motive for the killing.

The evidence discloses that there was bad blood between the
victim and Marmita because of their business
competition in the operation of the game of “masiao”
in Jaro. 
Nathaniel belonged to an organization opposed to the one reputedly
headed by Marmita. 
In fact, Nathaniel was at the time of his death facing a charge for the
killing of Cesar Galvez, allegedly one of Marmita’s men.^[11]
His co-accused, Buenaventura Aruta, testified on the
extent of the rival “masiao” operations,^[12]
as so too did Sofia Quiñones, Nathaniel’s mother, who
stressed the enmity between her son and Marmita
because of their business differences.^[13] Marmita himself was under investigation for alleged illegal
possession of firearms after a search of his premises presumably instigated by
Nathaniel’s group.^[14]
And it is also worth mentioning that shortly after Nathaniel’s killing, on that
very same night, Tomas Quinones himself, claiming self-defense, stabbed Oscar Lauron, an employee of Marmita.^[15]

Against this background, the motive for the killing of Nathaniel Quiñones becomes readily apparent.  The evidence of the “masiao”
operations is not hearsay, as contended by the defense.  They were described of their own personal
knowledge by Aruta and the victim’s mother, not to mention
Tomas Quiñones. 
This witness also declared that his cousin Nathaniel was a coordinator
of another organization in competition with Marmita’s
gambling business.^[16]

Asked why Nathaniel and his family were hostile to him; Marmita said they probably envied him his station in life
and financial success and resented his not mixing with them because of their
activities.^[17]
This is hardly credible.  Mere envy of
one who, significantly, has not mixed with them at all is in the view of the
Court not a plausible explanation for their accusing him of such a serious
crime as murder.

The defense of alibi is far from convincing.  As suggested by the Solicitor General,
“it would not be surprising if a policeman would testify in (Marmita’s) favor,” considering that he “is a
local gambling lord,”^[18]
with all its implications.  Moreover,
there is no satisfactory explanation for the unloading of the construction
materials from 9 to 11 o’clock in the evening of June 11, 1983, when they were landed
in Tacloban
City on June 5, 1983, and could have been claimed on an
earlier date and unloaded more conveniently in the daytime.  Additionally, the distance from Jaro to Barangay San Vicente is
about three kilometers only^[19]
and could have been negotiated within minutes to enable Marmita
to commit the crime and return to Jaro without much
difficulty.

The defense points to certain flaws in the evidence of the
prosecution, but it is our view that they do not impair its essential
credibility or justify the conclusion that the accused-appellant was
erroneously convicted.

It is argued that Tomas Quiñones was
not a reliable witness because he said Nathaniel was shot in the breast and
stomach when the medical report showed that he was shot in the back; that
Nathaniel could not have identified Marmita as the
killer because the victim was already dead or unable to speak at that time, as
testified by Pat. Mesina; and that Tomas did not
immediately point to Marmita as the killer and in
fact named “a man of Ite” and later Ansoy Marmita as the person who
shot Nathaniel.

The defense also questions the belated presentation of Edgar Pulga, who was not even listed as a prosecution witness and
by his own admission informed his mother-in-law that Marmita
was the killer only after four days following the incident.

As for Nathaniel’s dying statement that he was shot by Marmita, the defense wonders how the victim could have
known his killer inasmuch as the shots came from behind and the victim fell
forward and could not look back at his assailant.

Tomas Quiñones said the victim was shot
in the breast and stomach not in his testimony at the trial but in the
statement he gave the police on July 8,
1982.^[20]
He did not specifically affirm it at the trial, where he said he was not sure
if the last two shots had hit the victim.^[21]
At any rate, it is remembered that he approached the victim after the shooting
and must have gotten the impression that the wounds were in the places
indicated because of the blood in Nathaniel’s front from the point of exit of
the first bullet.  This was explained by
Dr. Angel Cordero, who conducted the autopsy, thus:

Q     So, Doctor, you are sure now that this
first wound Exhibit “B-1” the point of entrance of the bullet was at
the back, the lower chest as you mentioned, is that correct?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Did
it pass thru the body?  The bullet came
out on the posterior part of the man?

A     No.  The slug went outside the body not on the
posterior or back part of the body but at its front anterior part of the body.

Q    So,
from the back the bullet came out in the front?

A     Yes,
your honor.^[22]

As for the victim’s alleged inability to reveal his killer
because of his condition shortly before his death, the same witness declared as
follows:

Q   
Considering these two wounds doctor would you say that the victim would
not be able to speak anymore?

A    
Well, this particular wound specially this fired wound is considered as
mortal wound because it involved the mortal organ of the body, but it does not
mean that he is going to die there and there or will produce instantaneous
death.

Q    Would
he be deprived of speech?

A     No,
your honor.^[23]

We may agree with the theory that Nathaniel could not have seen
his killer as he was shot in the back. 
But even without his statement, there is sufficient evidence pointing to
Marmita as the person who shot him from behind and
continued to shoot him as he lay prostrate on the ground.

According to the Solicitor General, Tomas Quiñones‘
delay in identifying the killer must have been due to his fear of reprisal from
the accused, whom he knew to be a powerful and influential person.  We accept this explanation.  There is no showing that the trial judge
abused his discretion in rejecting the testimony of the defense witnesses that
Tomas had identified other persons as the killer.  It was for him to assess the credibility of
the witnesses after observing their conduct on the stand and examining their
motives.

Pulga’s failure to immediately come
forward to denounce his brother-in-law’s killer is understandable.  It appears that he had eloped with the
victim’s sister and later married her in a civil ceremony without her mother’s
blessings.^[24]
In fact, even during the wake for Nathaniel, he and his mother-in-law were
still not on speaking terms and it was to his other brother-in-law, Carlos Quiñones, that he reported having seen Nathaniel’s
shooting.^[25]
He was later asked to testify because Ruben Tualla,
Nathaniel’s companion on the night of the crime, was reportedly
“bought” by the accused-appellant to stay away.  In his testimony, Pulga
explained that he did not immediately succor his brother-in-law because he did
not know then that the victim was Nathaniel.^[26]

We note with disapproval the observations of the trial court
regarding the unreliability of the results of the paraffin test conducted on
Alfredo Marmita, Jr. 
The fact is that the test was conducted not on the accused-appellant but
on Adriano Marmite, who is not involved in this case.  The paraffin test is entirely irrelevant except
as an indication of the carelessness of the judge in the consideration of the
evidence before him.  Although his error
has not detracted from the correctness of his conclusion finding the
accused-appellant guilty, Judge Dacuycuy is
admonished against similar negligence in the future.

It is clear that the killing of Nathaniel Quiñones
was attended with treachery as he was shot in the back and even when he was
already helpless on the ground.  The
crime committed was murder and, there being no modifying circumstance, the
accused-appellant was correctly subjected to the penalties imposed in the
decision of the trial court.

There is strong evidence in this case of the prevalence of “masiao” in the province of Leyte
and the involvement of many persons in this vicious type of gambling that is
draining the resources, and even the lives, of many persons.  Weakening the moral fiber of the people,
including possibly those charged with the enforcement of the laws, it is also
staining the name of the entire province, and blighting its future, with its dark
record of corruption and lawlessness.  It
is hoped that the authorities will take the needed resolute action against this
serious but not insoluble problem and liberate the persons caught in its web
from its virulent addiction.

WHEREFORE, the above sentence is AFFIRMED, with costs
against the accused-appellant.  It is so
ordered.

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

^[1] Rollo, pp. 9-16.

^[2]
TSN, December 6, 1982, pp.
5-12.

^[3]
TSN, April 11, 1984, pp.
181-183.

^[4]
TSN, March 26, 1986, pp.
254-257.

^[5]
TSN, June 20, 1985, pp.
4-7.

^[6]
TSN, September 27, 1985,
pp. 92-94.

^[7]
TSN, January 14, 1986, pp.
227-229.

^[8]
TSN, January 11, 1985, p.
195.

^[9]
TSN, October 25, 1985, pp.
212-213.

^[10]
TSN, February 22, 1985, pp.
135-136.

^[11]
TSN, November 19, 1984, p.
43.

^[12] Ibid.,
pp. 35-40.

^[13]
TSN, July 19, 1983, pp.
17-19.

^[14]
TSN, November 19, 1984,
pp. 49-51.

^[15]
TSN, December 6, 1983, pp.
18-20.

^[16]
TSN, November 19, 1983, p.
36.

^[17]
TSN, March 26, 1986, pp.
268-269.

^[18] Rollo, p. 79.

^[19] TSN,
December 6, 1983, p. 6.

^[20]
Original Records, p. 2.

^[21]
TSN, March 21, 1984, p.
160.

^[22]
TSN, November 7, 1983, pp.
10-11.

^[23] Ibid.,
pp. 35-36.

23 TSN, June 18, 1984, pp. 9-10.

24 TSN, July 19, 1984, PP. 10-11.

25 TSN, June 18, 1984, pp. 6-7.