PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMIR CARIZO, RICARDO CARIZO, POMPEO CARIZO AND REYNALDO CARIZO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

In an amended information dated 29 July 1986, Ramir, Ricardo,
Reynaldo and Pompeo, all surnamed Carizo, together with one Tobias Abarrientos,
were charged with Robbery with Homicide allegedly committed as follows:

“That on June 21, 1986, at about 1:00 o’clock in the morning,
at Barangay Guruyan, Municipality of Juban, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another and with intent to gain
through force and violence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal, rob and carry away from the person of one FRANK P. SAN
JOSE against the latter’s consent the following personal properties:

One (1) wrist watch
worth………………….. P 600.00

One (1) ring
worth…………………………… 500.00

One (1) pair of shoes
worth………………… 150.00

One (1) jungle knife
worth………………….. 120.00

One (1) gun, pistol
caliber 32……………… P3,000.00 and

Cash amount
of…………………….………. 2,000.00

Total……. P6,370.00

with a total and aggregate value of SIX
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY (P6,370.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, to the
damage and prejudice of the said Frank P. San Jose in the said aforestated
total amount; that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of
enabling the above-named accused to take, steal and carry away the articles
above-mentioned, the herein accused in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation and taking advantage of their superior
number and strength and with the use of sharp bladed instruments, treacherously
attack, assault and stab said Frank P. San Jose, inflicting upon the latter
various injuries on the different parts of his body, which injuries were the
direct cause of his instant death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal
heirs.

That the accused Reynaldo Carizo y Llosala is a recidivist, he
having been previously convicted by final judgment of the offense of Robbery
penalized under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code on the 18th day of
November, 1976 by the Circuit Criminal Court of Legaspi City, an offense
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code as that of which he is now
presently charged.” ^[1]

Ricardo, Reynaldo and Pompeo Carizo were arraigned on 18 February
1987, and each of them entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, Ramir Carizo was arrested on 9 April 1987 in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. He was
brought back to Juban, Sorsogon to face trial. On 7 May 1987, upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. The trial court appraised him of the
consequences of his plea but allowed him to prove mitigating
circumstances. Tobias Abarrientos, up
to this day, has remained at large.

On 11 April 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch
51, rendered a decision^[2] the
dispositive part of which states:

“ACCORDINGLY, accused Ramir Carizo is hereby convicted of
robbery with homicide aggravated by treachery and is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to restitute to the heirs of the
deceased-victim P6,370.00 for the unrecovered loot.

Accused Pompeo Carizo, Ricardo Carizo and Reynaldo Carizo are
hereby convicted for murder and are hereby each sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua.

All the accused to pay pro rata the heirs of the victim P30,000.00
for death indemnity and P50,000.00 for moral damages and funeral expenses.

Pursuant to Article VII, Section 5, Phil. Constitution, transmit
the entire records of this case to the Supreme Court for automatic review
considering the penalty imposed.

The case against Tobias Abarrientos is hereby archived as he is
still at-large.” ^[3]

xxx xxx xxx

The evidence for the prosecution disclosed the following facts:

Salvador Cortez, a resident of Guruyan, Juban, Sorsogon,
testified that in the late afternoon of 20 June 1986, he went to the poblacion
in Juban, Sorsogon to buy some utensils. At around 6:00 p.m., he met a friend and together they decided to have a
few drinks. Their conversation lasted
up to about 8:30 p.m., after which he decided to go home.

At that time, there were no more available means of
transportation going to Guruyan, so Cortez decided to negotiate on foot the
approximately twelve (12) kilometer distance from the poblacion to barrio
Guruyan.

After passing the concrete bridge leading to Guruyan proper, he
felt the call of nature and he moved to the shoulder of the road. While urinating, he heard the sound of a
motorcycle engine coming from the direction of the bridge. He turned his head and saw the headlight of
a motorcycle approaching his direction. When the motorcycle passed by him, he immediately recognized the rider
to be ex-Mayor Frank San Jose.

As he continued his trek towards Guruyan, and the motorcycle was
some fifteen (15) meters ahead of him, he suddenly saw Ramir Carizo, Ricardo
Carizo, Reynaldo Carizo, Pompeo Carizo and another person barge out from a
thicket (commonly known in the locality as “lupi”) portion of the
road shoulder. The light emanating from
the motorcycle’s headlight enabled him to recognize these men.

As the motorcycle approached the five men, Cortez saw Ramir
Carizo suddenly strike Frank San Jose with a wooden pole causing the latter to
be thrown on the road. Thereafter,
Ramir Carizo proceeded to tie the hands of San Jose. While being tied, San Jose was again hit on the face with the
same piece of wood, this time, by Ricardo Carizo.

With his both hands tied, they carried San Jose towards a nearby
ricefield in a direction east of Guruyan.

Terrified by what he had witnessed, Cortez ran away from the
scene and headed for home. The
following morning, he learned that the body of Frank San Jose was found at a
creek far from the ambush site. Forthwith, he went to the said creek and there he saw the investigators
examining the lifeless body of Frank San Jose still hogtied and marked with
stab wounds.

It was only after the burial of San Jose that he reported the
ambuscade and revealed the identity of the assailants because, according to
him, he was very much afraid of the suspects but then his conscience prevailed
upon him to divulge what he had witnessed.^[4]

Benjamin Celso, also a resident of Guruyan, testified that at
about 4:00 a.m. in the morning of 21 June 1986, he went near a canal at a
nearby creek beside his house to defecate. While defecating, he saw Ramir Carizo and Reynaldo Carizo pass by near
him (about 2 arms length). He allegedly
heard Ramir Carizo utter to Reynaldo “No more problem, we already killed
Purawas” (referring to Frank San Jose’s moniker in Juban). The two (2) were followed by three (3) other
men whose identities he did not recognize as he stooped to the ground when he
heard Ramir Carizo’s remark. He stated
that Ramir Carizo and his companions were then headed towards the Carizo
residence which is about sixty (60) meters away from his own house.

Celso also stated that the Carizos were living on the land owned
by Mrs. San Jose while his house is located on the land owned by the late mayor
(Frank San Jose).^[5]

The prosecution next introduced the testimonies of Salvador
Duque, a school teacher in Guruyan, Jaime Gredonia, a compadre of Frank San
Jose, and Romeo Gramos, a neighbor of the Carizos, to establish the fact of the
Carizos’ bitter feud with the late mayor.

Salvador Duque testified that way back in 1984, he witnessed a
heated argument between Frank San Jose and the Carizo family before the
Barangay Captain of Guruyan regarding San Jose’s allegation that the Carizos
were stealing coconuts on his land. On
that occasion, he heard Pompeo Carizo threaten San Jose that “it is the
day of San Jose and we will kill someday”, that was followed up by his son
Ricardo in the dialect, “sae kami maodong hasta makabalos.” (We will
not stop until we get even with Frank San Jose).^[6]

Jaime Gredonia testified that sometime in May 1986, in a
conversation with San Jose when the latter visited him in his house, he asked
San Jose regarding the rumor in town that he would be ambushed. San Jose allegedly confirmed the rumor and
said that if something happens to him, there would be no one responsible but
the Carizo family.^[7]

Romeo Gramos, a neighbor of the Carizos, corroborated Jaime
Gredonia’s story as he too was informed by San Jose sometime in May 1986 of the
threat against the latter’s life.^[8]
Remedios San Jose, the victim’s wife, likewise testified that she knew that the
Carizo family had a standing grudge against her husband. She presented in court a letter^[9]
threatening her and her children’s life.

Frank San Jose was reported as missing to the police (INP) of
Juban, Sorsogon in the early morning of 21 June 1986 by Jose Lorilla, a
resident of Guruyan who found his motorcycle immediately after the bridge from
Bolos to Guruyan. Thereafter, another
resident from Guruyan, and a tenant of Frank San Jose, Danilo Habla, reported
to the police that San Jose was found dead, handtied with a string, with
several stab wounds in his body, in Sitio Binayan, Guruyan, Sorsogon.

Sgt. Aurelio, a member of the investigating team dispatched to
the scene of the crime, testified that they recovered two (2) wooden clubs (a
bamboo club and a wooden club)^[10] at
the ambush site near the area of the fallen motorcycle. They then proceeded to the reported area
where the body of San Jose was allegedly sighted, and there they found San
Jose’s body, his hands still tied behind his back. After taking pictures^[11] of
the body, they brought the same to the Juban Police Station for autopsy.

The following day, Sgt. Aurelio joined the police team led by
police Lieutenant Paloma which went to the Carizo residence. They recovered a bloodstained maong jacket
and pants hanging on a makeshift clothesline tied to the ground floor of the
house. These articles were sent to the
CIS laboratory for blood examination.

Dr. Zacarias Frivaldo, the Municipal Health Officer of Irosin,
Sorsogon who performed the autopsy on the body of the victim, testified on the
following injuries sustained by the late mayor.

“1.     Lacerated wound with severe contusion-forehead;

2.      Left back thru and thru to the right chest (wounds 2 and 9 of
chart);

3.      Right side about 6 inches transversing laterally to the right
non-penetrating;

4.      Back lower transversing
laterally 6 inches in length;

5.      Thru and thru left arm
distally;

There were four stab wounds in front;

6.      Left chest inch from sternum transversing laterally to the left
injuring the left lung;

7.      Right hypochondriac region
non-penetrating transversing laterally about 6″ in length;

8.      Right chest penetrating the heart and right lun (sic) 6″
in length;

9.      Exit of wound number 2 on the back (Exh.
“A”). The cause of death was
shock secondary to hemorrhage due to multiple stab wounds.”^[12]

In Dr. Frivaldo’s opinion, the weapon used in stabbing San Jose
was a sharp pointed instrument more than six (6) inches long. He noted that no previous struggle ensued
between the assailant and the victim while the wounds were being
inflicted. He opined that the assailant
was in a kneeling position while inflicting the injuries on the victim who lay
flat on the ground; and San Jose’s injury on the forehead was caused by a blow
from a hard object that could cause unconsciousness to the victim.^[13]

For the defense, only the accused Pompeo Carizo testified on his
own behalf. He admitted that on 17 June
1986, Lt. Paloma and his men went to the house of Ramir Carizo which is
adjacent to his house. However, no
search warrant was presented by the said investigators as they seized a maong
jacket and pants belonging to Ramir Carizo inside the latter’s house. He admitted having seen Tobias Abarrientos
when the latter was in Guruyan but could not remember the date and added that
he does not know him personally.

When he was directly confronted regarding his participation in
the killing of Frank San Jose, he vehemently denied the charge.^[14]

From the judgment of conviction by the court a quo, accused-appellants plead the following assignment of errors in
their appellants’ brief:

I.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED
IN RELYING HEAVILY ON THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION [SIC] PRINCIPAL
WITNESSES SALVADOR CORTEZ AND BENJAMIN CELSO INSPITE OF THEIR EVIDENT
IMPROBABILITY, INCREDIBILITY, INCONSISTENCY, AND FALSITY.

II.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING PROBATIVE VALUE TO
THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES SALVADOR DUQUE, JAIME GREDONIO AND
ROMEO GUAMOS.

With respect to the testimony of Salvador Cortez, the defense
argues that, under ordinary circumstances, it is hard to believe that Cortez
and his friend consumed only two (2) bottles of beer in two (2) and one-half
(1/2) hours since there was nothing important to converse about between them,
as they claim that Cortez already knew beforehand that he might not be able to
find a ride home.

The defense also points out that since Cortez was not drunk at
that time, it was unnatural for him not to walk faster than his usual
pace. They claim that the Court should
take judicial notice that “folks walk briskly faster than the residents in
the poblacion.” Therefore, it is highly improbable to accept that it took
him about four-and-a-half (4­-1/2) hours, or from 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. to
traverse the distance of twelve (12) kilometers from the poblacion to Barrio
Guruyan.

Even Cortez’ supposed response to the call of nature is disputed
by the defense. They claim that Cortez
should not have bothered to move himself to the shoulder of the road to
urinate, but to do the thing right on the spot where he stopped considering
that he was all alone by the road without anybody watching him.

And when thereafter Cortez recognized that it was Frank San Jose
who was driving the motorcycle that passed him by, the defense deems it
incredible why Cortez did not even bother to call the former to ask for a ride
nor even greeted the former mayor when he in fact admitted that he knew the
former mayor as he worked for the latter as a hired laborer.

As to the supposed
ambush, the defense points that with the claimed distance of fifteen (15)
meters away from the scene of the crime, it was highly improbable that
accused-appellants “boldly performed their evil design” without even
noticing that there was an eyewitness nearby (Cortez). Hence, in the mind of the defense, it hardly
inspires credence that Cortez was really able to observe the details of the
incident, including the piece of wood which was used by the suspects to hit San
Jose, but, he allegedly failed to recognize or even describe the sole person
who carried the body of San Jose towards the rice field, when the body of a
person is very much larger than the piece of wood allegedly used to hit the
victim.

In other words, the defense maintains that Cortez is a rehearsed
witness, who never actually witnessed the incident. Moreover, Cortez’ actuation after the incident of not immediately
reporting the matter to the police and instead reported the same after the
burial of San Jose is, according to the defense, not in accordance with
ordinary human behavior.

With respect to the testimony of
Benjamin Celso, the defense argues that it is highly improbable that Ramir
Carizo would utter such incriminating statement (“No more problem, we
already killed Purawas.”) at the very time they passed near the creek
(sapa) where Celso was defecating, at the risk of being overhead by the said
witness and reported to the authorities. It is claimed that this is not the way of criminals. For
under normal circumstances, assuming that Ramir and Ricardo really
killed Frank San Jose, there was “no need for Ramir to carelessly and
loudly utter the words to his brother on their way home.” Instead, it was
but natural for them to have kept silent, assuming that indeed, they had just
committed a crime.

Like Cortez, the defense questions Celso’s actuation in not
reporting what he knew immediately to the family of San Jose or to any of the
several policemen he saw and heard at the creek investigating the murder of San
Jose.

Anent the second assignment of error, the defense points out that
the common allegations regarding the Carizo’s threat to Frank San Jose as well
as Frank San Jose’s premonitions before his abduction, were all hearsay to
establish that a crime was indeed committed and the identity of the
perpetrators or suspects thereof, “that even on the assumption that such
statements would tend to prove the existence of motive on the part of the
accused for killing Frank San Jose,” the same cannot be sufficient proof
of guilt because mere proof of motive is not enough to support a conviction
“if there is no other reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably
deduced that the accused was the malefactor.”

At the outset, the Court notes from the records of the case that
Ramir and Reynaldo Carizo escaped from detention during the trial of the case.^[15]
While the latter has been re-arrested, Ramir Carizo, who earlier entered a plea
of guilty to the information against him, has since been reported killed in a
shooting encounter with policeman from Valenzuela, Metro Manila shortly after
he and his companions held up a passenger jeepney somewhere in McArthur Highway,
Marulas, Valenzuela on 5 February 1990.^[16]

However, for the rest of the accused-appellants (Reynaldo, Pompeo
and Ricardo), the determination of their guilt hinges on the credibility of
prosecution witness Salvador Cortez whose testimony they assiduously assail as
riddled with improbabilities and equivocations.

The trial court which concededly was in the best position to test
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, did not see it that way. Similarly, this Court is not persuaded by
the defense’s conjectural reasoning.

As the Solicitor-General correctly observes: there is nothing unusual in the number of
beer bottles consumed by Salvador Cortez and his friend, since “it was
never established that they were heavy drinkers” nor were they then
engaged in a drinking spree. “Salvador Cortez, in fact, explained that the reason why it took
them that long was because of their conversation.”^[17]

The Court also notes that the approximation of four and a half (4
1/2) hours for Cortez to travel the twelve (12) kilometer distance from the
poblacion to Guruyan was made by Cortez himself who testified that he had no
watch nor can he accurately read the exact time in a clock.^[18]

What is not disputed is that the road going to barangay Guyuran
is rough. One cannot, therefore, be
expected to walk faster than the usual pace. Also, the manner in which Cortez attested to the call of nature cannot
be characterized as unusual, for it is common nature for people to always look
for a more private place to respond to a call of nature. And, as to the failure of Cortez to call the
attention of the victim to ask for a ride, this was satisfactorily explained by
Cortez during cross-examination.

“Q
– You said, Mr. Witness, that when you urinated you went to the side of the
road, is that correct?

A – Yes, that’s correct.

Q – Why did you say now that you were
blurred by the light when you were at the side of the road?

A – Naturally when the motorcycle passed
by me I saw his back and that was the time when I recognized the one driving
the motorcycle to be the late mayor San Jose.

Q -You said also that at that time you
heard the motorcycle, the motorcycle was running slowly because the road was
rought [sic], is that correct?

A – Yes, that Correct.^[19]

Precisely, Frank San Jose had already passed Salvador Cortez when
he was suddenly ambushed by the accused-appellants. At a distance of approximately fifteen (15) meters, it is not
incredible that assailants boldly executed their plan within the seeing
distance of Cortez and without the latter himself being seen and chased by the
assailants. Nor should we assume that
every eyewitness to a gruesome crime should be seen by
each and every malefactor. That would
be stretching the argument too far.

As to the reason why Cortez categorically identified the piece of
wood (Exhibit “O”) used in the commission of the crime but did not
recognize the person who carried the victim to the ricefield, this was
adequately explained when he testified that he was able to identify the said
instrument because of the light coming from the motorcycle and that, during the
trial, he recognized it as the same piece of wood as recovered by the
authorities and that “the said piece of wood had never changed.”^[20]

On the other hand, he was not exactly sure who among the five (5)
ambushers carried the body of Frank San Jose as admittedly he did not know one
of the assailants who was only later identified as Tobias Abarrientos. All he was sure of was that he recognized
the identity of four (4) of them – Ramir, Ricardo, Reynaldo and Pompeo.

Finally, as the Solicitor General correctly observes,
“considering that his town mates were involved in the commission of the
crime, his fear of reprisal from them is understandable” (People vs.
Catubig, 203 SCRA 643 [1992] and a valid excuse for his momentary
silence. (People vs. Peran, 215
SCRA 152, [1992]). After all, delay in
reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual events in rural areas is
well-known. (People vs. Belen, 194
SCRA 447 [1991], thus, “it cannot be taken against the said witness.”^[21]

Further, the Court observes that his (Cortez’) eyewitness account
is credible as it jibes with the autopsy findings. (People vs. Molina, 213 SCRA 52 [1992].^[22]

Turning now to the testimony of Benjamin Celso, who allegedly
heard the incriminating statement uttered by Ramir Carizo to his brother
Ricardo, while defecating beside a creek near his house, the defense suggests
that this testimony is incredible since the natural tendency of criminals is to
keep silent about the crime they had just perpetrated. This is non-sequitur.

The Carizo brothers at that time were not then aware of the
presence of Benjamin Celso in the vicinity. And the fact that they were positively identified by Celso lends
credence to the latter’s testimony which the defense has not shown to be
tainted with evident bias, partiality, or motive to falsely implicate the
Carizos, considering that it has been established that the Carizos were his
neighbors.

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses Salvador Duque, Jaime
Bredonio and Romeo Guamos are not hearsay evidence since “they all had
personal knowledge of the subject matter of their testimonies as to the motive
of the Carizos to kill the victim (San Jose).”^[23]
As a rule, proof of motive is not even necessary when there is positive
identification of the accused.^[24]
Nonetheless, it strengthens the prosecution’s evidence with respect to the
identification made by Cortez of the assailants.

Quite interestingly, the only evidence for the defense was the
testimony of Pompeo Carizo who merely denied having any participation and
knowledge of the crime. He did not even
proffer any strong alibi that would negate his complicity in the ambush-slaying
of Frank San Jose. At best, his denial
is a self-serving negative evidence that cannot be given greater weight than
the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.^[25]

The trial court was correct in ruling out the robbery aspect of
the case, as the same was not conclusively proved by the prosecution. But the killing of Frank San Jose was indeed
attended by treachery which qualified the crime committed to murder. The attack from behind of an unsuspecting
San Jose by accused-appellants was so swift and sudden that he never had a
chance to defend himself. Instead of
killing him on the spot, accused-appellants hogtied him and thereafter tortured
him before they stabbed him to death and then mercilessly dumped his body in a
distant creek. This is clearly depicted
in the pictures (Exhibit “C”, “D”, and “E”) submitted in
evidence by the prosecution.

We also agree that accused-appellants conspired to kill San Jose
as plainly inferable from the moment they barged out together from a thicket
(lupi) with wooden poles to ambush the latter from behind while riding a
motorcycle, tied up his hands and thereafter carried him away.

It has long been held that where the acts of the accused
collectively and individually clearly demonstrate the existence of a common design
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is
evident. Regardless of the fact, as in
this case, where the consequent killing of San Jose may have been done only by
one (1) or two (2) of the accused, the rest would still be liable as principals
because the evidence does not show that any one of them tried to prevent the
assault and the killing,^[26] but
instead were all last seen carrying the body of the victim from the ambush site
to be eventually killed elsewhere with extreme cruelty.

WHEREFORE, except as to Ramir whose
death appears from the records of this case to have occurred sometime on 3
February 1990, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon
in Criminal Case No. 2224, dated 11 April 1990, convicting herein
accused-appellants of the crime of MURDER is AFFIRMED in toto. The award of moral
damages is hereby deleted but the death indemnity imposed on accused-appellants
is increased to P50,000.00

Cost against accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
Rollo, p. 24

^[2]
Per Judge Simon D. Encinas

^[3]
Rollo, p. 35

^[4]
TSN, July 1, 1987, pp. 1 – 16

^[5]
Tsn, September 23, 1987, pp. 5-16

^[6]
TSN, December 2, 1987, pp. 3 – 8

^[7]
Ibid, pp. 9-12

^[8]
TSN, January 6, 1988, pp. 3 – 5

^[9]
Exhibit F, F-1, F-2 for the prosecution p. 281, Original Records; Exhibit J is
the letter sent by Ramir Carizo while he was in the provincial jail of
Sorsogon; pp. 288-289, Original Records. It is Exhibit F that contained the threats on Mrs. San Jose’s life. This letter was also used by the
investigator in tracking down Ramir Carizo’s whereabouts in Valenzuela, Bulacan
which led to his arrest.

^[10]
Exhibit “O”, “P”, for the prosecution

^[11]
Exhibit “C”, “D” and “E”

^[12]
Rollo, pp. 103-104

^[13]
TSN, May 7, 1987, pp. 6-18

^[14]
TSN, January 22, 1990, pp. 3-7

^[15]
TSN, March 30, 1988, p. 2

^[16]
Rollo, p. 53

^[17]
Appellee’s Brief, p. 9, Rollo, p. 129

^[18]
TSN, July 1, 1987, p. 37

^[19]
Ibid., pp. 26-27

^[20]
Ibid., p. 34

^[21]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 13-14, Rollo, pp. 133-134.

^[22]
Ibid., p. 18, Rollo, p. 138

^[23]
See Rule 130, Sec. 20, Revised Rules of Evidence.

^[24]
People v. Sarino, 222 SCRA 234

^[25]
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, People v. Antud, 215 SCRA 190

^[26]
People v. Condemena, G.R. No. L-22426,
29 May 1968