PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALFREDO TARUC Y SAPAN AND ANTONIO EFE, JR. Y LEYCE.

For all its many distinctions good and bad, the district of Tondo
in Manila is best known perhaps for
its criminality.  This is the home ground
of the notorious gangs, the restless battleground of their countless
confrontations, the scene of many murders that have exacted during these many years
a terrifying toll in lives, and not only of the wicked but unfortunately also
of the innocent.  As a result, one might
say that its inhabitants, especially in the depressed areas where lawlessness
is most rampant, have become cynical and hardened and not easily unnerved by
the many disturbing things going on around them.  Unusual to others, the daily killings and
stealings and other affronts to law and order have become to them a
commonplace, part of a way of life that must be accepted with resignation if
not indifference, and with the inevitable prayers to an Almighty Being who will
deliver them from evil.

Still and all, there was no small excitement when in the early
morning of May 10, 1981,
the lifeless body of a young man was found sprawled on Mabagos
street with two wounds and several abrasions on
his chest, welt marks around his neck, and banana peelings stuffed in his
mouth.  He was immediately recognized as
Luis Martinez, a resident in the area. 
Word of the dead man spread fast and wide and soon enough, as might be
expected of the close neighborhood, there were whispered rumors of another
victim who was in hiding for fear of further violence from the killer or
killers.  Investigation revealed this
person to be Federico Sanchez, a homosexual beautician, who was found the
following day in a police outpost where he had sought refuge.  He was to be the principal witness for the
prosecution in the two cases for murder and frustrated murder now on appeal
before us.

The accused were Alfredo Taruc and Antonio Efe, Jr., who were
both convicted by the trial court and sentenced for the murder of Luis Martinez
to “suffer imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the
heirs of Luis Martinez in the amount of P12,000.00, as compensation for the
death of Luis Martinez; the amount of P6,000.00, representing the funeral
expenses of Luis Martinez; the amount of P10,000.00, as reimbursement for the
cost of travel and stay in the Philippines of Alfredo Martinez, and the amount
of P10,000.00, attorney’s fees” and for the frustrated murder of Federio Sanchez
“to suffer imprisonment in an indeterminate term of two (2) years, ten
(10) months and twenty (20) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, to six (6) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of prision
mayor as maximum,” and in both cases “to suffer all the
accessory penalties provided for by law, and to pay the costs.”^[1]

At the time of the promulgation of the judgment, Efe had already
died of pulmonary tuberculosis while detained in the city jail of Manila.  This appeal was made only by Taruc, who
assigns four errors of the trial court he now asks to be reversed.

The appealed decision held the evidence of the prosecution far
more credible than that offered by the defense. 
Much weight was given especially to the testimony of Sanchez, who was the
only eyewitness to the incident in question and also an alleged victim of the
frustrated murder.

Sanchez, who is also known as Manuela, says he had just left a
“gay” dinner-dance and was talking to two women in a street corner at
about two thirty o’clock in the morning of May 10, 1981, when Taruc approached
him and asked him to come with him to his house.  When they arrived there, he was shocked to
find Efe strangling Martinez with a
nylon cord with wooden handles at each end and also forcing banana peelings
into the latter’s mouth.  Martinez
looked helpless, with his tongue hanging out, and was offering not much of a
struggle although he was resisting as best as he could.  Efe was demanding to know the whereabouts of
a certain Boy Baba, who had stabbed Taruc some weeks before, but Martinez
would not or could not give any answer. 
Before Sanchez realized it, a length of wire had also been drawn around
his own neck by Taruc, who also wanted to know where Boy Baba was.  By way of further persuasion, Taruc stabbed
Sanchez in the thigh three times with a balisong and continued to
strangle him.  He also slashed his dress
and warned that both he and Martinez
would die that night if they did not tell him where to find Boy Baba.  Efe and Taruc then changed places, and Efe
boxed Sanchez in the mouth and poked a gun at him, then took over strangling
him.  But as Efe noticed that Taruc
needed assistance because he was apparently still weak from his wounds, Efe
released Sanchez to help Taruc. 
Together, they again forced banana peelings into Martinez’s
mouth and continued strangling him.  They
also stabbed him in the chest.  The two
being thus occupied, Sanchez seized the opportunity to escape, running out of
the house and thereafter immediately going into hiding in the police outpost
until he reappeared the following day to denounce his assailants.^[2]

Sanchez’s testimony was corroborated by the autopsy report of Dr.
Marcial Ceñido, a medico-legal officer of the Western Police District, who
testified that Martinez died of asphyxia
by strangulation with two stab wounds in the chest at about 2:30 o’clock in the morning of May 10, 1981.  Banana peelings were found in his mouth and
stomach.^[3]
Dr. Januario Estrada III of the Philippine General Hospital declared that when
he examined Sanchez on May 11, 1981,
he found the patient with a circumferential abrasion in the neck and punctured
wounds in the thigh which he no longer treated because they were already
closed.  He added that both the abrasion
and the wounds were superficial and barring complication or infection would
heal by themselves.^[4]

Worthy of special note is the testimony of Flor Dalangin, who
took pictures of the corpse after its discovery and exhibited them in
court.  Dalangin declared she saw Taruc
at the window of his house with his chin resting on his two hands and looking
at the people milling around the dead person. 
She said she could not understand his expression because he was smirking
(“nakangisi”) as if he was enjoying the sight of his neighbors around
the dead Martinez.^[5]

Anacleto Martinez, father of the deceased, testified on the civil
damages and declared he had to come all the way from Canada,
where he was residing, to take care of his son’s burial.  He itemized his fare and the funeral and
other expenses he incurred.^[6]
Patrolman Luis Lim merely narrated his investigation of the crime and how he
discovered Sanchez at the police outpost and took him to the hospital for
medical examination.^[7]

Taruc’s defense consisted merely of denial.  He claimed he was in his house at the time of
the alleged commission of the offenses and was asleep from 9 o’clock in the evening of May 9, 1981, until 7
o’clock of the following morning, when he was awakened by a
neighbor who told him of the dead body near his house.^[8]
He was corroborated by his common-law wife, Angelina Comendador, and her sister
Amelita.^[9]
Angelina was not very helpful, however, because she declared eight times that
Taruc was asleep during the hours mentioned from May 8, 1981, and until the morning of May 9, 1981, not realizing the dates she mentioned
were irrelevant if not damaging to Taruc’s defense.^[10]
She also testified that she and Taruc did not go out to look at the corpse but
did not explain their lack of curiosity.^[11]

The trial court also disbelieved Efe, who claimed alibi and said
he was in his house suffering from influenza when the offenses were allegedly
committed in Taruc’s house.  Remarkably,
he also testified that neither Sanchez nor Martinez
was in Taruc’s house at the time although he did not say how he could have
known.^[12]
The corroboration offered by Efren Paez was also rejected.  This witness in effect contradicted Efe’s
testimony that he was sick on May 9,
1981, because his own declaration was that he spent the day
installing tiles in Efe’s house and that later in the evening they had a
drinking session.  He said he got drunk
and fell asleep in Efe’s house, where he awoke at noon
the following day to find Efe still sleeping. 
But, of course, he could not know what Efe was doing while he himself
was fast asleep.  Paez admitted he had
been a member of the notorious Sputnik gang since he was a boy.^[13]

In challenging the judgment convicting him of murder and
frustrated murder, Taruc argues that the trial court erred in giving credence to
the testimony of Federico Sanchez; in not finding that Luis Martinez had been
killed earlier than 2:30 a.m. on May 10, 1981; in holding that Taruc had the
strength to strangle Martinez at the time; and in not applying the
constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused-appellant.^[14]

The thrust of the first assignment of error is that Sanchez
committed a number of significant inconsistencies in his testimony that
rendered him unreliable as a witness, let alone the fact that he had a motive against
both Taruc and Efe.  The defense
questions the observation of the trial court that as a homosexual, Sanchez
would have been deterred by his timid nature from testifying against the two
accused-appellants, who were notorious “toughs,” unless he was telling
the truth.  Taruc says Sanchez was a
police character himself, having been earlier convicted of theft and later
charged with physical injuries.^[15]
The appellant’s brief painstakingly pointed to his many contradictions not only
in his statements on the stand but also between these statements and an earlier
affidavit he had signed.^[16]
As for motive, the defense stressed that Sanchez had a grudge against Taruc
because the latter had rebuffed him when he once made an indecent advance and
against Efe who, when he was still a policeman, had arrested Sanchez on a
charge Efe could no longer remember.^[17]

The Court has examined the claimed inconsistencies and
contradictions and find with the trial judge that they are really minor flaws
that do not impair the basic veracity of the narration by Sanchez of the
commission of the offenses in the morning of May 10, 1981. 
Besides, it is corroborated in its material points by the physical
evidence of the injuries sustained by the two victims, and of the banana
peelings found in the Martinez’s
stomach, as reported by their respective medical examiners, who were certainly
disinterested witnesses.  Given this
report, Sanchez’s testimony is in our view not rendered suspect by his criminal
record, and neither by the supposed motives as alleged only by the defendants
themselves.

In any event, it must be remembered that the witness was relating
an exceptionally harrowing and traumatic incident in which a person was being
strangled before his very eyes even as his own life was being threatened with
the taut wire around his neck.  One
cannot expect perfect recollection of this experience which the witness was
perhaps subconsciously trying to push out of his mind, rejecting all its
hideous memories in every correct detail.

The defense also argues that Martinez
could not have been killed at 2:30 o’clock
in the morning of May 10, 1981,
because the medical evidence proves he had died earlier, at about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of May 9, 1981.  This conclusion is based on the autopsy
report of Dr. Ceñido finding complete rigor mortis in the cadaver
when the autopsy thereon was performed at 10:45
a.m. of May 10, 1981,
and his testimony that death might have occurred about sixteen hours before.^[18]

That statement was just an approximation, not an exact
determination.  Such precise pinpointing
of the hour of death was not possible as rigor mortis is
dependent on a number of factors, such as the climate, the age of the person,
his physical condition, and other circumstances existing at the time of his
demise.  There is also the medical view
that the early setting in of rigor mortis may be due to
exhaustion of muscular irritability, which in the present case could have been
caused by the struggles of Martinez
while he was being strangled.^[19]
Notably, on further interrogation, the same witness said that rigor mortis
usually sets in about six to twelve hours after death, which would be
consistent with the allegation of the prosecution that Martinez
was killed at 2:30 a.m. of May 10, 1981, or eight hours before
the autopsy was conducted.^[20]

The next contention of the defense is that it was not possible
for Martinez to have been strangled
by Taruc who had not yet recovered from the stab wounds inflicted on him by Boy
Baba or for that matter by Efe who was then already a tubercular.  Neither of the accused had the strength at
the time to overpower Martinez who
was younger, being only 24 years old when he was killed, and had an athletic
build.^[21]
Taruc was stabbed on April 12, 1981,
and was hospitalized for eight days after undergoing surgery.  He was still under treatment and in fact
reported back to the hospital for this purpose on May 9, 1981.  As for the 44-year old Efe, who was Taruc’s
senior by 5 years,^[22]
it is established that he eventually died of tuberculosis while under detention
in the city jail of Manila.

The mere fact that Taruc was stabbed a month before and was
according to him not yet completely healed would not necessarily signify that
he could not have strangled Martinez. 
Even assuming he was weak as he contended, it should not be forgotten
that he and Efe were armed with a knife and a revolver that discouraged the
victim’s resistance, coupled with the fact that he had taken alcohol before his
death, as the autopsy report Indicated, and was probably unable to defend
himself because he was intoxicated.  More
importantly, it should also be noted that when Taruc could not strangle
Martinez by himself, Efe went to his assistance and the two of them together
succeeded in committing the murder.

The defense insists that the prosecution has not overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence, but we do not agree.  It is the defense in fact which has not
refuted the evidence of the prosecution establishing the guilt of the accused
and thus overcoming the presumption.  The
burden of evidence had obviously shifted as early as when, after the
prosecution had rested, the accused petitioned for bail, which was denied by
the trial court.

In this connection, it is suggested by the defense that Judge
Antonio M. Martinez, who rendered the decision, was not the same judge who
heard the evidence for the prosecution and so did not have the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand and assess their
credibility.  As the Solicitor General
correctly pointed out, however, Judge Fidel P. Purisima, who presided at the
trial earlier, had that opportunity and apparently gave much credence to the
said witnesses, especially Sanchez.  It
was on the basis of their testimony that he denied bail to the accused on the
ground that the evidence against them was strong.

We affirm the ruling of the trial court holding the
accused-appellant guilty of murder, with the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation, which has been established. 
Martinez was undoubtedly lured into Taruc’s house with the intention of
strangling him with the nylon cord prepared for the purpose.  The crime was attended by the generic
aggravating circumstance of cruelty as manifested by the stab wounds inflicted
on Martinez and the perversion of forcing banana peelings into his mouth while
he was being strangled.  But we do not
agree that there was treachery because the evidence of the prosecution on this
point is rather meager, and neither, conversely, has the defense proved any
mitigating circumstance.

The penalty imposable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
would have been death, but this is now reduced to reclusion perpetua
conformably to Article III, Section 19(1) as interpreted in the recent case of
People v. Millora.^[23]
The award of damages is sustained except for the civil indemnity, which is
hereby increasead P30,000.00.

The conviction for frustrated murder must be modified.  It should be noted that the doctor who
examined Sanchez described as superficial the ligature mark around his neck and
the punctured wounds on his thigh, which did not have to be treated because
they were already closed at the time, a day after the incident in question.^[24]
This would suggest that, contrary to the allegation of the prosecution, Taruc
did not intend to also murder Sanchez but only to frighten and intimidate
him.  Their real target was
Martinez.  In fact, while strangling
Sanchez, Efe released him to help Taruc kill Martinez, thus allowing Sanchez
the opportunity to escape.  The
conviction in the case for frustrated murder should therefore be and is hereby
reduced to only slight physical injuries, punishable only with arresto menor.

In the case of Efe, who has not appealed, it is noted that he
died on November 5, 1983, before the promulgation of the decision convicting
him with Taruc on March 9, 1984.^[25]
Hence, that part of the challenged decision holding him guilty as charged and
imposing penalties and damages upon him must be set aside as null and void ab
initio.^[26]
The applicable rule is Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code providing that
criminal liability is totally extinguished:

“1. By the
death of the convict as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.”

Whoever Luis Martinez was, he did not deserve the way he
died.  The circumstances under which the
crimes were committed in this case raise many disturbing questions about the
warped minds in our society that have marred our pride in the amiable and
gentle nature of the Filipino as celebrated in our songs and folklore.  It is a pity that the acts of a few deviants
like the accused-appellant should reflect upon the good people of Tondo, who
constitute the majority of its inhabitants. 
Despite the dehumanizing conditions in which many of them live, they
continue to be law-abiding and God-fearing citizens who pursue honest and
useful occupations and in their humble way do credit to their community and the
nation.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(1)  
In Criminal Case No. 61218, the
conviction of the accused-appellant for murder is AFFIRMED.  His penalty is retained at reclusion perpetua
as so is the award of damages except as to the civil indemnity, which is
increased to P30,000.00.

(2)  
In Criminal Case No. 61219, the
conviction of the accused-appellant for frustrated murder is REVERSED and he is
convicted instead of slight physical injuries, with the reduced penalty of arresto
menor.

(3)  
The portion of the challenged
decision convicting Antonio Efe, Jr. of murder and frustrated murder and
imposing upon him criminal and civil liabilities is hereby SET ASIDE, said
liabilities having been extinguished by his death before final judgment.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, p. 60.

^[2]
TSN, July 10, 1981, pp.
4-28; TSN, August 20, 1981,
pp. 18-19; TSN, August 22, 1981,
p. 105.

^[3]
TSN,   September 16, 1981, pp. 34-39; Ibid, pp.
41-43.

^[4]
TSN, December 16, 1981,
pp. 19-29.

^[5]
TSN, September 2, 1981, pp.
25-28.

^[6]  TSN, December
3, 1981, pp. 24-30.

^[7]
TSN, October 21, 1981, pp.
15-18.

^[8]  TSN, May
5, 1982, pp. 47-51.

^[9]   TSN, March 19, 1982, pp. 6-13; TSN, February 26, 1982, pp. 8-12.

^[10]
TSN, March 19, 1982 pp.
6-12.

^[11]
TSN, April 5, 1982, pp.
13-14.

^[12]
TSN, July 23, 1982, pp.
9-10.

^[13]
TSN,  February 16, 1982; pp. 37-41; TSN, February 25, 1982, pp. 26-28.

^[14]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-2, Rollo, p. 68.

^[15]  Appellant’s Brief, pp. 13-20, Rollo,
p. 68.

^[16]
Ibid.

^[17]
TSN, May 11, 1982, pp.
33-35; TSN, July 23, 1982,
p. 18.

^[18]
Appellant’s Brief, pp.  49-50; TSN, October 11, 1981, p. 14.

^[19]
John Glaister & Edgar Rentoul, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 12th
Ed., pp. 113, 173; Douglas J.A. Kerr, Forensic Medicine, 5th Ed., p. 59;
Gonzalez, Vance, Helpern and Umberger, Legal Medicine, Pathology and
Toxicology, 2nd Ed., p. 56.

^[20]
TSN, September 15, 1981, pp. 36-37.

^[21]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 51-53, Rollo, p. 68.

^[22]
TSN, July 23, 1982, p. 4.

^[23]
G.R. Nos. L-38968-70, promulgated on February 9, 1989.

^[24]
TSN, December 16, 1981, pp. 19-29.

^[25]
Original Records, pp. 271-273.

^[26]
People v. Jose, L-28397, June 17, 1976; People v. Sendaydiego, 81
SCRA 120; People v. Tirol, 102 SCRA 558.