PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BALMUDE LIZA AND WILDE LIZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Liza

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Balmude Liza and Wilde Liza for the killing of Felipe Paniza and the serious wounding of his brother Prudencio Paniza, committed in conspiracy with three companions who remained at large. The trial court convicted both accused of murder and frustrated murder, and they came to the Supreme Court insisting that they were elsewhere when the crimes were committed. The case matters for the bar candidate because it is a compact illustration of three things examiners love to test together: the weight of alibi against positive identification, the doctrine that in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, and the nature of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

Procedural History

After investigation, separate informations for murder and for frustrated murder were filed against Balmude Liza and Wilde Liza, allegedly in conspiracy with Rodolfo Liza, Ricardo Castor, and a certain John Doe, all of whom were still at large. The two charges were tried jointly before the Regional Trial Court of Passi, Iloilo, presided over by Judge Edgar D. Gustillo. After trial, the court rendered judgment finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and of frustrated murder. It sentenced them to reclusion perpetua for murder and to an indeterminate prison term for frustrated murder, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of Felipe Paniza, to reimburse Prudencio Paniza for hospital expenses, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, faulting the trial court for giving credence to the prosecution evidence and for disregarding their defense of alibi.

Facts

On the evening of March 17, 1975, Juanito Somblingo was in his house in Passi, Iloilo, discussing with several others the planting of sugar cane they intended to do the next morning. At about nine o'clock, a group of persons barged into the house and a shot rang out. Felipe Paniza fell mortally wounded. Prudencio Paniza, seeing his brother shot down, ran out to flee but was met by one of the intruders, Balmude Liza, who blocked him and shot him point-blank with a shotgun. Somblingo hid and escaped injury. The attackers left as abruptly as they had arrived. Somblingo reported the matter to the barangay captain and secured a truck to bring the victims to the hospital. Felipe died on the way; Prudencio survived and later became the principal witness for the prosecution.

The medical evidence was uncontroverted. The autopsy showed that Felipe sustained five gunshot wounds, two of them fatal. Prudencio suffered multiple gunshot wounds in the chest, shoulder, and back; the injuries were not very serious, but he could have died of infection without medical attention. In the hospital, Prudencio was asked by Patrolman Roberto Jino-o who his assailants were, and he named Rodolfo Liza, Balmude Liza, Wilde Liza, and Ricardo Castor. In court, Prudencio identified Balmude as the one who shot him, saying they met face to face and the house was lit with several gas lamps, and that he knew Balmude from having often seen him in the grazing lands. Somblingo corroborated him and was positive about seeing Balmude, though he did not actually see Wilde on the night in question.

Both accused relied on alibi. Balmude's wife and two companions testified that he slept in his father's house that night, but none of them mentioned the significant fact that Balmude was arrested there by the Passi police at about midnight, a fact Balmude himself admitted, thereby contradicting his own witnesses. Wilde claimed he spent the day and night helping build a stage for his school's graduation, finishing at about midnight. The Court noted that these alibi witnesses testified as late as seven years after the crimes, at the request of the accused made only shortly before they appeared in court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of Prudencio Paniza and Juanito Somblingo and in disregarding the defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the accused-appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes such that the act of one is the act of all.
• Whether or not the crimes were attended by treachery, and whether superiority, nocturnity, and evident premeditation should be appreciated.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed for frustrated murder was correct.

Applicable Provisions

Article 14, Section 16, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, on treachery, provides:

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.

This is the provision the Court applied in qualifying the killings as murder, finding that the sudden armed attack by a band of persons insured execution of the plan without risk to the assailants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the trial court. The medical evidence was uncontroverted, and the identification of Balmude by Prudencio, who met his assailant face to face in a house lit by gas lamps, was positive and reliable. Somblingo's testimony was more credible than that of the defense witnesses because he was at the scene, and his sworn statement was made only four days after the incident, when his recollection was fresh. The alibi of both accused collapsed: Balmude's own witnesses contradicted him on his arrest, and Wilde's account of a stage built by ten men in fifteen hours was inherently improbable. The Court held that motive is not essential for conviction where the assailants are positively identified.

On the second issue, the Court found a conspiracy. The unexplained presence of all five men in Somblingo's house at the same time was too coincidental to be innocent; there was an evident concert of design and action. Although neither accused killed Felipe, they and their companions were each a co-conspirator, and the shooting of Prudencio, though committed only by Balmude, was imputable to all, for in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crimes were qualified by treachery, the attack being made by a band of persons using firearms, deliberately, suddenly, and without warning. Treachery absorbs superiority and nocturnity and so should not be separately considered, and evident premeditation was not sufficiently established.

On the fourth issue, the Court corrected the trial judge and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposed for frustrated murder a minimum of four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional and a maximum of eight years and one day of prision mayor. The penalty for murder remained reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and all civil awards were sustained.

Doctrine

First, alibi is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification by a witness who was at the scene and who knew the accused. Second, when a conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is the act of all, and each is equally answerable for the consequences of the crime. Third, treachery qualifies a killing as murder where the attack is made by a band of persons using firearms, deliberately, suddenly, and without warning, and it absorbs superiority and nocturnity. Fourth, motive is not essential to conviction where the accused are positively identified.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court convicting both accused, modifying only the penalty for frustrated murder, with costs against the accused-appellants.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all, so a co-conspirator who did not fire the fatal shot is equally guilty of murder. Examiners use this case to test alibi against positive identification and to test treachery as a qualifying circumstance that absorbs superiority and nocturnity.