Supreme Court decisions

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Supreme Court decisions
Language: English
Year: 1963
Subject: Judgments (Law); Courts.; Philippines -- Law and legislation.
Rights
Fulltext: SUPREME COURT DECISIONS Ludo Libames, petitioner vs. The Hon. Executive Secretary, et al., respondents, G.R. No. 1.-21505, Oct. 24, 1963, Concepcloll, J.: 1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION; CHIEF OF POLICE OF ZAMBOANGA CITY; CANNOT BE REMOVED OR SUSPEND~D EXCEPT FOR CAUSE.-lt is conceded that the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City ls a member of our clvU service system <Section 5, Republic Act No. 2260). Hence, he cannot be "removed or suspended except .for cause as provided by law and after due process" (Sec. 33, Republic Act No. 2260). 2. i:o.; ID.; CASE COMPARED WITH CASES OF LACSON V3. ROMERO AND DE LOS SANTOS VS. MALLARE.-It can· not be denied that the attempt to terminate the services of pltintiff herein, as de jure ·holder of the office of Chi et of Police of Zamboanga City, entailed his removal therefrom. even more than the attempt to transfer the provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental and the City Engineer of Baguio City without their consent was held in Lacson Ys. Romero (47 Oft. Gaz. 17781 and De las Santos vs. Mallare <87 Phil. 289J to constitute Illegal removal from their respective of. flees. 3. ID.; ID. ; PO\VER OF PRESIDENT TO REMOVE CHIEF OF POLICE OF ZAMBOANGA CITY AT PLEA.SURE UNDER Sl':C. 34, COMMONWEALTH ACT 39 ELIMINATED BY SEC. 5, REP. ACT 2259.-Detendants argue that the pro· vision of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 ts inapplicSETTLEMENT . . . (Continued from page 364) perlence to show that this is not necessarily so. We have had a number of past instances of fact finding with recommenda. tions fanning the basis of settlement,10 There is a clear distlnction to be made. The wage settlement proposed with regularlty by a government agency is ~ far greater intrusion by the government than is the recommendation of an ad hoc factfindmg ~(d or_ board of arbitration which has been chosen to bring about settlement of one particular dispute. Insofar as the independent board c~n approximate the settlement that the parties themselves would hQve reached if the strike had been allowed to run its course, the settlement has no more effect upon the economy than would the settlement of the parties themselves. Of cOursc, just what the settlement of the parties would have been can never be known exactly. But there is enough experience with collective bargaining settlements and voluntary arbitro.tions of wage di~putes to know that, given the facts, the economic pattern .which should be followed can be ascertained. n Collective Bargaining b Absolute Requisite The key to the resoluticn of the emergency dispute problem is therefore revealed. 1he matter of pressure in settlements ~note 41, supra for citations to the fact-finding-withrecommendations experience ~inder the R~llway Labor Act. In the 1949 steel pension dispuh:, President Truman bypassed the Taft-Hartley provisions and appointed a fact-finding board empowered to recommend. The dispute was settled in close COl!lpliance with the recommendations. The- Board report is printed in 13 L.A. (BNA) 46 (1949). A recent example of the fact-finding board empowered to recommend ter.riis is the Missile Sites Labor Commission, see note 44, supra. 71. There is extensive literature on wage patterns. E.g., BERNSTEIN, ARBITRATION OF WAGES (1954); NEW CONCEPTS IN WAGE DETERMINATION (Taylor and Pierson, eds 1957). able to the case at bar because plaintiff herein has not been removed from office, his tenn of office having merely expired when the President terminated his services. Suf· fice it to say, that this attempt to terminate plaintiff's services was predicated upt>n said.Section 34 of Conunonwealtil · Act No. 39, pursuant to which the Executive may "remove at pleasure" the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, and that this is the reason why section 5 of Republic Act Nl>. 2289 speaks, also, of removal to indicate that it seeks to withdraw or eliminate precisely such power to "remove at pleasure" under Commonwealth Act No. 39, among other pertinent legislations. 4. ID.; JD.; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; REPEAL; WHEN MAY A SPECIAL LAW BE REPEALED OR AMENDED BY SUBSEQUENT GENERAL LAW.-The question whether or not a special law has been repealed or amended by one er more subsequent general 18.ws is dependent mainly upon the intent of Congress in enacting the latter. The discussions on the floor at Congress show beyond doubt that its members Intended to amend or repeal all provisions of speciaJ laws inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 2259, except those which are expressly excluded from the operation thereof. In fact, the explanatory note to Senate Bill No. 2, which, upon approval; became RepUblic Act No. 2259, specifically mentions Zamboanga City, among others that had been considered by the authors of (Continued next page) by governmental intervention through emergency-dispute processes will oat disrupt the role of collective bargaining so long as the settlements brought about follow collective bargaining patterns rather than establish them. The m£intalning and strengthening or effective collective bargaining then becomes the absolute requls1tc to the keeping of emergency procedures in narrow bounds. If the basic labor-cost decisions in the American economy are made by collective bargaining, we have little to fear from the occasional emergency settlement dictated by ad hoc governmental intervention. The dictated settlements can follow the pattern established by bz.rgaining. So it is that the newly awakened emphasis on improving collective bargaining is as significant a part of the solution to the emergency strike problem as are the techniques for dealing with such strikes Governmental intervention in emergency work stoppages need ·not bring ab()ut government2..l management of the economic bargains in our society 1f collective bargaining is strengthened to maintain its proper role in making these economic decisions. We must endeavor to reach this balanced approach. Realistically speaking, we cannot continue to hold o. false belief that the right to strike is unlimited. We cannot insist that all bargains must be made through the collective bargaining process. We can and must make every effort to hone the keen edge of collective bargaining so that it is an effective tool in all but the \'Cry ht.rde;;t or cases. But we must be courageous enough to handle the hardest cases another way. The alternative is facing the resolution of each crtsis &.fter the crisis occurs. Drastic measures which will destroy the process of collective bargaining seem the inevitable outgrowth o( such a passive approach when the spectrum of the kinds of cri. si~ which cr.n arise is viewed. Advance preparation for emergencies by creating the structures to meet them is needed to preserve our economic freedom. Freedom does not flourish in chaos, but in enlightened order. Dec'eniber 31, 1963 LA WYERS JOURNAL; Page 365 the bill in drafting the same. Similarly, Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2259 makes reference to "all chartered cities in the Philippines", whereas Section 8 excludes fi'om the operation of the Act "the cities of Manila, Cavlte, Trece Martires and Tagaytay," and Section 4 contains a proviso exclusively for the City of Baguio, thus showing clearly that all cities not particularly excepted from the provisions of said Act - including, therefore, -the C'ily of Zamboangaare subject thereto. 5. ID.; ID.; RULING IN CASE OF FERNANDEZ VS. LEDES· MA NOT IN POINT.-The case of Fernandez vs. Ledesma, L-18878 IMarch 30, 1963J, relied upon by the defendants herein, is not in point, the termination of the services of the officer involved ·in the Fernandez case having takt'n place on April 28, 1959, or prior to the approval of Republic Act No. 2259, on June 19, 1959, whereas plaintiff herein was advised of the attempt to terminate his services on May 23, 1963, or almost four C4l yea.rs after said legislation had become effective. 6. CON&Tl'IUTIONAL LAW; BILL; SUBJECT SHOULD BE EMBRACED IN TITLE OF A BILL; PURPOSE OF; EX· CEPTION.-It is contended that the provision tti Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259, to the effect that "all ·other of. ficials now appointed by the President of the Phil1ppines may not ·be removed from office except for cause" is a rJder violative of the constitutional inju.nction that "no bill which may be enacted' into law shall embrace more than·- one subject which shall be expressed In the title of the bill", that cf Republlc Act No. 2259, being: "AN ACT MAKING ELEC'l'IVE THE OFFICES-OF MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND COUN· CILORS IN CHARTERED CITIES, REGULATING THE ELECTION IN SUCH CITIES AND FIXING THE SALARIES AND TENURE OF SUCH OFFICES".-It is claimed th~t the contl!nts of Seelion 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 are alien to the subject of this title and that consequently said provision :is uncOnstitutional. 'l'his pretense is untenable. As stated in the explanatory note to the aforementioned .Senate Bill No. 2, the purpose thereof is to establish "uniformity in the number of city officials, in the manner ln which they are to be cha.sen, in the extent of their powers, duties and functions", as well as "equality in the rights and privileges enjoyed by the residents of said cities, particularly the right to choose the officials who should be at the helm of their respective city governments". Obviously, the matter of the conditions under which local officials appointed by the President may be remcved from cffice ncl; c:nly is iermane to such purpose, but, also, forms an essential part therenf. "One purpose Of the constitutional directive that the subject of a blll should be embraced in its title is to appraise the legislators Of the purpose, the nature and scope of its provisions, and prevent the enactment into law of mat· ters which have not received the notice, action and study of the legislators or of the public." Cinchong vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L..7995, May 31, 1957). In the case at bc.r, the provisions of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 was debated upon o.n the floor of Congress, whose .members were actually aware of its existence. DECISION This is an original petition for quo warranto and injunction, with preliminary injunction and/or mandatory injunction. Plaintiff Lucio Libames was, on January 29, 1959 nominated by the President of the Philippines for the office of Chief ot Police of Zamboanga City. The nomlnatl.On having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on February 25, 1959, Libames asswned the aforementioned office 'on March 11, 1959, and continued discharging the duties of said office ev~r since. pn May 16, 1963, the new Executive designated defendant Miguel Apostol as Acting Chief of Police of Zamboanga. City. On May 18, 1963, Apostol took his oath of office as such acting chief of police before the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in Manila, and soon thereafter, or on May 23, 1963, defendant Tomas Ferrer, as City Mayor of Zamboanga, transmitted to Llbarnes a letter of the Acting Assistant Executive Secretary, Office o! the President, Malacaiian, dated May 16, 1963, informing him ILlbarnesl that "under the provisions of Section 34 of the Charter of Zamboanga City, as amended, the President" had terminated his "services as Chief of Police of said City effective immediately and x x x designated Major Miguel Apostol" in his stead and stating that tt would "be appreciated if" he ILibamesl _could "turn o.ver the office in question to Major Apostol upon receipt" of said communications. Mayor Ferrer, furthermore, requested Libarnes to turn over his "property responsibility" with the property custodian of the police department. In a memorandum of the same date CMay 23, 19631 Mayor Ferrer, likewise, informed all members of the police force of Zamboang.a. City of the appointment of Ap0&tol and oath taken by him as acting head of said force, and requested therri to "te.ke orders from the new Chief of Police." However, Libarnes refused to turn over his office to Apostolwho tried to take possession thereof-as well as his ILibame.s') ,property responsibility, and, soon thereafter, or, on July 5, 196:-1, he (Llbarnes) initiated the present action for the purpose of nullifying the. aforementioned designation of Apostol as Acting Chief of Police of Zamboanga City and of restraining him, as well as its mayor, the Executive Secretary and their subordin· ates, assistants or persons acting under them, or for or in their behalf, from molesting Libarnes in the possession of the office in question or in the exercise and enjoyment of the functions and prerogatives thereof. Pbttntlff's. complaint is anchored upon the theory that, under the provisions of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 and of the Civil Service Law (Republic ' Act No. ·2260), he is entitled to hold said office until removed for cause, which ts not claimed to exist in his case, and "after due proce~". which, he asserts, has been denied him. Upon the other hand, defendants maintain that the dis· puted designation of defendant Apostol is perfectly valid because, as Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, plaintiff held said office at the pleasure of the President, pursuant to Section 34 cf .the Charter of said City, or Commonwealth Act No. 3B, reading: "Appointment and removal of officials and employees - Compemation.-The President shall appoint, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly, the Judges of the Municipal Court, the city treasurer, the city engineer, the city assessor, the city attorney, the chief of police and the other heads of the city departments as may be created from time to time, and he may removed at pleasure any of the said appointive officials, except the judges of the Municipal Court, who may be removed only according to law.'' and that this provision has not been amended l:y said Republic Acts Nos. 2259 and 2260. Defendants' contention cannot be upheld, for said Section 34 of Commonwealth Act No. 39 ls inconsistent with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259, which provides: "The incumbent appointive City Mayors, Vice-Mayors and Councilors, unless sooner removed or suspended for cause, shall continue in office until their successors Shall have been elected in the next general elections for local officials and shall have qualified. Incumbent appointiv~ Page 366 LA WYERS JOURNAL December 31, 1961 city .. secretaries shall, unless sooner removed ·or suspended for cause, continue in office until as elective city council or municipal board shall have been elected and qualified; thereafter the city secretary shall be elected lby majority vote of the elective city council or m'llJlicipal board. All other city officials now appointed by the President of the Philippines may not be removed from office except for cause." and Section 9 of said Republic Act No. 2259 expressly repeals "all acts or parts of acts x x x inconsistent with the provisions" the constitutional injunction that "no bill which may be enacted into law Shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill", that of Republic Act No. 2259, being: "AN ACT MAKING ELECTIVE THE OFFICES OF MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND COUNCILORS IN CHARTERED CITIES, REGULATING THE ELECTION IN SUCH CITIES AND FIXING THE SALARIES AND TENURE OF SUCH OFFICES." thereof. It is ch:.imed that lhe contents of the aforementioned proIt is conceded that the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City vision are alien to the subject of this title and that con.seis a member of our civil service system <Section 5, Republic quently said provision is unconstitutional. This pretense js Act No. 2260). Hence, he cannot be "removed or suspended ex- untenable. As stated in the exph~.natory note to. the aforemencept for cause, as provided by law and after due process•' <See- tioned Senate Bill No. 2. the purpose thereof is to establish ~to~;:t ~e~~:~~: ~:· s!!:':~~s ~~ ~~:n~:ffb~e~=~~~~st~~t J~~= "uniformity In the number of city officials, In the manner in holder of said office, entailed his removal therefrom, even more which they are to be chosen, in the extent of their powers, duthan the attempt to transfer the provincial fiscal of -Negros ties and functions", as well as "equality in the rights and priOrlental and the City Engineer of Baguio without their consent vileges enjoyed by the residents of said cities, particularly the was held in Lacson vS. Romero (47 Off. Gaz., 1778> and De los right to choose th.e officials :who should be at the helm of Santos vs. Mallare (87 Phil. 289> to constitute an illegal re· their respective city governments". Obviously, the matter of moval from their respective offices. t.he conditions under wl)ich local officials appointed by the Pre. Defendants argue that the above quoted provision in Sec- sident may be removed from office not only ls germane :.n tion 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 Is inapplicable to the case at .such purpose, but, also, forms an essential part thereof. bar because plaintiff herein has not been removed from office, his term of of!iee having merely expired when the :Pre&- · Furthermore, as stated in Inehoug vs. Fernandez, G. R. Nr>. dent terminated his services. Suffice it to say that this at- L1995 <May 31, 1957): tempt to terminate plaintiff's services was predicated. upon satd Section 34 of CommOnwealth Act No. 39, pursuant to which the Executive may "remGve at pleasure" the Chief of Police ·of Zamboanga City, and that this is the reason why Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 speaks, also, of removal to indicate that it seeks to withdraw or eliminate preelsely such power to "remove to pleasure" under Commonwealth Act No. 39, among other pertinent legislations. Again, the question whether or not a special law has been repealed or amended by one or more subsequent general laws is dependent mainly upon the intent of Congress in enacting the latter. The discussions on the floor of Congress show beyond .doubt that its members Intended to amend or repeal all provisions of special laws inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 2259, except those which are ex.. pressly excluded from the operation thereof. In fact, the explanatory note to Senate Bill No. 2, which, -upon, approval, became Republic Act No. 2259, specifically mentions Zamboanga City,. among others that ·had been considered by the authors of the bill in drafting the same. Similarly, Section 1 of Republic Act No. 2259 makes reference to "all chartered cities In the Phlllppines," whereas Section 8 excludes from the operation of the Act "the cities oj Mantia, Cavlte, Trece Marttres and Tngaytay," and Section 4 contains a proviso exclusively for the City of Baguio, thus showing clearly that all cities not parti· cularly excepted from the provisions of said Act-including, therefore, the City of Zamboanga-are subject thereto. The ease of Fernandez vs. Ledesma, L18878 <March 3U, 19631, relied upon by the defendant herein, is not in point, the termlnatlon of· the services of the officer involved in the Fernandez case having taken place on April 28, 1959, or prior to the approval of Republic Act No. 2259, on June 19, 195?, whereas plaintiff herein was advised of the attempt to terminate his services on May 23, 1963, or almost four (4) years after said legislation had ·become effective. lt is next urged, however, that the provision in Section S of Republic Act No. 2259, to the effect that "all other officials now appolnted:by the· P-resident of· the· Philippines. may not be reinOved from office except for cause" 1.s a rider violative of "One purpose of the constitutional directive that tlte subject of a blll should be embraced In its title is to ap. prise the legislators of the purpose, the nature and scope of its provisions, and prevent the enactment into .law 'lf its matters which have not received the notice, action and study of the legislators or of the publle. In the case at bar It cannot be claimed that the legislators have not been • apprised of the nature of th~ law, especially the nationalization and prohibition provisions. The legislators took active interest in the discussion of the law x x x." In the ease at bar, the provision i~ question was, similarly, debated upon on the floor of Congress, whose members were, therefore, actually aware of its existence. WHEREFORE, we hold that said provision in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 2259 is constitutional and valid; that as Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, plaintiff Libames is entitled to the benefits of the aforementioned provision; and that, pursuant thereto and to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 2260, he no longer holds the office at the pleasure of the Executivf?, and may be removed therefrom only "for cause as provided by law and after due process," and, accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that plaJntlff Lucio c. Libarnes is still the de jure Chief of Police of Zamboanga City, and that. as such, he is entitied to continue holding said office and discharging the powers and duties thereof, and, consequently, enjoining the defendants herein, as wen as their subordinate> or persons acting in their behalf, to refrain from molesting tho:? plaintiff, er ctherwise interfering In the possession· of said office, and in the discharge of the powers and duties attachP.d thereto, with costs against said defendants. IT IS: SO ORDERED. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Ang~lo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Reg~Ia. and Makallntal, J J ., concurred. December 31, 1963 LA WYERS JOURNAL Page 367 II People of the Philippines, plaintlff.appellee vs. Pascual Curlano, et al., def.endants..appellants, · G.R. Nos. L-151!56 and L-15257, October 31, 1963, Barrera, J.: 1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; NEW TRIAL; RETRACTIONS OF WITNESSES; WHEN NOT GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL. -Evidence which merely seeks to impeach the evidence upon which the conviction was based (U.S. v. Smith, 8 Phil. 674; U.S. v. Valdez, 30 Phil. 290; U.S. v. Lee, 38 Phil. 466; U.S. v. Singuimolo, 3 Phil. 176), or retraction of witnesses (People v. Olfindo, 47 Phil. l; U.S. v. Dacir, 26 Phil. 503; People v. Follantes, 64 Phil. 527), will not constitute grounds for new trial, unless it is shown that there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction except the testimony of the retracting witness (U.S. v. Dacir, supra; People v. Gallemos, 61 Phil. 884; People v. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phtl. 906·. 2. ID.; ID. ID.; ID.; REASON FOR THE RULE.-The reason for this rule is that if new trial should be granted at. every instance where ~ interested party succeeds in inducini: some of the witnesses to vary their testimony out.side ('If court after trial, there would be no end to every litigation 1Reyes v. People, 71 Phil. 598). 3. ID.; ID.; AFFIDAVIT OF A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME EXECUTED SUBSEQUENT TO CONVICTION; WHEN NOT GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL-It has been held that an affidavit, which a person convicted of a crime· (as in the instant case l executed subsequent to his conviction, to the effect that, another person, also convicted of crimi· nal participation in the same offense, did not actu.o.Uy take part therein, furnishes no ground for a new trial (U.S. v. Smith, 8 Phil. 674). 4. ID.; ID.; WITNESSES; RETRACTIONS; WHEN PRE.SEN· TATION THEREOF NOT GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL.It is unnecessary to grant a new trial when there is .no assurance that the witness to be introduced could not have been presente'1 at the original hearing; and his testimony will not materially Improve defendant's position (Peopl~ v. Torres, 73 Phil. 107J. 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTIMONIES TAKEN BEFORE COURTS OF JUSTICE; DANGEROUS RULE TO REJECT THEM UPON RETRACTIONS OF ~ES.-In People v. Ublna (G. R. No. L6969, prom. August 31, 1955), it was held that "It would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonle.c; solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on change their mind for one reason or another, for such a rule would make so· lemn trials a mockery and place the lm:estigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses." 6. ID.; ID.; AFFIDAVITS OF RETRACTIONS OF WITNESSES; PREPARED FOR MONEY CONSIDERATION; NOT GROUND FOR NEW TRIAL-The Supreme Court has consistently refused to entertain motions for new trial based on impro· babllity of the alleged new versions of the com.mission of the crime, and the easiness and faclltty with which sucil affidavits are obtained (People v. Monadi, G.R. Nos. L-377071, pro. September 27, 1955 ;People v. Agulpo, G. R. N1. L12655, prom. June 30, 1960), and the probabtlity of their being repudiated later <People v. Galamlton, G. R. No. l-6302, prom. August 25, 1954). It is likewise not improbable that such schemes are conceived and carried out f{)r a consideration, usually monetary (People v. Francisco, G.R. No. L5900, prom. May 14, 1954). There is, therefore, no reason for acceding to appellants' motion for new trial. 7. ID.; CRIMINAL EVIDENCE; ALIBI:; REQUISITE FOR AD· MISSIBil.ITY AS EVIDENCE.-In the long line Of ca.sel:i, it had been held that in order to establish an alibi, a defendant must not only show that he wa.s present at some other place about the time of the alleged crime, but also that he was at such other place for so long .a time ~hat it was impossible for him to have been at the place whe1~ the crime was committed, either before or after the time he was at such other place. <People v. Alban, G. R. No. L15203, prom. March 29, 1961, citing People v. Oxlles, 20 Phil 587; People v. Pala.mos, 49 Phil. 601; People v. Resabal, 50 Phil. 80; People v. Nlem, 75 Phil. 668.) 8. ID.; ID., WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT NOT DIS1'URBED BY APPELLATE COURTS; EXCEPTION&.-Where the appeal merely Involves the credibility of the various witnesses, the rule is well..est&blished that appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court, as the latter ls in a belter position to decide the question, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testify. ing during the trial, except when it is shown that the trial court has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case <People vs. Alban, G. R. No. L15203, March 29, 1961, citing People vs. Berganio, G.R. No. L-10121, prom. January 22, 1957J. The trial court In the case at bar has made a complete and through anz.lysis of the various testemontes which we found to be properly and well-supported by the evidence adduced. 9. ID.: ID.; ALIBI: WHEN ALIBI IS OVERCOME BY IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY AN EYEWITNESS.The alibi of the appellants eannot overcome the testimony of a wtness and eyewitness to the bloody incident who testified in a clear, credible, straightforward, and convincing manner and who positively lndentified appellants as· the" Perpetrators of. the crimes ID. question. 10. CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; SUDDEN AND UN-EXPECTED ATTACK OF VIC· . TIMS.-There was treachery, which qualified the kllllng of· the four victims, to murder, as the attack was so sudden &.nd unexpected, thereby insuring the accomplishment of the crimes, without risk to appellants arising from the d~ fense which they (victims) might have Offered (People v. Alban, supra, citing People v. Godines Martinez, G.R. No. L-12268, prom. November 28, 1959; People v. Ambahang, G. R. No. L12907, prom. May 30, 1960). 11. ID.; ID.; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTII; ACCUSED ALL ARMED WITH DEADLY WEAPONS AND SUPERIOR IN NUMBERS.-Abuse of superior strength was also attendant, it appearing that appellants, aside from being all armed with deadly weapons, were decidedly superior in number(8 in all] In relation to the number of the assaulted parties [only 3 and a boy of 2 years] (U.S. v. Tandoc, 40 Phil. 954; People v. Caroz, 68 Phll. 521). 12. ID.; ID.; KILLING IN. DWELLING OF VICTIMS.-The circumstance of dwelling may, further, be considered as to the kUling of Daniel Err.o.bo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo, as It occurred Jn their dwelling place (the hut> or on the ground thereof cU.s. v. Macarliilas, 40 Phil. 1>. 13. ID.; ID.; NIGHTTIME ABSORBED IN TREACHERY.-Thc aggravating circumstance of nightUme, although present, may not lbe taken into account, inasmuch as It ts absorbed in treachery <People v. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 675). 14. ID.; ID.; CRUELTY; NUMBER OF WOUNDS FOUND UPON CORPSE; WHEN CONSIDERED AS AGGRAVATING CIR· C1.JMSTANCE OF CRUELTY.-Neither may the clrcumstance of cruelty as found by the tria,l cow;t be co~ered, be~age 36,B LAWYERS JOURNAL December 31, 1963 cause there ts no showing that the other wounda. found oO the bodies of the victlm.s were inflicted unnece$8.rily ·While they were stlll alive in order to prolong their physical suffering. The number of wounds found upon the corpse does not, by itself alone, justify the acceptance of the cir· cumstar::e of cruelty, It being necessary to show that the accused deliberately and inhumanly Increased the suffering., of the victims (People v. Aguinaldo, 55 Phil. 610; See also People v. Dayug, 49 Phll. 423; People v. Daqulfi.a, 60 Phil. 279). 15. ID.; ID.; LACK OF PROVOCATION; NOT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE ENUMERATED BY THE REVISED PE· NAL CODE.-The circumstance of lack of provocation wa-1: incorrectly considered by the trial court as aggravating in the killing of the Errabos; the same is not one of the ag. gravating circumstances enumerated in the Revised Penal .Code. DECISION Pascual Curano alias Pap_ing, Candido Violante, Fra0ncisco Tafalla, Marcelo Tafalla, Santos Tafalla, Herminiglldo Tafalla, Olimplo Tafalla, and Pamfllo Balasbas, were charged in the court of First Instance of Samar with the crimes of murder ("Crim. Case No. 4535),t for the killing of Rafael Yboa and multiple murder (Crim. Case No. 4565)2 for the killlng of Daniel Er'rabo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo. On arraignment, they pleaded not guilty and, upon motion of the Provtnclu.I Fiscal consented to by defense cbunsel, the cases were joihtly tried in said court. After trial, defendants were found guilty of the crhnes of murder and multiple murder as charged and, ' considering the presenCe of four <4> aggravating circumstances in the murder case and five 15) aggravating circumstances .i.n the triple murder case, without any mitigating circumstance in either of the .two cases, were sentenced each to the maximum penalty of death, with the accessory penalties inherent In said crimes, and to pay Indemnity (jointly and severally> in th'": sum of PS,000.00 to the heirs of Rafael Yboa., !'5,000.00 to tht! heirs of Daniel Errabo, PS,000.00 to the heirs of Engracia Sa· lazar, and PS,000.0Q to the heirs of Marlo Errabo, and to p::i.y the corresponding costs. Both cases are now before us for review, in accordance with Section 9, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Pending appeal in this Court, counsel for appellants sub· mltted a motion for new trial, based on newly-discovered evidence, consisting of the aftldavit.s of UJ appellant Hermini· gildo Tafalla, to the etfect that only he and three others who are still at large, namely, Sebastian Layo, Rodolfo Catalan, and Jose Catalan, were the real authors of the murder [An· ne:>res A and A-17; Remedios Rojas, Hermlnlglldo's common-law wife, corroborating to a substantial degree said aftldavit of ·appellant Hermtniglldo Tafalla [Annexes B and S..17; (3) An· dres Caber, to the ef'fect that said Rodolfo Catalan told him and several others that only he [Rodolfo], his brother Jose Catalan, Sebastian Layo, and appellant Hermenlglldo Tafalla committed the murders [Annexes C and Cl]; <4> Comella Chan, wife of accused Francisco Tata.Ila, to the same effect substantially as the affidavit of Andres Cc;.ber [Annexes D and D-1]; \5> Floro Opinlano, relating how his coUBlns Jose and Rodolfo Catalan came to h1in in Ormoc City looking for jobs, and how seeing them restles.s, asked Rodolfo what the ma.tter was, and the latter confided that he and Hermenegildo Tafalla participated in the killing of Rafael Yboa [Annex E); and (6) appellant Santos Tafalla, to the effect that it was not true, as he was wrongfully advised to sta.te In court, that he saw th:it Oltmpto, Lucilo and Hermenlglldo Ta.falla sailing in a banca towards the scene of the crime [Annexes F and F-1). Action IG.R. No. L-15256. •G.R. No. L-15257. on said motion for new trial was deferred by resolµtion of this Court on July 13, 1959. These affidavits, we now flnd, are without merit. Appellant Henninigildo Te.fa.Ila's affidavit ts, evidently, a last-minute attempt to save the lives of his co-appellants, most important of whom are his brothers Francisco, Olimplo, and Lucllo Tafa.lla, who with him have been sentenced to death for the com.mission of the gruesome crimes at bar. Likewise, since the crimes could not have been committed by only one person as observed by the trial court, it has been deemed expedient to implicate the Catalan brothei-s (Jose and Rodolfo) who, anyway, could not be apprehended since their whereabouts are unknown. Appellant Hermlnlglldo Ta.fa.Ila, also, had to implicate Sebastian Layo, who according to witness Sgt. Prlmltlvo Gonzales, has been of so much help in the solution of the cases. It is to be noted that the conviction of the other 8.ppellants had not been based on appellant Hermlnlgtldo Tafalla's testimony, since the latter had all along relted on an alibi. It ts, thert~ fore, now too late for him to present for the first time a different theory of the said cases. Besides, the story of the.;;e aftiants can not be considered as newly dJscovered evidence because it appears from the affidavits that as early as June, 1957, or only over a month alter the Incident, the admis&lon of the Catalans was already known to the wives of two of the accused, but nothing has been done to present the evidence to the court untll long after the conviction of the appellants. In facl the motion for new trial was only filed here In this Court. Evidence which merely seeks to impeach the evidence upon which the conviction was based (U.S. v. Smith, 9 Phil. 674; U.~. v. Valdez, 30 Phil. 290; U.S. v. Lee, 38 Phil. 466; U.S. v. Slngui· moto, 3 Phil. 176), or retractions of witnesses (People v. Olflndo, 17 Phil. l; U.S. v. Dacir, 26 Phil. 503; People v. Follantes, 64 Phil. 527), wlll not constitute grounds for new trial, unless It is shown that there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction except the testimony of the retracting witness) U.S. v. Daclr, supra; People v. Ga.Demos, 61 Phil 684; People v. Cu Unjieng, 61 Phil 906). The reason for this rule is that if new trial should •be granted at every Instance where an interestecl ' party succeeds In Inducing some of the witnesses to vary their testimony octside of court after trial, there would be no end to every litigation (Reyes v. People, 71 Phll. 598). It has been held that an affidavit, which a person convicted of a crime as in the instant case) executed subsequent to his conviction, to the effect that another person, also convicted of criminal participation in the same offense, did not actually take part therein, furnishes no ground for a new trial (U.S. v. Smith, 8 Phil. 674). And, it is unnecessary to grant a new trial when there is no assurance that the witness to be Introduced couid not have been presented at the original hearing; and hls te;o. timony will not materially improve defendant's position (Peo· ple v. Torres, 73 Phil. 107·) In People v. Farol <G. R. Noo. L·9424, prom. May 30, 1956), we declared: "x x x resort lo the use of affidavits of recantation x x x is becoming rather common. Appellate courts must therefore be wary of accepting such affidavits at their face value, always bearing in mind that the testimony which they purport to vary or contradict was taken in an open and free trlal In the court of justice and under conditions calculated to discourage and forestall falsehood, these conditions being as pointed out ill the case of U.S. v. Daclr (26 Phil. 507) that such testimony 'is given under the sanction of an oath and of the penalties prescribed for perjury; that the witness' story 1s told In the presence of an impartial judge 1n the course of a solemn trial 1D an open court; that the witness is subject to cross-exam1nation, with all the facilities afforded thereby to test the truth and accuracy of his statements and ~ develop his atti,lle<embor 31, 1963 LAWYERS JOURNAL .Page .. 369 tude of mind towards the parties, and his dlsposltion to as.slst . the ca.use of truth rather than to f·ur-ther some personal end; that· the prt>C"~i:Ungs ·are had oUnder the protectloa of the court and under such conditions as to re· move, so far as is humanly possible, all likelihood that undue or unfair influences will be exercised to induce the witness to testify falsely; and finally that under the watchful eye of a trained judge his manner, his general bearing and demeanor and even the Intention of his voice often unconsciously disclose the degree of credit to which he J.~ entitled as a witness. Unless there be special circumstances which, coupled with the retraction of the witness, real!y raise a doubt as to the truth of the testimony given by him at the trial and accepted by the trial judge, and only if such testimony Is essential to the judgment of convk· tion so much so that Its elimination would lead the ti-lal judge to a different conclusion, a new trial •based on such retraction would not be justified. Otherwise, there would never be all end to a criminal Utigatlon and the admlmstratlon of justice would be at the mercy of crlmlna~ and the unscrupulous. x x x.". In People v. Ublfia (G. R. No. L6969, prom. August 31, 19551, we said that "it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply tiecaUse the witnesses who had given them later on chilnge their mind for one reason or another, for such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of trutn at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses". We have consistently retused to entertain motions for new trial based on Im· probability of the alleged new versions of the commission of ·the crime, and the easiness and facility with whlCh such affi. davits are obtained <People v. Mona.di, G. R. Nos. L3770-71, prom. September 27, 1955; People v. Agulpo, G. R. No. L12655, prom. June 30, 19601, and the probabtllty of their being repu· diated later IPeople v. Galamitan, G. R. No. L6302, prom. August 25, 1954 J. It .ls llkewlse not improbable that suc~1 seh.emes are conceived and carried out for a consideration, usually monetary (People v. Francisco, G. R. No. L-5900, proin. May 14, 19541. There is, therefore, no reason for acceding to appellants' motion· for new trial. Coming now to the merits of the cases, according to the evidence for the prosecution, and as found by the trial court, in the early morning of April 30, 1957, Rafael Yboa (of Barrio Mercedes, Catbalogan, Sa mar I and his wife Juanita Yboa went to Sition Cagutsan, Bario Mahacob, Tarangan, Samar; where they have a big parcel of land. At said sltio, the only dwelling place was the little shabby hut, where their tenant Daniel Errabo lived with his wife Engracia Salazar and their two-year old son Marlo Errabo. Ra.fael Yboa and Juanita Yboa arrived at the hut at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning. Said hut, which was partly walled by roughly woven coconut leaves, measured 10 feet on the frontage, by aboi.it 6 feet wide, with d floor made of course bamboo splits 15 inches above the ground. lt had a very low roof made of nipa. It was erected near the still standing posts of a destroyed house of Rafael Yboa <Exh. NN). It was only 85 feet away from the shoreline. (Exh. MM). Rafael Yboa and his wife went to Sltio Cagutsan that day to verify the information given by Daniel Errabo that appellant herein Pascual Curiano had been cutting some trees for posts from Rafael Yboa·s· land in Sitio Talabon not far from Sltio Cagutsan, which property was the subject of a pending litigation between Rafael Yboa and appellant Pascual Curiano Rafael Yboa, his wife, and Daniel Errabo prOceeded to the land at Sitio Talabon where they found some trees already cut. But only the stumps were there; the trunks were already carried away. Having been told by Daniel Errabo that appellant Herminigildo Tafall<:. also cut some trees, they hastened Lo said appellant's house at Sitto Sogod, a place very near and ad· Joining Sltio Cagutsan. They found on the yard of appellant Herm1h1glldo Tafalla's house some split wood intended for firewood. Rarfael Yboa confronted said appellant, who angriJy retorted Saytng "These splits of wood· are not from youi-· 'tand but from our land." · ' From the house of appellant Hermlniglldo Tafalla: at Sitio Sogod, the trio proceeded to Barrio Mahacob, one· kilometer away, to report to the barrio lieutenant about the· c'utting of the trees. Rafael Yboa requested the latter to admbnish appellant Pascual Curia.no to stop cutting the trees in the;land whlle the litigation was pending. The time was about · 4:0:J o'clock in the afternoon. .Leaving Bardo Mahacob a.t · dusk, the trio proceeded to Sltio Cagut.san. Sitio Cagut.san is a short and narrow tongue of 18.nd extending northward to the sea. From the shore on the West where the hut was located to the opposite shore on the"'East, is a trail 138 regular paces long <Exh. MM>. The ·nearest· dwel!ing place to that hut ls another hut in the adjoining sitlo, With a distance of more than 100 meters, which Is covered bY' tan trees and thick shrubs growing wild. The way from the one place to the other is along the seashore. 5aid way is reached by the water during high tide. At arou·nd 8:000 o'clock in the evening of the same day CApril 30, 1957) while Rafael Yboa, Juanita Yboa, Daniel Errabo, and Engracia S3.laza.r were taking their supper inside the hut, appellants Francisco Tafalla, Pamfllo Balasbas, and Candido Violante, stealthlly approached the hut, snatched the basket which was by the door, and ran away with it. Daniel Er·rabo ran after them, but was not able to overtake theni. The basket contained some rice and tobacco and the eyeglaues of Rafael Yboa. At around 11 :00 o'clock that night, the inmates of the hut stopped conversing, put out the lights, and prepared ti> retire. Rafael Yboa was seated on the floor with his .back against the north wall of the hut (point 6 on Exh. G). Jua.nlta Yboa was also in that position on his left, while Daniei Errabo and Engracia Salazar were leaning against the other wai.l. OnlY the ltttle boy Mario Erra.bo was lying on the floor. Suddenly, Juanita Yboa observed light-beams from flashlights, and heard repressed voices from the nearby beach. After . calling the attention of her husband, she and Engracia peeped. tl;lreugh the holes or slits in the walls and observed the apprOa.Ching group of people, eight in number. As they came nearer they were flashing their flashlights and from these llght beams as well as the glow of the many lights from the several fishing boats along the beach, Juanita recognized the appellants who were all residents in the place, headed by accused Curia.no whowas bearing a firearm. As they got at a short distance from the hut, Curlano fired his gun, hitting Rafael Yboa who was then in a kneeling position reaching for matches in thee packets of his trousers perched on the wall. Appellants Candido Violante, Santos Tafalla, and Pamfllo Balasbas, stood behind appellant Pascual Curia.no. Rafael Yboa fell to the floor. .Juanita Yboa jumped out of the hut, ran a short distance and bid. Daniel Errabo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo, also jumped out of the hut, but appellants caught up with them. From her hiding place, Juanita Yboa heard Daniel Errabo and Engracia Zalazar crying aloud thus "Aroy, Paplng (referring to appellant Pascual Curiano>, please do not kill ·US because we have not committed any fault", and saw appellant Pascual Curia.no standing by with the butt of his rifle (Exh. 3) resting on the ground, while the latter's companions, including appellants Olimplo Tafalla and Herminigildo Tafalla <who earlier were left at the seashore, but by now had joined their companions>, hacked and stabbed to death with" their boloes Daniel Errabo, Engracia Salazar, and their two-year old. son Mario· Errabo behind the hut, near the tamarind ~e. Juanita Yboa Page 370 LAWYERS JOURNAL December 31, 1911~ then hea.rd appellant Pascual Curiano direCt1ng his companions to look.for c.nd kill her, whereupon, appellants Santos Tafalla; Ollmplo Tafalla, and Francisco Tafalla searched the vicinity with their flashlights, but failed to locate her. ··Moments later, Juanita Yboa saw appellants dragging the bodies o1 the victims to -the beach. Juanita Yboa thereafter crawled from her hid· ing place ·until she reached the opposite shore, following the shore Jine northward and, upon reaching the point, crossed t:o the islet called Moropuro <Exh. MM> and there hid about the cemetei-y until dawn. From that point of Sitto Cagutsan to the islet Moropuro is about 200 meters. The water waa shallow. From Moropuro, she retraced her steps to S1tio Cagutsan from where she hiked to Barrio Ma.hayag, went to the house of her Son Severino Yboa, and Informed him of the tragic incident. Juanita and S"everlno Yboa hurried to Catbalogan and lmmedi· ately reported the gory incident she had witnessed to the Phil· ;ppine Constabulary authorities. A Constabulary patrol was dispatched to S'ltio Cagutsan that same day (May 1, 19571 ~o investigate. Arriving at the scene of the crime, they made the sketch (Exh. G), found the slug IExh. I at point 7>, the empty shell (Exh. I·l at point SJ, blood stains, and the traces on the ground to the seashore, left b)' the bodies of the victims (Rafael Yboa, Dani et Errabo, Engracia. Salazar, and Marlo Errabo) as they were dragged by appellants to the beach (Exh. Gl. Three days after the killing, or on May 3, 1957, at around 12:00 o'clock noon, the bodies of the victims were found float).ng on the sea, about 290 brazas from Cagutsan beach. Rafael Yboa's neck was tied to a rope the other end of which weighted with stone. About 100 brazas from Rafael Yboa's body, were the bodies of Daniel Errabo, his wife Eniracla Salazar, and their two-year old son Marlo Errabo, joined together by a piece of rope tied around their stomachs and necks, while the other end was tied to four big stones. It appears that after the victims were killed and their bodies dragged to the beach, they were loaded on a banca, tied to heavy stone.S to constitute as sinkers, and cast into the sea away from the beach for the purpose of concealment. But the sinkers could not hold the bodies at the bottom of the sea after the process of putrefaction had started. For the formation of gas brought about by the decay of the bodies, caused them to swell, making them more buoyant. Hence, their coming to the surface and their recovery. On May 3 and 4, 1957, a post-mortem examination of the cadavers was performed by Dr. Tomas 0. Ricalde, municipal health· officer of Catbalogan; Samar. He made the correspond· ing reports of his findings, drew the sketches showing the location of the wounds sustained by each of the victims, and ismled their respective. death certificates. His findings are a:; follows: n) Rafael Yboa: 72 years old, in advance state of d'!· composition, with the following wounds: 1. Wound, gunshot, left midclavicular region; about 1/2 inch below the left uipple. 2. Wounds,- gunshot, 7 in number located closed t<> each other at the· region of the right breast and epigastric region. 3. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, epigastric region. 4. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, rightiliac region. 5. Wound, gunshot <point of exit), right scapular re· gton. 6. Wound, gunshot (point of exit>. left lumbar region. Cause ot death: Shock due to severe hemOrrhage, secon· da.ry to the above-mentioned wounds. (Exh. AL . (2) Daniel Errabo: 30 years old, in advanced state of de. .,. CQIJlPO~tion, with the following wounds: 1. Wounds, 16 in numbel', .. ,stab_b.ed scattered at the postertor portion of the body. 2. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, left supra·clavlcular region. 3. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, one inch to the right of the right nipple. 4. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, right hypochOndrlac region. 5. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, right iliac region. 6. Wound, stabbed, left wrist, dorsal surface. 7. Wound, stabbed, right wrist,· ventral surface. Cause of death: Shock due to severe hemoi::rhage due to above wounds. ( Exh. B) (3) Engracia Salazar: 25 years old, in advanced state of decomposition, with the following wounds: 1. Wound, stabbed, penetrating, left lumbar region. 2. Wounds, stabbed, penetrating, 6 in number, located at the right iliac a~d lumbar region. Caused of death: Shock due to severe hemorrhage due to above wounds. . ( Exh. C) <4J Mario Errabo: 2 yea.rs old, in advanced state of decomposition, with the following wounds: 1. Wound, stabbed, left upper arm cuttiilg the humerus and almost severing the left arm. 2. Wound, stabbed, right hypochondriac region, penetrating the Uver. · Caused of death: Shock due to severe hemorrhage due io due to above-mentioned wounds. (Exh. D) Appellants Pascual Curia.no, Hennlnigildo Ta.falla, Santos TafaUa, Francisco Tafalla, Candido Violante,· and Pamfilo ·sa... lasbas were arrested on May 1, 1957, after Juanita Yboa narrated the incident. Appellants Oltmpio Tafalla and Marcelo Tafalla were arrested on May 4, 1957. · Sometime prior to the date of the killing, there existed serious land troubles between the deceased Rafael Yboa and appellants, c.s disclosed by the following complaints which were filed in court: On January 21, 1955, a complaint for the.ft of bamboos was filed by the deceased Rafael Yboa. against appellants Pascual Curiano and three 13) others in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangan, Samar <Exh. FF). On April 1, 1955, a complaint for forcible entry and detainer was filed by the deceased Rafa.el Yboa against appellant Pascual Curiano in the Justice of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exh. DD·ll. On February 23, 1956, complaint for theft <cutting of timber treesJ was filed 'by the deceased Rafael Yboa against appellant Pascual Curlano and seven (71 others in the Jllstlce of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, S'amar (Exhs. GG and GG-U. On the same date, a complaint for theft of bamboo post and firewood was filed by the deceased Rafael Yboa against appellants Pascual Curiano and Candido Violante and one Mateo Bz.lasbas in the Justice of ihe Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exhs. HH and HH-lJ. On March 16, 1957, a complaint for theft was filed by the deceased Rafael Yboa against appellant Pamfilo Balasbas and one Rufino Versoza In the Justi~e of the Peace Court of Tarangnan, Samar (Exhs. JJ and JJ-1}. Lastly, on April, 1957, the deceased Rafa.el Yboa filed a complaint for theft (cutting of timber treesl against appellants Pamfllo Balasbas and Candido Violante, and one Lucio Balasbas in the Justice of the Peace Court of Ta.ra.ngnan, Samar CExhs. II and Il·ll. On the other hand, appellant Pascual Curlano and two others as plaintiffs, filed on March 2, 1950, a complaint again."!t the deceased Rafael Yboa as defendant, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 4512 of the Court of First 'Instance of Samar, December 31, 1963 LA WYERS JOURNAL Page 371 involving the piece of land which is the subject matter Of the forcible entry and detainer case (Exh. EEJ aforementioned. Appellants' defense is alibi, to wit: Pascual Curtano in the evening of April 30, 1957, rode in a motor boat to a fish corral out in the sea of Mahocob, Tarangnan, Samar, about 2 kilometers from Sitio Cagutsan. After dropping the net at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, he and his companions in the motor boat, as well as the men who were in charge of the fish corral, went to sleep until 5:00 o'clock of the following morning. Then they loaded 4 canastas of fish in the boat, proceeded to another fish corral in Calbo, where they loaded another 3 canastas of fish, after which, they sailed for Catbalogan, where they sold all the fish to one Vicente Alabat for P60.00. As witnesses he presented Jorg~ Cortan, Maximo Latoja, Jaime Acaln, and Vicente Alabat. Their narrative follows: Appellant Pascual Coriano and Sgt. Acain of the PC stationed at Catbalogan, Samar, were c~wners or the fish corral, the motorboat, and the fish business which was then managed by appellant Pascual Curiano. The fish corral was about 2 kilometers from· Sitio Cagutsan. To that fisn corral went Jorge Cartan and hi.s 7 helpers, leaving Barrto Silanga on a big banca <sampanl on the night of April 30, 1957. Upon reaching it at about 9 p.m., they dropped the net to catch fish. Shortly after, the motorboat manned by" appellant Pascual Curiano, Maximo Latoja, Jaime Acaln and one Julian arrived. It was moored to the fish corral and the crew went to sleep. Cartan slept soundly and woke up at 5 a.m. Ma1 1, 1957. Latoja woke up at about 12 p.m. midnight and Jaime Acain at about 2 a.m. and the last two, to urinate. Both La· · toja and Acain saw appellant Pascual CUriano sleeping at the time each stood up to urinate. Both returned to slrep after urinating and woke up at about 5 a.m. May 1, 1957. After load· ing the catch in that fish corral (4 canastas) and buying 3 canastas of fish in Talbo, they sailed to Catbalogan arriving ~t 7 fi.m. and sold their load of fish to one Vicente Alabat for P60.00. The alibi of appellant Pascual Curiano deserves no credit. As observed by the trial court: ••x x x the alibi of Pascual Curiano has all the aspects of fabrication. It has all the characteristics of a story de· signed to fit the intended. purpose of showing the where· abouts of the defendant to be 1n a place other then tha.t where the crime was committed at the time of its commission. The uniformity of the declarations <of his witnesses), the lack of documentary record, and the omission of the necessary witnesses prove it to be made-up story. "It is strange that in spite of more than one and a half years that had elapsed, the witnesses could be so accurate not only as to the different hours of their mO\.f!· ment, but also as to the quantity and the quality of the fishes which were alleged to have been taken by them from two different fish corrals. As was said above, such unformlty even in the details given by the several witnesses, connotes an agreement among them on the story they would tell the Court. · "If it were true that Curiano had fish corral and w::..s engaged in the business of selling fish on April 30, 1957, he should have exhibited a license for the said fish corral, or a license for the business he claims to have had. Such documents cannot be fabricated. If he had them he would have shown them. By not showing them, the inference is that he had no business on April 30, 1957. It might be that he had it another time: and the story now given could have referred to that other time. "No one of the seven men alleged to have been with Jorge Cortan was presented to testify. It was not·. shown that they could not be available. Since an alibi needs all the possible evidence because it can easily be fabricated, those men should not have been omitted. Again, it can be said that from their omission logically ar'lscs the inference that if they testlfled they would have told that the fish corral they served with Jorge Cartan was one in business before April 30, 1957. "Even conceding th&.t at tbat time Curiano haci a fish corral and arrived thereat at nine o'clock that evening of April 30, 1957, slept in the motorboat at ten o'clock and was found by Cartan. Acain and Latoja. to be still there when they woke up at five o'clock the following: morning, still the alibi ls imperfect. The witnesses said to have slept at ten o'clock and Cortan claimed to have woke up at five o'clock in the morning; Latoja woke up at twelve midnight, stood up to urinate, saw Curlano, slept again, and woke up at five o'clock in the morning; and Acain woke ·up at two o'clock to urinate, saw Curlano slept again, and woke up also at five in the morning. The declarations of Latoja ·that he woke up and Saw C~1riano when he urinated at twelve o'clock and that of Acain r..t two o'clock are· declarations without any support IQ keep them upright as a good and credible proof. Both are without corroboration. Each stands by itself. How and why could they remember that they urinated at thOS"e hours? That they saw Curlano? Could it not ·be another? The evidence adduced had no answer to these questions. It is believed that in an alibi, these points a.re relevant indeed. Only their declarations that they woke up at five o'clock in the morning have some color of proof; ea.ch corroborated the other. Such being the case, they. slept from ten to five o'clock or for seven hours. Considering the distance of the fish COJTal to the scene ot the crimv.. even a period of two holll'9 was sufficient for one to 10 from the fish corral and return to it after the a.a.ult. His companions could have done the disposal of the bodies." fEmphasis Supplied, pages 49-52). Candido Violante and Pamafilo Balasbas loaded 260 bundles of firewoods in their banca in the afternoon of Aprjl 29, 1957 and sailed for Catbalogan., at. aboqt 3 a.m. AprJI. 30: to sell those firewood. They failed to sell them to one Marcelino Tuazon of Catbalogan as the latter had plenty of the~ in stock. So, they carried and peddled them around the town and were able to dispose of 100 bundles on the same day April 30. In the evening, until the morning <May 1), appellant P8.mmoBalasbas and hi.s wife slept in the kitchen of Marcelino TuSl· zon's house at Catbalogan, while appellant Candido Violante slept in the banca to watch the remaining firewood. On May 1, 1957, they sold the remaining 160 bundles of firewood, after which, they went shopping and left Catbalogan at 7 a.m. of the same day, reaching their h?use at noontime. As witnesses they presented Marcelino Tuazon, Encarnacion Bolos, and Porfiria Bellasana. Their narratve follows: Appellants Candido Violante and Pamfilo Balasb~s were together ln Catbalogan, Sa.mar, from the morning of Aprll 30, to the morning of May 1, 1957. Violante and Balasbas had 260 bundles of firewood. in the yard of their houses at Sitto Dalongdong, Mahacob, Tarangnan, samar, to be brought to Catbalogan. They loaded them in the banca in the afternoon of April 29, 1957. At about 3 a.m. April 30, Violante and Balasbas sailed for Catbalogan. Porfiria Bellas;na, wife of Villante, went with them. They arrived at Catbalogan at 8:00 a.m. that morning and docked near the house of Marcelino Tuazon, a. firewood dealer at Catbalogan. The latt~r did not. buY the Page 372 LA WYERS JOURNA~ December 3'1, 1963 firewood as he had still some in stock. Violante and Bala;-.. bas then peddled them around the town and then went to th~ market' the· whole day Untn an· of the firewood were sold. In the me&.n"tlme, Pcirflrla Bellasana went to a photographer to have her picture taken CExh. 8-a) and then proceeded to the Justice Of the Peace Court for the contract Exhibit 6 which she made with a recruiter of an employment agency. Via· lante, Balasbas and Porflria ate their 3 meals that day at the house of Tuazon. After taking their supper at 7 p.m., Violante and his v;ife Porfirla slept in the kitchen of Tuazon's house and Balasbas slept In the banca.. They left Ca.tbalogan at 7 a.nt. May 1, 1957 and reached their homes in Dalongdong at noon. Porftria Bellasana took that trip to Catba.logan to make ·the necessary arrangement with the recruiter about the employment of her cousin Engracia Cabarles. On that trip, Engracia was in another boat with Peltng, Cleta and Filomena. The l)anca where Engracia and other companions boarded and that where Porflria, Violante, and Balasbas were, salled togethet from Dalongdong until Catbalogan. The two vessels wer'? side by side and only about 5 meters apart during the whole trip. Also, the alibi of appellants Candido Violante and Pamfil:l Balasbas is unconvtnctng. We agree with the following Ob· servatlon of the trial court: "The story ls fi;1.ulty. The declaration of the witnesses ~ow that the story Is fabricated. It has the following fl~ws and cracks: "1. Marcelino Tuazon lied throughout his declaration. He clalnis to 'be engaged in business dealing in firewood. x x x BU:t he bad no llcense tor that business x x x nor kept any record of his transactions. x x x In all his answers, ~ the direct as well as the cross-examination, he couH n9t give dates, much less hours, when he purchased flre'?79od from several dealers. But yet he could give not OlllY the date, April 30, 1957, but also the hours; and further, the movements of Violante and Balasbas even if he , Qtd .not buy firewood from them. And no reasons were shoWn for so remembering that partlci.i.la.r date, the hours and their movements. "2. U it were true that they were at Tuazon's house during the whole night of April 30-May 1, 1957, Violante, Balasbas, and/or Porflria could have told the constable.:; who held the first two that afternoon for the murder thd took place in Cagutsc.n. None of them told the soldiers. Not even when they were kept in the Constabulary barracks whch was only a few meters to the house of Tuazon. Even Tuazon was not informed of their arrest by any one 01' them although they could do so had they wanted to. They could not make that information because it did not happen. They had to fabricate an alibi, the only feasible defense In these case. Tuazon was the only stranger avail· able for the fabricated story. Encarnacion Bolos and Perfltia Bellasana are the wives of the two accused. "3. Why Engracia Caba.rles and/or any of her companions in the other banca (Feling, Cleta, Filomena) wete not called to testify, was not shown; they knew them; and ihey know. where they were at the time of the trial of the case. x x x Porfirla Bellasana who was used to make trips to Catbalogan without her hUSband was alleged to have a trip with him for the first time only that day; and for a purpose which had no concern with him x x x Porflrla accompanied her cousin Engracia to Catbalogan. She was her guardian; and she expected money from tti.e transaction she was to have with Pellng. x x x Peling w.is interested in her recruitment work. Porfiria was interested tn the money she could get out of the deal. Peling hir~d Cleto to bring them to Catbalogan. Filomena, the wife of Cleta, accompanied her husband. S'o tn the early morning of April 30, 1957, Cleto and the four women CPorfiria yellasana, Engracia, Peling, and Filomena) tn Qne bancu., left Do.longdOng fo_i- Catbalogan On April 30, 1957, ~hen the contract Exhibit G was executed. Engracia, Peling, Filomena. and Cleta would have thua testified if "called to the witness stand. Hence, their omlssion. "4. Porflrla's declaration a.bout the picture-taking she and Engracia had on Aprll 30, 1957, proved her to be lying. x x x The figure on the right of the picture marked Exhibit 8-A ls that of Porfiria, and that on the left marked Exhibit 8-B Is that of Engracia. Porfiria referred to this plctu1·1? when she declared that she and Engracia posed for it before the photographer. The figure below Porflria's figure CExh. 8-A) ls the head of a woman. It ls clear that the picture was not posed by Porflria and Engracia alone as claimed by Porflria in her declaration, but one taken from a group picture of at least three women. "That declaration of Porfiria about she and Engracia only posing on April 30, 1957, ts of substance as it affect the date which Is relevant to the issue. It ts therefore a material declaration; one which tries to make e\l'ident a point of consequence. Having lted, and knowingly, on a material point, she made her whole testimony inci'edibl~. rFalsus, in uno, falsus In omnibusl. "Our experience shows that several persons witnessing an incident and later give a deeription of it, they will surely differ widely as to details or collateral matters while agreeing on the particular thing which is the Incident itself. Bot in this alibi of Violante and Balasbas, we have the declarations of all the witnesses agree on al• t~e de· tails and rerardlng the mov~ents of the· perso~. eoq· cemed and the time when such movements were allefed to have taken place,· and, in spite of the lapse of one year and seven months. Such a perfect narration connotes ::an agre~ent among the witnesses of tbe story to be told; a fabrication of the alleged alibi." CEmphasis supplied; pages 4041, Decision.) Olimpia Ta.fa.Ila and Marcelo Tafalla attended a meeting held In the house of Councilor Joaquin Nanaunag at Barrio Maha.cob, Tarangnan, Samar, from 8 to 12 p.m. April 30, 1957, after which. they went home and slept till the next morning May 1, 1957. As witnesses, appellants presented Joaquin Nabaunag, Le· oncto Beato, and Paclencta Molito, whose story follows:· Na· baunag was the municipal councilor for Barrio Maha.cob; Beato was the assistant barrio lieutenant of Maha.cob; and Pactencla Melito is the wife of appellant Ol1mp1o Ta.fa.Ila.. On April 30, 1957, from 1 to 4 p.m., the councilors of Tarangnan were at Mahacob and had its session attended by many residents of the barrio including women and, among those who attended, were appellants Olimpia Ta0fa.lla and Marcelo Tafalla. Thereafter, the residents of the barrio returned to their homes; after the merienda the visitors left Mahacob. Then at about 8 pm., Nabaunag caited the officials of the barrio to his house to talk about means to be used in gathering funds needed to defray the expenses for the transportation of a driller to Ma.hacob. Among (hOse present thereat were appellants Olimpio Tafalla and Marcelo Ta.fa.Ila. The last persons to leave the house at around 12 pm., midnight, were five, including appellants 011mpio Tafalla and Marcelo Ta.fa.Ila. Lkewtse, appellants' alibi is unworthy of belief. We concur with the following findings of the trla;l court: LA WYERS JOURNAL P.;.ge 373 "x x x x there is nothing in the testimony of the witnesses to show they could not have been mistaken about the time. Could the meeting referred to not have been some time before April 30, 1957? What categorical proQf was shown that it was on that day and not on another? Could it have been that the municipal council did not hoJd any session In Mahacob? Or if it had, was it not on a day other than April 30, 1957? The human memory 13 short. A meeting must have some minutes. It may be argued that the alleged meeting from eight o'clock to midnight was one without need of any written reminder. But there was an alleged session of the municipal council. It must not be without minutes. Since the testimony of the witnesses was intended to show that the alleged meeting of the barrio residents followed a session of the municipal council, proof of such council session should be produced Jor precision a.s to time to avoid uncertainty. "And the unreliability of the memory of the witnesses is shown by the discrepancy of their testimony about the date when the constables went to Mahacob to arrest Olimpia Tafalla and Lucila (Marcelol Tafalla. While Olimpio Tafalla said that he was taken by the soldiers on May 4 (p. 414, t.s.sn.) and Luella on May 11 (p. 439, t.s.n.), the inunicipal councilor Joaquin Nabaunag said that· they were on May l; and he was present when they were so taken Cp. 349, t.s.n.)." (Pages 53-54, Decision). Santos Ta.fa.Ha attended the same meeting aforementtencd from 6 to 10 p.m. on Aprll 30, 1957. As witnesses, he presented his father-in-law Elias Magallanes, whose narrative is as follows: After taking supper in the night of April 30, 1957, appellant Santo Tafalla went to attend the meeting in the house of councllor Nabaunag. On this allbl of appellant Santos Tafa.Ua, the trlal court aptly observed: "With respect to his going to the house of the councilor that evening of April 30, 1957, Santos Tafalla contradicted his· father-in-law who said that he csantos) went after taking supper.x x x But yet none of those four persons he mentioned was called to testify to his alibi; and no reason was shown for that omission. It can be said that if called, they would belie him. "Then he went on in his direct testimony that he went home from the house of Councilor Nabaunag at about ten o'clock that evening, and before going up the house he stopped to urinate. x x x Stlll in direct examination, Santos Tafalla admitted having executed the affidavit Exhibit U (translation Exh. U-lJ. "Santos Tafalla who knew the commission of the crime is now excusing himself by throwing the blame to some of his co-defend8.nts. But his alibi is indeed very poor. Since an alibi can easily be fabricated, it should have a strong support in the way of all available proofs. Failure to present such proofs without justifiable excuse, makes this kind of defense suspicious. In an alibi, the testimony of disinterested persons is the most needed. Elias Magri,. Hanes is certainly a person who is very much interested in the liberty of Santos Tafalla. Circumstances make him :so." CPages 45-18, Declsion.) Francisco Tafalla went home to Barrio Mahacob, Tarangnan, 5amar, at 7 p.m. on April 30, 1957, took supper, and went to sleep until 8 p.m. the following day May 1, 1957. As witnesses, he presented his wife Cornelia Chan, Anlceto Camas, and Dolores Aquil, whose narrative is to this effect: Cornelia Chan, wife of appellant Francisco Tafalla went to get Dolores Aquil at 7 p.m. on Aprll 30, 1957, and brought her to their house because her grandmother was complaining of severe stomach pain. At that hour, Dolores entered the house, administered to the sick woman, and she saw Francisco TafallR sleeping thereat. Aniceto Camas stated that the stains in the trousers (Exh. Vl of appellant Francisco Tafalla was caused by chicken blood. We agree with the observation of the trial court as to the incredibility of appellant Francisco Tafalla's alibi, to wit: "How the trousers· Exhibit 'V' of Francisco Tafalla happened to be stained with blOOd as narrated by him and Aniceto Camas is somewhat unusual; some happening that does not run parallel to the ordinary way of man's behavior. It is much of a coincidence that Francisco Tafalla. would cut the neck of a dying and beate~ chicken and splashed his trousers with bloOd only several hours before the blood of four persons (the victims) was split. However, he was not picked because his pair of trousers had bloodstains. The trow;ers were found to have the stains after he was pointed out to be one of the assailants. x x x ''Granting that Dolores went to Francisco's house for the sick woman, could Ii not be that she went on a night other than the night of Apr11 30? It could have been possible. For· with respect to dates, both Cornelia and Dolores were not attentively particular. Nelther could tell the date when their patient died. In fact Dolores even went to admit repeatedly that it was on March 30 and not on April 30, when she went to Francisco's house to adminlster to t.he sick woman (p. 331, t.s.n.) whlch she repeated after she tried to show that she knew to remember dates <p. 337, t.s.sn.J. "And on May 1, when the constables went to take along Francisco Tata.Ila for the murders committed the previous night, both Cornelia and Dolores were there face to face with the const&.bles. Dolores did not say anything; and Cornella did not make any move to make known to the arresting soldiers the presence of her husband and Do- · lores in the house that evening. Camelia persisted on being evasive in her answers until the last moment she was on the witness chair." IPages 55-57, Decision.) Lastly, Hermlnipldo T.afaHa went home from his farm, slept beside his wife and children in their house at Sitio Sogod, Tarangnan, Samar, from 8 p.m. April 30, to 6 a.m. May 1, 1957. In the afternoon of the latter date (May 1) he was arrested by soldiers. He did not present any witness to support his alibi, and we are wtth the trial court that said allbi should not be believed. Apart from the trial court's observations above-quoted regarding the incredibility of appellants' alibi in this case, we note from a cursory examination of the map <Exh. OOJ showing the relative distances between the scene of the crimes at bar in Sitio Cagutsan and, the sea near Barrio Mahacob, Tarangnan, Sa.mar, where appellant Pascual Coriano allegedly was, and Barrio Mahacob, where appellants Olimpio, Man:elo; Santos, and Francisco Tafalla allegedly were at the time of the commission of said crimes, will clearly show that it has not even established by said appellants' alibis that it Wf.S physically impm:~ible for for them to be present in nearby Sitio Cagutsan. In a long line of cases, it had been held that in Order to establish an alibi, a defendant must not only show that he was present at some other place about the time of the alleged crime, but also that he was at such other place for so long a time, that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the crime was committed, either before or after the time he was at such other place. <Pe:ople _v. ·..\lban, G. R. No. L-15203, prom. March 29, 1961, citing People v. Qxlles, 20 ?hil. 587; LAWYERS JOURNAL December 31, 11163 People v. Pala.mos. 49 Phil. 601: People v. Resabal, 50 Phil. 780; People v. Ntem, 75 Phil. 668.) The appeal presents no issues of law. It merely involves the credibility of the various witnesses. and the rule is weltcstablished that when the issue involves credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not generally disturb the findings of the trial court, as the latter is In a better position to decide the question, having been and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying during the trial, except when it is shown that the trial court has overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, !f considered, might affect the result of the case (People v. Alban, supra, citing People v. Berganlo, G. R. No. L-10121, prom. January 22, 19571. 1'he trial court In the case before us has made a complete and thorough analysis of the various testimonies, which we find to be properly and well-supported by the evi· dence adduced. Said alibi of appellants, to our mind, cannot overcome the testimony of Juanita Yboa, wife of the deceased Rafael . \"boa <i.n eyewitness to the bloody incident, who testified in a clear, credible, straightforward, and convincing manner and who positively identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crimes in question. On this point, the trial court observed: "The direct evidence come only from the wid0w of the deceased Rafael Yboa <Juanita de Yboal, the lone survivor in the group. Considering her intelligence, her opportunity Of knowing the fact, her memory, the heart-rending ordeal she Passed. the probabilities and improbabillties of her teo,;timony, the character of her testimOny, the long hours or &a:d.ng and contus'ing cross-eiaminatlon, and her way 11f answering the question and general behavior while testilyillg, the Court finds no reason to doubt her deelaration. Juanita de Yboa recognized six of the accused immediately preceding the fatal moment. When she heard low voices and saw llght·beams from flashlights on the beaC:h immediately In front ot the hut, she looked through the holes of of th~ wall of the roughly woven coconut leaves. She recognized the six men approaching the hut from the beach to be Pascual Coriano, Francisco Tafalla and Pamfllo Balasbas, Lucilo <Marcelo) Tafalla, S.antos Tafalla, and candido Violante. Pascual Curia.no was holding the rifle that fired at her husband. At the time she was hiding in the bushes, she saw Olimpia Tafalla stab Engracia Salazar and Herminigtldo Tafalla stabbed Daniel Errabo. "The Court went to the scene of the crime after the testimony of luanlta. de Yboa. From the observation ·>f t.he Court about the make of the hut and the field around, the declaration of Juanita. was possible." (Emphasis supplied, Pages 58-59, Decision.) Needless to say, said testimony of Juanita Yboa regarding the Incident is amply supported by "strong circumstantial proo!s which took place before and after" the commission of the crimes. Said the trial court: "That direct evidence is supported by strong circumstantial proofs . which took place before and after the inci· dent." "As was said above, the motive of the crime was re- l t sentment against Rafael Yboa who continuously annoye.J, haramed and humiliated the defendants. That resentment is briefly expressed by Pc.scual CurlaJ10 in paragraph 9 of his complaint Exhibit 'EE', to wit: '9. That every time the plaintiffs herein and the!r laborers are cutting lumber and gathering bamboos and fore.st products and firewood from the said land of Ramona Moreno, the herein defendant is continuously molesting them by filing either crlmiD.al or civil cases against the said plaintiffs particularly Pascual Curiano and his laborers. "Earlier on that fatal day, Rafael Yboa, Juanita and Daniel Errabo went to that part of the land to verify the report about the recent cutting of trees by Pascual Curia.no: then they went to the house of Herminiglldo Tafalla who was confronted thereat by Yboa about the pieces of trees on his yard and then they proeeeded to the barrio to report to the barrio lieutenant about the recent cutting of trees. Yboa requested the· barrio lieutenant to stop Coriano from further cutting any thing in the land until the termination of their litigation about the land pending in court. "And then at around eight o'clock that evening Sebastlna Loyo s.o.w the four accused (Pascual Curia.no, Henniniglldo Tafalla, Olimpia and Lucllo [Marcelo) Tafalla) pass by his house in Sogod walking toward Cagutsan. Hermlnigildo Tafalla was carrying a rifle. At about three o'clock following the time when they passed by his house, he met them again. This time it was on the beach. 'l'hey we!'e in a banca which docked in front of the house of Herminigildo Tafalla. Afr.aid of the threat of Pascual Curia.no, he allowed the rifie to be left in his house. The presence of the rifle therein made him and his family move to Da.longdong. "On May 16, 1957, Hermlnlgildo Tafalla revealed to Sergeant Gonzales that the gun was hidden in the house of Loyo. It was found ln that house. The gun is now marked Exhibit 'E'. "A ballistic examination showed that the slug CExh. 'I'l and the empty shell <Exh. I-1> which were found about the scene of the Incident, were fired from the rifie Exhibit 'E'. "On May 2, 1957, Olimplo Tafalla, referring to the blood-stains in the banca told Encarnacion Bolos to tell any one who might inquire about those blood-stains that 3. butchered pig was loaded in the banca. "The laboratory examination showed the stains to be 'positive for blood'. "It Is important to note that Olimpio Tafalla. was one cf the four who was seen by Sebastian Loyo at about three o'clock boarded In a banca. "And Josef Nabaunag said so in Exhibit 'KK' that he saw Ollmpio 1'afalla at about two or three o'clock that morning sailing in the banca of Encarnacion Bolos. "Two events are noteworthy: (I) It was about eight o'clock that evening when Juanita saw Francisco Ta.falla, Pamfilo Balasbas, and Candido Violante snatched the ba..:;ket from the door of the hut; <2J it was also about tha.t time when Sebastian Loyo saw Pascual Curia.no, Herminigildo Tafalla, Ollmplo 'tafalla and Lucilo Tafalla passed t:y his house in Sogod walking towards Cagutsan. So that while some of the accused were on their way to Cagutsa:.1 the others were already there to perform some preliminaries for the main objective. "The examination about the presence of the blood stains on the trousers Exhibit 'U' of Candido Violante and on the trousers Exhibit 'V' of Francisco Tafalla, were silly. "Against the strong and convincing proofs which clearly and directly point at the accused to be the perpetrators of the heinous and savage murders, the defendant.s put in several and separate alibi which were made Incredible by the absurd stories told to support them. December 31, 1963 LA WYERS JOURNAL Page 375 "By ·the evidence, there is no doubt In the mind ot tile Court' that the def~ndants a~ guilty of the crimes they starid charged ht both intor.D.atlons." (Emphasis supplied, Pages 59-62, Decision.) There was conspiracy on the part of appellants in the commission of the crimes, which make each of them liable for the crimes committed and for as many victims killed. As pointed out by the trial court: The manner of the commission of the crime shows a concerted action by several persons who conspired and confederated together and helped each other in it.a execution. "That there was a previous planning about the execution of the crime, Is clear enough. The perpetrators must have met that evening at a given place, and from there went together to the place where they knew their victims ~ere to be found at the time. The act was impelled by revenge. R.obbery could not have been the motive. There was nothing to take with intent to gain from the intended victims. Nothing of value would be kept in such a frail hut which was in an isolated place. x x x" (Pages' 9-10, Decision.) ·There was treacherY, which qualified the killing of the foUr victims, to murder, as the attack was so sudden and unexpected, thereby insuring the accomplishment of the crimes, without risk to appellants arising from the defense which they (victims) might have offered (People v.Alban, supra, citing People v. Godinez Mt.rtinez, G.R. No. L-12268, Prom. November 28, 1959; People v. Ambahang, G. R. No. L-12907, prom. May ·30, 1960). The trial court stated thus: "That the act. was committed with treachery, cannot be doubted The victims were surprised. They were not given the least warning. The attack was instantaneous. They were not afforded the least chance to escape. They fired at Rafael Yboa. When the other Inmates jumped from the hut to escape, the offenders were around to meet and assault them at that time when they could not offer any resistance or defense. The offenders employed means which tended to insure the execution of the intended crime. x xx." (Page 11, Decision.) There was evident premedlktion in the commission of the crimes. According to the trial court: "x x x The pieces of rope and stones were objects which could not have been picked up anywhere at that time of the night and In that isolated place. The rope and the stones were in the banca before they went to the place of the incident. This was another part of the plan. The synchronized movements of the actors which made possible the successful termination of their acts from the killing so the disposal of the bodies, during such a brief period, must be the result of a pre-conceived plan. All the preparations to carry out the conceived plan could not have been effected in a short expanse of time. It could have taken at least hours, possibly days. In premeditation, there ls no fixed period of time. The period of time necessary to Justify the inference that there ts known pre. meditation ls a period sufficient in the judicial sense to give the accused full opportunity for meditation and reflection, and sufficient to allow the conscience of the ac· tor to overcome the resolution of his will if he desires to harken to its warnings. (U.S. v. Blanco, 18 Phil. 208.) x x x." (Pages 10.11, Decision.) Abuse of superior strength was also attendant, it appearing that appellants, aside from being all armed with deadly weapons, were decidedly superior In number [8 In all] In relation to the number of the assaulted parties [only 3 and a boy :~i~. ~~~~~] (U.S. v. Tandoc, 40 Phil 954; People v. Cuoz, eg The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place attended the commission of the crimes. On this point, the trial court pointed out that"ConaJderJng the tre~s thal aboun.d and tl;le thick shrubbery which was glowing _between the place of '.'the incident and the nearest house which was more thin C.he hundred meters &way, the circumstance of milDhabited place has to be taken into account as it was apparent.. that at such a place the victims did not have a chance. of .. be· Ing seen and helped by another person." (Page 12, Declslon.) The circumstance of dwelling may, further, be considered .· as to the killing of Di;.niel E~abo, Engracia Salazar, and Mario Errabo, as l't occurred in their dwelllng place (the hut)" or on the ground thereof (U.S. v. Macarlfias, 40 Phil. 1). The aggravating circumstance of nighttime. although pre- .. sent, may not be taken Into account, Inasmuch as it ·ts ab· sorbed In treachery (People v. Balagtas, 68 Phil. 6'l5). Neither may we consider the circumstance 'Of cruelty as found .it).y .. ·the trial court, because there Is no showing that the other . wounds found on the bodies of the victims were inflicted unnecessarUv while they were still altve Jn order to prolong their physlce:i suffering. The number of wounds found upon the corpStf does not, by itself alone, justify the acceptance of the circumstance ot cruelty, It being necessary to show that the accused deJlberately and Inhumanly Increased the sufferings of the victims· <People v. Aguinaldo, 55 Phll. 610; See also People v. Dayug, 49 Phil. 423; People v. Daquiiia, 60 Phil. 279). LastlY, 'th~""clr: cumstance of lack of provocation was incorrectly considered by the trial court as aggravating in the k1Wng of the E;r,r$bos; ::e~a~e th~ ~tvi::: ;~n~e C:.~~avatlng circumstance~ . en.vmeIn the circumstances, we find each of the appellants.~ut.y of four (4) crimes Qf murder in the ·two (2) cases re.vlt:rWed. However in view of the lack of the required number of B v,otes, the death penalty Imposed by the trial court upon each .. ot. the appellants ls hereby reduced to life Imprisonment for ea.Ch C"f the four crimes committed, the maximum of which shall not exceed forty years. The Indemnity adjudged by the trial court ls, however, increased from P5,000.00 to P6,000.00. Modified, as a:bove indicated, the judgment of the:•trlaI court, ls affirmed, with costs againSt the appellants. :·~ SO ORDERED. Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion Reyes, Pare4~~~ Dizon, Regala and Makallntal, JJ., concurred. · ·,:; • Printers • Publishers • Bookbinders • Typesetters 1'1-intor cf th< LAWYERS JOURNAL 2838-42 AURORA BLVD. CORNER RIZAL AVE., STA. CRUZ, MANILA Tel. 2-89-0? Page 376 LAWYERS JOURNAL December 3Ji .1963