[ G. R. No. L-689. June 09, 1948 ] 81 Phil. 162
EN BANC
[ G. R. No. L-689. June 09, 1948 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL DAYAGANON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
HILADO, J.:
Convicted by the court a quo to reclusion perpetua (to be pardoned after undergoing 30 years imprisonment, unless considered unworthy of executive clemency), with all the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of Aniceto Albiso, whom appellant was charged with having murdered, and to pay the costs, said appellant has brought this case on appeal, wherein, in a nutshell, the gravamen of the errors assigned is that the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the state witnesses. In the opinion of this Court counsel for the defense has tailed to demonstrate that the trial court, which saw and heard the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense testify, and observed their demeanor while testifying, committed an error in appreciating their relative credibility, or in giving weight to the evidence given by the former sufficient to convict. The record reveals beyond reasonable doubt the facts presently to be stated. About nine o’clock at night, August 13, 1944, Aniceto Albiso, who was then in his house in Canmano, Municipality of Clarin, Province of Bohol, was called by an individual who allegedly had lost his way and requested to be guided by the deceased to the barrio road of Cambito-on. The deceased, acceding to the request, went down his house and led the unknown man. Behind them came appellant and one Pedro Alvarez. This last fact having been noticed by a daughter of the deceased, she informed her mother thereof. The mother, knowing that appellant was an enemy of the deceased (who from all appearances was ignorant of the fact that his said enemy was following him), followed her husband presumably to warn him accordingly. Before the wife could overtake her husband, who had gone already far ahead leading the unknown man, the report of a firearm was heard. Fausta Odtohan, the deceased’s wife, thereupon returned to her house and moved her family to that of Maximo Albialde who, upon learning of the incident, went after Aniceto Albiso whom, however, he found already dead with a bullet wound on his back. At around eight o’clock of that same night appellant had been seen at the junction of the provincial road and the trail leading to Cambito-on, at which spot he had been seen loading his revolver. Sometime thereafter the explosion above referred to was heard, and appellant was heard by the state witness Crispin Bahinting, of the prosecution, calling in a loud voice to Pedro Alvarez and telling the latter that he (appellant) had had his revenge upon Cito (Miceto Albiso), having hit him on the back. Previous to the fatal event under consideration appellant had been the recipient of serious physical injuries inflicted by the deceased at a previous quarrel between the two appellant himself in his testimony called the deceased a “scoundrel”. One of those injuries was the cutting off of a portion of appellant’s left ear—a permanent deformity. Another was a large wound on the left shoulder, and a third a wound on the left pelvis. Alibi was set up as a defense, but was rejected by the trial court. On the other hand, the evidence fully establishes that appellant was at the scene of the shooting; that moments before he had been seen loading his pistol; that likewise moments before he and his companion Pedro Alvarez admitted that they were waiting for somebody when the witness Crispin Bahinting proposed that they go together because the trail leading to Cambito-on passes by the witness house; and appellant shouted triumphantly after the shot had been fired that he had had his revenge upon the deceased, hitting the latter on the back. The evidence also proves conclusively that the deceased died from the bullet wound on his back. The killing was qualified by treachery, in which nocturnity should be deemed imbibed, but there is not sufficient evidence of any aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. Hence, the penalty must be in the medium period. Wherefore, we find appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, affirming the penalty imposed by the judgment appealed from with Costs. So ordered. Paras, Actg. C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur. Paras, Actg. C.J., I hereby certify that Mr. Chief Justice Moran voted for affirmance.