[ G.R. No. L-1702. December 21, 1948 ] 82 Phil. 414
[ G.R. No. L-1702. December 21, 1948 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RUFO RONDA AND JULIO GALLETO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
After a careful examination of the record of this case in the light of the points raised in the appellants’ brief, we are fully convinced that the Court of First Instance of Misanis Occidental did not commit any error in finding the said appellants, Rufo Ronda and Julio Galleto, the latter as inducer, guilty of murder and sentencing them to reclusion peretua and its accessories, to indemnify [jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased Gonzalo Elmedulan in the sum of two thousand pesos, and to pay the costs of prosecution. In the morning of November 4, 1946, Gonzalo Elmedulan and his wife, Pahulia Dionson, went out to graze their carabaos on a piece of land located in Canibongan Proper, municipality of Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Hearing the sound of falling coconuts, they suspected the presence of some intruders. Gonzalo Elmedulan, followed behind by his wife, proceed to the place of the noise. Upon arrival of Elmedulan, appellant Rufo Ronda, then armed with a carbine and hiding with appellant Julio Galloto behind the bushes known as bahu-bahu, fired several shots which hit Gonzalo Elmedulan eight times as a result of which the latter died on the spot. Pahulia Dionson, who came to her husband’s side, embraced the latter who was yet able to reveal that he was shot by the appellants.
Two eyewitnesses were presented by the prosecution, namely, Alberto Revelo, who was hired and paid by Julio Galleto to gather coconuts, and Victoria Iyog who was then gathering guavas near the place in question. It is not pretended for the defense that said witnesses could have been prompted by any ulterior motives.
We cannot believe the allegation of appellant Julio Galleto that he fired his carbine at Elmedulan in self-defense. In tho first place, the testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses Alberto Revelo and Victoria Iyog deserves more credence. In tho second place, such allegation is hardly consistent with the very admission of Julio’s wife that said appellant, on the eve of the fatal occasion, decided that “I will kill Elnedulan because I can no longer endure tho trouble he has given us.” In the third place, such allegation is rather disproved by the number of shots I(not less than eight) that were fired against Elmedulan which, on the other hand, seems to indicate a determined fact of aggression and a clear intention to kill. The fact that Elmedulan had allegedly caused Julio some trouble furnishes tho motive on the latter’s part for desiring to kill the former. It is of course immaterial whether, as contended by appellants’ counsel, Elinedulan had no justification in trying to oust Julio from the land where the killing took place, because the same — even coupled with the alleged pugnacity of the Elmedulan — was likewise not a justification for Julio to murder Elmedulan. In the place, it is highly improbable that the carbine could have cone to Julio’s possession in the manner alleged by him, namely, that it was given by an unknown guerrilla officer during the Japanese occupation at a time where there was a Japanese patrol in Julio’s house. It is of common knowledge that carbines came to be seen only after the Americans had liberated the country; and even if such firearms in fact reached the hands of guerrillas in some way during the Japanese occupation, none would have passed then on to others,, like appellant Julio Galleto who has not been proved to be a guerrilla, for the simple reason that the guerrilas themselves badly needed arms; and a sensible guerrilla would certainly not deliver a carbine during an occasion in which there was a Japanese patrol. Lastly, there is little or no weight in the corroborating testimony of Julio’s wife, inasmuch as She admitted that she was busy in the kitchen and turned around only after hearing the shots, thus seeing Elmedulan already dead.
The defense of alibi set up by appellant Rufo Ronda is not plausible. It cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the eyewitnesses presented by the prosecution As stated in the brief for the Government, it is incomprehensible that Rufo would have traveled from Marinding, Lanao, to the municipality of Tudela, Misamis Occidental, merely to have his pants repaired when there were tailors in Marinding. Moreover, it was not impossible for Rufo, who left the house in which he slept on November 3, 1946, “befjore the roosters alighted from their resting places1,1, to have reached the place where Elmedulan wan killed in time to join Julio Galleto.
Appellants’ counsel have also stressed the failure of prosecution witnesses Alberto Revelo and Victoria Tyog to corroborate the testimony of Pahulia Dionson that she heajpd shouts of people before the firing of the gun. This is of no moment, not only because witnesses may not have the same notions as to what are necessary to be detailed, but! because it is not sufficient to destroy the important fact that they saw the occurrence in question.
The appealed judgment, being conformable to the facts and the law, is affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.