People vs. Agustin

Positive identification by a credible eyewitness who had known the assailants for years and witnessed the attack at close range prevails over the defense of alibi, and an extrajudicial confession of one conspirator may be used as corroborating evidence against co-accused when independently supported by other prosecution evidence. Conrado Apolinario was acquitted because no sufficient identification linked him to the crime.

Benito Labauan had sued several residents of Iglonoy, Bugasong, Antique, for recovery of land on which they had built their houses, and won in the Court of First Instance of Antique. The defendants, including the appellants, refused to vacate even after a writ of execution and an alias writ of execution were issued. On July 9, 1960, a demolition order was enforced by the deputy sheriff with constabulary soldiers, resulting in the demolition of several houses belonging to the affected residents. Four days later, Labauan was killed while walking home from his farm with his wife.

Benito Labauan had successfully sued several residents of Iglonoy, Bugasong, Antique, for recovery of land on which their houses stood. Although he obtained a writ of execution and an alias writ of execution, the defendants refused to vacate. On July 9, 1960, the local deputy sheriff, accompanied by constabulary soldiers, went to Iglonoy to enforce a demolition order. The sheriff informed barrio lieutenant Pedro Betudio that the squatters would be given time to remove their houses, but if they failed, the demolition would proceed. Betudio asked for a grace period, but Labauan refused, and the demolition began. Houses belonging to Pedro Agustin, Manuel Betudio, Adriano Apolinario, Dionisio Apolinario, Manuela de la Cruz, Diosdado Apolinario, and Antonio Francisco were demolished. When his own house's turn came, Betudio offered to recognize Labauan's ownership on condition that he be allowed to remain as tenant. Labauan agreed and proposed a meeting the following Tuesday in San Jose with their attorneys to formalize the arrangement, but the meeting never took place.

Four days later, on Wednesday, July 13, 1960, Labauan and his wife Emilia, together with one Juan Lom-an, were walking home from their farm in Iglonoy in single file, with Labauan leading and Emilia immediately behind. As they crossed Iglonoy creek and Labauan was about to step onto the bank, Pedro Betudio suddenly emerged from a nearby thicket on slightly elevated ground and hacked Labauan with a bolo. He was joined by Pedro Agustin, Julito Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario, Diosdado Apolinario, Tranquilino Betudio, Arsenio Agustin, and Rodrigo Agustin. Emilia tried to escape but was struck by Basilio Agustin, who was not charged because he remained at large. Basilio then joined the others in hacking and stoning Labauan even after he was dead.

Though badly wounded, Emilia crawled away and hid, later walking to Bagtason where two policemen took her statement, believing she would die. She was then taken to the hospital and investigated by constabulary soldiers. She identified Pedro Betudio as the one who boloed her husband and Basilio Agustin as the one who inflicted the six-inch wound on her scapular region. The next morning, policemen and soldiers found Labauan's body on a trail near Iglonoy creek, an uninhabited area, and recovered an empty scabbard, a slingshot, a buri hat, and a denim cap. The autopsy revealed multiple wounds: one lacerated and five incised wounds on the head, two incised wounds on the chest, ten incised wounds on the upper extremities, and lacerated wounds in the same regions. The right forearm was completely severed, and the face was hardly recognizable due to its macerated condition. Dr. Justo Nacionales, who performed the autopsy, stated that the different sizes and shapes of the wounds indicated that different bolos were used.

On July 15, 1960, Rodrigo Agustin signed a confession admitting his guilt and implicating Julito Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario, Arsenio Agustin, Conrado Apolinario, Basilio Agustin, and others whose names he could not then recall, stating that each wielded a bolo during the attack. All five appellants presented alibi as their defense. Julito Rizardo and Diosdado Apolinario claimed they were farming in Manlakbo, Valderrama, Antique, on the day of the crime, though neither could state the distance between Manlakbo and Iglonoy, and both admitted they did not know when July 13, 1960 was, relying on a co-worker's assertion. Diosdado claimed he was in Manlakbo from July 5 to July 15 and did not learn of his house's demolition on July 9 until he returned on July 16. Adriano Apolinario claimed he was working in Buruangan, Valderrama, about six kilometers from Iglonoy, on the land of Purificacion Bandoy, who attempted to corroborate his alibi but admitted she stayed at home and could not see him at all times. Silverio Apolinario testified he was in Linentian, Lauan, Antique from March to July 17, 1960, but likewise admitted he did not know when July 13 was. His corroborating witness, Jose Vergara, was the father-in-law of Silverio's brother.

• Inconsistency of Conviction and Acquittal: Appellants argued that the lower court erred in convicting them after it had acquitted Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin, who were the ones principally charged with the crime.
• Credibility of Emilia Labauan: Appellants argued that the lower court erred in giving credence to Emilia Labauan's testimony, contending that since the lower court doubted her statements regarding Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin, the rest of her testimony implicating appellants was likewise subject to doubt. They also pointed to an alleged contradiction between her trial testimony that Pedro Betudio hit Labauan on the right arm and her post-incident statement that she did not know where Betudio hit her husband.
• Admissibility of Rodrigo Agustin's Confession: Appellants argued that the lower court erred in considering Rodrigo Agustin's extrajudicial admission against them, claiming that Rodrigo had been forced and intimidated into making the statement.
• Reasonable Doubt: Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, pointing to Rodrigo Agustin and Arsenio Agustin as the only culprits.

• Sufficiency of Identification: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of each of the appellants, notwithstanding the acquittal of Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Whether Emilia Labauan's testimony was sufficiently credible to sustain the conviction, despite alleged contradictions and the lower court's doubt regarding her statements about certain co-accused.
• Extrajudicial Confession Against Co-Accused: Whether Rodrigo Agustin's extrajudicial confession was admissible and properly considered against the appellants.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Whether the mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction, extreme poverty, and voluntary surrender were properly appreciated.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether treachery, abuse of superior strength, evident premeditation, commission by a band, and uninhabited place were properly appreciated.

• Sufficiency of Identification: Yes, as to four appellants. The prosecution established the guilt of Julito Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario, and Diosdado Apolinario beyond reasonable doubt through Emilia Labauan's positive identification, corroborated by physical evidence and Rodrigo Agustin's confession. Conrado Apolinario was acquitted for lack of sufficient identification.
• Credibility of Eyewitness: Yes. Emilia Labauan's testimony was credible; the alleged contradiction between her trial testimony and post-incident statement was explained by the emotional and physical shock she suffered, and the lower court's doubt regarding Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin did not affect the independent appraisal of the evidence against the appellants.
• Extrajudicial Confession Against Co-Accused: Yes. Rodrigo Agustin's confession was voluntarily executed and admissible; moreover, it was not the only evidence of appellants' participation, as Emilia independently identified four of them.
• Mitigating Circumstances: No. Lack of instruction was not established as coupled with sufficiently low intelligence; extreme poverty does not mitigate crimes of violence; and voluntary surrender was not applicable because the appellants did not surrender but were arrested or merely responded to a summons.
• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery qualified the killing to murder, absorbing abuse of superior strength. Evident premeditation was not clearly established. Commission by a band of armed men and in an uninhabited place were appreciated as aggravating.

• Sufficiency of Identification: The acquittal of Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin did not require the acquittal of the appellants, as all were equally charged and the issue on appeal was whether each appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Emilia Labauan, who witnessed the attack from three meters away in daylight and had known the assailants for years, positively identified Julito Rizardo, Silverio Apolinario, Adriano Apolinario, and Diosdado Apolinario in court. Their alibis were weak: Julito and Diosdado could not state the distance between their claimed location and the crime scene, admitted they did not know the date of the crime, and relied on a co-worker whose own recollection was unexplained. Diosdado's claim that he did not learn of his house demolition until a week later was hardly credible. Adriano's corroborating witness admitted she could not see him at all times. Silverio's corroborating witness was a relative by affinity. The number and variety of the victim's wounds, which Dr. Nacionales testified indicated different bolos were used, further disproved the claim that only Rodrigo and Arsenio Agustin were responsible. As to Conrado Apolinario, however, Emilia made no reference to him by name or nickname, and no sufficient identification linked him to the crime.

• Credibility of Eyewitness: The argument that doubt regarding Emilia's statements about Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin necessarily undermined her testimony against the appellants was rejected, as the cases against Betudio and Agustin were not before the Court for review. The alleged contradiction between Emilia's trial testimony and her post-incident statement was explained by the great emotional and physical shock she had just suffered and her semi-conscious condition when the statement was taken, making it unsurprising that she could not then give details of the attack.

• Extrajudicial Confession Against Co-Accused: Rodrigo Agustin's confession was voluntarily executed. The defense itself presented the statement as part of its case, waiving any objection based on coercion. In any event, Sgt. Gervasio Jacinto rebutted Rodrigo's claims of intimidation, and Justice of the Peace Buenaventura Tolentino testified that Rodrigo willingly affirmed the statement after its contents were explained to him. The confession was taken in the presence of the chief of police in the municipal mayor's office, which was open to the public. Crucially, the confession was not the sole evidence against the appellants, as Emilia independently identified four of them, making the confession corroborative rather than the basis of conviction.

• Mitigating Circumstances: Lack of instruction was not appreciated because it was not established that illiteracy was coupled with such a low degree of intelligence that the malefactors did not fully realize the consequences of their criminal act, citing People vs. Ripas, People vs. Gorospe, and People vs. Magpantay. Extreme poverty was rejected as a mitigating circumstance because, while it may mitigate crimes against property such as theft, it does not mitigate crimes of violence such as murder, citing People vs. Macbul. Voluntary surrender was inapplicable because the four appellants did not surrender: Silverio was arrested in the market, while the other three went to the chief of police not to surrender but because they were called.

• Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery qualified the killing to murder due to the suddenness of the attack launched from a hidden position. Treachery absorbed abuse of superior strength, citing People vs. Tiongson. Evident premeditation was not clearly established. The crime was committed by a band of armed men — at least six, each carrying a bolo — and in an uninhabited place purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime, both appreciated as aggravating circumstances.

• Positive Identification Prevails Over Alibi — Positive identification by a credible eyewitness who knew the assailants and witnessed the crime at close range and in daylight prevails over the defense of alibi, especially where the alibi is corroborated only by relatives or interested parties and the accused cannot even fix the date of the crime in their own recollection.
• Extrajudicial Confession as Corroborating Evidence — An extrajudicial confession of one accused is admissible against co-accused as corroborating evidence where it is independently supported by other prosecution evidence such as eyewitness testimony, but standing alone it is insufficient to convict a co-accident.
• Treachery Absorbs Abuse of Superior Strength — Where treachery is present as a qualifying circumstance, abuse of superior strength is absorbed and need not be separately appreciated.
• Lack of Instruction as Mitigating Circumstance — Lack of instruction is mitigating only when illiteracy is coupled with such a low degree of intelligence that the offender did not fully realize the consequences of the criminal act.
• Extreme Poverty Not Mitigating for Crimes of Violence — Extreme poverty may mitigate crimes against property, such as theft, but not crimes of violence, such as murder.
• Voluntary Surrender Requires Intent to Surrender — Voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance requires that the accused voluntarily submitted themselves to the authorities; merely responding to a summons or being arrested does not constitute voluntary surrender.

• "The conclusion does not follow from the premise insofar as this appeal is concerned. The case against Pedro Betudio and Pedro Agustin is not before us for review, but only the case against appellants. The doubt entertained by the lower court with respect to the former — with which we do not necessarily concur — does not affect our own appraisal of the evidence." — This passage articulates the principle that the acquittal of some co-accused does not necessarily require the acquittal of others, and that the appellate court independently appraises the evidence against each appellant.

• "Considering that she had just suffered a great emotional and physical shock and was practically semi-conscious when her statement was taken, it is not surprising that she could not then give the details of the attack." — This explains the Court's rationale for tolerating discrepancies between a witness's immediate post-incident statement and her trial testimony, recognizing the effects of trauma on recall.

• "Against the convincing and positive identification made by Emilia the alibis of said four appellants cannot stand." — This is the canonical formulation of the principle that positive identification prevails over alibi, a frequently cited proposition in Philippine criminal jurisprudence.

• People vs. Ripas, 95 Phil. 63 — Cited for the proposition that lack of instruction is mitigating only when illiteracy is coupled with such a low degree of intelligence that the offender did not fully realize the consequences of the criminal act.
• People vs. Gorospe, L-10644, Feb. 19, 1959 — Cited alongside People vs. Ripas for the same rule on lack of instruction as a mitigating circumstance.
• People vs. Magpantay, L-19133, Nov. 27, 1964 — Cited alongside People vs. Ripas and People vs. Gorospe for the same rule on lack of instruction.
• People vs. Macbul, 74 Phil. 436 — Cited for the proposition that extreme poverty may mitigate crimes against property, such as theft, but not crimes of violence, such as murder.
• People vs. Tiongson, L-9866-67, Nov. 28, 1964 — Cited for the proposition that treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength.

• Revised Penal Code, Article 248 (Murder) — Applied as the offense charged, with treachery as the qualifying circumstance and commission by a band and uninhabited place as aggravating circumstances. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed, the capital penalty being unavailable for lack of sufficient votes.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concurred.