People vs. De la Cerna

Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; for acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. A participant who was not part of the original conspiracy but whose presence and acts at the scene of the crime demonstrate awareness of and concurrence with the criminal design is liable as a principal by indirect conspiracy, not merely as an accomplice.

A land dispute existed between Rafael Cabizares and several of the accused, including Sulpicio de la Cerna's father, with Rafael having prevailed before the NARRA and subsequently filed ejectment complaints before the Agrarian Court against the accused. The Agrarian Court cases were scheduled for hearing on February 10, 1958, one week after the killings. This backdrop supplied the motive: the accused, having been defeated in the land dispute and facing ejectment, harbored resentment against Rafael.

Sixteen persons were indicted for double murder for the fatal shooting of Rafael Cabizares and his son Casiano on February 3, 1958, in Barrio Cebuano, municipality of Tupi, Cotabato. A land dispute between Rafael and several of the accused, including Sulpicio de la Cerna's father, had been simmering, with Rafael having prevailed before the NARRA and filed ejectment complaints before the Agrarian Court, scheduled for hearing on February 10, 1958.

According to the prosecution, early in the morning of February 3, 1958, Rafael Cabizares left Barrio Cebuano with his wife, brothers, and sons, bringing five sacks of corn on a bull cart to be milled in Tupi. When the carabao could not pull the cart uphill, Rafael, his brothers Margarito and Romualdo, and his son Gumercindo proceeded on foot carrying the sacks. As they approached Sulpicio de la Cerna's house atop the hill, Sulpicio fired at Rafael, hitting him in the lower abdomen. Sulpicio then ordered his companions to burn his house to create an excuse. The wounded Rafael was carried to the house of his father Demetrio, approximately 100 meters away, where Felisa Bastismo (Rafael's mother), Ursula Cabizares, and Segundino Cabizares were present. After Rafael's wounds were washed and he was placed in the third room, Sulpicio and the other accused arrived armed with firearms, bolos, and canes. They stoned the house and thrust bolos through the bamboo walls, wounding Segundino on the left thigh. The women were ordered to leave under threat of death. Serapio Maquiling then climbed to the kitchen window and, using a carbine obtained from Sulpicio, shot Rafael as he sat in the third room. Casiano jumped from the kitchen door and fled, but Serapio pursued and shot him in the back, killing him nearby. Sulpicio then retrieved the carbine, climbed the house, and fired a third shot at the prostrate Rafael, killing him. Casiano's body was tied to a bamboo pole and placed near Sulpicio's burned house.

The post mortem examination conducted that same day revealed that Casiano died from a gunshot wound entering the back and exiting in front, while Rafael sustained three gunshot wounds of entrance, one exit wound, and one stab wound on the left side. The trajectory of Casiano's wound — entry along the 12th rib, exit along the 6th rib — indicated an upward bullet path, inconsistent with a shot fired downward from an elevated house.

Sulpicio de la Cerna claimed self-defense. He testified that Rafael and his companions, all armed, arrived at his house demanding a confrontation; that Rafael threw his cane and ordered companions to surround, thrust bolos through, and burn the house; and that, fearing for his life, Sulpicio fired indiscriminately to drive them away. The four appellants convicted as accomplices — Rotor, Bautista, Matchoca, and Libumfacil — each claimed alibi, asserting they were elsewhere at the time of the killings. The trial court rejected these defenses, crediting the prosecution witnesses, and convicted Sulpicio and Serapio as principals, the four others as accomplices, and Alquizar as accessory.

• Procedural Defect in Preliminary Investigation: Appellants argued that the fiscal committed serious error by conducting his own preliminary investigation and indicting all the accused after the municipal court had already opined that only Sulpicio de la Cerna was guilty, without seeking a review of the municipal court's findings.
• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellants assailed the lower court for relying on prosecution witnesses, pointing to alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in their testimonies, and arguing that the witnesses' relationship to the victims impaired their credibility.
• Self-Defense: Sulpicio de la Cerna maintained that both Rafael and Casiano were killed in self-defense, claiming Rafael and his companions attacked and set fire to his house, compelling him to fire indiscriminately to drive them away.
• Alibi: The four appellants convicted as accomplices — Rotor, Bautista, Matchoca, and Libumfacil — insisted they were never at the vicinity of the killing, each providing an account of their whereabouts elsewhere on February 3, 1958.
• Absence of Treachery: Sulpicio contended that the first shot was not attended by treachery because Rafael was warned by his son Gumercindo just before being hit.
• Retraction of Prosecution Witness: Appellants relied on the retraction of witness Maximo Caña, who, one year and ten months after testifying for the prosecution, testified for the defense and claimed his original testimony was false.

• Procedural — Waiver of Objection: Whether the fiscal's independent preliminary investigation, conducted after the municipal court had dismissed charges against most accused, constituted reversible error.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were sufficient to overturn the lower court's factual findings.
• Self-Defense: Whether Sulpicio de la Cerna's claim of self-defense was credible and supported by the physical evidence.
• Treachery: Whether the killing of Rafael Cabizares was attended by treachery.
• Evident Premeditation: Whether evident premeditation was established, notwithstanding the retraction of key witness Maximo Caña.
• Scope of Conspiracy Liability: Whether Sulpicio de la Cerna could be held liable for the killing of Casiano Cabizares, given that the conspiracy was directed only at Rafael.
• Liability of the Four Accomplices: Whether Rotor, Bautista, Matchoca, and Libumfacil should be held liable as principals rather than mere accomplices.

• Procedural — Waiver of Objection: No. Whatever procedural defect existed was waived by appellants' failure to raise the objection before entering their pleas, the objection having been raised only after the prosecution had rested its case.
• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities were without substantial and significant basis, and the lower court's findings on credibility, involving an appreciation of evidence, should stand.
• Self-Defense: No. The autopsy reports contradicted Sulpicio's claim of frontal shooting from an elevated position; both decedents sustained gunshot wounds directly at the back, and Casiano's wound trajectory was upward, not downward.
• Treachery: Yes. The second and third shots at Rafael were treacherously fired while he was wounded and defenseless, with a sufficient lapse of time and intervening events between the first and second shots warranting independent consideration of treachery.
• Evident Premeditation: Yes. A previous direct conspiracy to kill Rafael was established through the testimony of Maximo Caña regarding the meeting of February 2, 1958, in Andres Abapo's house, and Caña's retraction was properly rejected in favor of his original, detailed, and corroborated testimony.
• Scope of Conspiracy Liability: No. Sulpicio de la Cerna could not be held liable for the killing of Casiano Cabizares because the conspiracy was limited to killing Rafael only; co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.
• Liability of the Four Accomplices: Yes. Rotor, Bautista, Matchoca, and Libumfacil were liable as co-principals, their active participation and presence at the scene demonstrating awareness of and concurrence with the criminal design, constituting direct or indirect conspiracy.

• Procedural — Waiver of Objection: The objection to the fiscal's independent preliminary investigation was raised only after the prosecution had rested its case. Pursuant to Section 10, Rule 113 (now Rule 117) of the Rules of Court, any procedural defect was deemed waived by the appellants' failure to raise it before entering their pleas. The Court cited Oca vs. Jimenez in support of this procedural rule.

• Credibility of Witnesses: The Court examined each prosecution witness's testimony individually and found the alleged inconsistencies either immaterial or explainable by the different situations to which the statements referred. Romualdo Cabizares's statements about Conrado Pardillo were not inconsistent but referred to different time frames. Margarito Cabizares's momentary loss of consciousness did not preclude his later observations. Gumercindo Cabizares's conversation with Juan was not contradicted by Juan. Marcelo Cabizares's two identification statements referred to different situations. Felisa Bastismo's reference to "wounds" did not specify a number. Ursula Cabizares's error about Margarito's presence was immaterial. Dr. Garcia's approximations of room dimensions were insignificant. The Court noted that most witnesses being related to the victim does not necessarily impair credibility, citing People vs. Constantino. Because the findings involved appreciation of evidence and credibility, the lower court's findings should stand.

• Self-Defense: Sulpicio's version that he shot the decedents frontally from his elevated house was contradicted by the physical evidence. Both decedents sustained gunshot wounds directly at the back. Casiano's wound of entry along the 12th rib was lower than the wound of exit along the 6th rib, showing an upward bullet path inconsistent with a shot fired downward from a house with flooring approximately five feet high. Rafael's cadaver bore a stab wound on the left side, which Sulpicio's version could not account for. No weapons, stones, or the alleged cane thrown by Rafael were found around Sulpicio's burned house, whereas bloodstains were found inside Demetrio's house and at the spot where Casiano fell. Sulpicio's flight from his house while it was not yet totally burned was inconsistent with self-defense, as the natural response would have been to extinguish the fire. The motive favored the accused: Rafael had prevailed in the land dispute, making it improbable that he harbored a grudge against those he had defeated.

• Treachery: Even assuming the first shot was not treacherous because Rafael was warned, the second shot by Serapio Maquiling was definitely treacherous, as Rafael was then wounded and defenseless in the third room of Demetrio's house. The treachery of the second shot was independently considered due to the sufficient lapse of time from the first shot, during which Rafael was carried 100 meters, his wounds washed, he was placed in the third room, and the accused arrived and ordered the women out. The third shot by Sulpicio was likewise treacherous, Rafael being flat on the floor and completely defenseless. Dr. Garcia's testimony confirmed that Rafael died only after the third, mortal wound. Sulpicio was chargeable for Serapio's treacherous shooting because both were acting as co-conspirators.

• Evident Premeditation: Witness Maximo Caña testified to a meeting on February 2, 1958, in Andres Abapo's house, where Bautista announced the purpose was to plan the killing of Rafael Cabizares. Bautista and Maquiling signified willingness to execute the plan; Sulpicio offered to do it if his family were cared for. None objected; all agreed. Caña also witnessed Matchoca and Bautista giving a carbine magazine with bullets to Rotor the following morning, and was present during the shootings. Caña later retracted, claiming he was not in Tupi on those dates and had been bribed by Rafael's widow. The Court applied the rule that mere retraction does not necessarily vitiate original testimony otherwise credible, citing People vs. Urbina and People vs. Alcaraz. The lower court properly weighed both testimonies and accepted the original. The original testimony was positive, detailed, and withstood thorough cross-examination; it was corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The retraction was evasive, uncorroborated, and contradicted by witnesses who saw Caña with the accused on February 3. The bribery claim was improbable: Caña had executed an incriminating affidavit a month before the alleged bribe, and it was implausible for Rafael's widow to openly bribe Caña at the house of a relative of the accused. The corroborating witness Gaudencio Esperanza, father-in-law of Serapio Maquiling, disclosed the bribery only after Caña had testified for the defense and been charged with perjury, rendering his story a fabrication. Evident premeditation was duly established and further buttressed by Sulpicio's actuations on February 3 — telling companions to "get ready," ordering the house burned to create an excuse, pursuing Rafael to Demetrio's house, and firing the final shot.

• Scope of Conspiracy Liability: The conspiracy was to kill Rafael only and no one else. Nothing was said or agreed upon about members of Rafael's family. The accused allowed the two women inside Demetrio's house to leave unhurt and did no harm to Rafael's other companions. Their target was solely Rafael. The rule is that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; for acts outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable, citing People vs. Hamiana, People vs. Daligdig, People vs. Umali, and People vs. Dueñas. Only Serapio killed Casiano, who was fleeing and not going to his father's aid. Although Serapio obtained the carbine from Sulpicio, there was no evidence Sulpicio was aware Serapio would use it to kill Casiano. Presumably, Sulpicio gave the carbine for Serapio to shoot Rafael only. Sulpicio could not be considered a principal by indispensable cooperation or an accomplice because there was no concrete proof he abetted the shooting of Casiano.

• Liability of the Four Accomplices: Rotor was positively identified by six prosecution witnesses as being present at Sulpicio's house, firing at Rafael, carrying a pistol, and participating in the siege of Demetrio's house. Although not present at the February 2 meeting, his active participation — shooting at Rafael and carrying a pistol — demonstrated a direct connection with the criminal design, making him a principal by indirect conspiracy. Bautista and Matchoca were established as present at the February 2 meeting and actively participated: giving a carbine magazine and instructions to Rotor, shouting threats at Rafael, and laying siege to Demetrio's house. They were actual conspirators and co-principals. Libumfacil, though not present at the February 2 meeting, was present at Sulpicio's house and at Demetrio's house, armed with a pistol, firing at Rafael, and participating in the stoning. His actuations manifested awareness of and concurrence with the criminal design, making him a co-principal by indirect conspiracy. In all four cases, the positive identification by multiple prosecution witnesses prevailed over uncorroborated or even corroborated alibi. Motive was established for each: Rotor's father had a land dispute with Rafael; Bautista and Matchoca were respondents in the Agrarian Court case; Libumfacil's mother had a land conflict with Rafael and his step-father was a respondent in the Agrarian Court case.

• Retraction Doctrine — A mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if otherwise credible. The proper course is for the trial court to weigh and compare both testimonies. The original testimony prevails where it is positive, detailed, withstood thorough cross-examination, and is corroborated by other witnesses, while the retraction is evasive, uncorroborated, contradicted, and supported by improbable circumstances. Applied here to reject Maximo Caña's retraction in favor of his original testimony establishing evident premeditation.

• Scope of Conspiracy Liability — Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Applied here to acquit Sulpicio de la Cerna for the killing of Casiano Cabizares, the conspiracy having been limited to killing Rafael only.

• Indirect Conspiracy — A person not present at the original conspiracy meeting but whose presence and active participation at the scene of the crime demonstrate awareness of and concurrence with the criminal design is liable as a principal by indirect conspiracy, not merely as an accomplice. Applied here to upgrade Rotor and Libumfacil from accomplices to principals.

• Independent Consideration of Treachery — Where a sufficient lapse of time separates the first shot from subsequent shots, with intervening events, treachery attendant upon the subsequent shots must be independently considered. Applied here to find treachery in the second and third shots at Rafael, notwithstanding the possible absence of treachery in the first shot.

• Alibi vs. Positive Identification — Alibi, whether corroborated or uncorroborated, cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by multiple credible prosecution witnesses. Applied here to reject the alibis of all four accomplice-appellants.

• Relationship of Witnesses to Victim — The fact that most prosecution witnesses are related to the victim does not necessarily impair their credibility. Applied here to sustain the credibility of the Cabizares family witnesses.

• "The rule has always been that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable." — This passage states the controlling principle on the scope of conspiracy liability, the ratio decidendi for acquitting Sulpicio for Casiano's killing.

• "The proper thing for the trial court to do is to weigh and compare both testimonies." — This defines the canonical approach to retractions, requiring comparative weighing rather than automatic acceptance or rejection.

• "His active participation — shooting at Rafael and carrying a pistol — which has a direct connection with the criminal design against Rafael Cabizares makes him a principal by indirect conspiracy, not an accomplice only." — This articulates the standard for distinguishing a principal by indirect conspiracy from a mere accomplice, based on active participation demonstrating concurrence with the criminal design.

• People vs. Constantino, L-23558, Aug. 10, 1967 — Followed for the proposition that the relationship of prosecution witnesses to the victim does not necessarily impair their credibility.
• People vs. Urbina, 97 Phil. 515 — Followed for the doctrine that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate original testimony otherwise credible.
• People vs. Alcaraz, 103 Phil. 533 — Followed for the same retraction doctrine.
• People vs. Hamiana, 89 Phil. 225 — Followed for the rule that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy.
• People vs. Daligdig, 89 Phil. 598 — Followed for the same conspiracy liability rule.
• People vs. Umali, 96 Phil. 185 — Followed for the same conspiracy liability rule.
• People vs. Dueñas, L-15307, May 30, 1961 — Followed for the same conspiracy liability rule.
• U.S. vs. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385 — Cited for the principle that treachery must be independently considered where a sufficient lapse of time separates the attacks.
• Oca vs. Jimenez, L-17777, June 29, 1962 — Cited in support of the procedural rule that objections to preliminary investigation defects are waived if not raised before pleading.

• Section 10, Rule 113 (now Rule 117), Rules of Court — Governs the waiver of objections to defects in preliminary investigation. Applied to hold that the appellants' failure to raise the procedural objection before entering their pleas constituted a waiver.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concurred.