People vs. Hernandez

Murder qualified by treachery is established where the victim was first bound and then stabbed and struck on the head while defenseless, and a conviction may rest on credible, corroborated eyewitness testimony supported by voluntary extrajudicial confessions despite an alibi. The detailed account of the killing, corroborated by the cord, wrist marks, wounds, and disappearance of the jeep, together with confessions freely given after the eyewitness disclosed the crime, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Paulino Lozada was an electrical engineer at the Peter Paul factory in Candelaria, Quezon, boarding in the house of Eufracio Dinglasan. Agustin Hernandez was his intimate friend. Lozada maintained a sweetheart correspondence with Remedios Dinglasan, a student boarding in Lucena and sister of Ruperto Dinglasan, evidenced by letters and common photographs.

On March 30, 1947, at about 4:30 in the afternoon, Hernandez and Teofilo Cedeno were on the national road in San Pablo City, Laguna, waiting for a truck bound for Candelaria, Quezon, when Lozada passed in his jeep and invited them to ride. With two other companions of Lozada, the five left San Pablo for Candelaria. Upon reaching Candelaria the jeep parked in front of Lozada's boarding house where his companions alighted, Lozada filled the jeep with gasoline, and Lozada, Hernandez and Cedeno rode again toward Lucena at about 6:30 p.m. Hernandez claimed he and Cedeno alighted after passing Cine Mena and before Quiapo bridge in eastern Candelaria, which was the last time Lozada was heard of alive.

According to the prosecution through Cedeno, on reaching barrio Mangilag Hernandez asked Lozada to stop to visit a friend, returning with Fernando Malaborbor, and all proceeded to Lucena, arriving at 7:30 p.m. After driving around town they went to the boarding house of Remedios Dinglasan, where Hernandez talked ten meters from the jeep with Ruperto Dinglasan, then passed the Lucena theater to Abellanosa street where the jeep stalled. While Lozada fixed the engine, Hernandez took Cedeno behind the jeep, confided the plan to kill Lozada, threatened Cedeno with death if he refused to join, and assured him Ruperto would not forsake them. After the repair Cedeno jumped from the moving jeep but Lozada stopped and, upon Cedeno's excuse of visiting his son, promised another occasion, Cedeno being unable to warn Lozada because of Malaborbor's threatening look. With Hernandez now driving toward Candelaria, he abruptly stopped at barrio Sto. Cristo, Sariaya on a cement road, Malaborbor seized Lozada, Hernandez ordered Cedeno to tie Lozada which he did, and Malaborbor led Lozada away while Cedeno stopped about seven meters from the road. Cedeno then heard Lozada plead and a moan, after which Malaborbor returned with an open knife which he closed, assuring Hernandez that Lozada was dead and could not have survived the blow. They dropped Malaborbor at Mangilag, drove via San Juan to Lipa where the jeep was delivered to an unrecognized man in the dark, and returned to Candelaria between 4:30 and 5:30 the next morning. The motive was Ruperto's desire to get even for his sister Remedios, Lozada's girlfriend; three days before March 30 Ruperto had asked Hernandez at Ambo's eating place to help eliminate Lozada for P2,000, and three days after the murder Hernandez offered Cedeno P60 in cash and two cans of sugar, Cedeno accepting only the money.

When Lozada disappeared, his brother sought help on March 31 from Sariaya chief of police Andres Remo, and on April 2 the chief received report of a dead body in barrio Sto. Cristo. The chief, sanitary inspector and sanitary division president found the corpse amid high cogon grass about 40 meters from the cemented provincial road, the chief recognizing Lozada whom he had known since 1943. The sanitary inspector found worms crawling around four abdominal wounds about one centimeter each and 1 1/2 centimeters apart, removed them with a stick to measure, found the scalp at the right parietal region eaten away exposing the skull, observed rope marks on the wrists, and saw nearby a pencil-sized rope about one meter long with a loop at one end. The father and brother recognized and buried the corpse. Initial inquiries yielded denials, including affidavits by Hernandez and Cedeno on April 13 that they had alighted toward Lucena and lost sight of Lozada, until Cedeno's May 24 affidavit and Hernandez's same-day detailed confession, Exhibit I, before the deputy clerk of court, followed by further disclosures to the fiscal, Exhibit J, on the agreement with Ruperto for P2,000.

For his part, Hernandez testified that after alighting near Cine Mena he met his friend Danoy, Adriano Gutierrez, about a fighting cock Gutierrez had promised, went home for supper, then returned with half a bottle of lambanog and two bottles of beer. He claimed they drank the mixture, he became drunk being unaccustomed to drinking, reclined on a sofa and slept until 12:00 before going home, a story supported by Gutierrez. He denied the Candelaria-Lucena trip and killing, claimed Exhibit I was signed under torture by water cure, and claimed Exhibit J was given because his uncle Urbano Hernandez told him Attorney Dimayuga and Maximo Lozada promised he would become a state witness and, having confessed, it was his only salvation. The trial court credited Cedeno's positive, detailed testimony as corroborated by the letters and pictures proving the sweetheart motive, the cord and wrist marks, the missing jeep, and the head and abdominal wounds matching Malaborbor's knife and fatal blow, while rejecting the alibi as improbable and contradictory and sustaining the voluntariness of the confessions and plea of guilty.

• Credibility and Alibi: Petitioner contended that the lower court erred in not giving credit to the defense witnesses, maintaining that he and Cedeno alighted near Cine Mena before Quiapo bridge and that his night-long drinking and sleep at Danoy Gutierrez's house over a fighting cock established alibi.
• Voluntariness of Confessions: Petitioner argued that Exhibit I was involuntary, having been signed under torture by water cure, and that Exhibit J was induced by his uncle's assurance that Attorney Dimayuga and Maximo Lozada promised he would be made a state witness and could thereby save himself.
• Treachery: Petitioner argued that treachery was not proved and therefore could not qualify the killing as murder.
• Newly Discovered Evidence: Petitioner moved for new trial on the affidavit of prisoner Isidro Bola, asserting that Bola and others had killed Lozada to rob him of his revolver, jeep and money.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Alibi: Whether Hernandez's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt through Cedeno's testimony and corroboration notwithstanding the defense of alibi.
• Voluntariness of Confessions: Whether Exhibits I and J and the plea of guilty at preliminary investigation were voluntary and admissible to support conviction.
• Treachery: Whether treachery qualified the killing as murder.
• Mitigating Drunkenness: Whether drunkenness, not habitual, should mitigate liability.
• New Trial: Whether new trial should be granted on the affidavit of Isidro Bola as newly discovered evidence.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Alibi: Yes. Guilt was established by clear, positive and logical eyewitness testimony corroborated by motive, cord and wounds, and disappearance of the jeep, against an improbable and contradictory alibi.
• Voluntariness of Confessions: Yes. The confessions were voluntary, the defense having failed to overcome the clerk of court and fiscal's testimony and the absence of need to coerce after Cedeno's disclosure.
• Treachery: Yes. Treachery qualified the crime because Lozada was first bound with a cord, then stabbed and struck on the head while so bound and defenseless.
• Mitigating Drunkenness: No. Drunkenness was not mitigating because it was taken to embolden Hernandez in executing the plotted killing.
• New Trial: No. The Bola affidavit was not credible newly discovered evidence, lacking details and assurance of truth and obtained from a cellmate like a prior defense witness.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Alibi: Cedeno's account was clear, positive and logical with no distortion, and was corroborated without counting the confessions by the sweetheart letters and pictures establishing motive, the one-meter cord and wrist marks, the missing jeep consistent with delivery in Lipa, and the head wound and four abdominal knife wounds matching Malaborbor's fatal blow and closed knife. Cedeno's prior exculpatory affidavit of April 13 was satisfactorily explained by fear of Hernandez while Hernandez remained unarrested, and its similarity in details showed Hernandez's influence. The alibi was improbable for failure to explain alighting near Cine Mena, for claiming a whole night's talk only about a fighting cock, and for gross contradictions on the drink as sarsaparilla and sweet versus beer and bitter and on the companion as Mariano Virtuocio versus Eduardo Gutierrez.
• Voluntariness of Confessions: The trial court's finding of voluntariness was sustained because Hernandez made Exhibit I on the same day Cedeno disclosed all details including Hernandez's participation, leaving Hernandez unnerved and deciding to make a clean breast, followed by a guilty plea on June 4, 1947 and further disclosures on June 21, 1947. No force was needed since Cedeno's affidavit already supplied evidence against Hernandez, unlike against the Dinglasans who did not confess, and the alleged promise by Dimayuga and Lozada could not have induced Exhibit J because only the investigating fiscal could promise state-witness status.
• Treachery: The contention against treachery lacked merit because Lozada was first bound with a cord at Hernandez's order, then stabbed in the abdomen and hit in the head with a club or stone while so bound, rendering him unable to defend himself. The sanitary inspector's examination of the stab wounds prevailed over the sanitary division president's opinion in the death certificate that they were gunshot wounds, no careful examination having been made.
• Mitigating Drunkenness: Although Cedeno testified they drank at Pasumbal's place and Hernandez smelled of liquor behind the jeep, drunkenness could not mitigate because Hernandez, having plotted Lozada's death, had drunk to embolden himself for the evil plan. Drunkenness deliberately taken for criminal execution loses its mitigating effect.
• New Trial: The Bola affidavit stating affiant and others killed Lozada to rob him of revolver, jeep and money gave no details to assure truth and came from a New Bilibid prisoner where appellant was confined, mirroring appellant's prior use of cellmate Alfonso Abransillo at the provincial jail and showing a knack for securing cellmate testimony. It therefore did not warrant reopening the judgment.

• Credibility of eyewitness corroborated by physical evidence — Positive, clear and logical testimony is credited when corroborated in material details by independent evidence and untainted by distortion. Applied by crediting Cedeno because motive letters and pictures, cord and wrist marks, wounds, and missing jeep all fitted his detailed narrative.
• Voluntariness of extrajudicial confession — A confession is voluntary where freely signed after paragraph-by-paragraph reading without pressure, and bare claims of torture or false promises do not overcome official testimony and surrounding circumstances negating need for coercion. Applied by sustaining Exhibits I and J given the clerk of court and fiscal's testimony, Cedeno's prior disclosure, and the guilty plea at preliminary investigation.
• Alibi vs. positive identification — Alibi fails against clear positive testimony, especially where improbable and contradicted on material points. Applied by rejecting the drinking-sleep story for lack of reason to alight, implausible single-topic conversation, and gross mistakes on drink and companion.
• Treachery — Treachery exists where the offender employs means directly ensuring execution without risk from defense, such as binding the victim before stabbing and striking the head. Applied by qualifying the killing as murder because Lozada was tied before being stabbed and struck.
• Drunkenness as mitigating circumstance — Drunkenness mitigates only when not habitual and not taken to embolden criminal design; liquor deliberately taken to carry out a plotted crime is not mitigating. Applied by denying mitigation though Hernandez smelled of liquor, since drinking preceded execution of the murder plot.
• New trial on newly discovered evidence — New trial requires evidence with reasonable assurance of truth, not mere bare, detail-less affidavits procured from fellow prisoners. Applied by denying the motion based on Bola's affidavit for lack of details and indicia of fabrication.

• "A study of the testimony of Cedeno readily convinces us of its truthfullness." — States the core credibility finding that anchors the conviction, emphasizing the clarity and logic of the eyewitness narrative.
• "There is, therefor, no room for reasonable doubt that the murder must have been effected in the form and manner and under the circumstances testified by Cedeño." — Articulates the conclusion on sufficiency of evidence, linking corroborating physical facts to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• "Pareng Osting, hinihingi ko na ang buhay ko," — Reproduces Lozada's reported supplication for life heard by Cedeno, illustrating the manner of execution and the helplessness supporting treachery.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.