People vs. Sespeñe

The SC will not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact on witness credibility absent a showing that it failed to consider a material fact or circumstance; and where the killing is attended by treachery, the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, aid of armed men, and nighttime are absorbed by treachery and cannot be separately appreciated to raise the penalty.

Leonardo Enerio lived in barrio Tagbaya, Ibajay, Capiz with his wife Gloria Enerio, their three minor children, the oldest being nine years old, and a houseboy. In the afternoon of June 23, 1953, Leonardo left his home to tend his carabao, leaving behind his bolo and instructing the houseboy to split some firewood. Between 6:00 and 6:30 o’clock that evening, Priscila Enerio Andrade, Leonardo’s sister, arrived at the house to fetch him because their mother, Marenciana Bitong, was seriously ill. Not finding her brother at home, Priscila waited and conversed with Gloria and one Eliang from Buracay. Bienvenido Sajera and Domingo Sajona arrived; Sajona sat on a chair inside the sala while Sajera hid behind the shutters in the balcony. Inside the sala were Gloria, Priscila, Eliang, and Sajona, and the place was well lighted with a “Coleman” lamp hanging in the center. Sajona inquired for the deceased and scarcely had Gloria replied when the sound of chopping banana stalks in the backyard and the dropping of stones atop the roof were heard. Gloria asked Sajona who were with him, and he replied that there was no one. Gloria then invited Priscila and Sajona to the balcony, and as they looked outside Gloria and Priscila saw three individuals hiding behind Gloria’s store, about half a meter from the house. While they were watching the movements of those individuals, Leonardo Enerio arrived.

Just as Leonardo was about to step on the first rung of the ladder, Jesus Mangilog suddenly appeared and rushed towards him, attacking him from the rear with a bolo locally known as “talibong.” Taken completely by surprise, Leonardo was struck on both shoulders, after which he faced his assailant. Mangilog stepped backward, a little to the left side, and at that instance Nicanor Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, and Pedro Calizo, each armed with a firearm, arrived and fired four shots at Leonardo. Upon seeing Leonardo fall, Gloria and Priscila shouted for help. Sajera and Sajona went down from the house; Sajona removed the ladder while Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, and Pedro Calizo stood around. After Sajona had laid the ladder on the ground, and upon seeing the victim stand up and make an effort to escape, Sajona fired his revolver at him. Immediately thereafter, Sajera, who was behind, knifed the deceased once on the nape. Still with life, Leonardo made an attempt to flee, but the assailants surrounded him and forced him to lean against the fence fronting the house. The fence broke due to its weak condition and Leonardo fell with it, his head touching the canal while his feet rested at the base of the fence. While in that position, Sespeñe shouted “kill him” and one of them fired a shot at Leonardo. Immediately afterwards, the assailants fled. After they left, Gloria and Priscila jumped out of the house and went to succor Leonardo; with the help of Camilo Calizo, Gloria’s brother, they carried Leonardo to the house while Gloria’s mother called for a doctor. Leonardo told his wife that his assailants were Nicanor Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, Pedro Calizo, Bienvenido Sajera, Domingo Sajona, and Jesus Mangilog. A few minutes after Leonardo was brought into the house, he breathed his last. Dr. Sulpicio Sityar performed the autopsy and found multiple injuries: a cut incise wound near the left cheek; a puncture wound in the left epigastric region with the intestines coming out; incised wounds on the right elbow and left forearm; a penetrating bullet wound on the left hip with the bullet lodged in the abdominal cavity; a penetrating bullet wound through the left arm; an almost severed left thumb; a puncture wound at the base of the neck; incised wounds on the back near the neck and at the level of the right shoulder that almost severed the arm; a penetrating bullet wound in the sacral region with the bullet embedded in the vertebral column; and a through-and-through puncture wound on the right thigh. A great quantity of extravasated blood was found in the thoracic and abdominal cavities, and Leonardo died of hemorrhage.

According to the appellants, a different sequence occurred. On June 21, 1953, Prefetiza Enerio, Domingo Sajona, and Bienvenido Sajera teased Camilo Calizo; Prefetiza took off Camilo’s hat, exposing his shaved head, Bienvenido touched Camilo’s head, and Sajona laughed loudly. Camilo felt offended and upbraided Bienvenido, telling him that he was a teacher while Bienvenido was only a “vaquero”; Sajona apologized and went home. In the morning of June 23, Sonia Totol told Domingo Sajona to go to Leonardo Enerio’s house with Bienvenido to settle the misunderstanding with Camilo. On his way to Leonardo’s house that afternoon, Domingo met Leonardo in the ricefield, and Leonardo told him to go to his house with Bienvenido to settle their misunderstanding with Camilo. Domingo fetched Bienvenido, and before proceeding to Leonardo’s house they passed the house of Guadalupe Zowan, where they met several people who wanted to attend the last canvassing of candidates for queen in the feast of San Pedro, in which Nolita Tumbokon, the niece of Nicanor Sespeñe, was a candidate. On their way they met Priscila Andrade in front of the house of Silvestre Tumbokon; Priscila asked where they were going, and they replied that they were going to town to dance and attend the last canvassing, with Magdaleno Mangilog carrying a guitar. Upon reaching Leonardo’s house, Domingo and Bienvenido begged leave from their companions to drop by Leonardo’s house for a few moments, while the rest of the company proceeded to the Culbert to wait for them. Bienvenido remained in the balcony while Domingo proceeded to the sala. Gloria told Domingo that Leonardo was out pasturing his carabao and asked what he wanted; he replied that he had come to settle the misunderstanding with Camilo. Finding Leonardo out of the house, Domingo asked permission to go home. Gloria accompanied him to the door of the sala, where Domingo met Leonardo coming up the ladder. Upon meeting Domingo, without much ado, Leonardo stabbed Domingo with a butcher’s knife (Flamingo). Domingo stepped back and parried the blow, wounding him on the left hand; he showed a scar on the palm below the little finger, four inches long. Leonardo gave him another bolo blow, but Domingo retreated and jumped out of the balcony. Gloria shouted, “Don’t, don’t, Leonardo,” closed the door, and shouted for help. Bienvenido, upon seeing the attack, tried to escape by going downstairs but was blocked by Leonardo, who gave him a bolo blow. Bienvenido parried by taking hold of Leonardo’s hands with his left hand and grasping the blade with his right; Leonardo continued pushing the point of the knife far enough to hit Bienvenido on the right chest. Bienvenido lost his balance and fell downstairs. Leonardo chased Bienvenido after recovering from his fall, but Bienvenido escaped. Bienvenido was taken to the hospital and confined for about twenty days from June 24 to July 14, 1953. While Nicanor Sespeñe and his companions were waiting for Domingo and Bienvenido, they heard a shout for help. Nicanor proceeded to the place where he heard the shout and on the road saw Leonardo chasing Bienvenido. Nicanor told him, “don’t Nardo.” As he blocked the way, Leonardo warned him, “you too?” Nicanor raised his hands as a sign to stop him, saying that he was not going to fight, but despite his protestation Leonardo boloed him. Nicanor parried the blow and grabbed the blade, but the point of the knife hit him on the right chest below the right clavicle; he showed a scar a little smaller than a ten-centavo coin. He was pushed by Leonardo and stumbled down face up; as Leonardo was about to give another thrust, Nicanor kicked him with his left leg, and the knife thrust landed on the right dorsal region of his thigh above the knee. As Leonardo stepped back, Mangilog, coming from behind, gave him a bolo blow hitting him on the back. After they heard four explosions, they all ran away, leaving Leonardo Enerio and Jesus Mangilog still wrestling. Pedro Calizo and Apolinario Leonardo did not reach the place where Leonardo and Jesus were wrestling because they were afraid to approach them. All the appellants admitted having been present at or near the scene of the killing at the time of its occurrence, with Sajona, Sajera, and Sespeñe even claiming that they were the very victims of an attack initiated by Leonardo with a “flamingo” or butcher’s knife; they denied, however, having lifted so much as their little fingers against Leonardo or having participated in any way in the slaying.

The record also showed motive. A week before the incident, Gloria Enerio went to collect from Domingo Sajona, Pedro Calizo, and Jesus Mangilog their debts for tuba and sardines which they had brought on credit from the store of the offended party, but they replied that they had no money then. In the afternoon of June 22, 1953, the day before the killing, Sajona and Calizo and Jesus Mangilog returned to the store and wanted to make purchases on credit, but Leonardo refused to extend them credit until they had paid their old accounts. Disgusted, Sajona remarked: “If you will not be taken during the day, by evening you will be taken,” after which he and his companions left. Sometime in March 1953, Leonardo had a dispute with Sespeñe and Apolinario Leonardo regarding the boundaries of a piece of land in barrio Tagbaya, which was settled by the barrio lieutenant and a councilor. After the first complaint was filed, the widow of the offended party was given on December 16, 1953 the sum of P3,000 by Nicanor Tumbokon, and a week later at the constabulary headquarters at Numancia she was given another sum of P500 by Nicanor Sespeñe in consideration that she would not testify during the trial. Because of a sick child in the hospital and because she was not given much choice, the widow accepted those sums, deposited them with the branch office of the Philippine National Bank in Capiz, and was made to sign several sheets of paper, among them a letter addressed to the Provincial Fiscal asking for the dismissal of the case because of her loss of interest over the subject matter. Because Nicanor Tumbokon told her to leave the place, the widow left for Manila on February 22, 1954, which accounted for her absence on the date of the trial and resulted in the dismissal of the case. During her stay in Manila, the widow reported the matter to the constabulary authorities at Camp Crame, and as a result the second complaint was filed.

As a result of the investigation, a complaint for murder was filed on July 3, 1953 with the Justice of the Peace Court of Ibajay, Capiz against Nicanor Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, Pedro Calizo, Bienvenido Sajera, Domingo Sajona, and Jesus Mangilog; it was provisionally dismissed because Gloria Enerio was absent and Priscila Enerio Andrade could not be located. On July 29, 1954, the case was revived with the filing of a new complaint against the same accused. The accused waived their right to preliminary investigation, except Jesus Mangilog, who had not been arrested, and the case was elevated to the CFI of Capiz where an information for murder was filed against all of them except Jesus Mangilog, who remained at large. After due hearing, all the defendants were found guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs, with the amount of P3,500 paid to the widow as partial compensation to be deducted from the indemnity. The trial court found the prosecution theory more credible: Gloria and Priscila saw all the accused attack Leonardo from the time he was boloed by Jesus Mangilog to the last shot that ended his life, and they identified each accused, with sufficient light coming from the Coleman lamp inside the house and from a moonlit night. The trial court did not give much credence to the defense witnesses because of their bias for being related to some of the accused and the inherent weakness of their versions. It stated that conspiracy was not definitely established but gleaned from the sequence of events a preconceived plan: Domingo Sajona was sent to engage the occupants of the house in conversation, Bienvenido remained in the balcony as a lookout, while Jesus Mangilog, Nicanor Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, and Pedro Calizo hid in strategic positions behind the stores and the house; the chopping of banana stalks and the throwing of stones on the roof were purposely done to attract attention and force Leonardo to come out, or the throwing of stones might have been a prearranged signal that Leonardo was approaching and thus the concerted attack commenced.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: The appellants argued that the trial judge committed errors relative to the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses; they concentrated their frontal attack on Priscila Andrade as the star witness, trying to establish that she was not an eyewitness and was only informed of her brother’s death by Prima Lumio.
• Denial and Defense Version: The appellants admitted presence at or near the scene, with Sajona, Sajera, and Sespeñe claiming that they were the victims of an attack initiated by Leonardo with a “flamingo” or butcher’s knife, and denied lifting a finger against Leonardo or participating in the slaying.

• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: The Solicitor General, for the People, maintained that the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, aid of armed men, and dwelling, and recommended that the CFI decision be modified by raising the penalty to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants guilty of murder based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Priscila Andrade.
• Treachery: Whether the killing of Leonardo Enerio was qualified by treachery.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether superior strength, aid of armed men, nighttime, and dwelling may be appreciated separately from treachery to raise the penalty.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty should be death instead of reclusion perpetua.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: No. The SC found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility, and the conviction was sustained.
• Treachery: Yes. The SC affirmed that the killing was murder qualified by treachery.
• Aggravating Circumstances: No. Superior strength, aid of armed men, and nighttime are included in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately; dwelling was doubtful.
• Penalty: No. The SC maintained reclusion perpetua; the required number of votes for death was not obtained.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Credibility: The SC applied the settled rule that an appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact made by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, in view of its opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying, and that such findings will generally be accepted and acted upon unless the trial court failed to consider some material fact or circumstance. It found nothing in the record to justify disturbing the CFI’s findings. The appellants concentrated their attack on Priscila Andrade as the star witness, trying to show that she was not an eyewitness and was only informed of her brother’s death by Prima Lumio, but the trial court did not give much credence to the defense witnesses because of their bias for being related to some of the accused and the inherent weakness of their versions. The trial court believed the prosecution theory that Gloria and Priscila saw all the accused attack Leonardo from the bolo blow by Jesus Mangilog to the last shot, and that they identified each accused under sufficient light from the Coleman lamp and a moonlit night. The SC also held that motive is not indispensable; even if the motive shown was trifling or frivolous, conviction may follow when the commission of the crime is clearly proven and there is no doubt as to the perpetrators.
• Treachery: The SC sustained the CFI’s finding that the killing was murder qualified by treachery. The evidence showed that Jesus Mangilog suddenly appeared and attacked Leonardo from the rear with a talibong just as Leonardo was about to step on the first rung of the ladder, and that Nicanor Sespeñe, Apolinario Leonardo, and Pedro Calizo then arrived armed with firearms and fired four shots at him. The SC declared that it did not entertain any doubt that the appellants were the perpetrators of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, charged in the case.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The SC rejected the Solicitor General’s recommendation to raise the penalty to death. It held that the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and aid of armed men, as well as nighttime, are included in the qualifying circumstance of treachery and cannot be appreciated separately from treachery. As to dwelling, the SC entertained doubts as to its applicability because the deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder of the house when he was assaulted by the appellants, and it preferred to maintain the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial judge.
• Penalty: The SC maintained the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It noted that the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty had not been obtained, so the CFI’s penalty was affirmed.

• Appellate deference to trial court’s credibility findings — An appellate court will not disturb the findings of fact made by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, given its opportunity to observe their demeanor and conduct while testifying, and such findings will generally be accepted and acted upon unless the trial court failed to consider some material fact or circumstance. The SC applied this rule to reject the appellants’ attack on the CFI’s factual findings and its crediting of the prosecution witnesses, especially Priscila Andrade.
• Motive not indispensable in murder — Motive is important where there is doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator, but when there is no doubt that the defendant caused the death, it is not absolutely necessary to establish the exact reason for the killing. The SC applied this rule despite the trial court’s observation that the motive shown was trifling and frivolous, because the commission of the crime and the identity of the appellants were clearly established.
• Absorption of aggravating circumstances by treachery — The aggravating circumstances of superior strength and aid of armed men, as well as nighttime, are included in the qualifying circumstance of treachery and cannot be appreciated separately from treachery. The SC applied this rule to reject the Solicitor General’s recommendation to raise the penalty to death.
• Dwelling as aggravating circumstance; doubt resolved in favor of the accused — The SC entertained doubts as to the applicability of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because the deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder of the house when he was assaulted, and it preferred to maintain the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• Death penalty requires the required number of votes — The SC maintained reclusion perpetua after noting that the required number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty had not been obtained.

• “that the appellate court will not disturb the findings of facts made by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, in view of its opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying, and that the said findings will generally be accepted and acted upon” — The SC applied this settled rule to decline disturbing the CFI’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
• “Whatever the cause of the killing, it is not absolutely necessary to find a motive therefor. The question of motive is of course very important in cases where there is doubt as to whether the defendant is or is not the person who committed the act, but when there is no doubt, as in the case at bar, that the defendant was the one who caused the death of McKay, it is not so important to know the exact reason for the deed” — The SC used this passage to hold that motive is not indispensable where the identity of the perpetrator is clear.
• “The aggravating circumstances of superior strength and aid of armed men, as well as night time which also concurred in the commission of the offense, are included in the qualifying circumstance of treachery and cannot be appreciated separately from the latter circumstance.” — The SC rejected the Solicitor General’s recommendation to raise the penalty to death.
• “As to the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, entertain some doubts as to its applicability to the case at bar because the deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the ladder of the house when he was assaulted by appellants, and We prefer to maintain the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial Judge.” — The SC declined to appreciate dwelling and maintained the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

• People vs. Borbano, 76 Phil. 702 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that the appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact on witness credibility.
• U.S. vs. Ambrosia, 17 Phil. 295 — Cited for the rule that an appellate court will not reverse findings of fact based on conflicting testimony and credibility unless the trial court failed to consider a material fact or circumstance.
• U.S. vs. McMann, 4 Phil. 561 — Cited for the rule that motive is not absolutely necessary where there is no doubt as to the perpetrator of the killing.
• U.S. vs. Carlos, 15 Phil. 47 — Cited for the rule that motive for murder need not be established when the commission of the crime is clearly proven.

• Article 248, Revised Penal Code — The SC considered the penalty attached to murder, which the Solicitor General invoked in recommending the death penalty; the SC maintained reclusion perpetua because the aggravating circumstances relied upon were absorbed by treachery or doubtful, and the required number of votes for death was not obtained.