Facts:

On September 30, 1969, at approximately past six o'clock in the evening, Rufo M. Cote, a 23-year-old tailor, and his 21-year-old relative Alice Depalco were riding a bicycle in Giporlos, Eastern Samar, heading towards the beach after the Angelus bell rang. They were intercepted near the house of Filomeno Abayan by Victor Abletes and Julio Pamero, both local farmers aged 24 and 21 respectively. Abletes was armed with a bolo, while Pamero had a bolo tucked into his waist. Cote was suddenly confronted by Pamero who announced Abletes's presence and took hold of the bicycle's handlebar, creating an opportunity for Abletes to stab Cote fatally on the left side of his chest as he fell. Eyewitnesses Zosimo Nabelgas and Victor Abadilla corroborated the assault, which Cote did not survive after he was transported home, succumbing approximately two hours later due to a fatal stab wound that penetrated the right lung. Following this incident, on October 1, 1969, a murder complai

...

Facts:

Incident Background

• Date and Time

- Occurred on the evening of September 30, 1969, at twilight or past six o’clock after the Angelus rang in the poblacion of Giporlos, Eastern Samar. - The incident took place near a lighted house of Filomeno Abayan and nearby areas in the poblacion.

Parties Involved

• Victims and Companions

- Rufo M. Cote, a 23-year-old tailor, was the victim. - Alice Depalco, a 21-year-old relative of Cote, was riding with him on a bicycle. - Victor Abletes, 24 years old, a bachelor farmer. - Julio Pamero, 21 years old, already married, and known since childhood by Alice Depalco.

The Confrontation and Fatal Stabbing

• Prelude to the Assault

- Abletes and Pamero had been waiting near the house of Venan Castillo around the street corner. - As Cote approached while riding his bicycle with Alice seated behind him, Pamero alerted Abletes with the remark, “They are now here, Victor Abletes.” - Abletes, armed with a bolo (pisaw), and Pamero (also carrying a bolo) executed the attack. - Pamero seized the right handlebar of Cote’s bicycle, causing it to tilt left, which facilitated Abletes in stabbing Cote. - Witnesses Zosimo Nabelgas and Victor Abadilla observed the event. - After the fatal thrust, Abletes and Pamero fled westward, while a frightened Alice ran towards her house approximately seventy meters away.

Post-Incident Developments

• Immediate Medical and Witness Response

- Cote, mortally wounded, was aided by Nabelgas and Abadilla and was taken to Cote’s house where he died two hours later. - Testimony from Juan Cote, the victim’s father, and identifications by Nabelgas provided clear evidence that Abletes stabbed Cote while Pamero held the bicycle. - Doctor Flora Camenforte, the Municipal Health Officer, recorded that Cote suffered a stab wound at the right side of his chest (seventh intercostal space along the mid-axillary line) directed “upward and medially.” - The fatality was caused by the penetration of the right lung and severe hemorrhage, with medical evidence indicating that survival was unlikely even with prompt medical attention. - An earlier inconclusive duel occurred on September 18, 1969, between Cote and Abletes in which they hacked each other with their weapons, with Abletes retreating. - A complaint for murder was filed on October 1, 1969, by the Chief of Police. - Abletes voluntarily surrendered to the police on the night of the killing, while Pamero went into hiding until his arrest on November 11, 1969. - At the preliminary examination, Alice Depalco testified and Nabelgas executed an affidavit regarding the incident. - The trial led to the conviction of both accused for murder and they were sentenced to “life imprisonment (cadena perpetua)” along with an order to indemnify Cote’s heirs.

Defenses Presented by the Accused

• Pamero’s Alibi

- Claimed to have been occupied with making copra at a location in Barrio Roxas, six kilometers away from the poblacion, implying an alibi which was corroborated by Gerardo Badrina. - Despite his claim, direct identifications by Alice and Nabelgas implicated him in the actual assault. - Asserted that he was selling copra and, upon exiting a store, witnessed an altercation involving a supposedly intoxicated Cote who had bumped into a person, leading to a chase. - Alleged that a struggle ensued over the possession of a weapon, resulting in a fatal stab that occurred in the scuffle; he then surrendered to the authorities without explaining his claim of self-defense.

Evidence of Conspiracy and Collaboration

• Coordinated Action

- Both accused were seen waiting for Cote and were armed, suggesting premeditation and prior planning of the attack. - The manner in which Pamero held the bicycle enabled Abletes to inflict the fatal wound, indicating a clear community of design in the crime.

Issue:

Guilt and Criminal Liability

• Whether the accused, through their coordinated actions, conspired to commit murder by ambushing Cote in a vulnerable moment.
• Whether the testimonies of eyewitnesses (Alice Depalco, Nabelgas, and the Chief of Police) were credible and sufficient to establish the culpability of both accused.

Validity of Defenses Raised

• Examination of Pamero’s alibi – assessing if the claimed location and activity were credible and could exonerate him from participation in the stabbing.
• Evaluation of Abletes’ self-defense claim – determining if his account of a struggle arising from an incidental encounter provided a reasonable justification for the fatal action.

Application of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

• Determination if the elements of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and premeditation were present in the commission of the murder.
• Whether voluntary surrender by Abletes and lack of instruction (educational background) in the case of Pamero could mitigate the gravity of their acts in light of the qualifying circumstances.

Appropriate Sentencing

• Whether the imposition of life imprisonment (cadena perpetua) was correct, given that the penalty should be in the form of reclusion temporal maximum as provided under the Revised Penal Code.
• The revision and modification of the trial court’s judgment on penalty grounds in relation to the evidence presented.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)