G.R. No. L-21604-5-6 - People vs. Llamera

A longstanding controversy existed between the Degamo brothers and the Llamera family concerning the possession of a parcel of riceland located near the house of Manuel Degamo in Sitio Dapia, Albor, Surigao del Norte.
Tomas Llamera had forcibly taken possession of the disputed land from the Degamos, which led the latter to file an ejectment suit. A judgment was rendered in favor of the Degamo family in that municipal court action.
Despite the ejectment suit’s outcome, prior to the fatal incident, the Llameras had encroached on another portion of the Degamos’ land by plowing it, prompting the Degamos to counter by trampling the plowed land with their carabaos on December 8, 1962.

Early on December 9, 1962, the Degamo brothers—Manuel, Celso, and Egenio—went to the disputed parcel to prepare for their next planting session.
Carmen Degamo Torillo, waiting in the house of her brother Manuel, observed appellants Gerardo and Coleto Llamera near the ladder of Gerardo’s house at around 6:00 a.m.
As the three brothers proceeded in single file from the ricefields toward Manuel’s house, a gunshot was heard from Gerardo Llamera’s house.
Eyewitness testimony described that:

Egenio Degamo was seen falling immediately after the first gunshot.
Coleto Llamera, positioned at the window holding a long gun, fired two successive shots, resulting in the collapse of Celso and, later, Manuel Degamo.

Following the gunshots, Tomas and Gerardo Llamera armed with bolos, descended from the stairs to forcibly approach the victims.
The victims were then stabbed:

Celso and Egenio Degamo were attacked with bolos by Tomas and Gerardo Llamera.
Romualda Llamera was observed hitting Manuel Degamo with a piece of wood after the two had stabbed the other victims.

Shortly thereafter, Coleto Llamera (armed with the long gun) and Rubencio Llorca (holding a revolver) briefly surveyed the scene before fleeing towards a creek at Tobongan.

The testimony of Carmen Degamo Torillo and other witnesses noting the sequence of events and the weapons used.
The recovery of bolos allegedly used in the stabbing and a sketch indicating the positions of the victims’ bodies.

Celso Degamo sustained an 8-inch bolo wound and a gunshot wound characterized by hemorrhage internally.
Manuel Degamo had a gunshot wound with entry and exit wounds consistent with a shot from above, besides sustaining an injury from a piece of wood.
Egenio Degamo’s autopsy noted a gunshot wound in the umbilical region with subsequent stab and incised wounds, corroborating that the stab wounds were inflicted after the victims were shot.

The police investigation, based on physical evidence and witness accounts, led to multiple charges of murder under separate criminal cases (Nos. 3654, 3655, and 3656).

The Provincial Fiscal filed three separate informations for murder, treating each death as a distinct crime though occurring on the same occasion.
A joint trial was conducted by the Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte; however, the case against Romualda Llorca was dismissed upon motion of the defense.
Appellants Tomas, Gerardo, and Coleto Llamera, along with Rubencio Llorca, were tried together.
The defense argued:

That Tomas and Gerardo Llamera were liable only for homicide with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, not murder.
That Rubencio Llorca should be acquitted due to the absence of convincing evidence of conspiracy or participation.
The defense of alibi particularly raised by Coleto Llamera, who claimed he was confined to his house upon suffering from illness.

It was later noted during the pendency of the appeal that Coleto Llamera died from “enteritis” on October 19, 1972, prompting the Court to dismiss the case against him with respect solely to his criminal liability.

The bamboo spear allegedly used by Tomas Llamera lacked any dents, bloodstains, or markings that would corroborate its use in producing the wounds on the victims.
The forensic findings clearly established that the primary cause of the victims’ deaths were gunshot wounds, with stab wounds inflicted posthumously to mask the use of a firearm.

Testimonies, including those of Gerardo Llamera before the Justice of the Peace and eyewitness accounts, undercut the credibility of the defense theories involving an altercation or a fight between the victims and the appellants.
Evidence of criminal concert was noted in the close familial relations among the appellants and their coordinated actions, except in the case of Rubencio Llorca, where no act could be directly linked to a common criminal purpose.

Whether the acts of the appellants—Tomas, Gerardo, and Coleto Llamera—constitute murder, particularly considering that the crime was committed using treacherous methods such as surprise shooting followed by stabbing.
Whether the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, as alleged, can be separately imputed to the acts committed by the accused, particularly when the intent was argued to ensure death rather than prolong victim suffering.

Whether the defense’s contention that Tomas and Gerardo Llamera should be charged only with homicide (with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender) holds merit in light of the evidence of premeditation and the manner of execution.
Whether the alibi presented by Coleto Llamera, which claimed his presence at home due to illness, is credible and supported by sufficient and corroborative evidence.

Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that Rubencio Llorca knowingly participated in a criminal concert with the other appellants or should be acquitted due to the absence of demonstrable acts in pursuance of a common criminal design.