G.R. No. L-11893 - People vs. Antonio Saladino

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11893)

Factual Background

On the night of April 11-12, 1943, at about 3:00 a.m., a group of armed men went to the house of Mariano Rivera in barrio San Juan, municipality of Laur, province of Nueva Ecija. The assailants took from the Rivera house Mariano Rivera, his wife Juana Aquino, and their children Olympia, Marcelino, Lazaro and Cecilio, and carried them away. At daylight the bodies of Mariano Rivera, Juana Aquino, Olympia Rivera and Marcelino Rivera were found about fifty meters from the house. The spouses’ necks were slashed and their hands were tied; Olympia sustained a severe wound in the breast and Marcelino a large shoulder wound. Cecilio Rivera was found unconscious with a grave wound on the nape and later bore a scar described in the record.

Additional Abduction

At approximately the same time several armed men went to the neighboring house of Pedro de Vera and Aurelia Rivera and took from there her brother, Bernardo Rivera, who was never seen again. The amended information charged the perpetrators with kidnapping and multiple murders and alleged aggravating circumstances including evident premeditation, nocturnal commission, taking advantage of superior strength, aid of an armed band, and commission in an uninhabited place.

Defendants and Charge

The amended information named Roman Tabios, Antonio Saladino, Basilio Macalinao, one alias Payabyab, and six other unknown persons as co-conspirators. Only Antonio Saladino was apprehended and tried; none of the other named and unnamed co-defendants were in custody or tried with him. The case presented the singular issue whether Antonio Saladino formed part of the group that committed the killings and the alleged kidnappings.

Prosecution Evidence

Cecilio Rivera testified that, awakened by barking dogs, he saw two persons enter the house when his mother lit a lamp: Antonio Saladino and Roman Tabios. He identified about ten persons outside. He related that Tabios instructed Saladino to tie the members of the Rivera family; Saladino placed his gun against the wall and bound them. Cecilio was taken to an open field, told to lie face downward, lost consciousness and regained consciousness about one week later in the house of Estanislao Domingo with wounds on the back and a nape wound. The scar on his nape was observed at trial to be three inches long and three quarters of an inch wide (the transcript notes this observation with a date parenthetically noted as December 5, 1946). Aurelia Rivera identified Basilio Macalinao as one who took Bernardo from her house, while Pedro de Vera could not identify any of the abductors.

Defense Evidence and Rebuttal

Antonio Saladino denied any participation and asserted that he did not leave his house, about one kilometer from the scene, on the evening of April 11-12, 1943. He subpoenaed Pedro Aquino, who was mayor of Laur at the time of the occurrence, to testify that upon investigation on April 13, 1953, Mayor Aquino was told by Cecilio that Cecilio had not recognized any of the malefactors. In rebuttal, Estanislao Domingo testified that on April 13, 1943 he found Cecilio in his house with a large nape wound and that Cecilio could not speak for over a week. Cecilio himself denied having been so interviewed by Mayor Aquino or having told him he could not identify the assailants.

Procedural History and Trial Court Findings

The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija tried Antonio Saladino alone and found him guilty of four murders but not guilty of the kidnapping count insofar as the evidence did not sufficiently link him to the alleged kidnapping. The trial court sentenced him to four terms of reclusion perpetua for the murders, ordered indemnity of P6,000 to the heirs of each victim, applied Art. 70 of the Revised Penal Code to limit the maximum duration of the aggregate sentence, and imposed one-third of the costs on the defendant.

Credibility Findings and Reasons

The trial court disbelieved the defense evidence and accepted Cecilio’s identification of Antonio Saladino. The court noted that Saladino’s house was not remote from the scene so as to make presence improbable, that Cecilio had no apparent motive to falsely accuse Saladino of so grave an offense, and that misidentification was unlikely because Cecilio and Saladino had been neighbors and known to each other in Sapang Biclat prior to the occurrence. The court also found the mayor’s supposed investigation account incredible in light of the severity of Cecilio’s wound and his unconsciousness for about a week after the assault, a fact corroborated by Domingo and by the persistent scar seen at trial.

Arguments Regarding Omitted Witness and Delay

The defense stressed that Lazaro Rivera, a survivor, was not called by the prosecution and suggested that his testimony would have been adverse to the prosecution. The trial court and the Supreme Court observed that the defense could have produced Lazaro but did not; the record showed Lazaro to be nineteen at the time of trial (the record indicating the trial date as December 5, 1956), which placed his age at six at the time of the crime in 1943, explaining why he was unlikely to have reliable recollection. The defense also criticized the delay between the crime and Cecilio’s formal accusation; the courts accepted the explanation that the crime occurred during the occupation and that post-liberation insecurity in the locality delayed reporting until conditions improved and a National Bureau of Investigation inquiry resulted in the filing of the information.

Issue on Kidnapping and Murder Liability

The Supreme Court framed the determinative question as whether Antonio Saladino was a participant in the group that murdered four members of the Rivera family and whether he was linked to the kidnapping. The courts found the evidence sufficient to establish Saladino’s membership in the group that killed four persons, establishing guilt for four counts of murder as a component of the group. The evidence was insufficient, however, to connect him to the separate act of kidnapping of Bernardo Rivera, and he was not convicted of that charge.

Supreme Court Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court, thro

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-11893)

Parties and Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case by amended information charging Antonio Saladino and others with kidnapping with multiple murders.
Roman Tabios, Basilio Macalinao, one alias Payabyab, and six unknown persons were named as co-defendants but were not apprehended and thus were not tried with Antonio Saladino.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-11893 and was decided on May 23, 1958.
The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija convicted Antonio Saladino and imposed penalties that were the subject of the present appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that on April 12, 1943, in Laur, Nueva Ecija, a group of private persons conspired to take and kidnap Bernardo Rivera and to kill Mariano Rivera, Juana Aquino, Olympia Rivera, and Marcelino Rivera.
The bodies of Mariano Rivera, Juana Aquino, Olympia Rivera, and Marcelino Rivera were found about fifty meters from the Rivera house with slashed necks and other fatal wounds.
Bernardo Rivera was taken from a neighboring house and never reappeared.
Cecilio Rivera was found wounded and unconscious at the scene and later testified concerning the identity of two intruders.

Evidentiary Record

Cecilio Rivera testified that two persons, identified as Antonio Saladino and Roman Tabios, entered the Rivera house at about 3:00 a.m., and that Tabios instructed Saladino to tie the family members.
Cecilio Rivera testified that Saladino laid his gun against the wall and complied with the order to tie the family members.
Medical and physical evidence established that Cecilio Rivera sustained a three-inch scar on the nape and was unconscious for about a week after the attack.
Aurelia Rivera identified Basilio Macalinao as the only person she recognized among those who took Bernardo Rivera.
Pedro de Vera testified that he could not identify any of the assailants who took Bernardo Rivera.

Defense Evidence and Contentions

Antonio Saladino denied participation and testified that he remained at his house about one kilometer from the scene on the night of April 11-12, 1943.
Pedro Aquino, mayor of Laur at the time, testified for the defense that he investigated Cecilio Rivera on April 13, 1943, and that Cecilio told him he did not recognize any of the malefactors.
The defense argued that the prosecution’s failure to call Lazaro Rivera suggested that his testimony would have been adverse to