Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29571)
Factual Background of the Ambush
On the evening of March 31, 1967, Juana and her son Sulpicio attended an interment in a local cemetery in Kawayan, Malones. After about two hours, they left around 8:00 p.m. to walk home in Upper Malones, which lay on high ground across a valley. The trail to their home ran through areas lined with bushes and trees, and the night was dark and moonless. Sulpicio carried a torch made of dry coconut leaves to guide their way.
As they reached the ascent from the valley, approximately eighty meters from their home, three armed men suddenly sprang from the thick bushes and attacked. Sulpicio testified that one assailant immediately hacked and stabbed his mother with a bolo, causing wounds that resulted in her death shortly thereafter. He himself was attacked by another assailant with a long bolo. He parried the thrust using the burning torch, which dropped and ignited clumps of dry grass. By that light, he recognized the assailants as Filomeno Quitara, Roman Pia, and Felix Tamayo.
During the attack, Sulpicio testified that he was separated from his mother. Juana shouted at him not to resist and to run. Sulpicio obeyed, but his attacker pursued him. Sulpicio recognized the voice of his pursuer as that of Felix Tamayo. Sulpicio related that Felix overtook him three times, and each time Felix tried to continue the assault; on the third overtaking, Felix rode astride Sulpicio and attempted to place a rope around his neck, apparently to strangle him. Sulpicio freed himself and escaped into the woods. He then sought help from his father, but no response came. He instead ran to the nearby house of Maria Pialan and sought refuge.
Maria Pialan testified that Sulpicio arrived panting and wounded, with bruises and injuries on his brow, arms, and left ankle. Because the walls of her house were made of thin bamboo slats, she hid him in a corner and covered him with a mosquito net. Soon thereafter, Maria and Sulpicio heard footsteps and voices outside, apparently belonging to the ambushers searching for Sulpicio. Maria peeped through the slats and saw three men—Minoy (Filomeno Quitara), Feling (Felix Tamayo), and Oman (Roman Pia)—walking back and forth while training flashlights on the bushes as though searching.
Medical and Physical Evidence
Dr. Salvador Floren, a medical health officer of Moalboal, Cebu, later exhumed and examined Juana’s body. He concluded that the multiple wounds could have been caused by a sharp-bladed instrument and that death resulted from severe hemorrhage due to lacerations in the heart and lungs.
Police investigation at the scene yielded several items, including a piece of reddish cloth, cardboard masks, pieces of rope, a cardboard scabbard, and a wooden club. A long bolo was later found by police under a pile of coconut husks in the yard of the house belonging to Filomeno Quitara’s common-law wife, Jovita Encorporada. Jovita had reported that Filomeno concealed the bolo under the coconut husks when he and Roman slept in her house on the evening of March 31.
Apprehension and Sworn Statements
Filomeno and Roman were arrested on April 5, 1967, in Cebu City. Police located them while they were staying together in the house belonging to Roman’s uncle in Barrio Tisa. Felix Tamayo remained at large.
Upon arrest, Filomeno and Roman executed sworn statements admitting their presence at the time and place of the ambush. They pointed to Felix as the hatchet man who hacked and stabbed Juana to death. They also implicated other relatives of Juana, including Agripino Carzano and others, as instigators of the slaying.
Motive Alleged by the Prosecution
The prosecution attempted to establish that the killing was motivated by a land dispute involving Juana and her brothers, particularly Agripino and Gavino. Juana had previously served their father during illness, and one parcel of land was given to her. Another parcel went as inheritance to Victoriano, who sold it first to Juana for P500.00, and then to Agripino for P1,500.00. It was alleged that Juana demanded from Agripino the P500.00 she had paid, but Agripino refused and told her to claim from Victoriano, who had left for Camarines Norte.
The prosecution’s theory was that this dispute degenerated into bitter hostilities and led Juana’s relatives to desire her elimination. It sought to prove criminal conspiracy among the accused and to show that Filomeno, Roman, and Felix executed a plan hatched in Agripino’s house.
Trial Court’s Theory and Conviction
The state witness Roman testified that Felix fetched him from Minong’s store early in the afternoon of March 31, after which they proceeded to Agripino’s house. Present were Gavino, Primitiva, and Irineo. Filomeno arrived later. Roman testified that Agripino told Felix: “You kill her, my sister is grabbing all my lands,” to which Felix replied that he would kill her. Agripino allegedly supplied Felix with an eighteen-inch bolo and a flashlight. Gavino allegedly encouraged the killing and was also allegedly given a sundang, a piece of rope, and a flashlight. Roman claimed that Agripino gave Roman a palm cane and told him to take it in case Felix forgot.
Roman further testified that Gavino led Felix, Roman, Filomeno, and Irineo to wait for Juana at the valley. Agripino and his wife allegedly remained behind in the house. During the attack, Felix assaulted Juana while Gavino attacked and chased Sulpicio. Roman testified that he merely watched. After the ambush, the group returned to Agripino’s house and received with jubilation the report of the killing. Roman said Primitiva gave Felix P120.00, P40.00 of which he received with reluctance. Roman and Filomeno then spent the night at Filomeno’s common-law wife and, the next day, went to Cebu City before their arrest.
Filomeno, on his defense, attempted to shift blame and reduce his participation. He claimed there had been an agreement in Agripino’s house in the afternoon of March 31 but also suggested that he learned details only at the ambush site. He testified he was forced to accompany the group, had no assignment during the attack, and merely watched. He stated that the motive was learned only when Gavino told him that Juana had to be killed because she grabbed all lands of the Carzano brothers. He also claimed Agripino and Primitiva stayed behind at the house to await the result. Despite these defenses, the trial court believed Roman and Filomeno on the conspiracy narrative, as well as the prosecution’s motive theory.
The trial court found that Agripino’s conduct after the killing showed flight, considering his itinerary from April 2 to April 5. It also gave significance to the alleged demand for money by Roman, Filomeno, and Felix on April 2 to finance their escape. Ultimately, by its decision dated April 16, 1968, it convicted Agripino and Filomeno of murder qualified by evident premeditation, and found aggravating circumstances including treachery, abuse of superior strength, and reward or price in relation to Filomeno. Both were sentenced to death. The charge of frustrated murder was dismissed for lack of conviction.
The Parties’ Positions on Appeal
Agripino argued that the trial court erred in finding criminal conspiracy attributable to him. He contended that the testimonies of Roman and Filomeno—implicating him—should not have been credited because they were allegedly inconsistent and derived from corrupt sources. He also argued that Roman and Filomeno had blackmailed the Carzanos into paying money—P1,000.00, later reduced to P600.00—by threatening to implicate them, and that they in fact did. He denied instigating the killing, denied the existence of motive, and disputed that his movements after the interment constituted flight.
As for Filomeno, the record showed that his conviction rested on the trial court’s acceptance of the alleged conspiracy instigated by Agripino. He advanced the defense that his participation was limited to presence at the planning of the ambush and that he was forced to accompany the group; he further invoked the doctrine that mere knowledge of conspiracy without guilty participation should not lead to conviction.
Appellate Court’s Reassessment of Credibility and Conspiracy Involving Agripino
The Court held that the evidence did not support Agripino’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy. It found that the testimony of Roman and Filomeno failed to withstand rigorous cross-examination. The Court detailed multiple inconsistencies in Roman’s narrative, which the Court found seriously eroded credibility. Roman allegedly contradicted himself on how he learned the plan, could not name persons present at Minong’s store despite testifying that numerous people were there and that he knew them, and claimed conspirators stayed at Agripino’s house discussing the killing for more than an hour without anyone uttering a word except Felix and Agripino conversing in whispers. The Court also found Roman’s recollection of handling ropes, bolos, canes, and flashlights while waiting in pitch darkness to be improbable. It further noted that Roman’s claim that the agreement was to kill Juana alone was contradicted by an earlier statement in his sworn declaration implying that Gavino told them to kill Juana together with Sulpicio.
The Court observed that Filomeno corroborated aspects of Roman’s testimony but also presented inconsistencies. It noted that Filomeno’s account of when he learned of the plan varied; he first claimed he learned it from a conversation between Felix and Agripino in low tone, then claimed he learned it only at the ambush site when Gavino told him they were going to waylay Juana. The Court found further contradiction when Filomeno was impeached by his own sworn declaration stating that eight months earlier Gavino proposed killing Juana at Malones market. The Court also found unreconciled conflict in Filomeno’s later narration of Gavino’s unsuccessful attempt to grab Filomeno’s bolo during the attack.
The C
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29571)
- The appeal involved Agripino Carzano and Filomeno Quitara from the Court of First Instance, Branch III, Cebu in Criminal Case No. V-12394, for murder and frustrated murder.
- The information alleged that the accused, conspiring with Felix Tamayo (at large), attacked Juana Carzano Revalde and her son Sulpicio Revalde on March 31, 1967 in Dalaguete, Cebu, with deliberate intent to kill, evident premeditation, and treachery, armed with bolos and canes, and attacking at nighttime with superior strength and as reward or prize.
- The trial court discharged Roman Pia so he could testify as a state witness.
- The trial court acquitted all other accused, except the two appellants, of both murder and frustrated murder.
- The trial court acquitted Agripino Carzano and Filomeno Quitara of frustrated murder, but convicted them of murder, sentencing them to death.
- The Supreme Court’s review concerned the conviction of Agripino and Filomeno only.
Key factual background
- On March 31, 1967, Juana Carzano Revalde and Sulpicio Revalde attended an interment and stayed in a relative’s house to condole with the bereaved.
- At about 8:00 p.m., they left on foot for Upper Malones, a path on high ground requiring passage through a valley and a trail lined with bushes and trees.
- Because the night was dark and moonless, Sulpicio carried a torch made of dry coconut leaves and held it aloft while leading Juana.
- Without warning, three armed men sprang from thick, dark bushes and attacked mother and son.
- Sulpicio testified that one attacker immediately hacked and stabbed Juana with a bolo, causing her death shortly thereafter.
- Sulpicio stated that he was himself attacked with a long bolo, but he parried the thrust with the burning torch, which later fell and ignited clumps of dry grass.
- Sulpicio claimed that by the glow of burning grasses, he recognized Filomeno Quitara, Roman Pia, and Felix Tamayo as three assailants.
- During the assault, the son said he was separated from his mother, who shouted for him not to resist but to run and save his life.
- Sulpicio fled, but his attacker pursued him, calling others to join the chase, and Sulpicio recognized the pursuing attacker’s voice as Felix Tamayo.
- Sulpicio testified that Felix overtook him three times, and during the third encounter tried to place a rope around his neck to strangle him.
- Sulpicio freed himself, lost his attacker in the woods, reached home to look for his father, and then sought refuge with Maria Pialan.
- Maria Pialan testified that Sulpicio arrived with wounds and bruises and that she hid him in a corner, covered him with a mosquito net, and later heard footsteps and voices searching for Sulpicio.
- Maria identified the searchers as Filomeno (Minoy), Felix (Feling), and Roman (Oman).
- A medical health officer later exhumed and examined Juana, opining that her multiple wounds could have been caused by a sharp-bladed instrument and that death resulted from severe hemorrhage due to lacerations in the heart and lungs.
- Police found physical items at the scene, including pieces of reddish cloth, cardboard masks, pieces of rope, a cardboard scabbard, and a wooden club.
- Police later found a long bolo under coconut husks in the yard of a house belonging to Jovita Encorporada, the common-law wife of Filomeno Quitara, after she reported that Filomeno concealed the bolo there when he and Roman slept at her house on the evening of March 31.
- Filomeno and Roman were arrested on April 5, 1967 in Cebu City, while Felix Tamayo remained at large during trial.
Evidence on conspiracy
- Upon arrest, Filomeno and Roman executed sworn statements admitting their presence at the ambush but pointing to Felix Tamayo as the killer of Juana and to conspiracy among others.
- The sworn statements implicated Agripino and other deceased’s relatives as instigators of the slaying.
- The prosecution’s theory traced motive to a land dispute between Juana’s brothers, including Agripino and Gavino, and Juana.
- The prosecution claimed the dispute degenerated into hostilities motivating elimination of Juana and that Agripino induced Filomeno, Roman, and Felix to execute the plan hatched at Agripino’s house.
- Roman testified as state witness that Felix was fetched by Roman from Minong’s store on the early afternoon of March 31, and the group proceeded to Agripino’s house, where Gavino, Primitiva, and Irineo were present and Filomeno later arrived.
- Roman testified that Agripino told Felix: “You kill her, my sister is grabbing all my lands,” and Felix replied: “I will kill her, Inco.”
- Roman testified that Agripino provided Felix with an 18-inch bolo and a flashlight, that Gavino intervened urging killing, and that Agripino provided Gavino with a sundang, rope, and flashlight, and provided Roman with a baje (palm cane) with the words that Roman should take it in case Felix forgot.
- Roman testified that later Gavino led Felix, Roman, and Filomeno to the valley to wait, while Agripino and Primitiva stayed behind in the house.
- Roman testified that Felix attacked and hacked Juana to death while Gavino attacked and chased Sulpicio, and Roman stated he merely watched the assault.
- Roman further testified that after the incident they waited for Gavino, returned to Agripino’s house, received and shared money given by Primitiva, and that they later proceeded to Jovita’s house and then Cebu before arrest.
Appellants’ positions
- Agripino challenged the trial court’s finding of criminal conspiracy, arguing that the testimonies of Roman and Filomeno deserved no credence because they allegedly emanated from “corrupt sources” and were adduced to shield themselves from punishment.
- Agripino contended that Roman and Filomeno had sought P1,000, later reduced to P600, to finance their escape after the crime, and he asserted that they blackmailed the Carzanos into paying to avoid implicating themselves.
- Agripino denied instigating the killing, denied the existence of motive sufficient to break family ties, and contested the trial court’s view of his movements as flight.
- Filomeno admitted presence at the scene but defended himself by claiming he was forced to accompany the group, that he learned of the plan only on the ambush site, and that he had no assignment during the attack beyond watching.
- Filomeno argued that on the principle of mere knowledge of a criminal conspiracy without guilty participation, he should be acquitted.
Trial court ruling
- The trial court convicted both Agripino and Filomeno of murder, qualified by evident premeditation, and with aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and reward or price as to Filomeno.
- The trial court acquitted the appellants of frustrated murder as to the attack on Sulpicio.
- The trial court considered Agripino’s itinerary after the incident as flight indicative of guilt.
- The trial court treated Agripino’s admission that Roman, Filomeno, and Felix demanded P1,000, later reduced to P600, to finance escape as corroboration that Agripino hired the perpetrators.
Supreme Court disposition
- The Supreme Court modified the judgment by acquitting Agripino Carzano due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt of his involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Filomeno Quitara, but reduced his penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for lack of the required number of votes.
- The Supreme Court ordered Filomeno to indemnify the heirs of Juana Carzano Revalde in the amount of P12,000.00.
- The Supreme Court ordered costs de oficio.