G.R. No. L-17320 - People vs. Paz

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17320)

Information, Arrest, and First Trial Outcomes

After arrest, Sulpicio Tica and Marcos Castalone were arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The trial proceeded against them. On 16 November 1957, Gustavo Victoriano, Judge, rendered a decision finding Sulpicio Tica guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with accessory penalties, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Tranquilino Dayrit in the amount of P6,000.00 and to pay one-half of the costs. The same decision acquitted Marcos Castalone on the ground that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt, with one-half of the costs de oficio.

Counsel for Tica filed a motion for reconsideration, but while it was pending, Tica himself filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration and gave due course to the appeal.

Apprehension of Romeo Paz and Second Trial

After the promulgation of the first decision, Romeo Paz alias Commander Romy was apprehended. He was immediately arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On 8 April 1958, Paz, through counsel, filed a motion to quash the information on the theory that the offense was allegedly committed in the course of his rebellious activities as a Huk, and that he should therefore be prosecuted for rebellion only, not murder. The Fiscal opposed the motion, and the trial court denied it. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, and trial proceeded.

On 27 October 1959, under Cecilia Munoz Palma, Judge, the court convicted Romeo Paz of murder as charged, imposing life imprisonment under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and ordering indemnity to the heirs of Tranquilino Dayrit in P6,000.00, plus proportionate costs, with credit for one-half of the preventive imprisonment.

Evidence for the Prosecution: Circumstances of the Killing

At the separate trial of Tica and Castalone, the prosecution evidence traced the relationship between the victim and the accused and then established the events leading to the killing. The prosecution showed that in the year 1953, Tranquilino Dayrit and his wife Narcisa Tadong stayed in the house of Sulpicio Tica in the mountains of Sitio Pinagsibiran, Tanay, Rizal. The spouses met Huk Commanders Romy and Garcia there, and Dayrits often encountered the Huk commanders when they asked for food.

In the months of March and April 1956, while the Dayrits stayed in Tica’s house, Sulpicio Tica allegedly proposed to Huk commanders and their companions that they liquidate suspected army informers, among whom were the Dayrits, a conversation later reported to army authorities. In July 1956, Dayrit denounced Tica’s Huk activities to the 19th BCT in Sta. Maria, Laguna. A week before 7 December 1956, Tica’s carabao ate Dayrit’s rice plants, prompting a quarrel in which Tica, his father, and his brother carried boloes and challenged Dayrit to come out of the house. Dayrit thereafter filed a complaint in the Fiscal’s office in Pasig, Rizal, with investigation scheduled for 19 December 1956.

On 6 December 1956, at around 3:00 p.m., Huk commanders Romy and Garcia, with other Huks, together with Tica and Castalone, went to the Dayrits’ house and asked for Dayrit from Narcisa Tadong. Told Dayrit was then in Manila, they asked when he would return. They then left and retired at Tica’s house. On 7 December 1956, at around 9:00 a.m., the same group returned. Dayrit was then seen in front of the house cutting grass. Tica and Castalone stationed themselves outside the fence while the Huks approached Tadong to ask again for Dayrit’s whereabouts. After Dayrit was pointed out, Narcisa Tadong allowed the men to enter the house, while Dayrit went up and was followed by Huk commander Romy and some Huk companions. The Huks informed Dayrit that Tica was calling for him and that he had to accompany them to the headquarters of the BCT in Sampaloc to settle the matter.

The prosecution evidence then narrated the abduction and killing. The Huks hogtied Dayrit with big rattan, dragged him out to the road where Tica and Castalone waited. Before leaving, the Huks took rice, clothing, and shoes and warned Narcisa Tadong and her son Teodoro Dayrit not to leave the house on pain of death. Narcisa Tadong and Teodoro followed to observe what would happen. On the road, the Huks surrounded Dayrit and pulled him to a grassy place, then struck him with the butts of their guns. Huk commander Romy stabbed Dayrit on the neck with a knife, then handed the same knife to Tica, who also stabbed Dayrit’s neck. Other Huks took turns stabbing until Dayrit fell. Stabbings were repeated on different sides of Dayrit’s body. Tica, by means of a balisong, allegedly removed Dayrit’s right eye, and Dayrit’s lips were pierced and tied together with rattan. After Dayrit was seen to be dead, the group left. The soldiers took the corpse.

Corroboration of Death and Cause of Death

The killing was established through the testimony of Narcisa Tadong, the widow of Tranquilino Dayrit, who testified to the material sequence of events. It was further corroborated by Teodoro Dayrit, then seven years old, who testified that his father was stabbed and killed by “Sulping” (pointing to Sulpicio Tica) in the presence of Commander Romy, and that the Huks took his father to a grassy place where he was killed, with Romy and Commander Garcia also stabbing him.

Medical evidence supported the cause of death. Clemente E. Diaz, a Medical Officer of the 8th BCT, examined the cadaver on 8 December 1956 and found that Dayrit died of shock secondary to hemorrhage caused by stab wounds inflicted by a sharp-pointed instrument. The medical certificate listed multiple stabbed wounds on the neck and scapular regions, a stabbed wound on the upper left nipple, and a cut wound on the anterior surface of the left forearm. The prosecution also presented the death certificate as proof of corpus delicti.

Additional Prosecution Evidence of Motive

The prosecution also established that on 18 July 1956 Tranquilino Dayrit reported and denounced accused Tica as a Huk supply officer, executing a sworn statement. This was offered to contextualize the alleged grievance and motive.

Tica’s Defense: Alibi and Testimony

Tica’s defense rested on alibi. He denied participation in the killing on the afternoon and evening of 6 December 1956 and throughout the morning of 7 December 1956. He claimed that after lunchtime on 6 December 1956, he left his house in Sitio Pinagsibiran to attend the death anniversary celebration of his grandmother scheduled for 7 December. He stated that he went to the barber shop around 5:00 p.m. but could not get a haircut because many people were waiting. He returned home and met several persons during the evening, including Pat. Ponso around 8:00 p.m., Dr. Anihin at about 11:00 p.m., and Pat. Ponso again around 3:00 a.m. on 7 December.

He further asserted that after sleeping, he woke up before 7:00 a.m., ate, dressed, and proceeded to the barbershop at about 8:00 a.m., walking with Dr. Anihin until they parted. He claimed that the Chief of Police of Tanay asked him to go with his father to the municipal building to get a subpoena, which he did. After waiting for the Chief of Police in vain, he and his father returned home and came back around 2:00 p.m., then waited until attended around 4:00 p.m., after which they signed the subpoena indicating “12-7-56 at 4:10 p.m.”

Finally, Tica stated that before midnight of 7 December 1956, he was taken with his father and Castalone by army soldiers to the 8th BCT camp in Baras, Rizal, questioned regarding the killing upon complaint of Narcisa Tadong, denied participation, and were released. He claimed Narcisa Tadong implicated him because he allegedly reported to Dayrit her illicit relations with a person named Cruz.

To support alibi, Tica presented several witnesses. Reynaldo Vera testified that he saw Tica once at noon on 6 December 1956. Ildefonso Inagan, a policeman, claimed he saw Tica three times: at 8:00 p.m. of 6 December in barrio Aldea, and at 3:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on 7 December, though he also claimed that on each occasion the rooster he kept died, and Inagan always responded, “what can we do?” Mamerto Anihin, municipal health officer, testified he saw Tica in the night of 6 December and conversed briefly on his way to the barbershop before 8:00 a.m. of 7 December, and again shortly past noon in the Tanay plaza. Vitaliano Viray, a barber, claimed he saw Tica at around 8:00 a.m. in front of his shop, that Tica waited for his haircut, that the haircut was done around 9:30 a.m., and that during the haircut Chief of Police Cautivo told Tica to go to his office.

Edilberto Cautivo, Chief of Police, affirmed that he met Tica around 8:00 a.m. and told him there was a subpoena for him, his father, and brother, and that again around 10:30 a.m. he reminded him not to forget to drop at his office. He stated they arrived about 2:30 p.m. and were finally attended to at 4:00 p.m., when they signed the subpoena showing “12-7-56 at 4:10 p.m.” Guillermo Melendres, a policeman at the Chief of Police’s office, testified that Tica called several times at 11:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. on 7 December, looking for Cautivo, and stayed at the office until after 4:00 p.m.

Appellate Review of Tica’s Conviction: Credibility and Alibi

The conviction of Tica was assailed on the ground that the prosecution witnesses were improbable and contradictory, and that alibi of his witnesses negated identity. The Court examined the record and found no reversible error. It held that discrepancies and alleged improbabilities were matters of detail and that the witnesses’ lack of education actually heightened their credibility. It reasoned that such differences could be attributed to individual variations in observation and memory and did not necessarily indicate falsehood.

The Court further emphasized that the killing occurred in broad daylight and that Tica was well

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17320)

Romeo Paz alias Commander Romy and Sulpicio Tica were charged, together with Marcos Castalone and seven unidentified persons, with murder for the killing of Tranquilino Dayrit on 7 December 1956 in Tanay, Rizal.
The prosecution alleged conspiracy and confederation, and that the accused acted with evident premeditation and treachery by seizing the victim, hogtying his hands, striking him with the butt of a gun, and repeatedly stabbing with a balisong until death.
The information alleged aggravating circumstances to insure the commission of the crime: (1) taking advantage of superior strength, (2) commission by armed band, and (3) employment of means which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Rizal as Criminal Case No. 6814, where Sulpicio Tica and Marcos Castalone were tried because arrest was effected only for them.
The trial court, presided by Gustavo Victoriano, Judge, rendered a decision dated 16 November 1957 convicting Sulpicio Tica of murder and acquitting Marcos Castalone for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Sulpicio Tica filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied; he then filed a notice of appeal while the trial court gave due course to the appeal.
After the promulgation of the initial decision, Romeo Paz alias Commander Romy was apprehended, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.
Romeo Paz sought to quash the information, asserting that the offense was committed in the course of rebellious activities as a Huk, so that he should be prosecuted for rebellion only.
The trial court denied the motion to quash and later convicted Romeo Paz for murder, after which he appealed.
The Court of appeal affirmed the separate convictions of Sulpicio Tica and Romeo Paz, applying the same prosecution evidence in their separate trials.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution evidence showed that Tranquilino Dayrit and his wife Narcisa Tadong stayed near Sulpicio Tica’s house in Sitio Pinagsibiran, Tanay, Rizal, and had prior contact with Huk Commanders who sought food from them.
The prosecution alleged that Sulpicio Tica proposed to Huk Commanders and companions the liquidation of suspected army informers, and that their conversation was reported to the army authorities.
The prosecution established that Dayrit denounced Tica’s Huk activities to the 19th BCT in Sta. Maria, Laguna sometime in July 1956.
It was shown that a quarrel arose when Tica’s carabao ate Dayrit’s rice plants, and that this dispute led Dayrit to lodge a complaint against the Ticas in the Fiscal’s office in Pasig, Rizal.
On the afternoon of 6 December 1956, Huk Commanders Romy and Garcia, other Huks, and Tica and Castalone went to Dayrit’s house and inquired about Dayrit’s whereabouts; the group later retired at Tica’s house.
On 7 December 1956 at about 9:00 a.m., the same group returned, found Dayrit cutting grass, and arranged for entry into the house after Tadong informed the group that Tica was waiting.
The evidence showed that the Huks hogtied Dayrit with rattan, dragged him out, and warned Tadong and Teodoro Dayrit not to leave the house.
The prosecution narrated that in a grassy place along the road, the Huks surrounded Dayrit and struck him with gun butts; Commander Romy began stabbing, then handed the knife to Sulpicio Tica, who stabbed Dayrit’s neck and participated while the other Huks took turns stabbing.
The evidence described mutilation and binding during the attack, including removal of Dayrit’s right eye by means of a balisong, piercing and tying Dayrit’s lips with rattan, and repeated stabbings on different sides until Dayrit died.
After confirming death, the group left; Tadong and Teodoro reported to army authorities, and soldiers took the corpse.

Witness Accounts and Corpus Delicti

The murder was established through the testimony of Narcisa Tadong, who described the abduction and stabbing sequence.
The prosecution corroborated the killing through the testimony of Teodoro Dayrit, then seven years old, who testified that he saw his father killed in the presence of Commander Romy and that Sulpicio Tica stabbed the victim.
The Court treated the testimony of Tadong and Teodoro as concordant and believed, despite alleged discrepancies raised by the defense.
The prosecution established the cause of death through medical testimony by Clemente E. Diaz, a Medical Officer of the 8th BCT, who examined the cadaver on 8 December 1956 and issued a medical certificate listing multiple stabbed wounds.
The death certificate was also presented as additional proof of corpus delicti.

Defense of Alibi for Sulpicio Tica

Sulpicio Tica denied participation and claimed alibi, asserting non-presence at the scene in the afternoon and evening of 6 December 1956 and throughout the morning of 7 December 1956.
He claimed he left Pinagsibiran after lunchtime on 6 December to attend a death anniversary celebration in Tanay proper, then went to the barber shop, met guests, and later slept and woke before 7:00 a.m. of 7 December.
He asserted that after seeing people and obtaining hair services, he was detained attending to a subpoena process involving the Chief of Police an