Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No.
L-52787 February 28, 1985
THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JESUS HECTO,
PEDRO HECTO and LORETO HECTO, accused, PEDRO HECTO and LORETO HECTO,
defendants-appellants.
The Solicitor
General for plaintiff-appellee.
Oscar Bati for
defendants-appellants.
RELOVA, J.:
From the decision of the
then Court of First Instance of Leyte, rendered after trial in
Criminal Case No. 1093, finding accused Pedro Hecto and Loreto Hecto
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder with direct
assault upon a person in authority and sentencing "each of them
to the death penalty to be executed at a date to be set and in the
manner provided for by law and to jointly and severally indemnify the
heirs of Barrio Captain Catalino Pedrosa (represented by Mrs. Caridad
B. Pedrosa of San Isidro, Dulag, Leyte) in the amount of P12,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay 2/6
of the costs," (p. 22, Rollo) the aforementioned accused have
appealed to this Court.
Following are the facts.
Sometime in January or
February 1972, brothers Jesus Hecto and Pedro Hecto slaughtered a
carabao in barrio San Isidro, municipality of Dulag, Province of
Leyte. They did not pay the corresponding tumbada or slaughter
fee and upon learning of this non-payment, Barangay Captain Catalino
Pedrosa asked him (Jesus) to pay the same. Jesus replied that he
could not yet pay the required slaughter fee because those who bought
meat from him had not also paid him yet. Thereafter, Pedrosa met
Municipal Treasurer Benedicto de la Paz who informed him that
according to the Hecto brothers they had already paid the slaughter
fee to him (Pedrosa). Pedrosa denied having received the fee
mentioned.
On February 27, 1972,
Catalino Pedrosa and his wife went to visit their farm and on their
way home, about 3:00 in the afternoon, they met Jesus and Pedro
Hecto. Pedrosa confronted the two about the false information they
gave the municipal official concerning the alleged payment of the
slaughter fee to him. A heated discussion ensued and the Hectos tried
to attack Pedrosa. Mrs. Caridad Pedrosa pulled her husband away and
the trouble was averted.
About 6:00 in the
afternoon of March 24, 1972, Catalino Pedrosa left his house in
barangay San Isidro to accompany a two-year old nephew to the house
of the child's parents. On his way back, about 6:30 he was shot by
Jesus Hecto and Pedro Hecto and thereafter stabbed by Marcial Hecto
and Roberto Silvano.
Caridad Pedrosa at the
time was in her house preparing supper. Upon hearing the sound of a
gunfire, she immediately ran to the door. However, she was prevented
from going down the house by Loreto Hecto and Faustino Silvano, son
and nephew, respectively, of Jesus Hecto. They pointed their guns at
her. Notwithstanding, Caridad, could see Jesus Hecto pointing a gun
at her husband, Catalino Pedrosa, who was already lying on the ground
face up. This was followed by Pedro Hecto who also fired his own gun
at Pedrosa. Thereafter, Jesus Hecto, Pedro Hecto, Marcial Hecto and
Roberto Silvano carried the victim to a nearby ditch where Roberto
and Marcial took turns in stabbing him with their bolos. The four
assailants then walked away. Loreto Hecto and Faustino Silvano who
were at the door of the house of the Pedrosas guarding Caridad joined
the four.
The police was informed
of the incident. Acting Chief of Police Nerio dela Cruz, with several
policemen, arrived at the scene of the incident at about 8:00 that
evening. They found the dead Pedrosa with three gunshots and three
stab wounds on his body.
During the trial of the
case, the accused Jesus Hecto died shortly after he had testified.
Accordingly, the case against him was dismissed by the court. Trial
proceeded against Pedro and Loreto Hecto while their confederates:
Roberto Silvano, Marcial Hecto and Faustino Silvano remained at
large.
The defense of appellants
Loreto Hecto and Pedro Hecto was denial. Loreto testified that at the
date and time of the incident he was in his house two kilometers away
from barangay San Isidro drinking tuba with his hired farm laborers,
Pablo Lirios and Felicito Bico. In the morning of that day, March 24,
1972, his farm laborers plowed his cornfield until about 4:00 in the
afternoon. He then offered them tuba which they drank together in his
house. About 6:00, his sister Lolita arrived telling them that their
father Jesus fought with Catalino Pedrosa. He then left for barrio
San Isidro to see his parents and, as a precautionary measure, he
brought his mother Maria Ganaron to his house.
Appellant Pedro Hecto
declared that on March 23 and 24, 1972 he stayed in his house because
the palay which was harvested on March 21 was being threshed by Beato
Andrade and Victor Isyo. The threshing was finished about 11:00 in
the evening of March 24. About 9:00 some members of the police force
of Dulag went to his house looking for his brother Jesus Hecto. They
left upon finding that he was not there. About an hour later, Jesus
arrived and said that he had killed somebody and that he was going to
town to surrender. After a few days, he (Pedro Hecto) left for
Tacloban City where he worked as carpenter until he was arrested on
June 17, 1972.
Appellants claim that the
trial court erred (1) in relying on inadmissible evidence in making a
finding of facts relevant to the judgment of conviction; (2) in
rendering a judgment of conviction even if their respective guilts
were not proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) in finding that the
crime of murder was committed with assault upon a person in
authority.
With respect to the
first assigned error, We agree with appellants that the sworn
statement of Constancio Bollena who did not testify at the hearing
should not have been admitted and considered by the trial court. In
said affidavit, Bollena said that he was talking with Pedrosa when
Jesus Hecto, Pedro Hecto, Loreto Hecto, Marcial Hecto, Roberto
Silvano and Faustino Silvano arrived; that after Loreto Hecto and
Faustino Silvano proceeded to Pedrosas house, Jesus Hecto immediately
drew and fired his gun twice at Pedrosa; that Jesus then turned his
attention to Bollena who ran away and succeeded in evading the shot
fired at him by Jesus. As aptly stated by the Solicitor General in
his brief, the affidavit of Bollena should not be considered in
passing judgment upon the guilt or innocence of herein appellants.
"Such statement is hearsay evidence for the reason that Bollena
never testified in court. Appellants did not have the opportunity to
cross examine him and test his credibility. " (p. 167, Rollo)
However, the conviction
of appellants Pedro Hecto and Loreto Hecto by the trial court was not
entirely based on the affidavit of Bollena. There were the
testimonies of Caridad Pedrosa and Mario Cadayong. Hereunder are the
said testimonies of Caridad Pedrosa, wife of the victim-
Q You said that you were inside your house. Immediately
after you heard the first gunshot, what did you do?
ATTY. SANTOS:
Answered already, Your Honor.
COURT:
Let her answer because her testimony on this point is
not very clear.
FISCAL CABLITAS:
A I ran towards the door of the house.
Q And you said you were threatened by Loreto and
Faustino with guns. Where were you threatened by them?
A I was threatened by the door of our house because I
was not able to go down. When I opened the door they threatened me
with guns.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Did you know what was that gun report-the fourth
gunshot report about?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was it about?
A The gunshot was fired by Pedro Hecto. I could see him
still holding the gun.
Q To whom was it aimed when you saw that gun which he
fired?
A Towards my husband.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When this fourth gunfire was made, were Loreto and
Faustino still pointing their guns at you?
A Yes, they were still pointing their guns at me.
Q How did you manage to see what was happening to your
husband?
A Because I looked at the two (2) persons pointing their
guns to me and at the same time I looked also at the place where my
husband has fallen?
xxx xxx xxx
Q After your husband was fired upon by Pedro Hecto what
happened after that?
A They lifted my husband to the culvert.
Q Who lifted your husband?
A The four (4) of them.
Q Who?
A Jesus Hecto, Pedro Hecto, Marcial Hecto and Roberto
Silvano.
xxx xxx xxx
FISCAL CABLITAS:
Q Your husband, as you said, was the barrio captain of
your place at the time when he was gunned down by the accused and by
the other persons charged in the information who are simply
residents of the place who are supposed to be under him. Will you
please ten the Court the reason why your husband was killed?
xxx xxx xxx
A It was in the month of January or February when Jesus
Hecto slaughtered their carabao.
Q What year?
A 1972.
Q And then?
A My husband asked for the permit of slaughtering the
carabao.
Q What is this "tumbada" in your local
parlance?
A Whenever somebody slaughter a carabao, a certain
amount is asked from them.
Q For what is this amount-where does this go?
A For the municipal treasurer.
Q Municipal treasurer or barrio treasurer?
A Municipal treasurer.
Q And then, was Jesus Hecto able to pay the 'tumbada'
to the barrio captain, your husband?
A Jesus Hecto did not give the amount to my husband
because according to Jesus Hecto, the persons who partook of the
carabao did not pay him yet.
xxx xxx xxx
FISCAL CABLITAS:
I am asking for the motive, Your Honor.
COURT:
Witness is being asked on what she knows about the
motive.
FISCAL CABLITAS:
A Benedicto de la Paz asked my husband about the amount
as payment for the slaughter of the carabao as according to his
information, the amount was already given to him.
Q As a result of this, do you know what happened on
February 27, 1972, as a result of this 'tumbada' in questions?
A We were from our farm when we passed by Pedro and
Jesus Hecto at the waiting shed.
Q And then?
A My husband confronted Jesus Hector by saying 'You have
told there that you have already given the amount as payment for the
slaughter of the carabao; but why did you tell them when you have not
given me this amount yet?'
Q What happened after this?
A There was an exchange of words between my husband and
Jesus Hecto.
Q And then?
A I held my husband because they were about to harm my
husband.
Q Who were about to harm your husband?
A Pedro Hecto and Jesus Hecto.
Q What did you do?
A I held my husband and we went home.
Q And what did Jesus Hecto and Perdo Hecto do when you
held your husband and you went home?
A He said 'Ikaw, Captain, ka nga estrikto, magkikita
kita ha iba nga adlaw' Meaning, 'You, Bo. Captain, you are very
strict. We will see each other some day.' (pp. 310, 311, 314, 315,
323, 324, 325, and 326, tsn., Hearing on January 28, 1975)
and of Mario Cadayong:
Q You said Catalino Pedrosa was killed, do you know how
he was killed?
A Yes, sir.
Q How?
A He was shot.
Q By whom?
A He was shot by Jesus Hecto and Pedro Hecto.
Q Now you are talking about shots, you mean to say that
there were guns during the incident
A Yes, sir.
Q How many guns have you seen?
A Pedro and Jesus Hecto were having one gun each.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And when while you were running towards the coconut
tree to take cover, you heard a second shot?
A I did not run because the coconut tree was very near.
While I was going to that tree to hide I saw Jesus Hecto holding the
gun and firing the second fire.
x x x x x x x x x
COURT:
Just answer the question whether Catalino Pedrosa died
after quivering.
WITNESS:
A Not yet because he was still shot.
ATTY. TAN:
Q He was shot by whom?
A Pedro Hecto. (pp. 432, 433, 435 & 445, tsn., June
3, 1976 hearing)
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Will you describe to us in proper sequence what you saw
from the time Jesus Hecto pointed his gun to Catalino Pedrosa who was
already fallen on the ground shaking?
A Catalino was shot again by Pedro. Catalino Pedrosa was
carried by Pedro Hecto, Jesus Hecto and Roberto Silvano to the ditch.
After that, Catalino was stabbed by Roberto and after that he was
again stabbed by Marcial. We were stepping backwards as we saw Man
Caring pointed to with a gun by someone.
Q Who is Man Caring?
A Caridad Pedrosa.
Q Who was pointing a gun at Caridad Pedrosa?
A Loreto and Faustino.
xxx xxx xxx
Q How about Roberto? You said he stabbed Catalino. What
weapon did he use in stabbing at your uncle?
A He used a pisaw, a small bolo. Maybe it was pisaw.
(Witness indicating a length of one-third of a meter.)
xxx xxx xxx
Q Did you see Pedro Hecto actually fire upon Catalino
Pedrosa?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was Catalino hit?
A Maybe, he was hit because Catalino was just in front
of Pedro and whose position was lying face upwards.
Q When Jesus Hecto fired upon Catalino Pedrosa,
referring to the second shot you saw, was Pedro around?
A Yes, sir. He was around. (pp. 243, 244, 245, 247,
tsn., September 9, 1975 hearing)
xxx xxx xxx
Q When for the first time did you see Pedro Hecto in
the scene of the incident?
A I saw them when they were going to the waiting shed.
I saw Jesus Hecto, Pedro Hecto, Marcial Hecto, Roberto Silvano going
to the waiting shed. (p. 450, tsn., June 3, 1976 hearing)
Thus, it is clear that
Mrs. Caridad Pedrosa and Mario Cadayong saw the killing of the
victim, Catalino Pedrosa Considering the concerted action of Jesus
Hecto, appellants Pedro and Loreto Hecto, Marcial Hecto, Roberto and
Faustino Silvano, conspiracy among them has been successfully
established by the prosecution. While their companions were slaying
the deceased, appellant Loreto Hecto and Faustino Silvano were by the
stairs of the house of Catalino to prevent any assistance which could
come therefrom. After they had accomplished their criminal or
unlawful purpose, they left together. Time and again We have ruled
that concert of action at the time of consummating a crime and the
form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person or
persons inflicting the fatal wounds on their victim determine
complicity where it would not be otherwise evident. In a conspiracy,
all are liable for the acts of one.
The fact that appellants
went into hiding after the incident is evidence of guilt. Pedro Hecto
was arrested two months later in Tacloban City, while Loreto Hecto
presented himself before the authorities in March 1974 or after two
years. Their three companions have not yet been arrested up to now.
Against the testimony of
the People's witnesses, appellants Loreto and Pedro Hecto claim that
they were elsewhere when the killing took place. Well established is
the rule that where the accused have been positively Identified by
witnesses as perpetrators of the offense, the defense of alibi is
futile and unavailing.
We now come to the
contention of the defense that the trial court erred in convicting
them of the complex crime of murder with assault upon a person in
authority. They pointed out that when the barangay captain was killed
he was not in actual performance of his official duties. Be that as
it may, the fact is, the attack on the deceased was occasioned by the
official duties done by him. As the barangay captain, it was his duty
to enforce the laws and ordinances within the barangay. If in the
enforcement thereof he incurs the enmity of his people who thereafter
treacherously slew him, the crime committed is murder with assault
upon a person in authority.
WHEREFORE, the appealed
judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that for lack of
necessary votes the sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua and the
indemnity increased to P30,000.00. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando,
C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos,
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente,
Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur.
Aquino,
J., took no part.
The
Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation