Durabit Recapping Plant Company vs. NLRC
Durabit Recapping Plant Company vs. NLRC
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CRUZ , J : p
It was quiet in that evening of March 17, 1975, in the house of Juanito Somblingo
in Passi, Iloilo. The clock had just tolled the hour of nine. He and several others were
discussing the planting of sugar cane, which they would do the next morning. Suddenly
a group of persons barged into the house and a shot rang out. Felipe Paniza fell
mortally wounded. Panic ensued. Upon seeing his brother shot down, Prudencio Paniza
ran out to ee but was met by one of the intruders who shot him pointblank. Somblingo
hid and escaped injury. The attackers left as abruptly as they had arrived. Somblingo
immediately reported the matter to the barangay captain and got a truck to bring the
victims to the hospital, with a policeman accompanying him. Felipe Paniza died on the
way. Prudencio Paniza survived, later to become the principal witness of the
prosecution. 1
Following investigation of the incident, informations were led against Balmude
Liza and Wilde Liza for murder and frustrated murder allegedly committed by them in
conspiracy with Rodolfo Liza, Ricardo Castor, and a certain John Doe who were all still
at large. 2 The two charges were tried jointly. The prosecution based its case on the
eyewitness testimony of Prudencio Paniza and Somblingo and the medical reports of
the injuries sustained by the victims. The accused-appellants relied on the defense of
alibi, corroborated by several witnesses. After trial, Judge Edgar D. Gustillo rendered
judgment, the dispositive portion of which read:
"WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the accused
Balmude Liza and Wilde Liza, for the crime of Murder for the killing of Felipe
Paniza and Frustrated Murder for the serious wounding of Prudencio Paniza,
beyond reasonable doubt, they are hereby found guilty of the crime of Murder as
charged in the aforequoted information in Criminal Case No. 5133 and Frustrated
Murder in Criminal Case No. 5132.
The accused-appellants are now before us, complaining that the trial court did
not give credence to their evidence. They both insist that they were not at the scene of
the crimes when these were committed and so should not have been found guilty of the
charges. They also fault the testimonies of Prudencio Paniza and Somblingo as
unreliable and fabricated and invoke the constitutional presumption of innocence. 4
The medical evidence is uncontroverted. According to Dr. Virgilio Sales who
conducted the autopsy on Felipe Paniza, the deceased sustained ve gunshot wounds,
two of which were fatal. 5 For his part, Dr. Arturo Muyco, who examined Prudencio
Paniza, declared that the latter suffered multiple gunshot wounds in the chest, shoulder
and back. The injuries were not very serious but the patient could have died of infection
without medical attention. 6
The most telling testimony came from Prudencio Paniza himself, who declared
under oath that it was Balmude Liza who blocked and shot him while he was trying to
escape following the shooting of his brother Felipe. Balmude had a shotgun. Prudencio
could recognize him because they met face to face and the house was lit with several
gas lamps. Moreover, he knew Balmude as they had earlier often seen each other in the
grazing lands. Prudencio also identi ed his brother's killer as Rodolfo Liza, one of those
who were not arrested and could not be tried. 7
In the hospital where he was brought for treatment, he was asked by Patrolman
Roberto Jino-o who his assailants were, and Prudencio named Rodolfo Liza, Balmude
Liza, Wilde Liza and Ricardo Castor. 8
Prudencio's testimony was corroborated by Juanito Somblingo, who said,
however, that he did not actually see Wilde Liza on the night in question. 9 He was
positive, though, about seeing Balmude Liza, Rodolfo Liza, Ricardo Castor and one other
person he could not recognize. 1 0 Somblingo also declared categorically that Prudencio
Paniza was shot by Balmude Liza, whom he had known for eighteen years. 1 1
Three witnesses were presented by Balmude Liza to support his defense of alibi
and all declared that he was with them the night the Paniza brothers were shot. His wife
Juliet testi ed in 1982 that he slept beside her in the night of March 17, 1975. 1 2 Felix
Aguirre a rmed that on that night he and several others slept downstairs in the house
of Balmude's father, Francisco Liza, and Balmude also slept there with his wife and son.
This witness categorically averred that Balmude could not have left without his knowing
it because Balmude would have had to pass by him in the staircase. 1 3 Hilario
Catequista, for his part, said Balmude slept that night about 3 meters away from where
he himself was also sleeping, in the downstairs portion of Francisco Liza's house. 1 4
What is suspicious about the common testimony of these witnesses is that none
of them mentioned the important fact that on the same night they said they were
sleeping with him, Balmude Liza was arrested in his father's house by the Passi police.
1 5 This happened at about midnight. Balmude himself so testi ed, thereby
contradicting his own witnesses. 1 6 Aguirre was positive that he had breakfast with
Balmude Liza at 7 a.m. the following day, 1 7 while Catequista testi ed that when he
woke up at 6 a.m. Balmude was still asleep. 1 8 These witnesses were obviously lying
because Balmude was at that time already in police custody, as he himself a rmed in
his own testimony. cdphil
Asked about the size of the stage they constructed, Agustin Castellanes declared
it was six meters by four meters, 2 2 and that it was made of bamboo. He said,
moreover, that they started at 9 o'clock in the morning and took one hour to cut, clean
and split the bamboo, which meant that all that needed to be done later was to
assemble the makeshift structure. 2 3 With ten persons working together, however, the
work was completed only after past midnight, or in fteen hours, excluding the meal
breaks. (Reckoning from 7:30 a.m., following Wilde's testimony, the period would have
been sixteen and a half hours.)
The testimony of some of the defendant's witnesses was given as late as seven
years after the occurrence of the crimes, and at the request of the accused-appellants
made only a short period before they appeared in court. Castellanes was asked to
testify only the day before he actually did, on February 20, 1980, 2 4 on what happened
ve years earlier. Aguirre was 76 years old when he recounted in 1980 what happened
in Francisco Liza's house on the night of March 17, 1975, when he was already 71 years
old. Hilario Catequista's recollection dated six years back, from 1981, 2 5 and Victorino
Piolo's testimony, requested in December 1980, was given in 1981, or also six years
after the incident in question. 2 6 Given the lapse of time, it is not believable that they
could recall in detail the events that supposedly transpired many years ago on that
particular night, which held no special significance for them.
By contrast, Prudencio Paniza was testifying on a terrible event that involved him
directly and in fact almost cost him his life. His near-killing is something he is not likely
to forget, nor the memory of his assailant whom he encountered face-to-face. In the
hospital where he was taken after he was shot, he readily identi ed the members of the
group who attacked them, according to Patrolman Jino-o. Prudencio later con rmed
this identification in court.
As for Somblingo, his testimony is more reliable than that of the witnesses for
the defense because he was at the scene of the crimes and saw what happened the
night his house was invaded. Signi cantly, his sworn statement of the events that
transpired then was made only four days later, on March 21, 1975, 2 7 when his
recollection of the shootings was still fresh. This statement coincided substantially
with his testimony before the trial court three years later.Cdpr
The Court is satis ed that there was a conspiracy among the accused-appellants
and their companions when they together entered the house of Juanito Somblingo and
shot the Paniza brothers, thereafter leaving together. No reason has been given why all
ve of them happened to be in Somblingo's house at the same time that the Paniza
brothers were shot by two of them. Their unexplained presence at the same time in
Somblingo's house is too coincidental to be innocent. Obviously, they were all there for
a common purpose. There was an evident concert of design and action that moved all
the five men who intruded into Somblingo's house and shot two of the persons inside.
For the consequences of the shooting, all the participants should be equally
answerable. Although it is conceded that neither of accused-appellants killed Felipe
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Paniza, they and their three companion should be held guilty of killing him, each of them
being a co-conspirator. The shooting of Prudencio Paniza, while actually committed
only by Balmude Liza, is imputable to all the members of the conspiracy, also for the
reason that in a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. 2 8
The crimes committed against Felipe Paniza and Prudencio Paniza were murder
and frustrated murder, respectively, quali ed by treachery. It is obvious from the
manner they were attacked that it tended directly and specially to insure the execution
of the assailants' plan without risk to themselves arising from any defense their
intended victims might make. 2 9 There is treachery where, as in this case, the attack
was made by a band of persons using rearms, 3 0 and it was deliberately made,
suddenly and without warning. 3 1
Treachery absorbs both superiority and nocturnity and so should not be
separately considered. As for the claim of evident premeditation, we nd that it has not
been sufficiently established and so should also not be appreciated.
The penalty for the murder is reclusion perpetua, there being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstances. For the frustrated murder, the Court, correcting the trial
judge and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposes the penalty of four years,
two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum and eight years and one
day of prision mayor as maximum. All the civil awards are sustained.
Motive is not essential for conviction where the assailants are positively
identi ed, but one wonders nonetheless what could have moved the accused-
appellants and their companions to intrude into Juanito Somblingo's house that quiet
evening of March 17, 1975, and without warning start shooting the surprised and
defenseless victims. Why a life was taken and another almost lost on that fateful night
must remain a mystery to all except the men who came to kill.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED except as above
modified, with costs against the accused-appellants. It is so ordered.
Teehankee, (C.J.), Narvasa, Paras and Gancayco, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 30.