G.R. No.

26708
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALEJO RESABAL, defendant-appellant.
Melquiades G. Ilaw and Vicente Sotto for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
VILLAMOR, J.:
The evidence shows, as an indisputable fact, that in the earl !ornin" of #pril 2$, %&26, one
'ri!o (rdi) died at his own ho!e in the barrio of *o"o, !unicipalit of +aasin, ,ete, for! the
effects of an internal he!orrha"e caused b a sharp wound in the left lun", as appears fro! the
death certificate, !ar-ed ./hibit #.
#s a conse0uence of this, an infor!ation was filed with the 1ourt of 2irst 3nstance of ,ete in
+aasin, readin" as follows4
That on or about #pril 2$, %&26, in the !unicipalit of +aasin, 'rovince of ,ete, 'hilippine
3slands, the said accused, willfull, unlawfull and cri!inall, with treacher and evident
pre!editation, conspirin" a!on"st the!selves and actin" in co!!on a"ree!ent and ta-in"
advanta"e of nocturnit, !utuall aidin" each other, opened the window and -illed 'ri!o (rdi)
b !eans of a shot fro! a 56!ith5 78 caliber revolver, inflictin" a wound in the upper part of the
left nipple, which produced the instant death of said 'ri!o (rdi).
1ontrar to law.
The 8ud"e who tried the case, after havin" carefull anal)ed the evidence, reached the
conclusion that the cri!e co!!itted b the accused #le8o Resabal is that of !urder, provided for
and penali)ed in article 907 of the penal 1ode, with the a""ravatin" circu!stances of evident
pre!editation, nocturnit and dwellin", and i!posed on the accused the death penalt, with the
accessories of article $7 in case of pardon, and to pa the deceased5s heirs the su! of '%,000 b
wa of inde!nit, with he costs of the action. :e also ordered that the present case be brou"ht to
this court for review, as provided for in section $0 of General (rders No. $8.
1ounsel for the defense alle"es that the trial court erred in not i"norin" Glicerio (rit5s testi!on,
and in no ac0uittin" the accused #le8o Resabal on the "round of reasonable doubt.
The #ttorne-General in turn as-s that the 8ud"!ent rendered, bein" in accordance with the
evidence and the law, be affir!ed with the costs a"ainst the appellant.
Glicerio (rit testified that on the !ornin" of #pril 2$, %&26, the accused, ar!ed with a revolver,
invited hi! to 'ri!o (rdi)5s house in order to -ill the latter, and on arrivin" at said house, the
accused went into the "round, approached one of the windows of the house less than a !eter and
a half in hei"ht, opened it and loo-ed in. #t that !o!ent the witness left the place, and at a
distance of %$ brazas heard an e/plosion. Glicerio (rit5s testi!on as to the e/plosion is
corroborated b the declaration of the bo ;ose (rdi), who slept with his uncle 'ri!o (rdi), to
the effect that earl in the !ornin" of that da he was awa-ened b the noise of an e/plosion and
saw his uncle 'ri!on (rdi) vo!itin" blood and unable to spea-.
3t is un0uestionable, fro! the testi!on of these two witnesses and the result of the autops, and
above all fro! the findin" of the revolver ./hibit *, that the weapon e/hibited at the trail of the
case. This revolver was hidden b the accused on the land cultivated b the witness 1ar!elo
(rdi), to who! the accused revealed it, and who, throu"h fear of the police, transferred it to the
nei"hborin" lot, burin" it at the foot of a tree called <!aba"o.< * followin" the directions of
this witness, 1ar!elo (rdi), the chief of police, who investi"ated the case, found the revolver
wrapped in two pieces of cloth ./hibits 1 and 1-%. The revolver was loaded with two bullets and
an e!pt shell, and had a rust barrel. 3t !ust be noted that ./hibit 1-% appears to be a piece of
cloth fro! a pair of drawers, and the chief of police who searched the house where the accused
lived, found a piece of a pair of drawers in a trun- that was in the -itchen. =pon e/a!ination of
said ./hibits 2 and 1-% b this court, it was found that these two pieces of cloth ./hibit 2 and 1-
% !ade a co!plete pair of drawers, all of which shows that the accused tore the piece of cloth
./hibits 1-% fro! an old pair of drawers in order to wrap up the revolver before puttin" it in the
place indicated b the witness 1ar!elo (rdi).
This witness testified, further!ore, that on the ni"ht of #pril 29, %&26, the accused believin" hi!
to be still an ene! of the deceased 'ri!o (rdi), and showin" hi! the revolver ./hibit *,
invited hi! to acco!pan hi! to do awa with 'ri!o (rdi). (n the other hand, the witness
>icente #!balon" corroborates Glicerio (rits testi!on to the effect that earl in the !ornin"
of #pril 2$, %&26, the accused went to the house where the latter was sleepin" to awa-en hi!,
and that he then saw the accused on the staircase, callin" to said Glicerio (rit.
#nd what is the !otive of the cri!e? #ccordin" to the evidence presented b the prosecution,
so!e twent das before the incident the accused had a disa"ree!ent with the deceased because
of the carabao that destroed so!e coconut trees belon"in" to the deceased 'ri!o (rdi). The
accused re0uested the deceased to return the carabao that was under his care, but the deceased
refused to do so before he was paid the value of the trees destroed. This naturall produced
resent!ent, which, a!on" countr people, is sufficient cause for the co!!ission of the act
char"ed in the infor!ation.
The defense of alibi set up b the accused is not, in our opinion, sufficient to overthrow the
evidence of the prosecution@ for ta-in" into consideration the short distance between the
deaceased5s house and that in which the accused slept on the ni"ht of the incident, the accused
could easil have "one out of his house and returned later, without havin" been noticed b his
co!panions in the house, na!el, his wife, his !other-in-law, and his sister-in-law, aside fro!
the natural interest these have in testifin" in the accused5s favor.
The defense ar"ues that Glicerio (rit is not a credible witness, because of his havin" been
e/cluded fro! the infor!ation to be used as a witness for the prosecution@ and, because,
!oreover, of the contradiction in his testi!on at the preli!inar investi"ation and durin" the
trial. Ae are of the opinion that the !ere fact of havin" been e/cluded fro! the infor!ation to be
used as a witness for the Govern!ent, does not prevent this witness fro! tellin" the truth in this
case, especiall in the absence of proof showin" the interest he !i"ht possibl have in testifin"
a"ainst the accused. Neither is the apparent contradiction which !a be noted in his declarations
before the court of the 8ustice of the peace, and before the court of first instance sufficient to
discredit his testi!on, for the si!ple reason that this witness was not "iven a!ple opportunit,
b a readin" to hi! of his declarations before the court of the 8ustice of the peace, to e/plain the
discrepancies noted b counsel for the accused. The !ere presentation of ./hibit %, without said
declaration havin" been read to the witness while he testified in the 1ourt of 2irst 3nstance, is no
"round for i!peachin" his testi!on. B=. 6. vs. *aluot, 90 'hil., 78$, 906.C
The defense also i!peaches 1ar!elo (rdi)5s testi!on considerin" the invitation which the
accused e/tended to hi! as i!probable, -nowin" that he was a cousin of the deceased 'ri!o
(rdi). =nder ordinar circu!stances, such an attitude would appear i!probable, but not so if it
is considered that the accused invited the witness in the belief that the latter was still an ene! of
the deceased, on account of certain disa"ree!ents the had over so!e land.
The defense also contends that the conduct of the accused in "oin" with his fa!il to the
deceased5s house on the !ornin" of #pril 2$, %&26, helpin" in the preparations for the burial, is
inco!patible with his bein" a cri!inal. 3t is, indeed, an old belief that the fear of the suspected
part to touch the corpse was a si"n of "uilt. *ut e/perience has shown that so!e cri!inals have
"one to the e/tre!e that the accused did, to avoid all suspicion of "uilt.
The evidence in the record shows that "uilt of the accused beond a reasonable doubt, and he
deserves the penalt provided for in article 907 of the 'enal 1ode. The cri!e co!!itted is
!urder, 0ualified b treacher for, in the co!!ission of the cri!e, the accused e!ploed was,
!eans, and for!s that tended directl and especiall to assure, it, without ris- to his person fro!
an defense the assaulted part !i"ht !a-e.
The trial court i!posed the death penalt on the accused, b reason of the a""ravatin"
circu!stances of evident pre!editation, nocturnit, and dwellin", without an !iti"atin"
circu!stances to offset the!. (n this point the opinion of the court is divided, with the result that
we cannot i!pose on the accused the !a/i!u! penalt, or death, in accordance with #ct No.
7%09, because the vote of the !e!bers of the court who too- part in the discussion of the case,
as to the 8ustice of the i!position of the death penalt was not unani!ous. #nd, it bein" so, it is
unnecessar to discuss in detail the presence of the said a""ravatin" circu!stances.
3n virtue whereof, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the accused is "uilt of the cri!e of
!urder, co!!itted with treacher, on the person of 'ri!o (rdi), and with the !odification of
the 8ud"!ent on review, the penalt of cadena perpetua is i!posed on the accused, with the
accessories of #rticle $9 of the 'enal 1ode, the 8ud"!ent of the trial court bein" affir!ed in all
other respects, with the costs a"ainst the appellant. 6o ordered.