Art. 6 as correlated to Art. 48 Case no.

12

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 142726. October 17, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLONIO ACOSTA, accused-appellant.

DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is an automatic review of the decision of 3 February 2000 of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 46,
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in its Crim. Case No. R-4328 finding accused Apolonio Acosta guilty of
rape and imposing upon him the penalty of death and ordering him to pay his victim P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. [1]
Maritess Acosta was born on 16 January 1985 in Barangay Canwaling, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, where she lived with her family, the third of seven (7) children of the spouses Pablo Acosta
and Narcisa Acosta. She did not finish Grade One although she could write her name.
In December 1997 Maritess was left home to take care of her two (2) younger sisters and a lessthan-a-year old brother Joseph as her parents went to the mountains to gather cogon, which was their
routine, and would be home only after a week. At about 12 oclock noon, while her two (2) younger
sisters were asleep and she was taking care of her baby brother Joseph, her paternal grandfather
Apolonio Acosta who was living about a hundred meters away, arrived. Apolonio shouted invectives at
Maritess and ordered her to go to his house, or else he would kill her. [2] At around 3 oclock in the
afternoon, Maritess did as she was told, carrying Joseph with her but leaving behind her two (2) younger
sisters. When she arrived at the house of Apolonio, the latter took Joseph from Maritess and placed him
on the floor. Apolonio then poked a bolo at Maritess and undressed her, removing first her t-shirt and
then her skirt. She did not resist as she was scared of the bolo pointed at her. Thereafter, Apolonio
undressed himself. He told Maritess to lie down on the floor and then placed himself on top of her.
While mashing her breasts, Apolonio inserted his penis inside her vagina. She felt pain and sensed that
she was bleeding. [3] She could not muster enough strength to fight him because he was bigger than she
was and his bolo was pointed at her all the while. When it was over, Apolonio instructed Maritess to get
dressed and warned her not to report the incident to anybody otherwise he would kill her. Maritess
cried but could not do anything. After Apolonio gave her P60.00, she picked up Joseph from the floor
and went back home. Apolonio followed her and again threatened to kill her if she told anybody about
the incident. This turned out to be only the first of so many other similar incidents she had with her
grandfather Apolonio.

In March 1998, while Maritess and her father Pablo were resting outside their home, Apolonio
dropped a hundred peso bill (P100.00) in front of her. Pablo asked Apolonio about it but the latter
remained silent and left. Pablo then turned to Maritess who likewise remained quiet, as she was
ashamed, embarrassed and afraid. Later, with her mother Narcisa around, Maritess opened up and
finally told her parents that Apolonio had raped her several times. Narcisa lost no time in reporting the
matter to Leonida Santiago, Barangay Captain of San Isidro, who instructed her to submit Maritess to a
medical examination.
On 20 March 1998 Narcisa brought Maritess to Dr. Nuela Manzanida, Municipal Health Officer
of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. As reflected in Maritess medico-legal certificate, Dr. Manzanida had
the following findings: Hymen - healed lacerations at 3 oclock and 6 oclock positions; Location nulliparous and admits one finger. Dr. Manzanida opined that the healed lacerations were
approximately one (1) - month old and could have been caused by a human penis. [4]
Not long after, as private complainant, Maritess charged Apolonio with rape, qualified by
relationship. [5]
Apolonio denied the charge. He claimed that for the whole month of December he lived in
Sabadeco in the house of Arsenio Mactal where he worked as a farm helper and caretaker of the latter's
ampalaya plantation. Meantime, his daughter Violeta Carman and her family lived in his house in San
Jose, near the house of his son Pablo, father of Maritess. Apolonio argued that he could not have raped
Maritess as he did not visit his house in December 1997, not even on Christmas Day nor on New Year's
Eve, as he was busy in the plantation.
Violeta Carman, Apolonio's daugther corroborated his statement by claiming that she never for
a moment left the house because she was then looking after her youngest child; thus, with her being
around, she insisted that Apolonio could not have had the opportunity to rape Maritess in his own
house. Instead, Apolonio claimed that the charge stemmed from a quarrel over a piece of land to which
he was granted the right to cultivate. Upon learning that he turned over his rights to Venancio, another
son, Pablo got mad, accused him of favoring his brother and threw punches at him. Apolonio said that
he was charged with rape as Pablos family felt deeply aggrieved (masakit ang kalooban nila).
The trial court found the testimony of Maritess consistent and free from serious contradictions,
and on the basis thereof, convicted Apolonio. The court rejected his defense of alibi and denial. It ruled
that the physical impossibility of Apolonio being at the locus criminis was not properly established as
Apolonios house in Canwaling was only a thirty (30)-minute walk away from the farm of Arsenio Mactal
where he claimed to have stayed in December 1997. Moreover, defense witnesses themselves testified
to have seen him on occasion in Canwaling thereby nullifying his claim of absence.
The court a quo likewise cast aside the defenses contention of family discord over cultivation
rights as Pablo Acosta was a laborer and not a farmer. He did not own a carabao or any farm implement,
and therefore had no interest in tilling the land. Significantly, the trial court found that Apolonios own
daughter, likewise named Maritess, had previously charged him with rape although the case was

dismissed. Thus, the trial court sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay his granddaughter
Maritess P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Accused-appellant now imputes to the trial court error in imposing upon him the penalty of
death when the minority of the victim was not alleged in the Information. He argues that minority is a
qualifying circumstance which, aside from the relationship of the victim with the accused, should be so
alleged in the information for capital punishment to be imposed, failing which the sentence should be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
It should be noted that accused-appellant, in an apparent display of resignation, no longer urged
the Court to reexamine the findings of fact by the court a quo and the conclusions derived therefrom,
but merely exhorted it to review the penalty of death meted on him. Be that as it may, in accordance
with the mandate of the Court to automatically review all cases where the imposable penalty is death,
we scrutinized the records anew and found the trial courts factual determinations to be accurate and
proper.
Like the trial court, we find the testimony of Maritess to be true, credible and convincing, thus
leaving no doubt that she was raped by Apolonio. Pitted against the evidence of the defense, Maritess
testimony gains strength as defense witnesses, particularly Apolonio, did not categorically deny the act
of rape but merely posed the impossibility of its commission in his own home, which this Court also
rejects. Accused-appellant failed to sufficiently show that he did not return to his home in Canwaling at
any time in December 1997 as it was only a thirty (30)-minute walk away from the plantation of Mactal,
and his daughter Violeta Carman even testified that he visited his home once in a while but stayed only
for short durations. [6]
Violeta Carmans claim that Maritess could not have been raped in Apolonios home as she was
then residing there likewise deserves no merit as earnest inquiry by the trial court revealed that she
moved to Canwaling only after 1997. [7]
We also reject the accused-appellants claim that the charge was heaped against him as Pablo
seriously lamented his favoring Venancio over him when he turned over his cultivation rights to
Venancio. The principle that a mother will not subject her daughter to the shame and horror of trial
involving rape if not to avenge her daughters fate applies with equal force to a father, especially when
the offender is his own father. Moreover, it is highly improbable that the feud between Pablo and
Apolonio was the impetus for the charge as the quarrel happened in 1996, with Pablo and Apolonio
having already reconciled the same year, way before the rape incident in 1997. [8]
Now, to accused-appellants lone assigned error - solitary it may be - it may very well spell the
difference between life and its extinguishment for accused-appellant, which we therefore seriously
consider.
We find the argument meritorious. Article 335 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec.
11 of RA 7659, provides inter alia that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,

step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the commonlaw spouse of the parent of the victim. Minority and relationship partake of the nature of a special
qualifying circumstance and not merely an aggravating circumstance, which must concurrently and
simultaneously be alleged in the information for capital punishment to be imposed.
Here, the Amended Criminal Information filed against Apolonio Acosta adequately cited his
relationship to Maritess but failed to allege Maritess minority, thereby proscribing the imposition of the
death penalty against accused-appellant. The presentation of evidence during trial showing that
Maritess was merely twelve (12) years old when the sexual abuse was committed, albeit without any
objection from accused-appellant, did not cure the omission nor did it render the requirements of the
law substantially complied with by its mere presentation. [9]
An accused has the constitutionally guaranteed right to be properly informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to enable him to properly prepare for his defenses. This right
cannot be tampered with nor reduced even upon a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the
accused. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to due process if he was charged with simple
rape, on which he was arraigned, and be convicted of qualified rape, punishable by death, the elements
and circumstance of which he was not adequately apprised with. The failure to allege the special
qualifying circumstance of minority in the Information effectively bars the imposition of the death
penalty on accused-appellant, hence, the penalty imposed upon him should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
On the matter of accused-appellants civil liability ex delicto, it has been the ruling of the Court to
outrightly award P50,000.00 as indemnity to victims of rape, hence, the imposition of the amount is
proper. Likewise, the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is justified in accordance with our ruling in
People v. Prades. [10]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 46, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, in
Crim. Case No. R-4328 finding APOLONIO ACOSTA guilty of RAPE is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that his death sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The order requiring him to pay the victim
Maritess Acosta the sums of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 for moral damages is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official leave.

Art. 6 as correlated to Art. 48 Case no. 13

[No. L-7618-20. June 30, 1955]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. CRISPIN LAWAS, ET AL., defendants and
appellants.
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Lanao. In G. R. No. L-7618, Crispin
Lawas, Agustin Osorio, Clemente Osorio, Felipe Si-it, Generoso Osorio and Agapito Gumisad have
appealed from a judgment finding each of them guilty of the crime of robbery. In G. R. No. 7619, Crispin
Lawas, Agustin Osorio and Clemente Osorio have appealed from a judgment finding them guilty of
multiple murder. In G. R. No. L-7620, Hermenegildo Tabacon, Felipe Si-it, Agapito Gumisad, Generoso
Osorio and Patricio Pinos were also found guilty of the crime of multiple murder. Held: In G. R. No. L7618, for robbery, the judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed, but the maximum of the
penalty imposed is raised to 6 years 10 months and 1 day of prision mayor, in view of the presence of
the aggravating circumstance of superior strength in the commission of the offense. The individual
liabilities of each of the persons sentenced for said crime are also affirmed. In G. R. Nos. L-7619 and L6720, the appellants Crispin Lawas, Clemente Osorio, Augustin Osorio, Felipe Si-it, Generoso Osorio and
Patricio Pinos are each found guilty of the crime of multiple homicide and each sentenced to suffer the
penalty of not less than 15 years 6 months and 21 days nor more than 18 years 2 months and 21 days,
both of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of each of the deceased, jointly and severally, in the
amount of P3,000, and to pay the costs proportionately.
Decision modified. [People vs. Lawas, et al., 97 Phil. 975(1955)]

Art. 6 as correlated to Art. 48 Case no. 14

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18175, July 31, 1962

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SEBASTIAN LARGO, defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Pio Celso Bendaa as counsel de officio for defendant-appellant.
CONCEPCION, J.:
Accused of murder in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City and convicted, as charged,
by the same, which sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1)
day of prison mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, with the
accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of Martin Mundido in the sum of P6,000,
and to pay the costs, defendant Sebastian Largo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, being of the
opinion that appellant should be sentenced to life imprisonment, forwarded the case to this Court, in
pursuance of section 34 of Republic Act No. 296.
Testifying for the prosecution, Patrolman Abdulatip Abdurahim of the police department of
Zamboanga City stated that, while he was on his beat, in the vicinity of the night market of said city,
where "feria" games were being played, at about midnight of December 2-3, 1957, his attention was
attracted by a commotion and the scampering of people nearby. As he approached the place of the
commotion, to ascertain its cause, he saw appellant Sebastian Largo holding the dagger Exhibit A in his
right hand and its scabbard Exhibit B in his left; That Abdurahim inquired what the matter was, but Largo
warned him not to approach; that, this notwithstanding, Abdurahim grabbed Largo's right hand and
tried to wrest the weapon from him; that while they were grappling therefor, another policeman,
Patrolman Leandro Barredo, came and helped Abdurahim in disarming Largo; and that the policemen
then noticed that the dagger was smeared with fresh blood and that, about eight (8) meters away, the
lifeless body of Martin Mundido was lying on the ground, face downward, with several wounds in the
right arm and a gaping wound in the back. This testimony was corroborated by Patrolman Barredo.
According to Dr. Felipe T. Lavia, of the Zamboanga General Hospital, who made an autopsy of
said body, about ten (10) hours after the occurrence, "death was due to hemorrhage in the lungs,
secondary to stab wounds" sustained "from behind."

The prosecution introduced, also, the testimony of an uncle of the deceased, namely, Agustin
Mundido, who declared that, as Martin Mundido ducked a fist blow given by appellant's brother,
Federico (Pedring) Largo with whom the deceased seemingly had a fist fight appellant appeared
suddenly from behind the latter and stabbed him.
The theory of the defense, based mainly upon appellants testimony, is that, while he and his
wife and two children were, on their way home, coming from his mother's store, near the scene of the
occurrence, in the evening of December 2, 1957, someone shouted "juramentado", whereupon the
people started scampering away, with the corresponding commotion; that, as he looked around for a
piece of wood with which to protect his wife and children, he saw a dagger which, after putting down a
child he was carrying on his shoulders, he picked up, along with its scabbard; that he then saw a man
coming to him, and, not knowing that he (the man) was a policeman, warned him not to approach; that
the policeman grabbed his hand and took the dagger away from him; and that said policeman and
another policeman, who came immediately, thereafter, then brought him to the police station, despite
his assurances to them that he had merely picked up the weapon at the scene of the crime.
Fortunato Quiones and Alfredo Demaronsing tried to corroborate appellant's testimony, but,
the same and that of his corroborating witnesses were given no credence by the lower court. In the light
of the attending circumstances, we can not disturb the findings of said court with respect to the veracity
of the opposing witnesses. In addition to the decided advantage of His Honor, the trial Judge, who
observed their behaviour during the trial, in gauging their veracity, the refusal of appellant to surrender
the lethal weapon to policeman Abdurahim, refutes the theory of the defense. Appellant's testimony to
the effect that he did not know that Abdurahim was a peace officer merely makes the artificiality of the
former's version more apparent, for Abdurahim was then wearing his uniform as a policeman.
Moreover, Agustin Mundido identified Exhibit A as the dagger he had seen appellant carry with him
several times prior to the occurrence. Lastly, it is not even intimated that either Agustin Mundido, or the
aforementioned policemen had any possible motive to falsely incriminate appellant. On the contrary,
the record shows that Agustin Mundido was his friend.
It appearing that Martin Mundido was stabbed from behind, while he was busy defending
himself from the fist blows of Federico (Pedring) Largo, it is clear that the crime committed is murder,
qualified by treachery, and that, no modifying circumstance having attended the commission of the
offense, the penalty therefor should be imposed in its medium period, namely, life imprisonment.
Thus modified as the penalty, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, therefore, in all
other respects, with costs against the appellant. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., is on leave.

Art. 6 as correlated to Art. 48 Case no. 15

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-37801-05 October 23, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
VEDASTO MORENO, RODRIGO BARICUATRO, ELPIDIO BARICUATRO. ROMEO BARICUATRO, ELY
BARICUATRO, EMILIO GENERALAO, CARLOS PASLON, ROBERTO PASLON, RODULFO UMBAY
SALVADOR PENA, VICTORIANO BARAGA AND CRESCENCIO F. NEMENZO, defendants-appellants.
Delfin N. Mercado and H. A. Adaza for appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General for appellee.
PER CURIAM:
On the night of January 21, 1970, in an ambuscade perpetrated at Barrio Tutay, Pinamungajan
Cebu, Mayor Samson Cerna, 51, of that town was mortally wounded. He died about two hours later. His
companions, Lourdes Cerna, Candida Comahig, Francisco Jabido and Jose de los Reyes, were also
wounded.
As an aftermath of that tragic occurrence, an information for murder with atentado two
informations for frustrated murder and two for attempted murder (five cases) were filed against
thirteen persons with the Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City.
The lower court's judgment.After trial, the lower court convicted (1) Vedasto Moreno, (2)
Rodrigo Baricuatro, (3) Romeo Baricuatro, (4) Carlos Paslon and (5) Emilio Generalao of murder with
direct assault upon a person in authority and sentenced each of them to death and to pay solidarity to
the heirs of Mayor Cerna the sum of P50,000 as actual and moral damages,
In the same case, (1) Crescencio F. Nemenzo (2) Elpidio Baricuatro, (3)Elf Baricuatro, (4) Salvador
Pena (5) Victoriano Baraga, (6) Rodulfo Umbay and (7) Roberto Paslon were convicted as co-principals
and were each sentenced the reclusion perpetua and to pay solidarity an indemnity of P50,000 (Criminal
Case No. CCC-XIV-95).
The same twelve accused were convicted of four frustrated murders. Each of them was
sentenced to four indeterminate penalties of six years and one day to eight years and one day of prision
mayor and to pay solidarity an indemnity of P8,000 to Mrs. Cerna and P2,000 each to Candida Comahig,
Jabido and De los Reyes (Criminal Cases Nos. CCCXI V-129 - 132).
All the twelve defendants appealed. Crispin Baraga the thirteenth accused, is at large.

Issue as to the Identity of the culprits.There is iio question as to the corpus delicti or the
commission, of the five offenses. The nagging question is the identity of the malefactors. The
prosecution was not able to use a co-conspirator as a State witness or to obtain an extrajudicial
confession.
Sometime after the commencement of the trial, the prosecution used as a witness, Avelino
Norteza, an alleged coconspirator who withdrew from the conspiracy but who was not indicted and who
was not present when the ambuscade was consummated. His testimony as to the conspiracy was
severely assailed by the defense and even by the Solicitor General.
Antecedents.Certain undisputed circumstances preceding the ambuscade may shed light on
the motivation for the assassination of Mayor Cerna and serve to explain why the appellants were
implicated therein.
In 1969, Vedasto Moreno, 26, a college graduate and a businessman, residing at Barrio Tutay,
was the number one councilor of Pinamungajan affiliated with the Liberal Party. Rodrigo Baricuatro, 42,
a Constabulary sergeant, was being groomed as the Liberal Party candidate for mayor of that town in
the coming 1971 elections. He would be the opponent of mayor Cerna, a Nationalista. Moreno would be
Baricuatro's running mate (1265-66 tsn November 16, 1971).
A controversial incident occurred on election day, November 11, 1969, at Barrio Tutay.
According to Moreno, on that day, he arrested Mamerto Lausa, a barrio captain, and Patrolman Filemon
Diacamus because they were buying votes. He took from them the envelopes containing money and
turned them over to the Constabulary authorities, as shown in the receipt, Exhibit 8-Moreno, signed by
Sergeant Marcillano
The prosecution has a contrary version of the incident. According t the chief of police, on that
day, Moreno, Generalao, Paslon and Romeo Baricuatro entered the house of Gabina Baron and,
employing force and intimidation, took from Lausa, the sum of P800 and grabbed from Patrolman
Diacamus his service revolver. (That firearm was allegedly turned over to Rodrigo Baricuatro. 154 tsn
November 19, 1971. It was later recovered from Paslon.)
Because of that incident, the chief of police filed on November 15, 1969 in the municipal court
two almost Identical complaints, both sworn to before Mayor Cerna, charging Moreno, Romeo
Baricuatro, Paslon and Generalao with robbery in band with intimidation for having taken the money
and revolver (Criminal Cases Nos. 501-RP and 502-RP).
On December 12, 1969 two other complaints, which were also sworn to before Mayor Cerna,
were filed in the municipal court by the chief of police. One complaint against the same four accused
was for direct assault against an agent of a person in authority, namely, Patrolman Diacamus, on the
occasion mentioned above, when he was disarmed (Criminal Case No. 505-RP).

The fourth complaint against the same four accused was for qualified trespass to dwelling for
having entered Gabina's dwelling. That complaint was also sworn to before Mayor Cerna (Criminal Case
No. 506-RP). (Those four cases were remanded to the Court of First Instance on February 23, 1970.)
Also on December 12, 1969, the chief of police filed in the municipal court a complaint (Criminal
Case No. 507-RP), sworn to before Mayor Cerna, charging Rodrigo Baricuatro, his nephew, Romeo
Baricuatro (1404 tsn, November 25, 1971), and Arturo Kyamko, who were armed with a Thompson
submachine gun, carbine and .45 caliber pistol, with having committed grave threats also on election
day, when they threatened to kill Lausa, the offended party in the robbery case. Rodrigo Baricuatro was
alleged to have told Lausa: "Do you want to die, Merto Killing is what we want now. Who among you
here is brave?" (The municipal court dismissed that case in its order of August 28, 1970 because of
Lausa's failure to prosecute it.)
In the aforementioned four criminal cases Nos. 501, 502, 505 and 506, Mayor Cerna conducted
the preliminary examination although there was no showing that the municipal judge could not perform
that duty. The mayor issued warrant for the arrest of the four accused. Moreno was arrested and
imprisoned on January 16, 1970. He posted bait paying P1,000 as premiums on four bail bonds. His
release was ordered by the municipal judge on January 20, 1970 E 4 and 6 to 6C-Moreno)
On the other hand, it should be noted (according to the evidence for the defense) that Sergeant
Rodrigo N. Baricuatro of the department of constabulary science and tactics of the University of the
Visayas at Cebu City was given by his Commandant a pass authorizing him to be absent for seventy two
hours, or from seven o'clock in the morning of January 21 to twelve o'clock midnight of January 23,
1970, for the ostensible purpose of attending to his family's needs in Sitio Manga, Pinamungajan (Exh. 9
Rod Bar.).
Thus, shortly before the ambuscade, considerable tension had developed between Moreno,
Rodrigo Baricuatro and their followers, on one hand, and Mayor Cerna, on the other. It may be assumed
that the arrest of Moreno and the impending arrest of Rodrigo Baricuatro, Romeo Baricuatro, Paslon
and Generalao inflamed their smoldering resentment against Mayor Cerna.
Mrs. Cerna testified that the mayor was ambushed "because Vedasto Moreno got angry with
the mayor because he was confined in jail and this Rodrigo Baricuatro is jealous of the mayor because of
his ambition to become a mayor of Pinamungajan an and as long as the mayor x x x is still alive he
cannot become a mayor of our town" (155 tsn November 19, 1971).
The ambuscade.On January 19, 1970, Governor Osmundo Rama in a telegram to Mayor Cerna
requested him to come for a conference in connection with the release of funds for his town, The detail
in that place of Constabulary soldiers, and the agenda to be taken up in the forthcoming conference of
municipal mayors. (See pp. 39-43, Record of Criminal Case No. 10-T.)

In compliance with that request, Mayor Cerna, u his cargo truck arid accompanied by his wife,
Lourdes Cerna, went to Cebu City in the morning of January 21, 1970. (Note that Elpidio Baricuatro saw
the mayor's truck leaving for Cebu City and that Moreno, Rodrigo Baricuatro and Romeo Baricuatro
were also in Cebu City on that fateful day, January 21, 1970. Moreno and Rodrigo went to Pinamungajan
an in the afternoon of that day. The return of Mayor Cerna to Pinamungajan in the evening of that date
was known beforehand because on t day the mayor's housemaid, in answer to a policemen 's in quiry d
that the mayor would return to Pinamungajan at night time.)
Mayor Cerna conferred with the governor. He received a treasury warrant for P5,721 as national
aid for the maintenance and improvement of municipal roads and bridges E M).
According to Mrs. Cerna, the detail of Constabulary soldiers in Pinamungajan was necessary in
order to apprehend a band headed by Generalao, that was wanted in connection with the death of
Juanita Gabonada, and because there were rumors that Mayor Cerna's political enemies were intending
to liquidate him.
Late in the afternoon of that day, January 21, Mayor Cerna boarded his truck and proceeded to
Barrio Tabunok, Talisay to pick up his cargo. At about six o'clock, the truck started on its trip to
Pinamungajan via Carcar, Seated in the front seat were Jabido on the extreme left and then the driver,
De los Reyes, Candida Comahig and Mrs. Cerna. Mayor Cerna 'was on the extreme right. Anacleto
Barrientos and two helpers were in the back of the truck.
At about eight o'clock on that moonlit night, the truck reached the five-meter-wide curve about
seven meters from the end of the wooden bridge in an isolated place at Barrio Tutay, which is about
three to four kilometers away from the poblacion of Pinamungajan (See sketch Exh. G, photographs, Exh
H, etc. and Exh. 1- Moreno.)
After the truck had passed the bridge, its headlights revealed that a big log, about three to four
arms' length, a foot wide and six inches thick, the ends of which were connected to the sides of the road
by two other pieces of wood, had been placed across the highway as a roadblock about three meters
from the curve (66 ton November 15, 1971; 308 tsn September 3, 1970).
Pieces of lumber piled as high as the waistline of a person or less than a meter high and about
seven meters long were stacked on the right side of the road below a cliff shaded by a ballets tree. The
truck's headlights were focused on the right end of the roadblock and the pile of . The truck stopped
opposite the pile of lumber and was about two arms' length from it (164 tsn November 19, 1971). One
end of the roadblock rested on the pile of lumber. Moreno's house was about l00 to 150 meters away
from the bridge.
Stationed behind the pile lumber, which served as a barricade, were armed persons whom Mrs.
Cerna allegedly recognized because of the moonlight and the truck's headlights and because their
bodies from the waist up were exposed- She was instinctively afraid. She pressed the left thigh of her
husband. He brushed her hand aside.

The truck stopped at the me which is a few meters away from the end of the bridge and which
on the right side is near the cliff and the pile of lumber. The driver did not shut off the headlights. The
armed persons behind the barricade were Romeo Baricuatro, Rodrigo Baricuatro, Carlos Paslon, Vedasto
Moreno, Emilio Generalao, and three others. The Place was an Ideal One for an ambuscade (67 tsn
November 15, 1971).
When Mrs. Cerna saw the roadblock, she turned to the right side of the road (" stooped down in
order to peep and she then saw "clearly" before the shooting the armed persons behind the pile of logs
on the side of the road "beneath the cliff " (3233, 66-67, 71, 72, 74, tsn Exh- 2-Moreno). She testified
that Mayor was told her that Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro Bide and Dido) were among the
malefactors. The veracity of that testimony and similar testimony given by the chief of Police, Anacleto
Barrientos and Jose de los Reyes is vehemently contested by the appellants.
On the Identity of the assets, Mrs. Cerna testified as investigation:
Q. Who were those persons with aid which (whom) you saw at the time of the incident?
A. Rodrigo Baricuatro, Vedasto Moreno, Emilio Generalao, Romeo Baricuatro, Carlos Paslon, and
others whom I cannot Identify because I could not see their faces.
Q. You said also yesterday that there were persons behind the Pile of loge that were placed at
the side of the road, do you know who were those persons?
A. Those are the same persons whom I have named
Q. You said also it was a moonlight night and the headlight of the truck was on. Would you state
to the investigator that the persons can still be seen on that night in question?
A It (They) can be clearly seen.
Q. Who were those persons whom you can clearly see?
A. Rodrigo Baricuatro, Vedasto Moreno, Emilio Generalao, Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Mrs. Cerna, you told this Honorable Investigator that you saw those persons you mentioned
behind the pile of logs. Now, please ten this Investigator whether you saw those persons behind
the pile of logs before the shooting or after the shooting?
A. Before the shooting.
Q. Mrs. Cerna, since you saw those persons behind the pile of logs, and in fact you named those
persons, can you please tell this investigator what were their relative positions when you saw
them behind the pile of logs?
A. I could not tell their positions because I could only see their bodies from their breast up.

Q. Can you tell this Investigator if they were standing side by side or on file?
A. They were in line, side by side.
Q. Since you can tell this Honorable Investigator that they were in line side by side, can you
please tell us who was that person who was first from the left while looking on them?
A. Those were fronting me from the cliff which (who) were in line side by side were: first was
Rodrigo Baricuatro, Emilio Generalao, Vedasto Moreno, Romeo Baricuatro, Carlos Paslon and
those who were at the back I could not see their faces because their faces were covered
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Since you said that after the shooting those persons you mentioned, disappeared, can you
tell whether they passed from the precise spot where you saw them before? A. I do not know
where they were, but I saw that when they disappeared, they passed by the side of the truck
towards the end of the truck.
Q. You said that you observed those persons leaving the place where you saw them before, by
passing by the side of the truck towards the end of the truck. Do you want us to understand that
they cross(ed) the bridge toward the south? A. I did not know where they went, but I
observed that they passed by the side of the truck, on the right side of the truck. (71-77 tsn Exh
2-Moreno and Exh- 5 Romeo)
At the trial Mrs. Cerna testified:
Q. Were you able to recognize these persons behind those (that) pile of wood? A. Very much.
Q. Will you name those persons to the court the you recognized behind the pile of wood? A.
Yes, sir, Rodrigo Baricuatro, Emilio Generalao, Vedasto Moreno, Romeo Baricuatro, Carlos
Paslon and somebody behind whom I do not know because he was obstructed from my sight.
Q. Those persons you have named to the court. how long have you known them? A. Vedasto
Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro I know them since their boyhood.
Q. How about the others you have mentioned, how long have you known them? A. I came to
know them when they were already of age because they live in the barrio.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. How were you able to recognize these persons you have named since it was 8:30 in the
evening? A. Not only because of the light of the moon but they were also lighted by the beam
of the light of our truck. (62-64 tsn September 2, 1970).

xxx xxx xxx

Q. But definitely, what you saw first, because of the beams of the lights on the front of the truck
and the moonlight, was these pile of logs across the street and not the pile of logs on the side of
the road, is that right? A. The first that I saw because of the light of the moon was the log
blocked across the road and when I saw I immediately turned to the side of the road and I saw
the pile of logs and behind it were some persons.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. But the beams of the front lights of your truck was directed forward, is that right? A. It is
not towards the front an the time, because the light is scattered as adjusted.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. How (What) do you mean by like that? A. That the lights (of the truck are) in not straight
but it is scattered on the sides.
Q. But you will agree with me that when you saw that pile of wood across the street, the truck
was moving? A. Still moving and that was the time I saw clearly the persons standing by the
side of the road. " (1 10-1 11, 113-114, tsn September 3, 1970).
xxx xxx xxx
Q. But, definitely, you cannot inform the Honorable Court whether they were having sidearms
with them at that time? A. All I saw were guns held like this (witness demonstrated a position
by holding something in her hands in a port arms position).
Q. So, you did not see any sidearms? A. I only saw the barrel placed on top of the wood which
they were holding." Ibid 126 tsn).
xxx xxx xxx
Q. How long after the silence by the time allegedly your husband mentioned the name? A.
After two to five minutes, more or less and I called him: 'Do', and after I called to him, he spat
and then he said: 'Dido and Bidi Day', together with the accused to be arrested.
Q. You are quite sure that what lie said were those wounds: 'Dido and Bidi Day and the rest who
were the accused? A. Dido and Bidi Day and also the accused who are to be arrested. (Ibid
131 tsn).
Q. Did he (the chief of police) ask you whom you saw A. Yes, sir, I was asked.
Q. Did he ask you whether you saw this Dido (Rodrigo Baricuatro)? - A. He asked me Who were
they, Day and 1 told him they were Dido Baricuatro, Bidi Moreno, Romeo Baricuatro, Emilio
Generalao, Carlos Paslon and there were some whom I did not, recognize because their faces
were covered," (147-148 tsn September 1970).

Mrs. Cerna further testified that the headlights (with 12 volts) of the truck were on during the shooting
and a long time thereafter and that she saw the malefactors retreating (lbid, 95-97 tsn). De los Reyes,
the driver, gave the following testimony on the Identity of the male factors:
Q. Upon noticing the shots, what did you do? A. After I heard the shots, I turned my head to
the right and I saw Dido Baricuatro and Emilio Generalao like this (witness demonstrating a
position as if holding firearms in his hands).
Q. When you saw Emilio Generalao and Dido Baricuatro, where did you see those persons? - A.
Near the end of the pile of wood at the side of the road.
Q. What were they doing at that time when you saw them A. They were firing their guns
because I have seen fire flashes coming from their direction and they were guns like the
(witness demonstrating right and left hand in an aiming position).
Q. The place where you saw Emilio Generalao and Dido Baricuatro, how far were they from the
truck? A. Maybe more than "two arms length, more or less." (229-230 tsn September 3,
1970).
xxx xxx xxx
Q. While in that position at the right rear wheel of the truck, what did you notice? A. At that
moment, while I was already behind the right rear wheel of the truck, I saw Vedasto Moreno
moving backwards from the truck with a gun on his hand.
Q. After seeing this Vedasto Moreno in that position you have described, what else happened?
A. After seeing Vedasto Moreno in that same position, Romeo Baricuatro followed him only
an interval of one arms' length, and after Romeo Baricuatro followed in the same position as
Vedasto Moreno. came Carlos Paslon.
Q. What happened more? A. Then, I saw Emilio Generalao followed also on the same position
and in the same manner and had an interval (distance) of only one arms' length and then was
followed by another man whom I did not know and the last one was Dido Baricuatro.
Q. Those persons you have noted and observe to what direction did they go? A. They were
moving along the small path towards the upper portion of the hilt " Ibid 232-234 tsn).
Q. You said that when you jumped out of the truck, the headlights were on and you said that
you saw two persons. Do you know those two persons whom you saw because of the
headlights? A. Dido Baricuatro and Emilio Generalao.
Q. Do you know those persons personally? A. Yes, sir, I know them.
Q. When you d that when you were already hiding on the left rear portion of the truck, you were
able to see those persons, am I right? A. I saw.

Q. Who were those persons whom you saw? Name them one by one A. The first was Vedasto
Moreno, and then Romeo Baricuatro.
Q. Who else? A. Carlos Paslon.
Q. Were there other persons aside from the persons you named A. Emilio Generalao and next
was the person whom I do not know by name, and the next was Dido Baricuatro.
Q. When you said Dido Baricuatro, is he the same Rodrigo Baricuatro who is accused of this
case? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you said Bedi Moreno, is he the same Vedasto Moreno who is one of the accused in
this case? A. Yes, sir." (116118 tsn Exh. 2-Moreno and Exh. 5-Romeo).
The truck showed down and swerved to the left. Immediately after the truck had halted in front
of the roadblock, or while it was about to stop, volleys of gunfire were directed at its front and right side
which was near the cliff. The shots came from the right side of the road. The fusillade lasted only for a
brief interval. Jabido and Candida Comahig jumped out of the truck after the firing had started.
Barrientos remained in the back of the truck.
De los Reyes, the driver (a resident of Barrio Tutay, whose house was about 400 meters away
and who was familiar. with the place), on hearing the shots, turned his head and saw Rodrigo Baricuatro
and Generalao at tile end of the roadblock. The driver jumped out of the truck and sought cover under
the truck near the left rear tire which was about four arms length from the pile of lumber. After the
firing had stopped, he stationed himself behind the right rear tire.
As testified by him from that coign of Advantage he saw and recognized Moreno, Generalao,
Romeo Baricuatro, Rodrigo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon still holding their firearms. He was acquainted
with them because they were well-known residents of Pinamungajan Their figures were silhouetted by
the headlights of his truck which were on during the shooting.
After the firing had ceased, Mrs. Cerna perceived that her husband was gravely wounded. She
shouted for help. As there were no houses in the vicinity, no one answered her clamor for succor.
Sometime later, the truck ("Estela") of Jose Pena companions arrived. Penas companions
removed the roadblock. At that juncture, De los Reyes showed up. He drove the mayor's truck and took
him to the poblacion. (On the witness stand, Pena in answer to a leading question of whether he asked
Mrs. Cerna and her companions who shot the mayor, replied that "they said they did not know" [269 tsn
January 5, 19721. That answer of Pena has been capitalized upon by the defense to counteract Mrs.
Cerna's testimony that she knew the assailants of Mayor Cerna.)
The mayor was brought to Toledo City fifteen kilometers away. On arriving at that place, he was
placed in another car and taken to the Don Andres Soriano Memorial (Atlas Consolidated Mining
Company) Hospital at Lutopan where he died.

Injuries inflicted and results of the investigation at the scene of the crime.The autopsy on the
body of Mayor Cerna disclosed six entrance gunshot wounds, located in the mandibular region, right
shoulder, anterior chest wall, right arm, and left leg, and four exit wounds, aside from abrasions and
contusions (Exh. A to A-2).
A slug was recovered at the right side of the lower lip of Mayor Cerna. It was lodged between
the lower lip and the teeth of the victim or at his gums. The injuries caused by that slug involved the
blood vessels, tissues and nerves of the injured portion of the jaw. The defense argues that, because of
the wound in his jaw, Mayor Cerna could not have made a dying declaration to Mrs. Cerna and the chief
of police that he was shot by Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro and their companions.
Mrs. Cerna sustained fractures in the ring and middle fingers and metacarpal of her left hand.
An operation was performed on her left hand. It was permanently deformed. She spent P2,000 for her
hospitalization Exh D-12).
Jabido had a gunshot wounded on his right cheek. He was confined in the hospital for eleven
days (Exh. F).
Candida Comahig suffered contusions on her right knee and thigh which were not caused by
buffets but by some hard objects, Probably, the contusions were the consequence of her having jumped
out of the truck and having fallen on the hard ground (Exh. J)
De los Reyes had abrasions on the chin and a lacerated wound on his right arm was extracted
(Exh. E).
Recovered at the scene of the crime were a grease submachine gun caliber .45 (issued to
Constabulary Sergeant Mamerto Generalao), twenty-five empty caliber.45 shells, two empty caliber .30
shells, five slugs and a magazine with 25 rounds of ammunition, caliber.45. (Exh. B, C and II-I )
On the right side of the truck, there were fifteen bullet holes from a .45 caliber submachine gun,
two bullet holes on the right side of the front and windshield from a .30 caliber rifle and twenty-six
other bullet holes. And at the scene of the ambuscade, there were bloodstains on the road and
footprints on the swamp nearby. (See Exh. H-1-B and H-3-A )
On the high ground near the curve, the investigators found empty cans, a Pepsi-Cola bottle,
human waste matter, the remains of food, and the wrappers for cooked rice known as "puso", indicating
that certain persons ate their supper there before the ambuscade. In that place, the aroma of tuba
could still be smelt at seven o'clock in the morning of the following day, January 22,1970 (67, 70 and 72
tsn November 15,1971).
Mrs. Cerna testified that, as a consequence of the death of her husband, who was the family's
breadwinner, their ice candy business, from which they derived a considerable daily income, was
stopped. She spent P4,000 for the metal casket, ?4,000 for the twelve days during which the mayor's
remains lay in state, and P7,000 for his marble tomb with a canopy.

Mayor Cerna's physical condition after the ambuscade.The fact that Mayor Cerna was
wounded in the jaw generated a controversy as to whether he could have made the antemortem
declaration, attributed to him by Mrs. Cerna, Chief of Police Lesigues driver De los Reyes, Anacleto
Barrientos and Candida Comahig, that Moreno, Rodrigo Balicuatro and their companions were his
assailants. According to the medicolegal officer, Mayor Cerna retained his power of speech in spite of his
wounds (180 tsn June 19,1972).
Mrs, Cerna testified that after the fusillade Mayor Cerna bent forward, spat saliva mixed with
blood and said that he saw Moreno, Rodrigo Baricuatro and the other persons to be arrested. Mayor
Cerna allegedly told her not to leave him. She shouted for help and when nobody answered her, Mayor
Cerna allowed her to leave the truck and go with Jabido to look for help. Even after Mrs. Cerna had gone
down from the truck and failed to find Jabido, the wounded mayor allegedly told her not to leave the
place. This was tearfully recounted on the witness stand by Mrs. Cerna. The session had to be
suspended at that juncture (72-73 tsn September 2, 1970).
Then, when she informed Mayor Cerna that Penas truck had arrived, the mayor told her that
Penas truck should be parked alongside their truck so that he could be transferred to Penas truck. But
because the road was narrow, that maneuver could not be accomplished,
Anacleto Barrientos remained inside the mayor's truck when the ambuscade was being
perpetrated. After the gunfire had ceased and when he heard Mrs. Cerna shouting, he thought that
there was a Hold up. He left the truck and hid under the bridge. After about ten minutes, he emerged
from his hiding place and saw Mrs. Cerna walking to and from front of tile truck. He wondered why the
mayor had not left the Truck He went to the right side of the front seat to find out what had happened
to the mayor.
He saw that here was blood on the mayor's white shirt. The mayor was leaning on the truck's
steering wheel. The mayor saw him and asked him who he was. He Identified himself as a passenger
who had boarded the truck in Cebu City.
The mayor directed to go after Moreno, Rodrigo Baricuatro and their companions who had fled
to the elevated Portion near the scene of the ambuscade. He saw the cliff or elevated ground but he did
not comply with the mayor's directive e went back to the bridge. While there, he heard the sound of the
engine of a motor vehicle which was ahead of the cargo truck. lt seemed to him that the vehicle was in
the of barrio schoolhouse. (The same sound was heard by Mrs.Cerna, Candida Comahig and Jabido.
Later, Pena truck arrived, the roadblock was removed, and De los Reyes, the driver of the
mayor's truck appeared and started it. Barrientos seated himself on the right of the wounded mayor and
placed his left arm around his left shoulder. The mayor told Barrientos to raise the mayor's right hand
and to lift his left leg so that he (the mayor) could rest. Barrientosdemonstrated on the witness stand
how he complied with the mayor's instruction (552-553 tsn September 1, 1971).

On the way to the poblacion, the mayor even asked Barrientos to take out something inside the
back pocket of his pants since it caused him pain. Mrs. Cerna from time to time would call her husband
"Do" and he would answer "Day".
When the truck reached the mayor's garage in the poblacion, the chief of police, who was on
the lawn of the mayor's residence, was called by Mrs. Cerna and was informed that the mayor had been
ambushed. The chief of police approached the mayor, who was being held by Barrientos, and asked him
who had shot him. The mayor replied that he was shot by Dido Baricuatro and the other accused already
known to the chief of police. The latter asked the mayor if he was referring to Moreno, Romeo
Baricuatro, Carlos Paslon and Generalao. The mayor replied in the affirmative (10-14 tsn September 2,
1970; 241-2 tsn September 3, 1970).
According to De los Reyes, it was Mayor Cerna who suggested that the jeep of the priest be used
in bringing him to the hospital because the cargo truck, which was old, might break down. After the
priest said that it might not be good to transfer the mayor to the jeep, the mayor ordered that he be
brought to the West Coast Hospital at Toledo City.
On the way to that place, Mayor Cerna asked the chief of police, who was sitting at his feet, if
the place is still far. The chief of police cautioned him not to talk much because talking was not good for
a wounded person. The mayor asked the same question of his wife when he was being brought to the
hospital at Lutopan. When the mayor was being transferred from his truck to Barba's car, he cried Agoy
Evidently, he was suffering much pain. He sat on the left thigh of Barrientos while he was in Barba's car.
From time o time, the mayor would tell Barrientos to let him recline and then, he would tell the latter to
let him "lay flat" on his back. He was restless and, obviously, subjected to paroxysms of pain.
Possibly, the transfer of Mayor Cerna from the truck to Mayor Barba's car in Toledo City and the
trip from Toledo City to the hospital at Lutopan and the transfer to the stretcher of the hospital sapped
his last reserved of resistance. He died seven minutes after his arrival at the hospital. As long as he was
in the truck, his mental faculties appeared to be unimpaired in spite of the gunshot wounds. The mayor,
a heavily built man, was endowed with a strong constitution. He weighed 198 pounds (102 tsn
September 3,. 1970; 427 tsn September 1, 1970).
Appellants' contention that Mayor Cerna was already in a comatose condition alter he was shot
and that lie could no longer talk is unfounded.
The credibility of Avelino Norteza on the complicity of the seven appellants, Crecencio F.
Nemenzo et al.On January 26, 1970, a Constabulary officer filed in the municipal court against (1)
Moreno (2) Generalao, (3) Rodrigo Baricuatro, (4) Romeo Baricuatro and (5) Carlos Paslon a single
complaint for murder and multiple frustrated murder. The complaint was supported by the affidavits of
Jose B. Lesigues the chief of police, Patrolman Eulogio B. Kyamko Jose de los Reyes (the driver) and
Placido Mondejar. Lourdes Cerna and Jose R. Kyamko also executed affidavits dated January 28 and 30,
1970.

The municipal judge Conducted a preliminary examination and, having found probable, he
issued a warrant for the arrest of the five accused, fixing the bail a t P50,000 each in his order of January
28, 1970
Moreno was arrested at Dumaguete City on January 28,1970 (Exh. 3-Moreno). Rodrigo
Baricuatro was arrested on January 29, 1970 in Cebu City. Moreno and Baricuatro were released on bail
on February 2 1970. Generalao, Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon went into hiding. The three were to
be given a separate trial.
On February 4 1970 the municipal judge elevated the record to the Court of the Court of First
Instance because of the nonappearance of the accused at the second stage of the preliminary
investigation which they had presumably waived.
On February 24, 1970 the provincial fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu at Toledo
City five informants charging Moreno, Generalao, Rodrigo Baricuatro, Romeo Baricuatro, Carlos Paslon
and three unknown persons with murder with atentado and four frustrated murders [Criminal Cases
Nos. 10(T) to 14(T)].
On June 22, 1970 the fiscal filed amended informations charging attempted murder only in
connection with the assaults against Candida Comahig and Jose de los Reyes [Criminal Cases Nos. 11(T)
and 14(T)I.
The Court of First Instance transferred the five cases to the Circuit Criminal Court at Cebu City
where they were docketed as Criminal Cases CCC-XIV-95, 129,130, 131, and 132. In case No. 95,warrants
were issued for the arrest of Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro. No bail was recommended. The trial
started on September 2, 1970.
About six months the trial had started, or on March 12, 1971, that is to say, after the witnesses,
Jose B. Lesigues Lourdes Cerna and Jose de los Reyes, had testified at the trial, the fiscal filed amended
informations against the five accused originally named and against eight new defendants, namely, (1)
Crescencio F. Nemenzo (2) Rodulfo Umbay, (3) Salvador Pena (4) Roberto Paslon, (5) Victoriano Baraga,
(6) Crispin Baraga, (7) Elpidio Baricuatro and (8) Ely Baricuatro.
The basis of the amended informations was the affidavit dated February 24, 1971 of Avelino
Norteza who, as mentioned earlier, claimed to be privy to the conspiracy to ambush Mayor Cerna (Exh.
2-Romeo). On the basis of that affidavit, the fiscal conducted another preliminary investigation.
One important issue in this appeal is Norteza's credibility. The Solicitor General regards him as a
perjured witness. At the trial, Norteza, a 37-year old mason and a high school undergraduate, testified
that at about six o'clock in the evening of January 21, 1970 Crescencio Nemenzo Rodrigo Baricuatro,
Rodulfo Umbay and Salvador Pena allegedly went to his house at Barrio Mangoto and invited him to go
to Barrio Tutay for a drinking spree. They went to the cliff or the elevated portion in The barrio near the
bridge, arriving there at about seven o'clock.

There, Norteza saw firearms (grease gun, Thompson, garand rifle) dumped under a tree. He also
saw his friends, Roberto Paslon, Carlos Paslon, Victoriano Baraga, Crispin Baraga, Emilio Generalao,
Elpidio Baricuatro, Romeo Baricuatro and Moreno. Using only one glass, they were drinking tuba mixed
with Pepsi-Cola. Rodrigo Baricuatro allegedly disclosed to him that the group would kill Mayor Cerna.
Norteza was given the option to select what firearm he would use.
The plan was for Ely Baricuatro to go to his house at Sitio Mohon Aloguinsan, and fire a shot as a
signal announcing the approach of Mayor Cerna's truck. A piece of logs on the right side of the road near
the bridge would be used as a barricade to block the truck. In accordance with that suggestion, Roberto
Paslon, Carlos Paslon, Generalao, Crispin Baraga and Victoriano Baraga blocked the road with logs. The
roadblock was removed when three trucks, none of which belonged to Mayor Cerna, passed by.
After the third truck had passed, a gunshot was heard. That meant that Mayor Cerna's truck was
approaching. Some members of the group stationed themselves behind the roadblock. Others were
stationed in the upper portion near the bridge. At that juncture, Norteza allegedly sneaked out of the
place. He did not witness the ambush. On his home through the fields, he heard the gunshots coming
from the place which he had left.
The foregoing testimony was the trial court's basis for convicting appellants Elpidio Baricuatro,
Ely Baricuatro, Nemenzo Pena Umbay, Roberto Paslon and Victoriano Baraga. Can credence be given to
Norteza's testimony? As already stated, the Solicitor General agrees with the appellants that Norteza is a
perjured witness.
Norteza explained that he kept silent about the ambuscade for more than one year because he
was fearful that he might be prosecuted and he was allegedly warned that if he squealed he and his
family would be liquidated. He changed his mind because he realized that, eventually, it would be
known that he had some knowledge of the conspiracy and because he surmised that if he disclosed
what he knew about the killing of Mayor Cerna, other persons would follow his example and disclose
what they knew about the unsolved killing of his brother, Miguel, on January 31, 1971.
We have conscientiously evaluated Norteza's uncorroborated and contradicted testimony. Our
conclusion is that it cannot be accorded any credence. Consequently, the guilt of the seven appellants
implicated by him was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not merely the long delay in the giving of his testimony that impairs its veracity and
engenders the notion that it might be fabricated. What strongly militates against his credibility is the
undeniable fact that he was a follower of Mayor Cerna and, therefore, it is not believable that he would
have been invited by the appellants (some of whom were confirmed political enemies of Mayor Cerna to
join the conspiracy to kill the mayor. (1846 tsn January 11, 1972). And because he was a follower of
Mayor Cerna, it is not surprising that he was used as a production witness in this case.
Norteza, as a tough guy, was well-known in the small town of Pinamungajan and its environs
where, as in the case of small communities, political affiliations are noted-secret. The appellants could
not be ignorant of the fact that Norteza and his father belonged to Mayor Cerna's faction The mayor

was one of Norteza's three bondsmen in criminal Case No. 47'6-RP of the municipal court, a 1968 case,
wherein he was charged with serious physical injuries for having assaulted Teodoro Alpas (Exh. 7 to 7-F
Moreno. )Norteza voted for Mayor Cerna in 1967 election and for Mayor Cerna's son in the 1971
election. His father was leader of Mayor Cerna. (147,150 tsn November 17,1971).
In July, 1971, or after Norteza surfaced as a procecution witness, he was appointed a municipal
caminero (1249 tsn November 16, 1971).
Nortezas version as to the conspiracy contains improbabilities. He made it appear that although
the conspirators or the appellants had already decided on killing the and - I had foregathered ill the
upper portion of Barrio Tutay to wait for he mayor's truck, they had not yet agreed On the specific
measures to be employed in accomplishing their diabolical purpose. From Norteza's story, It appears
that the conspirators had to converse aloud in his presence and agree on the blocking of the road and
the giving of the signal announcing the approach of the mayor's truck and that they had to invite him to
implement their plan.
He did not explain why his presence was still indispensable for the execution of the scheme to
kill the mayor, considering that (according to Norteza's version) there were already thirteen armed
persons present who were ready to perform their nefarious task. He did not mention any special
qualifications on his part, which induced the conspirators to invite him to join them. These facts of his
story appear to be incredible.
The fact that he did not join in the conversation; that he did not make any suggestions; that he
was a mere listener; that he did not even participate in placing the roadblock and in removing it when
certain trucks passed, and that he played a passive role or was a mere spectator makes it hard to believe
that the conspirators would have taken him into their confidence.
It is within the realm of possibility that the seven appellants had some participation in the
ambuscade and that someone, who had actual knowledge thereof but who was not indicted, had
informed Norteza of what had transpired. But it is certain from the record that Norteza's
uncorroborated testimony is not sufficient to prove the complicity of the seven appellants in the
assassination.
Norteza's testimony contains details that convey the impression that he was a co-conspirator.
Such details as the giving of the signal and the placing of the roadblock, and the passing of three trucks
before Mayor Cerna's truck passed, might have convinced the trial court that Norteza was present when
the preparations for the ambuscade were made.
But the record also reveals that other details were not mentioned by Norteza and that such
omission casts doubt on the veracity of his testimony. For example, Norteza did not mention that the
conspirators were provided with food which they ate while on the cliff, as shown in the telltale wrappers
of "puso" rice and the empty tins of canned food (59 tsn July 24, 1972). Norteza could not tell the kind of
firearms carried by the conspirators. He merely said that something was bulging at their waists. If he

was a co-conspirator trusted by the appellants and was present on the cliff, he could have easily
ascertained the kind of weapons carried by his companions.
Norteza's explanation as to his long silence is not convincing and satisfactory, It cannot erase the
impression that he was a rehearsed witness whose testimony was concocted in order to strengthen the
prosecution's case. The fact that he did not confide to his wife and parents his knowledge of the
ambuscade (1239 tsn November 16, 1971) is quite unusual and may signify that he was not privy to the
conspiracy.
In a grave case, like the instant case, the guilt of the accused cannot be predicated on delayed
testimony, like that of Norteza's, which exhibits earmarks of fabrication. It would be highly injudicious to
relay on such testimony because blanket acceptance thereof might result in the conviction of an
innocent person. With the rejection of Norteza's testimony, the seven appellants, already name, should
be acquitted.
Having disposed of the appeal of the additional seven defendants, we now address ourselves to
the appeal of the original five defendants against whom criminal actions were filed in the municipal
court of Pinamungajan in four of which cases Mayor Cerna conducted the preliminary examination and
issued the warrants of arrest.
Case of appellant Moreno.He relied on an alibi the details of which his counsel did not bother
to discuss in his brief. He testified that when the ambuscade was perpetrated, or in the evening of
January 21, 1970, he was in the house of his sweetheart, Maria Milan, at Barrio Bakit Pinamungajan
Maria Milan, Juan Dejito and Casiano Flores corroborated Moreno's alibi. Dejito and Flores are the
brothers-in-law of appellant Nemenzo who in turn is a first cousin of the brothers, appellants Rodrigo
and Elpidio Baricuatro.
However, Romula Gleocam the mother of Maria Milan, who lived with her, contradicted her and
testified that Moreno called at their house at around nine o'clock in the evening of that day or after the
ambuscade had been perpetrated. Maria Portes corroborated Romula's testimony.
It may be recalled that Mrs. Cerna, Barrientos and Candida Comahig testified that, after the
gunfire had ceased, they heard the sound of the engine of a vehicle. They imagined that it was an
concurring truck. Actually, it was leaving the scene of the crime. That sound came from that part of the
highway near the schoolhouse or near Moreno's house at Barrio Tutay (69 tsn, Exh, 2-Moreno).
At around eight-thirty of that night, as Jose Kyamko, the brother-in- law of Mrs. Cerna, was
crossing the highway, a jeep without any light passed by him. lt came from Barrio Tutay and was driven
to the poblacion. Kyamko recognized it as the passenger jeepney which Leon Moreno, the father of
Vedasto, had converted into a private vehicle. When the jeep passed Kyamko. he noticed that it was
driven by Moreno. Beside him was Rodrigo Baricuatro. (See p. 37, Records of Crim. Case No. 95-Cebu.)
As already stated, according to Romula Gleocam at around nine o'clock on. that same night,,
Moreno, riding in a jeep, went to the house of her daughter, Maria Milan, at barrio Bakit which was near

the poblacion (Exh, T). Romula noticed that Moreno spoke in a quevering voice and that he look untidy f
e I ed and attempt on prior occasions, he had a well-groomed appearance, After talking with Maria for
about an hour, Moreno (Vidi) departed in his jeep.
Shortly thereafter Romula heard again the drone of the jeep. Moreno called and asked Rufina
Milan (Romula's sister) that he be allowed to pass the night in her house because no one was allowed to
pass Barrio Tutay. On that night Moreno slept at Rufina's house. When Moreno was already inside the
use, Romula heard a man's voice outside calling Moreno and saying: "Boss, he is already dead". Moreno
did not make any reply.
On the following morning, Moreno requested Luz, a daughter of Romula, to buy read in the
market and to listen to the rumors being Spread around. After Luz had returned, she told Moreno that
some persons in the street comer were saying that Moreno had killed Mayor Cerna. While Romula was
preparing breakfast, she observed that Moreno was always looking out of the window. After taking
breakfast, he left the house together with Maria Milan.
They rode in the jeep. They passed by the store of Maria Portes where Moreno bought
cigarettes. When she handed the cigarettes to him, she noticed that he looked pale and that his hands
were trembling In fact, he dropped the cigarettes on the ground. Se asked Moreno what was wrong with
m He answered that he was being implicated in the killing of Mayor Cerna. She said that if he had not
done anything wrong, he had no reason to be afraid.
Moreno testified that after bringing Maria Milan to the high school he went to his residence at
Barrio Tutay and took his lunch there. Then, he went to Barrio Pandacan and supervised the gathering of
the coconuts, the cutting of the bamboos and the plowing of the family lands. He went to the house of
his aunt and passed the night there.
On the following day, January 23, his uncle, Francisco Gabante, arrived from San Carlos City. He
went with his uncle to Trozo, San Carlos City, arriving there by boat in the early morning of January 24,
1970. He visited his aunt, Victoria Gabon. on the following day, January 25, he went to Bais City to visit
his uncle, Felix Moreno. Then, the next day, he went to the residence of a lawyer at Dumaguete City in
order to seek legal advice.
On January 28, 1970, he was arrested in that city by three Constabulary sergeants of the Cebu
City Constabulary detachment. Moreno went to the Constabulary headquarters at Dumaguete City and
slept there (Exh. 3, Moreno). He and the Constabulary sergeants took a boat on the following day and
arrived at Cebu City on January 30 (Exh. 5-Moreno).
Maria Portes declared that after Moreno was arrested, he went to see her and requested her to
testify that she saw him at the house of Rufina Milan at six o'clock in the evening of January 21, 1970. He
offered her money. She refused to testify in his favor.
We are convinced that Moreno's complicity in the perpetration of the ambuscade was proven
beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of Mrs. Cerna and the driver, De los Reyes, and the

declaration of Mayor Cerna to his wife, the chief of police and Barrientos. The motive for the killing was
sufficiently established. Moreno felt aggrieved by Mayor Cerna's issuance of the warrant for his arrest
and by his incarceration and posting of four bail bonds which entailed the payment of a substantial
amount as premiums.
Moreno's alibi, instead of showing his innocence, to confirm his guilt because, if he had no
participation in the ambuscade, there was no reason for him to sleep in his sweetheart's house, three
kilometers away from his residence in Barrio Tutay where the ambuscade was committed His flight to
San Carlos City clearly signified that he had guilty conscience.
Case of Rodrigo Baricuatro.This appellant was 44 years old when he testified in 1972. He was
a Constabulary sergeant connected with the reserve officers training corps (ROTC) unit of the University
of the Visayas at Cebu City, with training and experience in perpetrating ambuscades. He testified that in
the afternoon of January 21, 1970, he was given by his commandant a three-day pass so that he could
go to Pinamungajan and transfer to a new residence on the lot of his parents. He arrived at
Pinamungajan at past five o'clock. He and his wife took supper at six o'clock. Then he allegedly went to
the house of Tonying Batitay to play mahjong. He was accompanied by appellant Umbay, his brother-inlaw.
He stayed at Batitay's place until nine o'clock when the brother Eleazar and Jose Pena came with
the information that Mayor Cerna had been ambushed at Barrio Tutay. Rodrigo Baricuatro,
accompanied by Umbay and Loreto Quesido, left Batitay's place, and went home.
Two days later, or on January 23, 1970; Coronel Jose Nazareno, the Constabulary zone
commander who was in Pinamungajan took him into custody because of the suspicion that the firearms
used in the ambuscade might have come from the armory of the University of the Visayas. Rodrigo was
in charge of the armory.
Upon his arrival at Cebu City, an inventory of the arms at the armory was made. He was later
detained at the enlisted men's quarters and then at the guardhouse after a criminal charge was filed
against hint He denied any complicity in the ambuscade. he refuted Norteza's statements implicating
him in the assassination of Mayor Cerna.
However, and this is a decisive point, Antonio Batitay, the owner of the house where Rodrigo
Baricuatro and Umbay y played mahjong from seven o'clock in the evening of January 21, 1970 (the
night of the ambuscade), testified that and Umbay did not play mahjong in his house at that time. They
arrived in the mahjong den shortly before nine o'clock or after the ambuscade was committed. The
mahjong game was stopped after nine o'clock when news of the ambuscade was relayed to the mahjong
players (156-7, tsn March 6,1972).
Batitay's testimony nullified Rodrigo Baricuatro's alibi and cancelled the testimonies of Eleazar
Pena Loreto Quesido, and Beato Pefia and Sergeant Norberto Alvarado, supporting that alibi. The falsity
of his alibi removes any doubt as to his guilt.

Like Moreno, Rodrigo Baricuatro was identified by the eyewitnesses, Mrs. Cerna and De los
Reyes, as being present at the scene of the crime, and by Mayor Cerna himself in his declaration to
them, to s and to the chief of police. Rodrigo had reason to surmise to Mayor Cerna instigated the
criminal action for grave threats filed against him. Being a potential candidate of the Liberal Party for
mayor in the 1971 election, he could believe that the elimination of Mayor Cerna would insure his
election.
Four prosecution witnesses, namely, Placido Mondejar, Angela Yanong, Lazaro Deroy and Sergio
Perito testified to certain incidents which reveal that Rodrigo Baricuatro had nursed the design to kill
Mayor Cerna before the 1971 elections and had recklessly made an open avowal of that intention. Rodrigo made a blanket denial of that imputation.
It would seem that before the ambuscade Rodrigo Baricuatro and Moreno had already prepared
their alibis. Rodrigo would be in the mahjong den while Moreno would be in his girl friend's residence.
What they did not foresee was that, immediately after the ambuscade, the finger of suspicion would be
pointed at them by their fellow townsmen as individuals implicated in that iniquitous and dastardly
deed.
Thus, Candida Comahig stopped her narrative about the ambuscade when she noticed that
Rodrigo was among those listening to her. And Fiscal Alfredo S. Pancho testified that on the day
following the ambuscade a group of around fifteen persons, some of whom were armed and drunked,
stopped the Moreno bus at the public market of Pinamungajan and wanted to be brought to Sitio Tubod
where Rodrigo Baricuatro was residing. The group harassed the bus driver and the conductor, the
employees of Vedasto Moreno's family.
That circumstance led Fiscal Pancho, a bus passenger bound for Aloguinsan, to conclude that it
was dangerous for Moreno to remain in Pinamungajan Because of that incident, the bus could not
proceed to Barrio Tutay. It had to take a roundabout route via Carcar to Aloguinsan Fiscal Pancho
rejected the offer that Moreno himself would drive the bus to Aloguinsan by way of Barrio Tutay.
Case of Romeo Baricuatro.This appellant, the nephew of Rodrigo Baricuatro, was thirty-three
years old in 1970. He is married with five children. He was a student of criminology at the University of
the Visayas in Cebu City. He declared in support of his alibi that in the afternoon of January 20, 1970 his
wife came from Pinamungajan to inform him at his boarding house in Cebu City of the warrant of arrest
issued against him in the four criminal cases pending in the municipal court. She also apprised him that
Moreno had already been arrested, He testified that at around noontime, he took his wife to the bus
station for her return trip to Pinamungajan At the station, he saw Avelino Norteza who was working as a
mason in Cebu City.
Romeo denied Norteza's testimony that he was in Barrio Tutay in the evening of January 21,
1970. Romeo's alibi is that he was in the house of Atty. Rodolfo Acido in Cebu City at the time when the
ambuscade was perpetrated. Romeo conferred with Atty. Acido whom he had hired as his counsel in the
four criminal cases. His landlord, Mario Saromines, was with him when he conferred with Atty. Acido
whom he had hired as his counsel in the four criminal cases. His landlord, Mario Saromines, was with

him when he conferred with Acido. Romeo returned to his boarding house after nine o'clock in the
evening. He was already in the boarding house when the whistle announcing the curfew for minors was
sounded at ten o'clock.
Romeo explained that Norteza testified against him because the Cerna family had helped
Norteza in a certain case and that Mrs. Cerna implicated him because she hated his uncle, Rodrigo.
Mario Saromines, a thirty-nine year old barber, corroborated Romeo's alibi. But Acido (Moreno's
counsel in the preliminary investigation), whose, corroboration would be vital in establishing the truth of
Romeo's alibi, did not testify in court. Hence, Romeo's alibi cannot prevail against tile testimonies of
Mrs. Cerna and De los Reyes that he was among those who ambushed Mayor Cerna.
After eluding arrest for more than twenty-two months, Romeo was arrested by Sergeant
Servando in his house at Sta. Cruz, Pinamungajan on November 20, 1971.
Cases of Emilio Generalao and Carlos Paslon.Generalao, a resident of Barrio Tutay, was thirtyeight years old when he testified in 1972. He reached the first year of high school. His alibi was that from
January 6, I970 to May 3, 1971, or for about one year and five months, lie was doing farm work in Barrio
Calibasan Toledo City which was fifteen kilometers away from the provincial road at Matab and to go to
that place, one had to walk from Matab- ang. Filomeno Cantutay, a resident, of Calibasan Cantutay
corraborated his alibi.
Generalao testified that in May, 1970, his white went to Calibasan to inform him that he was
Implicated in the killing of Cerna. He returned to Barrio Tutay on May 3, 1971 in order to confer with his
brother and his white regarding his surrender. lie denied shall lie was with Norteza in Barrio Tutay in
evening on January 21, 1970. His theory was Chat Norteza was angry with him because he refused to
help Norteza and his Brother in gathering the coconuts of Clemente Yanong.
He was arrested in his father's house on November 25, 1971 by certain Constabulary men
named Aldaba Nebres and Carding and other whose names he did not know He said that he was
brought to the Constabulary station at Pinamungajan where he was mauled by the Constabularymen
and by Jesus Cerna and Jose Kyamko in the presence of several persons. Then, he was taken to the
Constabulary headquarters at Salonga where he was again maltreated. 'There, he signed an affidavit
which he did hot read.
The affidavit, Exhibit B-Generalao, was taken by Sergeant Benjamin Solante in the presence of
Sergeants Nicanor E. Bancog and Edmundo Panistante and sworn to before Fiscal Benicio Arzadon who
prosecuted this case. Generalao, on cross-examination by Fiscal Arzadon, denied that he signed freely
that affidavit.
In that affidavit, Generalao admitted that on January 2, 1970, he killed Juanita Gabonada; that,
because of that killing, he went into hiding at Sitio Calibasan and Barrio Guingkamote, Toledo City,
staying with his brother-in-law Cantutay, his friend Marcelo Tante and his mother's cousin, Felicisimo
Maturan; that he returned to his fathers house at Sitio Santa Cruz, Barrio Sacsac Pinamungajan on May

3, 1971 in order to surrender but he was not able to do so because he feared that he might be killed, so
he just laid low and talked from time to time with Carlos Paslon and Romeo Baricuatro; that in
November, 1971, in the course of an encounter with Constabulary soldiers, he threw away his Garand
rifle and it was recovered by the Constabularymen and that his companions in that encounter were
Carlos Paslon and Gavino Layar (Translation.)
Carlos Paslon, married, with seven children, was thirty six years old in 1972. He finished the fifth
grade. His alibi was that from November, 1969 to February, 1970 he stayed in the house of his elder
brother, Doming, in Barrio Lawaan, Talisay, Cebu. He was working as driver at six pesos a day with the
Cebu United Enterprises. Afterwards, he lived in Duljo, Cebu City where his wife established a dress
shop. He left Duljo in Ap 1971 and returned to Pinamungajan.
Paslon testified that in the evening of January 21, 1970 he attended a party in the house of
Eutiquio Cabuenas in Barrio Lawaan. According to Paslon, the occasion was a "yearly devotion".
According to Cabuenas, it was the birthday of his wife. Paslon could not remember the birthdays of his
children.
Cabuenas corroborated his alibi However, on cross examination, Cabuenas declared when he
testified on August 26, 1972 that the current month was July. Cabuenas admitted that he was requested
by the wife of Carlos Paslon to testify that Carlos was in the house of Cabuenas in the evening of January
21, 1970. Carlos Paslon denied the imputation of Norteza that he was in Barrio Tutay on that date.
Norteza was angry with him because he refused to sell a pig to him.
He was arrested on November 24, 1971 in the house of Sabina Intong at Barrio Sambagon,
Pinamungajan by certain Constabularymen named Aldaba, Alpon and Carding who maltreated him. They
stopped maltreating him when Sergeant Nebres told them that according to Mrs. Cerna, Carlos Paslon
would be a State witness. He was brought to Sibonga where he signed an affidavit after having been
mauled.
The alibis of Generalao and Carlos Paslon cannot be accorded any credence because they were
positively Identified by Mrs. Cerna. And the fact that, like Romeo Baricuatro, they were fugitives from
justice for around twenty-two months, hiding in the mountain barrios of Pinamungajan conveys the
impression that they had a guilty conscience.
Appellants' criminal liability.As to Mayor Cerna, the offense committed was correctly
categorized as the complex crime of murder with direct assault upon a person in authority (Arts, 48, 148
and 248, Revised Penal Code). The killing of Mayor Cerna was indisputably treacherous. The ambuscade
exhibited the characteristic features of alevosia (Art. 14[161, Revised Penal Code), Nocturnity is
aggravating because the appellants took advantage of the night for the consummation of their nefarious
enterprise.
The killing constituted a direct assault against a person in authority (Art. 152, Revilla Penal CodeU. S. vs. Gumban 39 Phil. 76), as charged in the information, because the rule is that the person in

authority or his agent should have been assaulted "while engaged in the performance of official duties,
or on occasion on such performance".
At the time Mayor Cerna was ambushed, he was returning from Cebu City where he had
transacted official business with the governor. The impelling motive for the direct assault was Mayor
Cerna's performance of his official duty in conducting the preliminary examination of the four criminal
cases against appellants Moreno, Generalao, Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon and the issuance of
warrants of arrest which resulted in the incarceration of Moreno and constrained him to pay P1,000 as
premiums on his bail bonds. Undoubtedly, that caused resentment. (Justo vs. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil
453; U. S. vs. Garcia, 20 Phil. 358).
As the crime is complex, the penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to death for murder, the
more serious offense, should be imposed in the maximum period. Hence, the death penalty should be
imposed on the principals. The trial court correctly imposed the death penalty upon Moreno and
Rodrigo Baricuatro, whose guilt as co-principals in the assassination of Mayor Cerna, was established to
a moral certainty.
For lack of the requisite votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed on appellants Generalao,
Carlos Paslon and Romeo Baricuatro. They should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
In this connection, it may be noted that in People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515, where Aureliano Carag,
the mayor of Solano, Cagayan, was killed by eight persons led by Tomas Ubina, his political enemy only
Ubina was sentenced to death because he was the one who conceived the plan and utilized his influence
to perpetrate the killing. "For him justice cannot be tempered with mercy; the law must be applied to its
full force and to its full extent." His four companions, who were indebted to him for personal favors,
were sentenced only to reclusion perpetua. Three others, who were present at the killing but did not
conspire with Ubina, were considered accomplices. (See People vs. Sakam 61 Phil. 27; People vs.
Cabrera, 43 Phil 82; People va. Chua Huy 87 Phil. 258, and People vs. Ging Sam 94 Phil 139, capital cases,
wherein not all those convicted as principals were sentenced to death.)
In the other four cases, the trial court convicted the appellant of frustrated murder. This is a
glaring error. The trial court overlooked that there were only two informations for demonstrated
murder. These refer to the cases where the victims were Lourdes Cerna and Jose de los Reyes. The other
two informations charged attempted murder only in the cases where the victims were Candida Comahig
and Francisco Jabido. In these four cases, the crime committed is attempted murder only because the
injuries suffered by the victims could not have caused their death. Band (cuadrilla) is aggravating in
addition to nocturnity
Only the five appellants originally charged should be held responsible for the attempted
murders. We have already ruled that the seven additional appellants implicated by Norteza should be
acquitted.
However, Generalao, Romeo Baricuatro and Carlos Paslon cannot be held responsible for the
attempted murder committed against Jabido and De los Reyes because these two offended parties did

not testify at their separate trial. Neither did Doctors Florante Batucan and Ramon Arcenas who
examined the injuries of Jabido and De los Reyes and issued the corresponding medical certificates (Exh.
E and F testify at the separate trial of Generalao, et al.
WHEREFORE, the trial court's decision is modified and the following judgment is rendered in
these five cases:
1. In Criminal Case No. 95-Cebu, L-37801, appellants Vedasto Moreno Rodrigo Baricuatro,
Romeo Baricuatro, Carlos Paslon and Emilio Generalao are convicted as co-principals in the crime of
murder with assault upon a person in authority.
Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro are each sentenced to death, while Romeo Baricuatro, Paslon
and Generalao are each sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The five appellants are ordered to pay
solidarity to the heirs of Mayor Samson Cerna an indemnity of P50,000.
2. In the other four cases, Criminal Cases Nos. 129-Cebu, L- 37802; 130-Cebu, L-37803; 131Cebu, L-37804, and 132 Cebu, L-37805, appellants Moreno and Rodrigo Baricuatro are convicted of four
attempted murders and are each sentenced to four indeterminate penalties each consisting of four (4)
years of prision correccional medium as minimum, to seven (7) years of prision mayor, minimum, as
maximum, and to pay solidarity an indemnity of two thousand pesos (P2,000) to each of the three
victims, Candida Comahig, Francisco Jabido and Jose de los Reyes. The same two appellants are further
ordered to pay solidarity to Lourdes Cerna an indemnity of ten thousand (P10,000).
The penalty and civil liability in Criminal Cases No. 129, 37802 and 130, L-37803, involving
Candida Comahig and Lourdes Cerna, are imposed upon appellants Generalao, Romeo Baricuatro and
Carlos Paslon These three appellants have no liability in Cal Cases Nos. 131 and 132, L-37804 and L37805, involving Francisco Jabido and Jose de los Reyes.
3. The other seven appellants, Crescencio F. Nemenzo Elpidio Baricuatro, Ely Baricuatro,
Salvador Pefia Rodulfo Umbay, Roberto Paslon, and Victoriano Baraga, are acquitted in the five cases on
the ground of reasonable doubt. The convicted appellants will pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Munoz Palma, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Santos
Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Castro, C. J., took no part.
Fernando, J., took no part.

Art. 6 as correlated to Art. 48 Case no. 16

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Milflores
No. L-32144-45. July 30, 1982.*
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NAO MILFLORES y LAKSA, defendant-appellant.
Criminal Procedure; Error of fiscal in filing an information for frustrated murder and another for
murder when only one information for murder with frustrated murder should have been filed did not
put accused in double jeopardy.Before tackling counsels pose, one important point has to be made
clear. And it is that the first information for frustrated murder. Criminal Case No. 88173, does not
include among the victims or offended parties Felicidad Mique, the woman who died and is precisely
named as the deceased in the murder case, Criminal Case No. 88174. In the sense, therefore, that
appellant was ever in jeopardy in that first case, it is plain to see that such was impossible or could not
have happened. Counsel is thus off tangent in invoking double jeopardy.
Same; Wrong filing of two separate informations where only onefor a complex offense
should have been filed does not cause substantial prejudice to accused.There is, to Our mind, some
degree of plausibility in such posture of the People. Indeed, it is obvious that the technical error of the
fiscal in filing two separate informations did not cause appellant any substantial prejudice at all. In
effect, as the proceedings were actually conducted, it is as if appellant had been prosecuted and tried
under a single information. It would be giving premium to technicality and sacrificing substantial justice
to yield to counsels contention. Besides, to do so would result in duplicating what had already been
done, the fulldressed trial of the case, with both prosecution and defense presenting all their respective
evidence.
Same; Mere filing of two informations does not of itself give rise to double jeopardy.But the
more untenable aspect of the position of appellant is that when he invoked the defense of double
jeopardy, what could have been the first jeopardy had not yet been completed or even began. It is
settled jurisprudence in this Court that the mere filing of two informations or complaints charging the
same offense does not yet afford the accused in those cases the occasion to complain that he is being
placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense, for the simple reason that the primary basis of the
defense of double jeopardy is that the accused has already been convicted or acquitted in the first case
or that the same has been terminated without his consent.
Same; Criminal Law; Motive is important only where identity of accused in doubt.It would
appear idle, however, to discuss at length such opposing views of the parties. Suffice it to say that what

happened between Victoria Remolar and appellant as related above, furnishes a well-founded clue to
what could have been the reason for appellants act of delivering the fatal bag of vegetables containing
also a deadly bomb, to Florencia Tactay-Javier. But even this observation seems superfluous, for the
determination of motive becomes relevant only where there is doubt as to whether or not an accused is
the one who committed the crime charged. Withal, lack of motive does not preclude conviction of the
offense when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely proved, as in these cases. (People
vs. Lumantas, L-28355, July 17, 1969, 28 SCRA 764, 769, and cases therein cited; People vs. Dorico, L31568, Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 172, 186; People vs. Herila, L-32785, May 21, 1973, 51 SCRA 31, 38, and
cases therein cited.) There is thus no merit in appellants second assignment of error.
Same; Evidence; Appellant was sufficiently identified by the intended victim as the one who
delivered the paper bag which later exploded.Appellants contention that Florencia did not have
sufficient basis for identifying him as the man who delivered the bag with the fatal bomb to her that
unhappy morning of November 27, 1967 is utterly untenable. Florencia had immediately described his
general build and appearance to the investigators and readily identified him in the police line up in the
presence of pressmen after he was made to paint his face black the same way he did that morning of
the event in question. And although he did not answer her when she asked from where the bag came
and did not hear his voice then, it should be recalled that when he knocked at the door and Florencia or
Mrs. Javier looked out from the window upstairs, he said that he was looking for Mrs. Javier. Thus,
that Florencia could identify him thru his voice cannot be surprising.
Same; Same; Although witness was not immediately able to identify the accused, the fact that
when face of accused was dyed she was able to identify him inasmuch as the person the witness saw
had black paint on his face when paper bag with bomb was delivered to her, points to the credibility.
And as to the fact that this witness first failed to identify appellant as the person who handed to her the
bag containing the bomb, the fact still remains that she later readily pointed to him after appellants
face was painted with black dye, let alone the circumstance that black dyeing materials were also found
in the glove compartment of his jeep used by appellant in coming to the police headquarters.
Same; Same; Other winesses saw appellant and have he run fast after the explosion.From the
above-quoted portions of the testimonies of witnesses Juvida and Nazario, it can be readily seen that
they came face to face with appellant. They saw him walking at a fast clip from Cagayan Street to
Mabuhay Street, and because they also noticed that his face was painted black, their suspicion was
readily aroused that he must be a robber or something when he passed by them at a distance of only
about two (2) meters. And so, after appellant had passed in front of them, when they heard the
explosion and saw appellant start running, the old man Juvida instructed the younger Nazario to try to
catch him, albeit in such attempt Nazario failed because appellant was able to make good his escape
after Nazario lost sight of him amongst the many people passing by Tejeron Street. It cannot be said
then that said witnesses had only a glimpse of appellant at the time. Then too, it is not at all out of the
ordinary, as testified to by said witnesses, that they saw appellant first merely walking at a fast clip after
having delivered the fatal bomb to the intended victim, for the stubborn fact is, as explained by said
witnesses, appellant started to run soon after the explosion of said bomb, apparently in an attempt to

get away from the scene of the crime of which he was the author as fast as he could upon realization
that the said bomb he planted had exploded. Surely, such behavior of appellant, as described by the two
witnesses referred to, is not in conflict with the experience of common life and the ordinary instincts
and promptings of human nature as insisted by appellant.
Evidence; Finding of black dye on appellants jeep is a strong circumstantial evidence as
witnesses stated that the man they saw had black paint on his face.As to appellants lament about the
finding of the trial court vis-a-vis the black dyeing materials found in his jeep, it is very safe to say that
those materials constituted the strongest mute evidence of his having been indeed the black-painted
man whom Florencia and the other two eye witnesses Juvida and Nazario saw that morning. Said
materials, albeit circumstantial, pointed to him conclusively as the culprit. There were very credible oral
evidence on top of the dyeing materials.
Criminal Law; Penalty on murder convict more than 70 years old cannot be death.In view of all
the foregoing, the appellant Nao Milflores y Laksa is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the complex offense of murder with frustrated murder with the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, craft and dwelling and he is hereby sentenced to death. It appearing from the records,
however, that he is presently more than 70 years old, pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code,
We have no alternative but to affirm the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court, with
all the concomitant accessories thereof. Costs against appellant.
APPEAL from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Br. XI.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza for plaintiff-appelle.
Arsenio Fer. Cabanting for defendant-appellant.
BARREDO, J.:
Appeal from the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch XI) in its
Criminal Cases Nos. 88173 and 88174 convicting and sentencing herein accused-appellant Nao
Milflores y Laksa: to Four (4) Years, Two (2) Months of prision correccional as minimum, to Eight (8)
Years of prision mayor, as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law for the crime of multiple
attempted murder; and to reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim in the sum of
P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, for the crime of murder.
The incidents that gave rise to the filing of the above-mentioned criminal cases against herein
accused-appellant in the court a quo may be briefly narrated as follows:

Early in the morning of November 27, 1967, about the hour of 7:45, an old man approached the
house on 2233 Garrido Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, calling out the name of one of the occupantsMrs.
Javier. Heeding such call, Florencia Tactay Javier came out of the door and met the caller. The old man
handed to her a paper bag containing some vegetablespechay, upo and sigarillasand then left the
place. Mrs. Florencia Javier brought the bag into the house and proceeded to empty the same of its
contents. As she did so, however, something inside the paper bag began emitting smoke and whistling
sound, followed moments later by a deafening bomb explosion which caused death of one, and multiple
injuries and wounds to seven (7) other occupants of the house. Investigations thereafter conducted by
various police agencies led to the arrest of herein accused-appellant, Nao Milflores y Laksa.
On December 6, 1967, he was charged with multiple frustrated murder (Criminal Case No.
88173) before the Court of First Instance of Manila, in an information reading as follows:
That on or about the 27th of November, 1967 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with evident premeditation and
treachery, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Abelardo Mique Olivar,
Romana Mique, Isabelo Lapitan, Benedicto Mique, Florencia Javier, Anaflor Javier, and Ariel Javier, by
then and there delivering a bomb inside a bag containing vegetables at the address of the latter at 2233
Garrido, Sta. Ana, causing the same to explode when opened, thereby inflicting upon the seen persons
mentioned above mortal wounds on the different parts of their bodies, thus performing all of the acts of
execution which would have produced the crime of multiple murder as a consequence but which
nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of said accused, that is, the
timely medical assistance rendered to said Abelardo Mique Olivar, Romana Mique, Isabelo Lapitan,
Benedicto Mique, Florencia Javier, Anaflor Javier and Ariel Javier, which prevented their death. (Pp. 2122, Record)
In a separate information filed with the same court on even date, he was likewise charged for
murder (Criminal Case No. 88174). The body of said separate information reads:
That on or about the 27th of November, 1967 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously with evident premeditation and
treachery, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal violence upon Felicidad Mique, by then
and there delivering a bomb inside a bag containing vegetables at the address of the latter of 2233
Garrido, Sta. Ana, causing the same to explode when opened, thereby inflicting upon her mortal wounds
on the different parts of her body, which were the direct and immediate cause of her death.
Accused-appellant was arraigned on said two informations on December 14, 1967 and January
23, 1968, respectively, and entered pleas of Not Guilty to the charges. Later, he moved to quash the
information for murder but the same was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, the two cases were tried
jointly, at the conclusion of which the court a quo rendered the decision of conviction and the
corresponding sentences first above mentioned.

The factual findings of the court below, upon which it based its sentence of conviction, are not
seriously disputed by herein appellant1. Indeed, the record which We have carefully reviewed reveals
that said findings are supported by the evidence which His Honor summarized as follows:
From the evidence of the prosecution it appears that Victoria Remolar Javier, a public school
teacher, married Antonio Javier on April 28, 1964 at Guiniagan, Quezon Province. This wedlock,
however, is Antonio Javiers second since he was previously married to Florencia Tactay-Javier, then
living and with whom he had children. Sometime after the marriage of Victoria to Antonio, she
discovered this previously existing marriage to Florencia. Victoria continued her marital relations with
Antonio. This anomalous situationi.e., a Love triangle or the double marriage of Antonio Javier
naturally resulted in animosity between the two wives. The first wife, Florencia Tactay, filed a charge of
bigamy against her husband, Antonio Javier, in Baguio City, and an administrative charge against Victoria
Remolar, Florencia, however, later desisted when Victoria promised that she would cease to live with
Antonio; and the administrative charge was dropped upon a finding that Victoria married Antonio
without prior knowledge that he was previously married.
1 Appellants assignment of errorsbased mainly on his claim that the trial court erred in not hearkening to his plea of
double jeopardy, and that the evidence for the prosecution is insufficient for conviction, coupled with his defense of alibishall
be discussed later.

Sometime in March, 1967, Victoria consulted with the accused, Nao Milfloreswho
advertised his services as a palmist and fortune teller at Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City. Victoria wanted
to know what her future would be and sought Milflores help. She asked Milflores if she still had a
chance to live again with Antonio. Milflores told her that she had a 100% chance to live with Antonio on
condition that she pays him P375.00 as fee for the temple. He assured her that the result would be
favorable and Antonio would voluntary come back to her. Milflores told her he would use his spiritual
power in making Antonio come back to her voluntarily.
Since March, 1967, Victoria consulted with Milflores at least once a month. She paid him P5.00
for the initial consultation. Sometime later, she paid him the P375.00. Milflores asked for and Victoria
gave him the address of Antonios other wife at 2233 Garrido, Sta. Ana, Manila. Milflores told Victoria he
will work in about 7 to 9 weeks, and, within that period he assured Victoria that Antonio will go back to
her. Milflores also told Victoria to keep the arrangement between them a secret, in order to insure its
success. Victoria returned to Milflores in a couple of weeks. This time Milflores demanded another sum
of P375.00 for things he needed in the temple. Victoria gave him the amount the following day. Then,
again, Milflores asked Victoria the sums of P200.00 and P175.00, so that by June, 1967, Victoria had
given Milflores the sum of P1,130.00 in all.
After June, 1967, Antonio Javier still did not return to Victoria. Victoria then demanded of
Milflores the return of her money. She saw Milflores at least two times in July and August and
demanded the return of the sums she had paid him. Milflores told her to be patient as Antonio would,

for sure, return to her. In September and the last week of October, 1967, Milflores got mad at Victoria
because of the latters insistence that he (Milflores) return her (Victorias) money (Exh. A).
Florencia Tactay really resided at 2233 Garrido, Sta. Ana, Manila. She and her family shared an
apartment door with the Mique familyRomana, Felicidad, Isabelo Lapitan and Abelardo Mique.
On November 27, 1967, somebody called at the 2233 Garrido apartment door where Florencia
and the Miques resided for Mrs. Javier. Florencia, who was carrying her child, peeped at the window
and saw an old man. The man called for Mrs. Javier twice. Florencia then went downstairs. The man
gave her a big paper bag containing vegetables. Florencia inquired as to who sent the same, but the man
did not answer. Instead, he hurriedly went away. As Florencia received the bag, she saw the address on
iti.e., Mrs. Javier; 2233 Makati. The bag contained pechay, upo and sigarillas. She then brought the
same inside the house and placed it on a chair in a room where Ana, Letty, Abe, Felicidad and Florencias
two children were.
Florencia the proceeded to empty the bag of its contents. As she did so, she noticed that it
emitted smoke and heard a whistling sound. Alarmed, she withdrew away from the bag. Felicidad
Mique, however, went near the same and looked into the bag. Suddenly, a deafening explosion ensued.
The explosion caused a hole through the table and on the cement floor 7 inches wide by 4 inches deep.
Fragments of utensils and furniture were thrown and scattered around and the splattered room was in
complete disarray (Exhs. II & I).
All of the persons then in that room, where the bomb exploded, sustained injuries and wounds
as a result of the explosion. Felicidad Mique y Olivar, 21 years, student; Abelardo Mique y Olivar, 22
years married, goldsmith; Romana Mique y Olivar, 21 years, married, housewife; Isabelo Lapitan y
Mique, 25 years, laborer; Benedicto Mique y Olivar, 15 years, student; Florencia Tactay-Javier, wife of
Antonio Javier; Anaflor Javier, 2 years, and Ariel Javier, 9 months, Florencias childrenwere brought to
the St. Annes Hospital for emergency treatment. Florencia Javier (sic)2 sustained 23 different,
penetrating, explosive blast wounds from metallic objects and wire coil fragments in different parts of
her bodyi.e., on her face or both upper right and left extremities and both thighs. Her right anterior
VIII rib was fractured and the right lobe of her liver, right diaphram and right lung, were pierced with
metallic fragments. Two (2) coiled wire loop metals were embedded on her right forehead and another
in the anterior aspect of her right arm. She suffered hemorrhage of about 700 cc of blood in her
respiratory system, exanguination collapse from bleeding, vena cavae, in her cardiovascular system. She
died within 15 minutes of arrival at the St. Annes Hospital from profuse exanguinating hemorrhage,
collapsing the vena cavae, and shock due to the 23 different penetrating blast wounds. The rest of the
victims were forwarded to the Philippine General Hospital for further treatment (Exhs. B, C, D, E & F).
Meanwhile, Alexis Nazario, a student, and Desiderio Juvidawho is known as Pops in the
vicinitywere conversing at the corner of Cagayan and Mabuhay Streets, a block from Garrido Street.
They heard the explosion; they saw a person walking hurriedly from Garrido to Mabuhay. The persons
face was painted black; he was wearing a checkered polo shirt with black pants and black shoes.

2 The name should be Felicidad Miquethe victim in the separate charge for Murder.

Nazariowho was 8 to 10 meters only away when he saw the person walking at a fast gait
towards them (Exh. 1)pointed to the person, at the same time calling Juvidas attention to him,
thinking that he was a thief. When the blast was heard, the person began to run. Juvida asked Nazario to
chase the person, but he (Nazario) did not overtake him (the person) as he was running fast (mabilis).
The person ran towards Tejeron Street, where he was able to make good his escape.
The explosion, which rocked the neighborhood that early morning, brought many persons to
the scene, mostly curious onlookers. The police chief, Gen. Ricardo Papa, also arrived at the scene of the
explosion. He took immediate steps to investigate the incident. He made requests for homicide
operatives. Sgt. B. Brown, Det. N. Bonifacio and Pat. Alejandro Yatco, MPD, responded.
Alex Tumale y Palma, 31 years old, and a security guard of the United Equity Agency assigned
to the RCPI, alleged that he was the intended victim of the bomb explosion. He implicated a certain
Theodore Laudet (See Exhs. M & M-1), a striker of the RCPI, as the person whom he saw carrying a
paper bag with three other companions in front of his house before the explosion occurred. Tumale
informed the police that Laudet resented his escorting the manager of the RCPI.
Further investigation also revealed that Antonio Javier, husband of Florencia Tactay-Javier, had
contracted another marriage with one Victoria Remolar with whom he has two children; that Victoria,
who resides and teaches in Baguio City, occasionally comes to Manila to see Antonio Javier; that
Florencia and Victoria had quarreled for the sole possession of Antonio and that charges and
countercharges had been filed between them. The site of the explosion was also searched for evidence,
which were then submitted to the Criminal Investigation Division, MPD (Exhs. U & V).
On November 28, 1967, at 4:30 a.m., Theodore Laudet y Gabriola was investigated. He was
brought before Florencia Javier, Isabelo Lapitan and Alex Tumale. The three failed to identify him. Mrs.
Javier and Lapitan averred that the suspect was older, stouter, and his face was painted black. Laudet,
on the other hand, accounted for his whereabouts the day previous. Laudet was released. Laudet, who
was subjected to a polygraph test, cleared himself (Exh. J).
On November 30, 1967, at or about 10:00 a.m., Sgt. P. Briones, Det. Dionisia Nena Tuason and
Pat. Alejandro Yatco left for Baguio to investigate Mrs. Victoria Remolar-Javier, the second wife of
Antonio Javier. They were referred to Pat. Pedro Remolar of the Baguio Police Department, Victorias
father, from whom they learned that
Victoria had left for an unknown destination. A background investigation of Victoria revealed
that she took her BSEE degree at the Baguio Colleges, where she met Antonio Javier whom she later
married in 1963. In 1965, Florencia filed an immorality charge against Victoria. Florencia later desisted,
when Antonio promised to leave Victoria and live with her. The immorality charge was dropped, on the
ground that Victoria married Antonio in good faith.

Meantime, in Baguio, Victoria Remolar-Javier, who was then teaching at the Ambuklao
Elementary School, heard over her transistor radio, on November 29, 1967a Wednesdaythat her
name was being implicated in connection with the bomb explosion. She became apprehensive. She
went home to her residence at Baguio City, to seek the advice of her parents. She was shown a
newspaper account where her name was implicated, and advised to see their family lawyer, a certain
Atty. de Guzman.
Victoria decided to see the family lawyer. The next dayNovember 30, a Thursdayshe was
on her way to see him at about 7:00 A.M., but before she could leave the house, a phone call was
received by Victoria. The person on the other side of the line identified himself as Nao Milflores.
Milflores told Victoria to go to his office at Magsaysay Avenue and bring with her P1,000.00 so that he
could help her extricate herself from suspicion in connection with the bomb slaying incident. She then
proceeded to the office of the accused with her sister, Gertrudis.
When she arrived there, Milflores expressed his surprise why she was accompanied by her
sister, saying, Why did you come with a companion? I told you to come alone. Victoria told Milflores
there was nothing to hide. Touching her head Milflores said, Loko loko ka ba? Ang hirap hirap ng kaso
mo. Now you need money so that you will not be involved in this case anymore. He asked Victoria and
her sister to produce P1,000.00, because he knew somebody at the Manila Police Department who
could help Victoria. Victorias sister left to secure money while Victoria was left in the office of the
accused. Gertrudis, Victorias sister, later returned with P200.00. When Milflores saw the amount he
said, Bakit iyan lang? O, sigue, tama na.
The three then proceeded to the Dangwa Bus Station. Milflores secured two tickets without
Victoria and her sisters knowledge. Milflores then hurriedly urged Victoria to board the bus for Manila,
leaving Gertrudis behind. The two arrived at Angeles City and proceeded to the office of Milflores there,
where Victoria passed the night.
Early the next morningDecember 1, Fridayat or about 4:00 A.M., Milflores and Victoria
proceeded to Manila in his jeep. They arrived in Manila at or about 6:00 oclock the same morning. In
Manila she was introduced to one Atty. Ben Dimaunahan, who tried to gather the facts from Victoria
about the bomb-killing. Victoria had no information to give. In the afternoon, at or about 3:00 oclock,
Atty. Dimaunahan informed the Manila Police Department, thru Lt. A. Lim, that he had with him Victoria
Remolar-Javier, the person sought in the bomb-slaying probe, and that they were going to the police
headquarters with Milflores, a magician, illutionist, and a marriage counselor of 423 Angeles City,
Pampanga, and one Oscar Alayon, their driver. Victoria was interviewed at the headquarters. She was
allowed to go home, but was advised to return for confrontation.
After Victoria was interviewed, she noticed that Atty. Dimaunahan and Milflores were nowhere
around. Since she was left alone and did not know anybody in Manila, she looked for them, until she
saw Atty. Dimaunahan, who was about to leave. She requested him to look for the accused. During the
interview, Victoria told Capt. Lim that aside from the P200.00 Milflores received from her sister in

Baguio, he also received P210.00 from her in Angeles City; that Milflores told her these amounts will be
given to the lawyer who will help her with respect to her involvement in the case. Victoria gave these
amounts to Milflores in her desire to clear her name. Capt. Lim told her that she was swindled. From
then on, Victoria began to suspect Milflores.
After Victoria was interviewed, the suspicion of the investigating authorities focused on
Milflores. On December 2 (Saturday)after Victoria had been interrogated extensivelyFlorencia
Tactay was invited to the Manila Police Department. Her husband, Antonio Javier, accompanied her to
the said office. A police line-up was conducted. Florencia requested that the face of Milflores be painted
black. Whereupon, she pointed to him as the very person who handed to her the paper bag containing
the vegetables and the fatal bomb. Florencia also stated that the accused had the same tone of voice as
the person who handed her the bag. The police line-up was conducted in the presence of police
authorities and other persons, including newspaper reportersi.e., Tony Alba of ABS, Channel 5;
Alfredo Santiago of the Evening News; Fred Cruz of the Manila Times. Pictures were taken during the
confrontation (Exh. 3, The Sunday Times, page 1).
Alexis Nazario and Desiderio Juvida were recalled to the office. Both fingered Milflores as the
person they saw running away from the house of Mrs. Javier. Their statements were reduced into
writing.
The accused was investigated. He denied any criminal participation in the fatal explosion
incident. He admitted he came to know Victoria Remolar-Javier sometime in June 1967, when she came
to his booth in Baguio City to seek his advice concerning her marital problems with Antonio Javier; that
he had asked Victoria to pay him some amounts for his spiritual advice and that all in all he had received
from her more or less P800.00. He stood pat on his claim of innocence and that he had merely given her
spiritual advice as a minister of the Will of Christ Chapel.
The statement of Victoria Remolar-Javier was taken (Exh. A) on December 3, 1967 (Sunday).
The investigation of Milflores proceeded. He continued to deny any participation in the incident. At
11:00 A.M., the police authorities searched his Willys Mitsubishi jeep, with Plate No. 1678-67 Manila,
which was parked in front of the headquarters. The following articles were found in the glove
compartment: (1) one (1) piece of cotton, blackened with dye; (2) one (1) strip of cotton, wrapped in
paper; (3) one (1) plastic bottle, pitcher type; (4) one (1) pallet of black dye powder; (5) a receipt from
the Talayan, Quezon Blvd., gas station for the purchase of one liter oil, dated November 25, 1967. A
further search of the jeep yielded a small box containing: (1) one brown ladies clutch bag; (2) one white
ladies plastic bag; (3) one forcep; (4) speculum; (5) one plastic bag with 15 rounds of .22 cal. bullets,
short; (6) 3 rounds of .22 cal. bullets, short; (7) one TVR issued by the TRAFCON in his name; (8) one
piece of candle (9) one set of keys; (10) four envelopes addressed to him; (11) one crucifix; (12) one
envelope containing 40 units of sweepstakes tickets for the December 17, 1967 draw. Confronted with
these articles, Milflores denied the presence of these articles in his jeep and claimed the same must be
that of his sons (Exh. K).

At 12:00 oclock, December 3a Sunday1967, Milflores was taken to the crime scene.
Witnesses Nazario and Juvida pointed to the front of House No. 2463 Cagayan Street as the place where
they saw Milflores, whose appearance attracted them, because his face was painted black. Milflores was
then placed under arrest and booked for murder and frustrated murder on 7 counts. Charges were
preferred (sic) against him with the Fiscals Office. (Pp. 3-8, Decision, pp. 256-261, CFI Record.)
To reiterate, the above summation of the evidence by the trial court is fully supported by the
evidence on record. Just the same, counsel for appellant has made the following assignments of error in
his brief:
I. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS MOTION TO
DISMISS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 88174 ON GROUNDS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
II. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CREDITING THE ALLEGED PREVIOUS MISDEEDS OF THE
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AS A BASIS FOR AN INFERENCE OF MOTIVE IN THE DELIVERY OF EXPLOSIVE
THAT CAUSED THE DEATH OF FELICIDAD MIQUE AND THE INJURIES OF SEVEN OTHERS.
III. THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ON AN
EVIDENCE THAT FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
It is the position of appellant, under the first assigned error, that after he had pleaded to the
charge of multiple frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 88173 on December 17, 1967, the trial court
gravely erred in not hearkening to his plea of double jeopardy when he was subsequently arraigned on
the separate charge of murder in Criminal Case No. 88174 on January 23, 1968, considering that the
charge in the separate information for murder is based on facts that are the very same facts alleged in
the other information for multiple frustrated murder. Thus, appellant argues in his brief:
A conscientious study of the allegations in both criminal cases (shows), that in the multiple
frustrated murder case and the murder case, the elements of murder were alleged. The facts in both
cases are synonymous insofar as the following are concerned:
a) That offense charged in both cases were committed, in one single act, on November 27,
1967;
b) That the accused delivered a bomb inside a bag containing vegetables, causing the same to
explode and which single act of the accused (herein appellant) resulted in the:
1 injuries of seven persons (those named in Crim. Case No. 88173), and
2 death to Felicidad Mique and independently treated in Crim. Case No. 88174.
x x x x

It is very evident that the single act of delivering a big bag containing a bomb caused the
injuries of seven persons and the death of one, but the fact of death of one must not be the reason to
make the same an object of a distinct and separate information.
That matter of charging the accused, herein defendant-appellant, of murder in a separate
information based on facts that are the very same facts obtaining in another case of frustrated murder,
is a wanton violation of Section 2(h), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 2Motion to QuashGrounds
(h) That the defendant has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or
acquitted of the offense charged.
in relation to Section 1, paragraph 20, Article III of the Constitution which likewise provides that:
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
It is obvious that the information charging herein appellant with the crime of MURDER in
Criminal Case No. 88174 placed him in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense treated in Criminal
Case No. 88173. Giving effect to the above-quoted provisions of our laws, our Supreme Court, in the
case of Yap vs. Lutero, G.R. No. L-1266, promulgated on April 30, 1959, resolved as follows:
If the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either the
law or ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. Incidentally, such conviction or acquittal is not
indispensable to sustain the plea of double jeopardy or punishment for the same offense. So long as
jeopardy has attached under one of the informations charging said offense, the defense may be availed
of in the other case involving the same offense, even if there has been neither conviction or acquittal in
either case. (Pp. 6-8, Appellants Brief; pp. 77-79, Record)
Before tackling counsels pose, one important point has to be made clear. And it is that the first
information for frustrated murder, Criminal Case No. 88173, does not include among the victims or
offended parties Felicidad Mique, the woman who died and is precisely named as the deceased in the
murder case, Criminal Case No. 88174. In the sense, therefore, that appellant was ever in jeopardy in
that first case, it is plain to see that such was impossible or could not have happened. Counsel is thus off
tangent in invoking double jeopardy.
To be accurate, the legal error of the prosecution here consists of having filed two separate
informations for a single offense. For there can be no doubt about the fact that since the injuries
suffered by the offended parties in Criminal Case No. 88173 resulted from the same act allegedly of the
accused that caused the death of Felicidad Mique, the victim in Criminal Case No. 88174, namely, the

explosion of the bomb which according to the prosecution was handed by appellant to Florencia TactayJavier, the crime for which appellant could be made to answer is the virtually single complex offense of
murder with frustrated murder pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which provides:
Penalty for complex crimes.When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
There is in law only one offense because there is only one penalty that can be imposed
notwithstanding that the act may in fact involve a cluster of otherwise separate or distinct offenses.
And so, the legal problem before Us is not really whether or not the filing of Criminal Case No.
88174 placed appellant under risk of double jeopardy. What has to be resolved here is the question of
whether or not the error of the fiscal of filing two separate informations for the same offense, albeit
with different offended parties in each of them, in reversible error, having in view the peculiar milieu of
the said cases.
On this point, the Solicitor General submits that:
We submit that Criminal Cases Nos. 88173 and 88174 were the results of appellants single act
(pp. i and 1, Informations, rec.), and should have been incorporated in one criminal information in
accordance with the provision of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the same being a complex crime.
The reason behind the legal doctrine of discouraging the splitting of cause of action in complex crimes
was enunciated by this Honorable Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Cano, G.R. No. L-19660, May
24, 1966; when it ruled that:
From the viewpoint both of trial and practice, it is doubtful whether the prosecution should
split the action against the defendant * * *. Such splitting of action would work unnecessary
inconvenience to the administration of justice in general and to the accused in particular, for it would
require the presentation of substantially the same evidence in different courts* * *
Significantly, the cases at bar were filed at the same time and there was a joint hearing in both
cases (pp. 1-2, t.s.n., Magalit, March 21, 1968). Definitely then, joint hearing conducted by the trial court
in the cases at bar cured the technical defect of splitting the cause of action, for the inconvenience
sought to be prevented was avoided.
Moreover, the cases cited by the appellant in support for its defense of double jeopardy cannot
be applied in this case (pp. 8, 9, Appellants Brief). Firstly, because there was only one injured party in
the cited cases, while there were several injured parties in the case at bar; secondly, the filing of the
information and the hearings on the former cases were made one after the other, while the
informations in the cases at bar were filed on the same date (pp. 1 and 1, Informations, rec.); and then

there was a joint hearing (U.S. vs. Ledesma, 29 Phil., 431; Melo vs. People, 85 Phil. 769). (Italics Ours),
(Pp. 4-5, Solicitor Generals Brief)
There is, to Our mind, some degree of plausibility in such posture of the People. Indeed, it is
obvious that the technical error of the fiscal in filing two separate informations did not cause appellant
any substantial prejudice at all. In effect, as the proceedings were actually conducted, it is as if appellant
had been prosecuted and tried under a single information. It would be giving premium to technicality
and sacrificing substantial justice to yield to counsels contention. Besides, to do so would result in
duplicating what had already been done, the full-dressed trial of the case, with both prosecution and
defense presenting all their respective evidence.
But the more untenable aspect of the position of appellant is that when he invoked the defense
of double jeopardy, what could have been the first jeopardy had not yet been completed or even began.
It is settled jurisprudence in this Court that the mere filing of two informations or complaints charging
the same offense does not yet afford the accused in those cases the occasion to complain that he is
being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense, for the simple reason that the primary basis of the
defense of double jeopardy is that the accused has already been convicted or acquitted in the first case
or that the same has been terminated without his consent. (Bulaong vs. People, L-19344, July 27, 1966,
17 SCRA 746; Silvestre vs. Military Commission No. 21, No. L-46366, March 8, 1978;3 Buscayno vs.
Military Commissions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25, No. L-58284, Nov. 19, 1981, 109 SCRA 273)
Accordingly, We overrule appellants first assignment of error.
Under his second assignment of error, appellant submits that the lower court erred in giving full
weight and credit to the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove certain alleged previous
misdeeds of his as basis for an inference of motive which must have induced him to commit the crimes
imputed to him in these cases. He places reliance on Section 46 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which
provides in part that unless in rebuttal, the prosecution cannot prove the bad moral character of the
accused. More specifically, he bewails the finding of the court a quo from the testimony of Victoria
Remolar to the effect that appellant, having extorted the sum of P1,130.00 from said Victoria with the
promise that with his spiritual powers he would make her erstwhile husband Antonio Javier come back
to her, failing in which Victoria had demanded from him the return of her money, appellant resorted to
the nefarious scheme of delivering a bomb to said Antonios other wife (Florencia Tactay-Javier) to do
away with her. And on this particular point, on the other hand, counsel for the People counters that
what was considered by the lower court in the determination of appellants motive were evidence of
series of events and acts indicating his specific intent, system, scheme and plan to commit the crimes for
which he had been indicted, which kind of evidence is admissible under Section 48, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court.

It would appear idle, however, to discuss at length such opposing views of the parties. Suffice it
to say that what happened between Victoria Remolar and appellant as related above, furnishes a wellfounded clue to what could have been the reason for appellants act of delivering the fatal bag of
vegetables containing also a deadly bomb, to Florencia Tactay-Javier. But even this observation seems
superfluous, for the determination of motive becomes relevant only where there is doubt as to whether
or not an accused is the one who committed the crime charged. Withal, lack of motive does not
preclude conviction of the offense when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely
proved, as in these cases. (People vs. Lumantas, L-28355, July 17, 1969, 28 SCRA 764, 769, and cases
therein cited; People vs. Dorico, L-31568, Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 172, 186; People vs. Herila, L-32785,
May 21, 1973, 51 SCRA 31, 38, and cases therein cited.) There is thus no merit in appellants second
assignment of error.
Appellants third and and last assignment of error is directed against the finding of his guilt by
the trial court beyond reasonable doubt. He complains that the testimonies of the witnesses and the
circumstantial evidence against him were excessively overweighed while the evidence on his behalf was
hardly paid credit by His Honor. Accordingly, We have taken pains to reread the transcript of the
stenographic notes taken at the trial in order to find out by Ourselves where the trial court might have
erred in the appreciation of all the oral and real evidence presented by both parties. Our conclusion
after such review is that appellants plaintiff has no merit.
1. As to what We might refer to as the prelude to the fatal events which constituted the
graver offenses committed by appellant, he more or less, admits either expressly or impliedly in his
testimony and in his brief his meetings and conversations with Victoria Remolar whom he made to
believe he had spiritual powers to help her solve her triangularmarriage affair involving her bona-fide
marriage with Antonio Javier who, turned out to have been previously legally married to Florencia
Tactay. He has not denied he received money from her several times in consideration of his promise that
for sure soon enough Antonio would be Victorias alone.
As he in truth did not possess a bit of the spiritual means he pretended to have and was in fact
deceiving Victoria to be able to fleece money from her, it is inescapable to believe that upon being
finally cornered by Victoria, he concocted the diabolical idea that he could make true his word to her by
making Antonio a widower freed from the marriage with Florencia. In a word, he must have found no
other way out of his problem with Victoria than to snap out the life of Florencia.
2. Appellants contention that Florencia did not have sufficient basis for identifying him as the
man who delivered the bag with the fatal bomb to her that unhappy morning of November 27, 1967 is
utterly untenable. Florencia had immediately described his general build and appearance to the
investigators and readily identified him in the police lineup in the presence of pressmen after he was
made to paint his face black the same way he did that morning of the event in question. And although
he did not answer her when she asked from where the bag came and did not hear his voice then, it
should be recalled that when he knocked at the door and Florencia or Mrs. Javier looked out from the

window upstairs, he said that he was looking for Mrs. Javier. Thus, that Florencia could identify him
thru his voice cannot be surprising.
Florencias testimony on this point reads:
QAt 7:45 oclock in the morning, do you remember anything unusual that happened in your
house at 2233 Garrido Street?
AYes, sir.
COURT: (to witness)
Q What was that?
A Somebody called me, Mrs. Javier!
ASST. FISCAL: (to witness)
Q Upon hearing such call, what did you do?
AI peeped out of the window.
QAnd what did you see after peeping out of the window?
AI saw an oldman.
QAnd what happened?
AHe called me twice, so I went down-stairs. (t.s.n., Hearing of July 11, 1968, p. 2. Italics
supplied.)
And as to the fact that this witness first failed to identify appellant as the person who handed to
her the bag containing the bomb, the fact still remains that she later readily pointed to him after
appellants face was painted with black dye, let alone the circumstance that black dyeing materials were
also found in the glove compartment of his jeep used by appellant in coming to the police headquarters.
As to the identification of appellant by prosecution witnesses Desiderio Juvida and Alexis
Nazario, it is not accurate to say, as suggested by appellant, that said witnesses had only a passing
glimpse of the person they saw running fast from the scene of the crime and could not have seen his
face, much less recognized him. On this point, the following is revealing:

COURT: (To witness [Desiderio Juvida]

QYou say that the man you saw that morning is painted?
AYes, Your Honor.
QOn his face and on his hands?
AYes, Your Honor.
QHow are you certain now that this man, the accused, was the man whom you saw that
morning, because, as you said, he was painted black?
AI noticed his face when he passed by because he was only around two meters away from
me.....
****
****
QWill you please indicate on this diagram, Exhibit 1, where your position was, and where the
accused came nearest to you at the point of 2 meters?
AThis is the store.
QWhere were you?
AI was at the corner of the store. ....
****
****
QAnd where was the accused when you saw him?
AHe was here already in this placecorner of Cagayan and Mabuhay Streets. I was sitting at
the corner indicated by a blue dot. Alexis, who was standing near me, facing Cagayan Street, told me
that there was a man with painted face who might be a robber.
QWhat did you do them?
AI stood up and then I looked at the man who was passing and it was then that [he] passed in
front of me.
QAnd then?

AAnd I suspected, because he was painted, that he might he a criminal or something like that.
So I followed him with my face up to 15 meters. He was not running but he was rushing. When we heard
an explosion, and he ran, I suspected he might be connected with the explosion, so I requested Alexis
Nazario to run after him. (t.s.n., Hearing of June 4, 1968, pp. 11, 21-23.)
(Words in brackets supplied)
COURT: [To witness Alexis Nazario]
****
****
QYou said as soon as you heard the explosion you saw the accused walk at a fast clip. Will you
indicate the route the accused took when you first saw him?
(The witness indicates it with an arrow.)
QYou also said you heard an explosion. From what portion of this sketch did you hear the
explosion come from?
AIt came from Garrido Streetthe third house from the corner.
ATTY. GENSON:
QWas the explosion, from the place where you were standing, loud, or soft?
AIt was loud.
QHow many explosions did you hear?
AJust one.
COURT:
QYou also said that the accused was walking at a fast clip and after he passed you, he ran
faster. Will you indicate the route the accused took from the place where you were?
(Witness indicating.)
ATTY. GENSON:
QAfter you heard the explosion, where did you see the accused for the first time, in this
sketch?
AHere, sir.

ATTY. GENSON:
Please mark it with X.
WITNESS:
The first time we saw the accused he was walking in Cagayan Street, but when we heard the
explosion he was in Mabuhay and running already. (t.s.n., Hearing of May 2, 1968, p. 9; Words in
brackets supplied.)
ATTY. CABANTING: [Cross-examining witness Alexis Nazario]
QI suppose Milflores just passed on November 27 when you saw him that morning. Am I
right?
AYes, sir.
QWhen you saw him, he was already running fast. Is that correct?
AWhen he passed us, he ran fast.
QHe was already far away, when you saw him, or noticed him running. Is that correct?
AIt is quite far.
COURT:
QWill you indicate, more or less, how far?
AFrom this place to that place.
COURT:
Make a record that the witness indicates a distance of eight (8) to ten (10) meters.
ATTY. CABANTING:
QThat was the first time you saw him in your lifetime. Is that correct?
AYes, sir.
QYou saw him in a split second that morning before giving chase. Is that correct?
ANot only seconds. He was walking towards us, facing us.
QHe was not running, but walking?

AHe was walking at a fast clip. (t.s.n., Hearing of May 2, 1968, pp. 5-6; Words in brackets
supplied.)
From the above-quoted portions of the testimonies of witnesses Juvida and Nazario, it can be
readily seen that they came face to face with appellant. They saw him walking at a fast clip from
Cagayan Street to Mabuhay Street, and because they also noticed that his face was painted black, their
suspicion was readily aroused that he must be a robber or something when he passed by them at a
distance of only about two (2) meters. And so, after appellant had passed in front of them, when they
heard the explosion and saw appellant start running, the old man Juvida instructed the younger Nazario
to try to catch him, albeit in such attempt Nazario failed because appellant was able to make good his
escape after Nazario lost sight of him amongst the many people passing by Tejeron Street. It cannot be
said then that said witnesses had only a glimpse of appellant at the time. Then too, it is not at all out of
the ordinary, as testified to by said witnesses, that they saw appellant first merely walking at a fast clip
after having delivered the fatal bomb to the intended victim, for the stubborn fact is, as explained by
said witnesses, appellant started to run soon after the explosion of said bomb, apparently in an attempt
to get away from the scene of the crime of which he was the author as fast as he could upon realization
that the said bomb he planted had exploded. Surely, such behavior of appellant, as described by the two
witnesses referred to, is not in conflict with the experience of common life and the ordinary instincts
and promptings of human nature as insisted by appellant.
Our review of the evidence leads Us to no other conclusion that appellant has been definitely
and indubitably identified as the man who handed the bag with the fatal bomb to Florencia TactayJavier.
As to appellants lament about the finding of the trial court vis-a-vis the black dyeing materials
found in his jeep, it is very safe to say that those materials constituted the strongest mute evidence of
his having been indeed the black-painted man whom Florencia and the other two eye witnesses Juvida
and Nazario saw that morning. Said materials, albeit circumstantial, pointed to him conclusively as the
culprit. There were very credible oral evidence on top of the dyeing materials. The accurate summation
by the lower court of the evidence in support of the case for the People reads as follows:
Having been identified; having thus been shown to have a motive for committing the offense;
and having had in his possession blackening materialsthe evidence thus conclusively point to him as
the person guilty as charged in the information.
It may not be a miss to close this discussion with the following words in People vs. Gonzaga, L34418, May 26, 1977, 77 SCRA 140, 144-145, to dispose of his defense of alibi.
It is easily understandable why the identification of an accused as a participant in the
commission of an offense by evidence that is worthy of credence and belief negates the claim of alibi.
The falsity of an assertion that he was elsewhere and therefore could not have been guilty of the crime
imputed to him becomes apparent. Where the proof of his presence then is clear and positive, such a

defense in unavailing. In the language of Justice Laurel in People v. Caroz (68 Phil. 521 [1939]: Alibis
cannot stand and prevail over clear and convincing affirmation of credible witnesses (Ibid., 526). Such a
doctrine is of respectable lineage. It was first announced by Justice Torres in United States v. Roque (11
Phil. 422), a 1908 decision, where the accused was recognized with rare unanimity by five eye witnesses
to the sequestration as being one of the four armed individuals who in the early morning of the 23rd of
June, 1904, abducted the deceased, ... ... (Ibid., 426). Since then, as pointed out by Justice Trent in
United States v. Lasada (18 Phil. 90 [1910], promulgated two years later, alibi cannot avail as against the
positive and direct testimony (Ibid., 100) of the witnesses for the prosecution. ... ...
Unquestionably, the crimes proven, as found above to have been committed by appellant in
these cases, constitute the complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder, the same being
the result of a single actthat of delivering the bomb which actually exploded as he had intended
causing the death and grave injuries already referred to earlier. The qualifying circumstance is use of
explosive. Based on the facts proven, We also find that the commission of the offense was attended by
evident premeditation, craft and dwelling. His guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, We
have no alternative than to find him guilty of said complex offense, with the aggravating circumstances
just mentioned, and he deserves no less than the extreme penalty of death.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appellant Nao Milflores y Laksa is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex offense of murder with frustrated murder with the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, craft and dwelling and he is hereby sentenced to
death. It appearing from the records, however, that he is presently more than 70 years old, pursuant to
Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, We have no alternative but to affirm the penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial court, with all the concomitant accessories thereof. Costs against
appellant.
Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin
concur.
Decision affirmed.
Notes.Although a motion to quash should be resolved solely on the allegations contained in
the information, additional facts admitted or not denied by the prosecution in the hearing of the motion
maybe invoked to support the quashal of the information. (People vs. Dela Rosa, 98 SCRA 190.)
Accused who did not move to quash the information before they pleaded thereto should be
taken to have waived all objections which are grounds for such a motion except when the complaint or
information does not charge an offense, or the court is without jurisdiction of the same. (Oca vs.
Jimenez, 5 SCRA 425; Palanca vs. Querubin, 30 SCRA 738; People vs. Cayosa, 30 SCRA 806.)
When a motion to quash a criminal case is denied, the remedy is not certiorari but to go to tried
without prejudice to reiterating special defenses invoked in said motion, and if, after trial on the merits,

an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. (Acharon vs.
Purisima, 13 SCRA 309.)
The motion to quash now provided for in Rule 117 is manifestly broader in scope than the
demurrer, as it is not limited to defects apparent upon the face of the complainant or information but
extends to issues arising out of extraneous matters which necessarily involve questions of fact in the
determination of which a preliminary trial is required. (Lopez vs. Paras, 18 SCRA 616.)
o0o