EN
BANC
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-15634
April
23, 1962
-versus-
JUANITO
LLANTO,
Defendant-Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
CONCEPCION,
J
.:
Appeal
by Juanito Llanto
from a Decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas convicting
him
of the crime of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment, with
the
accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the heirs of
Laureano
de la Peña in the sum of P6,000 and to pay the costs.
On March 6, 1958, while
Laureano de la Peña was walking northward, along the national
highway
in the municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas a little after 11:00 p.m.,
someone fired at him, from behind, several times, thereby inflicting
several
bullet wounds that caused his death about 20 minutes after midnight.
It appears that
Laureano
was, at the time of the occurrence accompanied by Hipolito Estuista,
whom
the authorities located, soon thereafter, that same night. Upon
investigation
for with made by the local police force, Hipolito declared that
Laureano's
assailant was Juanito Llanto. Meanwhile, another member of the local
police
force had asked Atanacio de la Peña, a son of the deceased, for
information as to the possible identity of the culprit. Unaware, as
yet,
of Hipolito's aforementioned statement, Atanacio unhesitatingly replied
for reasons hereafter to be stated, that the killer must be Juanito
Llanto.
Hence, the latter was immediately arrested and charged with murder.
The
evidence for the
prosecution shows that Laureano was a lineman of the Philippine Power
and
Development Co., which supplied electricity to the municipality of Sto.
Tomas, Batangas; that Hipolito was an electrician of the same company;
that in the morning of March 6, 1958, Hipolito was sent from Calamba,
Laguna,
to Sto. Tomas Batangas, to assist Laureano in the proper maintenance of
the service during the town fiesta the next day; that sometime during
the
evening of March 6, a transformer located at the southern part of the
town,
went out of order; that accordingly, Laureano and Hipolito went to that
place to make the necessary repairs which were completed sometime after
11:00 p.m.; that shortly after they had started leaving the place,
Juanito
Llanto appeared suddenly behind Laureano and opened fire at him; that,
as Laureano fell down mortally wounded and Juanito Llanto ran away,
Hipolito
took refuge, thoroughly frightened, in a restaurant near a gasoline
station
by the roadside, where peace officers found him before day break; that,
upon submission to a paraffin test, made that same morning, between
10:30
and 11:00 o'clock, gunpowder residue was found on both hands of Juanito
Llanto.
It further appears
that the latter used to be another employee of the Philippine Power
&
Development Co.; that about two [2] months prior to the occurrence,
Laureano
had, while on vacation leave, repaired a transformer of the company;
that
this was resented by Juanito Llanto because, being the one then on
duty,
the repairs should have been undertaken by him: that Juanito Llanto
became
so angry that he went to the house of Laureano and challenged him and
the
members of his family; that Juanito Llanto even threatened to kill
whoever
came out of the house on said occasion; and that, three (3) weeks
later,
Juanito Llanto ceased to be employed in said company.
Appellant set up an
alibi. He would have Us believe that at the time of the occurrence, he
was in a jeep attending a band concert, some 300 meters east of the
Municipal
Building of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, together with municipal councilor
Jorge
Nora and Bienvenido Modelo. These two [2] and police sergeant Pedro
Francisco
tried to corroborate appellant. However, the lower court found their
testimony
unworthy of credence, and the record before us does not warrant
interference
with the conclusion reached by His Honor, the trial Judge. Moreover,
inasmuch
as appellant was riding a jeep and the scene of the occurrence was not
far away from the place where the band concert was being held, it was
quite
possible for him to have attended said concert, then slipped away, for
a few minutes, while the concert was in progress, to commit the crime
charged,
and, immediately thereafter, rejoined the crowd hearing the concert.
Verily,
We find no
plausible reason to doubt the veracity of Hipolito Estuista, the main
witness
for the prosecution. The defense lays stress upon some inconsistencies
in his testimony, but said inconsistencies refer to minor details and
collateral
matters that do not affect either the substance of his declaration or
its
truthfulness. Appellant, also, claims that Hipolito's testimony
deserves
no credence, because of a misunderstanding they allegedly had in 1954
and
another one in 1957. Hipolito denied, however, such misunderstandings,
apart from the fact that even if the same had really happened, they
were
far from being sufficiently serious to prompt the false imputation of a
crime as grave as that charged in this case.
Upon the other hand,
Hipolito could not possibly have been mistaken as to the identity of
the
culprit, not only because he had known Juanito Llanto for several years
prior to the occurrence, both having been employees of the same
electric
company, but, also, because there was electric light, aside from the
moonlight,
at the scene of the crime. Then, too, about four [4] hours after its
commission,
when Hipolito had not had sufficient time, and was still too shaken, to
concoct a story falsely incriminating Juanito Llanto, the former
positively
stated that the killer was the latter, and this statement was fully
confirmed
by the residue of gunpowder found on his hands upon examination made
that
same morning.
In an attempt to
discredit
or weaken the testimony of Capt. Crispin D. Garcia regarding the
paraffin
test to which appellant herein had been submitted, the defense
introduced
an article, said to have been written by Henry W. Turkle and Jerome
Lipman,
on the "Unreliability of Dermal Nitrate Test of Gunpowder." However,
the
defense has not established either the authenticity of said article or
the qualifications of its alleged authors. Such evidence is clearly
inadequate,
therefore, to offset the testimony of Capt. Garcia on his findings
indicating
a great probability that appellant had fired a gun a few hours before
he
was subjected to the aforesaid test.
Appellant denied, also,
that he had had with Laureano de la Peña the incident testified
to by his son, Atanacio de la Peña. Appellant admitted, however,
that he had gone to the house of the De la Peñas, on the
occasion
referred to by Atanacio, although it was with the latter, not with
Laureano,
with whom, he [appellant] said, he had an altercation. Besides,
Atanacio
denied, on rebuttal, having had said altercation with appellant, and a
review of the record does not show that the lower court had erred in
accepting
the version of Atanacio and rejecting that of appellant.
Being in accordance
with the facts and the law, the Decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed,
with costs against appellant Juanito Llanto. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J.,
Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes and Dizon, JJ.,
concur. |