SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-52237 September 30, 1981

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERTO LAGTU Y VILLALUNA @ "TIKBOY LAGTU", Defendant-Appellant.chanrobles virtual law library

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Appeal by Roberto Lagtu who was convicted of murder for the death of Rizal Benedicto and sentenced to "cadena perpetua" in Criminal Case No. 721 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The information against the appellant reads: chanrobles virtual law library

(That) on or about the 20th day of October, 1975, in Barrio Wawa, Municipality of Nasugbu, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a pointed-bladed instrument, a deadly weapon, together with one John Doe, whose Identity and whereabouts are still unknown, conspiring and confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually aiding each other, with intent to kill and with the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, attack, assault, stab and hit, suddenly and without warning, with the said weapon, one Rizal Benedicto, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds in the different vital parts of his body, causing severe hemorrhage and/or profuse bleeding which directly caused his death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

That the aggravating circumstance of nighttime deliberately sought was present in the commission of the crime.

The judgment under appeal reads as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

In view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused, ROBERTO LAGTU Y VILLALUNA @ "TIKBOY LAGTU," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of Nocturnity deliberately sought, and without any mitigating circumstance, and accordingly imposes on him the penalty CADENA PERPETUA and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the cost of the suit.

The evidence for the prosecution established that at about 2:15 o'clock in the morning of October 20, 1975, a wounded person, wet and soaked in his own blood, was found in the yard of the Bayani family at Washington Street, Nasugbu, Batangas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Gaudencio Calinawan, Felipe and Rodolfo Bayani (relatives-in-law of Gaudencio), and Jaime Caparas who found the wounded man, recognized and Identified him as Rizal Benedicto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

According to Gaudencio Calinawan and Jaime Caparas. Rizal Benedicto had several stab wounds. Jaime Caparas said that in answer to his question, Rizal Benedicto told him that the group of "Tikboy Lagtu" ("sina Tikboy Lagtu") stabbed him and threw him from a bridge in Bo. Wawa, Nasugbu.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Calinawan and company brought Rizal Benedicto to Apacible Memorial Hospital in Nasugbu. And at around 2:45 o'clock that same morning Patrolmen Anselmo Madrid and Ramos of the Nasugbu Police Force went to the hospital at the request of Calinawan. Seeing Rizal Benedicto on a stretcher, Patrolman Madrid asked him questions which together with the answers were embodied in Exhibit B, thumb-marked by Rizal Benedicto and witnessed by Geronimo Torres.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Exhibit B reads as follows:

1. T - Malinaw ba ang pag-iisip mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Opo.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. T - Anong pangalan mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Rizal Benedicto y Dimaisip po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. T - Taga saan ka? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Taga Bo. Talagan po, Nasugbu, Batangas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. T - Bakit ka may sugat? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Sinaksak po ako.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. T - Sino ang sumaksak sa iyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Si Tikboy Lagtu po at ang mga kasama niya na hindi ko alam ang pangalan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

6. T - Saan nangyari ito? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Duon po sa tulay ng Bo. Wawa, Nasugbu, Batangas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. T - Ano ang isinaksak sa iyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Hindi ko po alam, basta't matutulis na bagay ang ramdam kung tumama sa katawan ko.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. T - Bakit ka sinaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Hindi ko po alam, basta na lamang ako hinarang at sinaksak.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. T - Kailan nangyari ito? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Kanina po, Oct. 20, 1975.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. T - Anong pakiramdam mo sa sugat mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S - Masakit po. Masama po.

(THUMBMARKED) RIZAL D. BENEDICTO

At around 3:30 o'clock also that same morning, Rizal Benedicto was transferred to St. Francis Hospital for surgery. He was operated on by Dr. Luis Montemar, who later testified that the victim sustained eight (8) stab wounds inflicted with a sharp-pointed instrument, the wound reaching the liver being the most dangerous.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

For more than 11 hours after the operation, Rizal Benedicto fought for his life, and lost. He expired at around 3:15 o'clock in the afternoon of October 20, 1975. The death certificate (Exhibit E) shows that he died of severe hemorrhage and shock due to multiple stab wounds.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

These facts were testified to by Gaudencio Calinawan, Jaime Caparas, Dr. Luis Montemar and Patrolman Anselmo Madrid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The prosecution bolstered its case against Roberto Lagtu with the testimony of Patrolman Madrid that he was indeed "Tikboy Lagtu".

FISCAL FLORENCIO LANDICHO: Just one re-direct, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q: With the permission of this Honorable Court. Mr. Witness, when you conducted that investigation you were told that Tikboy Lagtu stabbed the victim, is it not chanrobles virtual law library

A: Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q: Do you know this Tikboy Lagtu personally? chanrobles virtual law library

A: Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q: If, he is here in the court room, will you please point to him? chanrobles virtual law library

INTERPRETER: witness pointed to the accused Roberto Lagtu).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

FISCAL: chanrobles virtual law library

Q: Mr. Witness, since when have you known Tikboy Lagtu? chanrobles virtual law library

A: For a long time already, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q: And you fully know that Tikboy Lagtu and this Roberto Lagtu is one and the same person? chanrobles virtual law library

A: Yes, sir. (TSN, March 1, 1977, pp. 13-14.)

The principal defense of Roberto Lagtu who was 31 years old when he testified in December, 1977, consists of his claim that he is not "Tikboy Lagtu." He said that his nickname is "Boy," by which he was been known in the community Bo. Wawa) since childhood, and that he has never been called "Tikboy Lagtu." He further stated that "Tikboy Lagtu" is none other than his nephew Dominador Lagtu.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Roberto also offered an alibi. He claimed that he was sleeping in his house at Bo. Wawa from 8:00 o'clock in the evening of October 19, 1975 until 6:00 o'clock the next morning of October 20, 1975.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Dominador Lagtu was presented as defense witness. lie stated that he is the real "Tikboy Lagtu", and the nephew of the accused whose nickname is "Boy." chanrobles virtual law library

Rosario Lagtu and Romeo Lising the wife and close friend of the accused respectively, corroborated the testimony of Roberto and Dominador.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The court a quo gave credence to the evidence of the prosecution, and concluded that Roberto Lagtu was the Tikboy Lagtu" who stabbed and killed Rizal Benedicto and sentenced him as aforesaid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On appeal, the errors attributed by the accused-appellant to the trial court, boil down to the question as to whether or not the Identity of the assailant of Rizal Benedicto was convincingly and conclusively established.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We have to answer the question in the affirmative.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Undoubtedly, the antemortem statement, Exhibit B, of the victim was properly admitted as dying declaration. It referred to the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death. And it was made under the consciousness of an impending death, considering that the declarant who was earlier found bathing in his own blood due to multiple stab wounds, must have naturally sensed the seriousness of his condition which eventually caused his death.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

For the same reason, the revelation made by Rizal Benedicto to Jaime Caparas that sina "Tikboy Lagtu" stabbed him, also has the nature of a dying declaration. Both declarations are therefore admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

That "Tikboy Lagtu" is no other than the accused Roberto Lagtu was convincingly established by Patrolman Anselmo Madrid. Madrid categorically declared that he had known "Tikboy Lagtu" personally, and for a long time, and that "Tikboy Lagtu" and Roberto Lagtu are one and the same person.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Between the testimony of Patrolman Madrid and those of Roberto and his witnesses, the former should command credence. Patrolman Madrid was a disinterested witness, and there is no showing that he had any ill motive in testifying against Roberto. On the other hand, the testimony of the defense witnesses, relatives and a close friend of the accused, were naturally tainted with bias.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

What adds credibility to Madrid's assertion that he personally know Roberto as "Tikboy Lagtu" is the fact that in small rural communities, everybody knows almost everybody. And so it was, with a policeman who regularly performs his beat. More so, when it is considered that according to Roberto Lagtu himself, he worked at the Inter-Resort in Bo. Wawa. In this connection, it is significant that Roberto Lagtu even admitted that he knew Patrolman Madrid, though he said that he knew Madrid as "Max." chanrobles virtual law library

Additionally, the difficulty with Roberto Lagtu's disclaimer is that he signed a manifestation dated November 3, 1975, addressed to the Municipal Court of Nasugbu wherein he requested for a preliminary investigation proper. (Expedients, p. 12.) In that manifestation he actually admitted that he was "Tikboy Lagtu" by referring to himself as Roberto Lagtu alias "Tikboy Lagtu." chanrobles virtual law library

It having been shown that "Tikboy Lagtu" and Roberto Lagtu were one and the game person, the alibi of the accused has to fall because he has been positively Identified as the assailant of Rizal Benedicto.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The court a quo held that treachery attended the slaying of Rizal Benedicto. The records, however, do not show facts upon which a finding of treachery can be sustained. And it cannot be presumed merely because the victim sustained 8 stab wounds.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Roberto Lagtu should, therefore, be held guilty of homicide only.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Although nighttime is alleged in the information, there is no evidence that nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There being no attendant aggravating nor mitigating circumstances in the commission of the crime of homicide, the appropriate penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby modified by finding the appellant Roberto Lagtu guilty of the crime of homicide only and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of seven (7) years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as maximum; it is affirmed in all other respects.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.