G.R. No. L-20911 October 30, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SULPICIO DE LA CERNA, ET AL., defendants. SULPICIO DE LA CERNA, SERAPIO MAQUILING, TEODORO LIBUMFACIL, GODOFREDO ROTOR, SEVERINO MATCHOCA, and ANTONIO BAUTISTA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Sixteen persons were charged with double murder for the fatal shooting of Rafael and Casiano Cabizares on February 3, 1958, in Barrio Cebuano, Tupi, Cotabato. After trial, the lower court acquitted several accused. It convicted Sulpicio de la Cerna and Serapio Maquiling as principals for both murders. Godofredo Rotor, Antonio Bautista, Severino Matchoca, and Teodoro Libumfacil were convicted as accomplices for the murder of Rafael Cabizares. Ramon Alquizar was convicted as an accessory for the murder of Casiano Cabizares. During the appeal, Serapio Maquiling and Ramon Alquizar withdrew their appeals. The remaining appellants are Sulpicio de la Cerna (principal for both killings) and Teodoro Libumfacil, Godofredo Rotor, Severino Matchoca, and Antonio Bautista (accomplices for Rafael’s killing).
The prosecution evidence established that on the morning of February 3, 1958, Rafael Cabizares and family members were taking corn to be milled. While carrying sacks uphill near Sulpicio de la Cerna’s house, Sulpicio fired from his house, hitting Rafael. The wounded Rafael was taken to his father Demetrio’s house. Subsequently, Sulpicio and other armed accused besieged Demetrio’s house, stoning it and thrusting bolos through it. Serapio Maquiling, using a carbine obtained from Sulpicio, shot Rafael inside the house. Casiano Cabizares jumped from the house and ran, but Serapio Maquiling shot him in the back, killing him. Sulpicio then fired again at Rafael, killing him. Casiano’s body was later placed near Sulpicio’s burned house. Autopsy reports showed Casiano died from a gunshot wound entering his back, and Rafael sustained multiple gunshot wounds, including one directly at the back, and a stab wound. Prior to the incident, a land dispute existed between Rafael and some of the accused, with related court cases scheduled for hearing.
The defense, particularly Sulpicio de la Cerna, claimed self-defense. He testified that Rafael, Casiano, and others, armed with bolos and canes, arrived at his house, demanded he come down, surrounded the house, thrust bolos through it, and set it on fire. Fearing for his life, he fired indiscriminately to drive them away, hitting Rafael and Casiano.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether a procedural defect exists because the fiscal, after the municipal court’s preliminary investigation opined only Sulpicio de la Cerna was guilty, conducted his own investigation and charged all accused; and (2) Whether the prosecution evidence is credible and sufficient to convict the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, defeating the claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
On the procedural issue, the Court held that any defect in the preliminary investigation was waived by the appellants’ failure to raise the objection before entering their pleas. The objection was raised only after the prosecution had rested its case.
On the merits, the Court found the prosecution’s version credible and rejected the claim of self-defense. The autopsy findings contradicted Sulpicio’s claim of shooting frontally from an elevated house. Both deceased sustained gunshot wounds directly at the back. Casiano’s wound of entry was lower than the exit, indicating an upward bullet path inconsistent with a downward shot from a house. Rafael’s body also had a stab wound unexplained by Sulpicio’s version. Bloodstains were found inside Demetrio’s house and where Casiano fell, and an empty carbine shell was found in the kitchen. It was improbable that Sulpicio would leave his burning house if his life was no longer in danger. The land dispute motive supported the prosecution’s case, as the accused, having lost and facing an ejectment suit, had more reason for resentment than the deceased.
The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible despite their relation to the victims and addressed alleged inconsistencies, finding them minor. The claim that the four accomplices were not present was rejected based on witness identification. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings on the existence of conspiracy and the respective criminal liability of the appellants as principals and accomplices.