G.R. No. L-29571. January 22, 1980.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGRIPINO CARZANO ET AL., defendants, FILOMENO QUITARA and AGRIPINO CARZANO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of March 31, 1967, Juana Carzano Revalde and her son Sulpicio were ambushed while walking home in Dalaguete, Cebu. Three armed men emerged from bushes along a dark trail. One immediately attacked and killed Juana with a bolo. Sulpicio was also assaulted but managed to parry the initial attack with a torch, which fell and ignited dry grass. By this light, Sulpicio recognized the assailants as Filomeno Quitara, Roman Pia (later a state witness), and Felix Tamayo (at large). Sulpicio escaped after a struggle. He sought refuge in a neighbor’s house, where the neighbor later saw Quitara, Tamayo, and Pia searching outside with flashlights. A bolo was later found concealed at the house of Quitara’s common-law wife.
Upon arrest, Quitara and Pia admitted presence at the ambush but implicated Juana’s relatives, including her brother Agripino Carzano, as instigators, citing a prior land dispute. The information charged multiple accused with murder and frustrated murder. The trial court convicted appellants Quitara and Carzano of murder and sentenced them to death, acquitting them of frustrated murder and acquitting other accused.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of appellants Filomeno Quitara and Agripino Carzano for the crime of murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It acquitted Agripino Carzano due to insufficient evidence. The Court found that the evidence against him consisted solely of the extrajudicial statements of his co-accused, Quitara and Pia, which are inadmissible against him as hearsay. No other substantial evidence linked Carzano to the crime.
However, the Court affirmed the conviction of Filomeno Quitara for murder. His guilt was established by the positive identification of the eyewitness, Sulpicio Revalde, who saw him at the scene during the attack by the light of the burning grass. This testimony was corroborated by the neighbor who saw Quitara searching for Sulpicio afterward and by the discovery of the concealed bolo. Treachery was present, as the attack was sudden and from hiding, ensuring the victim had no chance to defend herself. The Court held that nighttime and superior strength were absorbed by treachery.
Quitara was also found to be a recidivist. Although recidivism must generally be alleged in the information, the Court ruled it could be considered here because Quitara himself admitted in open court to prior convictions for crimes under the same title of the Revised Penal Code. For lack of the necessary votes for the death penalty, his sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay indemnity to the victim’s heirs.