G.R. No. L-48326; August 6, 1943
The PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUENAVENTURA TIMBANG (alias BEN TIMBANG), MARCELINO MALLARI (alias STAR TINANG), CORNELIO ESTACIO (alias DELIO), and MAXIMO ROQUE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

On July 31, 1940, a group of socialists in Magalang, Pampanga, including appellants Maximo Roque, Buenaventura Timbang, Marcelino Mallari, and Cornelio Estacio, conspired to kill Jose Dizon. The conspiracy, proposed by Roque, was motivated by a desire to terrorize the wealthy class, acquire Dizon’s firearm for use in upcoming elections, and avenge Dizon’s alleged killing of a carabao. The following morning, August 1, 1940, Dizon, accompanied by Cayetana Galang and her two daughters, was traveling to his farm. While on a trail, shots were fired from bushes on the left side. Dizon fell from his carabao. The women witnesses saw appellants Estacio and Timbang emerge from the ambush with firearms. Estacio fired at the women, and then he and Timbang approached Dizon’s body. The women fled and later found Dizon dead and his gun missing. Other witnesses, Juan Parungao and Fernando Hizon, testified to seeing the appellants with guns before the shooting and fleeing the scene afterward, with Timbang carrying a blood-stained sack containing a gun. Francisco Miranda testified that the appellants later informed him of the killing, with Mallari showing him the wristwatch and revolver taken from Dizon. Dr. Miguel P. Morales confirmed Dizon died from shotgun wounds. The trial court convicted all appellants of murder qualified by premeditation, with the aggravating circumstance of treachery compensated by the mitigating circumstance of lack of education, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder based on the evidence presented.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court, through Justice Moran, found the appellants’ guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi presented by the appellants was rejected as it was easily manufactured, supported only by relatives and friends, lacked corroboration, and was rebutted by unimpeachable evidence. The court found no merit in the claim that a four-month delay in filing the formal complaint cast doubt on the accusation, as the prosecution adequately explained the time was needed to gather sufficient evidence. The court also dismissed challenges to the credibility of prosecution witnesses, noting their initial silence was due to fear of vengeance from their fellow socialists. The positive identification of the appellants and their participation in the crime by multiple eyewitnesses prevailed over the weak defenses. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnity were upheld. (A dissenting opinion by Justice Ozaeta, concurred in by Justice Bocobo, voted for acquittal based on doubts regarding witness credibility, inconsistencies, and alternative motives for the crime.)