G.R. No. L-12280; January 30, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PIO TEMPLONUEVO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pio Templonuevo and Cipriano Tapia were convicted of murder by the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes for killing Leopaldo Gonzalo and each sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Templonuevo alone appealed. The evidence established that in the early morning of December 8, 1953, in Virac, Catanduanes, the victim Gonzalo went to the house of Jaime Templonuevo to borrow a bolo. His request was refused by cook Mamerto Balla. After a maid suggested lending one, co-accused Cipriano Tapia followed Gonzalo downstairs. An altercation ensued after Gonzalo angrily uttered “putang ina mo.” Witness Mamerto Balla, peeping from the kitchen window, saw appellant Pio Templonuevo strike Gonzalo on the forehead with a piece of wood, rendering him unconscious. Thereupon, Tapia slashed the throat of the unconscious victim with a hunting knife. The body was dumped near the Virac Electric Plant. The autopsy confirmed ante-mortem contusions on the forehead and a fatal incised wound on the neck. The defense challenged Balla’s credibility due to his delay in executing an affidavit, which he attributed to fear. The defense also relied on Tapia’s later written statement claiming sole responsibility, but Tapia had previously implicated Templonuevo in affidavits and court testimony, with evidence suggesting his later recantation was motivated by money and a desire to protect Templonuevo, a relative of his employer. Appellant set up an alibi, claiming he was working on a truck some 115 meters away, but this was contradicted.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) the credibility of the prosecution witness Mamerto Balla and the sufficiency of his testimony to convict; (2) the nature of appellant Templonuevo’s criminal liability (whether as a principal or accomplice); and (3) the proper classification of the crime (murder or homicide).

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the judgment. It upheld the credibility of witness Mamerto Balla, finding his testimony trustworthy, consistent, and corroborated by the physical evidence (the contusion on the forehead). The delay in executing his affidavit did not destroy his credibility. The Court found no proof of a pre-arranged plan, thus conspiracy was not established. Appellant’s act of striking the victim, which rendered him unconscious, was not the direct cause of death; the autopsy identified the slashed throat as the sole cause. Therefore, appellant Templonuevo, by rendering the victim helpless, facilitated the killing by Tapia and is liable only as an accomplice to the crime, not as a principal. The crime is homicide, not murder, as the immediately preceding quarrel negated the element of treachery. The liability is further mitigated by the unwarranted provocation (grave insult) by the deceased. Applying the Revised Penal Code, as an accomplice to consummated homicide, appellant is subject to the penalty next lower in degree to reclusion temporal (the penalty for homicide), which is prision mayor. Considering the mitigating circumstance, the penalty is prision mayor in its minimum degree. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court sentenced appellant Pio Templonuevo to an indeterminate penalty of not less than four (4) years of prision correccional and not more than eight (8) years of prision mayor, with accessory penalties and the civil indemnity of P3,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased.