G.R. No. L-14934; July 25, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUENAVENTURA BULAN alias TURA and NAPOLEON ROJAS alias HOB, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Eliseo Tiam, Sr., Buenaventura Bulan, Napoleon Rojas, and three others at large were charged with robbery with homicide. The trial court found the robbery not clearly proved and convicted Tiam, Bulan, and Rojas of murder. Bulan and Rojas appealed. Their appeal was certified to the Supreme Court as the imposable penalty was reclusion perpetua. The evidence established that on August 4, 1954, at about 7:00 p.m., eyewitness Mrs. Pacita de Guzman Peralta went to the store of Sih Hao in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. She saw Eliseo Tiam, Sr. and Buenaventura Bulan closing the store’s front door. Later, peeping through the back door, she saw Napoleon Rojas holding the neck of Sih Hao, Bulan holding Sih Hao’s hands, and Tiam holding an iron pipe. She heard Sih Hao plead for his life, offering his money. She then saw Tiam and three unidentified men tie Sih Hao’s hands and feet. While Sih Hao lay face down on a table, Bulan poured hot broth on his back, and Tiam and Rojas used a piece of wood to tighten a twine around his neck. Mrs. Peralta left when one of the men saw her. The next day, Sih Hao was found dead, hogtied, with his face wrapped in a mosquito net. An autopsy determined the cause of death was shock and strangulation. The appellants interposed the defense of alibi, which the trial court rejected.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of appellants Buenaventura Bulan and Napoleon Rojas for murder is proper.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is proper but the penalty is modified. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court. The eyewitness testimony of Mrs. Peralta was clear, direct, and convincing, positively identifying the appellants as participants in the killing. The Court found her explanations for not disclosing all details in her initial affidavits—fear of the appellants’ reputation, threats from a co-accused’s wife, and lack of police protection—to be credible. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as weak and unavailing in light of the positive identification and the proximity of the appellants’ claimed locations to the crime scene. The Court agreed with the trial court that the crime of robbery was not duly established. The information, though using the generic term “homicide,” actually charged murder qualified by evident premeditation, which was sufficiently proven. The crime was committed in the dwelling of the deceased, an aggravating circumstance, offset by the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness. Thus, the penalty for murder should be imposed in its medium period. The decision was modified by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua upon appellants Buenaventura Bulan and Napoleon Rojas. The rest of the trial court’s decision was affirmed.