G.R. No. L-17320 May 31, 1965
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO PAZ alias COMMANDER ROMY and SULPICIO TICA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Accused Romeo Paz (alias Commander Romy, a Huk commander), Sulpicio Tica, and others were charged with the murder of Tranquilino Dayrit in Tanay, Rizal, on December 7, 1956. The information alleged they tied the victim’s hands, hit him with gun butts, and took turns stabbing him with a balisong. Sulpicio Tica and Marcos Castalone were first tried. The trial court convicted Tica of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting Castalone. Later, Romeo Paz was apprehended and tried separately. Paz moved to quash the information, arguing the killing was done in the course of rebellious Huk activities and should be prosecuted as rebellion only, not murder. The trial court denied his motion. After trial, Paz was also convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Both Tica and Paz appealed.
The prosecution evidence, primarily from the victim’s widow Narcisa Tadong and son Teodoro, established that on December 7, 1956, a group including Huk commanders (Paz and Garcia), other Huks, Tica, and Castalone went to Dayrit’s house. The Huks hogtied Dayrit, dragged him out, and brought him to a road where Tica and Castalone were waiting. The group then stabbed Dayrit repeatedly. Commander Romy (Paz) first stabbed the victim, then handed the knife to Tica who also stabbed him, followed by the others. Tica also removed Dayrit’s right eye with a balisong. The killing was motivated by a personal grudge; Tica had a quarrel with Dayrit over a carabao eating rice plants, and Dayrit had filed a complaint against the Ticas and had denounced Tica as a Huk to the army. The Huks told Dayrit he was being taken to settle the matter with Tica. Tica’s defense was alibi, claiming he was in Tanay town proper for a family death anniversary during the killing.

ISSUE

The main issue, particularly for appellant Paz, is whether the killing of Tranquilino Dayrit was committed in furtherance of the Huk rebellion and thus should be absorbed as part of the crime of rebellion, or whether it was motivated by personal reasons and therefore prosecutable as a separate crime of murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. The killing was not absorbed by the crime of rebellion. The prosecution established that the murder was motivated by the personal quarrel between accused Sulpicio Tica and the victim, Tranquilino Dayrit. Tica utilized the Huks as instruments to kill Dayrit due to his grudge against him for filing a complaint. The Court cited the distinction made in People v. Geronimo, holding that if a killing is inspired by personal motive, it is not absorbed by rebellion and may be prosecuted separately. Appellant Paz’s lone and uncorroborated assertion that Dayrit was an informer was insufficient to prove a political motivation, given his obvious interest. Paz’s guilt was clear as he stood guard while his companions killed Dayrit, proving his participation as a conspirator and co-principal in the murder. The decisions convicting both appellants Tica and Paz of murder were affirmed.