EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-32126. July 6, 1978.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

NEMESIO TALINGDAN, MAGELLAN TOBIAS, AUGUSTO
BERRAS, PEDRO BIDES and TERESA DOMOGMA, accused-
appellants.

SYNOPSIS

Armed with long guns, the four male accused gunned down Bernardo
from below the "batalan" of his house as he was sitting by the supper table
and his twelve-year old daughter Corazon was watching him nearby. The
accused then climbed the stairs and seeing Bernardo still alive, accused
Talingdan and Tobias fired at him again. Corazon tried to call for help but
Bides threatened to kill her. The assailants then fled. Corazon recognized
and knew the four as they were residents of their barrio, but her mother,
Teresa, who came out of their "silid" after the shooting, warned Corazon not
to tell anyone that she recognized her father's killers threatening to kill her if
she did. When peace officers repaired to their house to investigate what
happened, Teresa claimed that she had no suspects in mind.
Teresa was known to have illicit relations with Talingdan and prior to
this incident had been seen by her daughter Corazon meeting with the other
accused on two occasions. The first time was in a hut near where the child
was washing clothes on which occasion she overheard one of them ask "Can
he elude a bullet?" This was after a violent quarrel between Teresa and the
deceased. The second time was on the very night of the killing when
Corazon saw and heard them talking in subdued tones about 3 or 4 meters
away from the "batalan" where she was cooking supper.
The trial court found all the accused guilty of murder and sentenced
each of them to life imprisonment. On appeal, they claimed that the lone
testimony of Corazon suffered from vital contradictions and badges of
falsehood because of patently unnatural circumstances alleged by her.
The Supreme Court found Corazon's testimony consistent, sincere, and
truthful considering that she was hardly thirteen years old when she
testified, an age when "a child is, as a rule, but little influenced by the
suggestion of others", no cogent explanation having been offered why she
would attribute the assault on her father to three other men, aside from
Talingdan whom she knew had relations with her mother, where she was
merely making-up her account of how he was shot, no motive for her to do
so having been shown.
Judgment affirmed except that the four male appellants were
sentenced to death and appellant Teresa was convicted only as an accessory
to the crime.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; PARRICIDE; SUPPOSED WIFE CANNOT BE

CHARGED OF PARRICIDE FOR LACK OF PROOF OF MARRIAGE. — The
supposed wife of a murder victim cannot be charged with parricide where
there is no certificate or any other proof of their marriage.
2. EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY OF A CHILD; CREDIBILITY. — The
consistent testimony of a child who is thirteen years old relating to the
circumstances surrounding the killing of her father by the four accused
whom she recognized and knew as they were residents of their barrio, is
undoubtedly sincere and truthful considering that at that age, a child is, as a
rule, "but little influenced by the suggestion of others", and no cogent
explanation had been offered why she would attribute the assault on her
father to three other men, aside from the one whom she knew had illicit
relations with her mother, where she was merely making-up her account of
how he was shot, no motive for her to do so having been shown.
MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:
1. CRIMINAL LAW; PARRICIDE; CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE NOT
INDISPENSABLE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF MARRIAGE. — A marriage
certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage in order to
charge a wife of parricide because the presumption that two persons are
married subsists by reason of the fact that they had been living together for
about thirteen years as evidenced by the birth of their eldest child and that
they had other children thereafter.
2. ID.; CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING CONSPIRACY. — The active
cooperation of the wife in the conspiracy against the life of the her husband
is clearly demonstrated in the categorical testimony of her 13-year old
daughter who declared that she saw her mother meeting with her other co-
accused in a hut on which occasion she overheard one of them ask "Could
he elude a bullet?"; that when her mother noticed her presence, she shoved
her away saying, "You tell your father that we will kill him"; that in the
evening of her father's death while she was cooking supper she saw her
mother go down the stairs and meet the other accused who were armed with
long guns in their yard about 3 to 4 meters away from where she was and
that she heard them conversing in subdued tones; and, that after her father
was shot and her mother knew that she recognized and could identify her
father's assailants her mother warned her not to tell anyone threatening to
kill her if she did.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Appeal from the conviction for the crime of murder and the sentence of
life imprisonment, with indemnity to the offended party, the heirs of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 deceased Bernardo Bagabag, in the amount of P12,000, rendered by the
Court of First Instance of Abra in its Criminal Case No. 686, of all the accused
therein, namely, Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras, Pedro
Bides and Teresa Domogma, the last being the supposed wife of the
deceased, who, because no certificate nor any other proof of their marriage
could be presented by the prosecution, could not be charged with parricide.
Prior to the violent death of Bernardo Bagabag on the night of June 24,
1967, he and appellant Teresa Domogma and their children, lived together
in their house at Sobosob, Salapadan, Abra, some 100 meters distant from
the municipal building of the place. For sometime, however, their
relationship had been strained and beset with troubles, for Teresa had
deserted their family home a couple of times and each time Bernardo took
time out to look for her. On two (2) different occasions, appellant Nemesio
Talingdan had visited Teresa in their house while Bernardo was out at work,
and during those visits Teresa had made Corazon, their then 12-year old
daughter living with them, go down the house and leave them. Somehow,
Bernardo had gotten wind that illicit relationship was going on between
Talingdan and Teresa, and during a quarrel between him and Teresa, he
directly charged the latter that should she get pregnant, the child would not
be his. About a month or so before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had again
left their house and did not come back for a period of more than three (3)
weeks, and Bernardo came to know later that she and Talingdan were seen
together in the town of Tayum, Abra during that time; then on Thursday
night, just two (2) days before he was gunned down, Bernardo and Teresa
had a violent quarrel; Bernardo slapped Teresa several times; the latter went
down the house and sought the help of the police, and shortly thereafter,
accused Talingdan came to the vicinity of Bernardo's house and called him to
come down; but Bernardo ignored him, for accused Talingdan was a
policeman at the time and was armed, so the latter left the place, but not
without warning Bernardo that someday he would kill him. Between 10:00
and 11:00 o'clock the following Friday morning, Bernardo's daughter,
Corazon, who was then in a creek to wash clothes saw her mother, Teresa,
meeting with Talingdan and their co-appellants Magellan Tobias, Augusto
Berras and Pedro Bides in a small hut owned by Bernardo, some 300 to 400
meters away from the latter's house; as she approached them, she heard
one of them say "Could he elude a bullet"; and when accused Teresa
Domogma noticed the presence of her daughter, she shoved her away
saying "You tell your father that we will kill him".
Shortly after the sun had set on the following day, a Saturday, June 24,
1967, while the same 12-year old daughter of Bernardo was cooking food for
supper in the kitchen of their house, she saw her mother go down the house
through the stairs and go to the yard where she again met with the other
appellants. As they were barely 3-4 meters from the place where the child
was in the "batalan", she heard them conversing in subdued tones, although
she could not discern what they were saying. She was able to recognize all of
them through the light coming from the lamp in the kitchen through the
open "batalan" and she knows them well for they are all residents of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Sobosob and she used to see them almost everytime. She noted that the
appellants had long guns at the time. Their meeting did not last long; after
about two (2) minutes Teresa came up the house and proceeded to her
room, while the other appellants went under an avocado tree nearby. As
supper was then ready, the child called her parents to eat; Bernardo who
was in the room adjoining the kitchen did not heed his daughter's call to
supper but continued working on a plow, while Teresa also excused herself
by saying she would first put her small baby to sleep. So Corazon ate supper
alone, and as soon as she was through she again called her parents to eat.
This time, she informed her father about the presence of persons downstairs,
but Bernardo paid no heed to what she said. He proceeded to the kitchen
and sat himself on the floor near the door. Corazon stayed nearby watching
him. At that moment, he was suddenly fired upon from below the stairs of
the "batalan". The four accused then climbed the stairs of the "batalan"
carrying their long guns and seeing that Bernardo was still alive, Talingdan
and Tobias fired at him again. Bides and Berras did not fire their guns at that
precise time, but when Corazon tried to call for help Bides warned her,
saying "You call for help and I will kill you", so she kept silent. The assailants
then fled from the scene, going towards the east.
The first to come to the aid of the family was Corazon's male teacher
who lived nearby. Teresa came out of her "silid" later; she pulled Corazon
aside and questioned her, and when Corazon informed her that she
recognized the killers of her father to be her co-appellants herein, she
warned her not to reveal the matter to anyone, threatening to kill her if she
ever did so. Still later on, other persons arrived and helped fix and dress the
lifeless body of the victim, Bernardo, autopsy on which was performed in his
own house by the Municipal Health Officer of the place on June 26, 1967,
about 36 hours after death; burial took place on the same day. The victim's
brother who came from Manila arrived one day after the burial, followed by
their mother who came from La Paz, Abra where she resides. Corazon, who
had not earlier revealed the identities of the killers of her father because she
was afraid of her own mother, was somehow able to reveal the
circumstances surrounding his killing to these immediate relatives of hers,
and the sworn statement she thereafter executed on August 5, 1967 (Exh. B)
finally led to the filing of the information for murder against the herein five
(5) appellants.
On the other hand, according to the evidence for the defense: Teresa
prior to her marriage with Bernardo, was a resident of the town of Manabo,
Abra. She has a sister in Manila and two (2) brothers in America who love her
dearly, that is why said brothers of hers had been continuously and regularly
sending her monthly $100.00 in checks, starting from the time she was still
single up to the time of her husband's violent death on June 24, 1967, and
thereafter. After their marriage, they moved to and resided in her husband's
place in Sallapadan, Abra, bringing with them three (3) carabaos and two (2)
horses, which Bernardo and she used in tilling a parcel of land in said place,
separate and distinct from the parcel of land worked on by Bernardo's
parents and their other children. She and Bernardo lived in their own house
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 which was about 4-5 meters away from the house of her parents-in-law. She
loved Bernardo dearly, they never quarreled, and her husband never
maltreated her; although sometimes she had to talk to Bernardo when he
quarrels with his own mother who wanted that Bernardo's earnings be given
to her, (the mother) which Bernardo never did, and at those times, Bernardo
would admonish Teresa "You leave me alone". Her in-laws also hated her
because her mother-in-law could not get the earnings of Bernardo for the
support of her other son, Juanito, in his schooling. On his part, Juanito also
disliked her because she did not give him any of the carpentry tools which
her brothers in America were sending over to her. She never left their
conjugal home for any long period of time as charged by her mother-in-law,
and if she ever did leave the house to go to other places they were only
during those times when she had to go to Bangued to cash her dollar checks
with the PNB branch there, and even on said trips, she was sometimes
accompanied by Bernardo, or if she had to go alone and leaves Sallapadan in
the morning, she rode in a weapons carrier along with merchants going to
Bangued in the morning and always rode back with them to Sallapadan in
the afternoon of the same day because the weapons carrier is owned by a
resident of Sallapadan who waits for them. Teresa came to know Talingdan
only when the latter became a policeman in Sallapadan, as whenever any of
the carabaos and horses they brought from Manabo to Sallapadan got lost,
she and Bernardo would go and report the matter to the Mayor who would
then refer the matter to his policemen, one of whom is Talingdan, so that
they may help locate the lost animals; Teresa knew Talingdan well because
they are neighbors, the latter's home being only about 250-300 meters away
from theirs, But illicit relationship had never existed between them. cdll

Early in the evening of June 24, 1967, Teresa was in the kitchen of their
house cooking their food for supper. Two of the children, Corazon and Judit,
were with her. Her husband, Bernardo, was then in the adjoining room
making a plow. He had to make the plow at that time of the night because at
daytime he worked as a carpenter in the convent. As soon as the food was
ready, she and the children moved over to the adjoining room where
Bernardo was to call him for supper, and he then proceeded to the kitchen to
eat. Teresa and the two children were about to follow him to the kitchen
when suddenly they heard more than five (5) or six (6) successive gun shots
coming from near their "batalan". They were all so terrified that they
immediately cried for help, albeit she did not know yet at that precise time
that her husband was shot, as she and the children were still in the other
room on their way to the kitchen, about three (3) meters away from
Bernardo. But soon Teresa heard her husband crying in pain, and as soon as
she reached him, she took Bernardo into her arms. She did not see the
killers of her husband, as the night was then very dark and it was raining.
Bernardo was in her arms when the first group of people who responded to
their cry for help arrived. Among them were the chief of police, some
members of the municipal council and appellant Tobias who even advised
Teresa not to carry the lifeless body of Bernardo to avoid abortion as she
was then six (6) months pregnant. The chief of police then conducted an
investigation of the surroundings and he found some empty shells and foot
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 prints on the ground some meters away from the "batalan". He also found
some bullet holes on the southern walls of said "batalan" and on the
northern wallings of the kitchen. Later, Teresa requested some persons to
relay the information about the death of her husband to her relatives in
Manabo, Abra, and they in turn passed on the news to Bernardo's mother
and her family in La Paz, Abra, where they were then residing, as they have
left their house in Sallapadan about two (2) months previous after they lost
the land they used to till there in a case with the natives called Tingians. Two
(2) PC soldiers arrived in the afternoon of June 26, 1967, and after
Bernardo's remains was autopsied and he was buried under their house,
they conducted an investigation, but she did not give them any information
relative to the identity of the persons who shot her husband because she did
not really see them. Her mother-in-law and a brother-in-law, Juanito
Bagabag, arrived later, the former from the town of La Paz, Abra, and the
latter from Manila, and after the usual nine (9) days mourning was over, they
left Sallapadan, taking Teresa's children under their custody. Teresa
suspects that since her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law have axes to
grind against her and they have her daughter, Corazon, under their custody,
they had forced the said child to testify against her. She further declared
that her late husband, Bernardo, had enemies during his lifetime, as he had
quarrels with some people over the land they work on.
Furthermore, the defense presented evidence to the effect that:
Talingdan was not in Sallapadan at the time of the killing of Bernardo on
June 24, 1967; being a policeman of the place at the time, he was one of the
two (2) policemen who escorted and acted as bodyguard of the Mayor, when
the latter attended the cursillo in Bangued, all of them leaving Sallapadan on
June 22 and returning thereto four (4) days later on June 26, hence, he could
not have anything to do with the said killing. On the other hand, Tobias
claimed to be in the house of one Mrs. Bayongan in Sallapadan on the date
of said killing, but he was one of the persons who was called upon by the
chief of police of the place to accompany him in answer to the call for help of
the wife of the victim. The other two appellants Bides and Berras also
alleged that they were in the same house of Mrs. Bayongan on that date;
they are tillers of the land of said Mrs. Bayongan and had been staying in her
house for a long time. They were sleeping when the chief of police came that
evening and asked Tobias, who was then municipal secretary, to accompany
him to the place of the shooting. They did not join them, but continued
sleeping. They never left the said house of Mrs. Bayongan, which is about
250-300 meters away from the place of the killing, that evening of June 24,
1967.
After carefully weighing the foregoing conflicting evidence of the
prosecution and defense, We have no doubt in Our mind that in that fatal
evening of June 24, 1967, appellants Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias,
Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides, all armed with long firearms and acting in-
conspiracy with each other gunned down Bernardo as the latter was sitting
by the supper table in their house at Sobosob, Sallapadan, Abra. They were
actually seen committing the offense by the witness Corazon. She was the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 one who prepared the food and was watching her father nearby. They were
all known to her, for they were all residents of Sobosob and she used to see
them often before that night. Although only Talingdan and Tobias continued
firing at her father after they had climbed the stairs of the "batalan", it was
Bides who threatened her that he would kill her if she called for help. Berras
did not fire any shot then. But even before the four appellants went up the
"batalan", they already fired shots from downstairs.
We also fully believe Corazon's testimony that two nights before, or on
Thursday, June 22, 1967, the deceased Bernardo and appellant Teresa had a
violent quarrel during which he slapped her several times, She went to seek
the help of the police, and it was appellant Talingdan, a policeman of their
town, who went to the vicinity of their house and challenged her father to
come down, but the latter refused because the former was a policeman and
was armed. And so, Talingdan left after shouting to her father that "If I will
find you someday, I will kill you."
We likewise accept as truthful, Corazon's declaration regarding the
amorous relationship between her mother and appellant Talingdan, as
already related earlier above. So also her testimony that in the morning
following the quarrel between her father and her mother and the threat
made by Talingdan to the former, between 10:00 and 11:00 o'clock, she saw
all the herein four male accused-appellants meeting with her mother in a
small hut some 300 or 400 meters away from their house, near where she
was then washing clothes, and that on said occasion she overheard one of
them ask "Could (sic) he elude a bullet?", We have our doubts, however, as
to whether or not her mother did say to her in shoving her away upon seeing
her approach, "You tell your father we will kill him," If it were true that there
was really such a message, it is to be wondered why she never relayed the
same to her father, specially when she again saw the said appellants on the
very night in question shortly before the shooting talking together in
subdued tones with her mother and holding long arms. Moreover, it is quite
unnatural that such a warning could have been done in such a manner.
Accordingly, it is Our conclusion from the evidence related above and
which We have carefully reviewed that appellants Nemesio Talingdan,
Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and Pedro Bides are guilty of murder
qualified by treachery, as charged, and that they committed the said offense
in conspiracy with each other, with evident premeditation and in the dwelling
of the offended party. In other words, two aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the offense, namely, evident premeditation and
that it was committed in the dwelling of the victim. No mitigating
circumstance has been proven.
Appellants insist in their brief that the lone testimony of Corazon
suffered from vital contradictions and inconsistencies and badges of
falsehood because of patently unnatural circumstances alleged by her. We
do not agree. As the Solicitor General has well pointed out, the fact that the
witness varied on cross-examination the exact time of some of the
occurrences she witnessed, such as, (1) whether it was before or after
Bernardo had began eating when he was shot; (2) whether it was before or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 after seeing her mother's meeting with her co-accused in the morning of
Friday, June 23, 1967, that she went to wash clothes; and (3) whether or not
the accused were already upstairs or still downstairs when they first fired
their guns, cannot alter the veracity of her having seen appellants in the act
of mercilessly and coldbloodedly shooting her father to death.
Contrary to the contention of appellants, there was nothing inherently
unnatural in the circumstances related by her. We agree with the following
rebuttal of the Solicitor General:
"Appellants also attempt to buttress their attack against the
credibility of Corazon Bagabag by pointing out five supposed unnatural
declarations in her testimony; First, she said that her father appeared
unconcerned when she informed him of the presence of people
downstairs. But as correctly observed by the prosecuting fiscal the
witness does not know then "the mentality of her father" (p. 62, t.s.n.,
hearing of March 29, 1968). Second, Corazon also declared that the
accused conversed that Saturday night preceding the day the crime
charged was committed in a lighted place although there was a place
which was unlighted in the same premises. But this only proves that
the accused were too engrossed in their conversation, unmindful of
whether the place where they were talking was lighted or not, and
unmindful even of the risk of recognition. Third, witness declared that
Pedro Bides and Augusto Berras did not fire their guns. Even if these
accused did withhold their fire, however, since they were privies to the
same criminal design, would this alter their culpability? Should the
witness Corazon Bagabag be discredited for merely stating an
observation on her part which is not inherently unnatural? Fourth
Corazon also declared that only three bullets from the guns of the four
male accused found their mark on the body of her father. But would
this not merely prove that not all the accused were good shots? And
fifth, the witness declared that her father was still able to talk after he
was shot, yet Dr. Jose Dalisan declared that his death was
instantaneous. It is respectfully submitted, however, that the doctor's
opinion could yield to the positive testimony of Corazon Bagabag in this
regard without in the least affecting the findings of said doctor as
regards the cause of the death of the deceased. As thus viewed, there
are no evident badges of falsehood in the whole breadth and length of
Corazon Bagabag's testimony. (Pp. 9-10, People's Brief.)

Why and how Corazon could have concocted her version of the killing
of her father, if it were not basically true, is hardly conceivable, considering
she was hardly thirteen (13) years old when she testified, an age when
according to Moore, a child "is, as a rule, but little influenced by the
suggestion of others" because "he has already got some principles, lying is
distasteful to him, because he thinks it is mean, he is no stranger to the
sentiment of self-respect, and he never loses an opportunity of being right in
what he affirms." (II Moore on Facts, pp. 1055-1056.) No cogent explanation
has been offered why she would attribute the assault on her father to three
other men, aside from Talingdan whom she knew had relations with her
mother, were she merely making-up her account of how he was shot, no
motive for her to do so having been shown.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Demolishing the theory of the accused that such testimony was taught
to her by her uncle, His Honor pointed out that said "testimony, both direct
and cross, would show that she was constant, firm and steady in her
answers to questions directed to her." We have Ourselves read said
testimony and We are convinced of the sincerity and truthfulness of the
witness. We cannot, therefore, share appellants' apprehension in their
Seventh Assignment of Error that the grave imputation of a mother's
infidelity and her suggested participation in the killing of her husband, would
if consistently impressed in the mind of their child, constitute a vicious
poison enough to make the child, right or wrong, a willing instrument in any
scheme to get even with her wicked mother. We feel Corazon was too young
to be affected by the infidelity of her mother in the manner the defense
suggests. We are convinced from a reading of her whole testimony that it
could not have been a fabrication. On the whole, it is too consistent for a
child of thirteen years to be able to substantially maintain throughout her
stay on the witness stand without any fatal flaw, in the face of severe and
long cross-interrogations, if she had not actually witnessed the event she
had described. We reject the possibility of her having been "brainwashed or
coached" to testify as she did. cdphil

The second to the sixth assignments of error in the appeal brief do not
merit serious consideration. Anent these alleged errors, suffice it to say that
the following refutations of the Solicitor General are well taken:
"Appellants also decry that the trial court allegedly failed to
consider the testimony of Dr. Dalisan that the distance between the
assailants and the deceased could have been 4 to 5 meters when the
shots were fired. But the appellants overlook the testimony of Corazon
Bagabag that when the first shot was fired, the gunman was about 3-
1/2 meters from her father (p. 60, t.s.n., hearing of March 29, 1968),
which disproves the theory of the defense that the killers fired from a
stonepile under an avocado tree some 4 to s meters away from the
deceased's house Appellants also insist that the Court a quo ignored
the testimonies of defense witness Cpl. Bonifacio Hall and Chief of
Police Rafael Berras on their having found bullet marks on the southern
walling of the house of the deceased, as well as empty cal. 30 carbine
shells under the aforementioned avocado tree. The trial court,
however, made the following apt observations on the testimony of
defense witness Cpl. Bonifacio Hall:

'This witness stated that we went to the house of

the deceased to investigate the crime after the deceased
had already been buried; that he investigated the widow
as well as the surroundings of the house where the
deceased was shot. He found empty shells of carbine
under the avocado tree. He stated that the 'batalan' of
the house of the deceased has a siding of about 1-1/2
meters high and that he saw bullet holes on the top
portion of the wall directly pointing to the open door of
the 'batalan' of the house of the deceased. When the
court asked the witness what could have been the
position of the assailant in shooting the deceased, he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 stated that the assailant might have been standing. The
assailant could not have made a bullet hole on the top
portion of the sidings of the 'batalan' because the
'batalan' is only 1-1/2 meters high, and further, when
asked as to the level of the ground in relation to the top
sidings of the 'batalan,' he answered that it is in the same
level with the ground. If this is true, it is impossible for the
assailant to make a bullet hole at the top portion sidings
of the 'batalan,' hence, the testimony of this witness who
is a PC corporal is of no consequence and without merit.
The court is puzzled to find a PC corporal testifying for the
defense in this case, which case was filed by another PC
sergeant belonging to the same unit and assigned in the
same province of Abra' (pp. 324-325, rec.).
"As regards the empty shells also found in the vicinity of the
shooting, suffice it to state that no testimony has been presented,
expert or otherwise, linking said shells to the bullets that were fired
during the shooting incident. Surmises in this respect surely would not
overcome the positive testimony of Corazon Bagabag that the accused
shot her father as they came up the 'batalan' of their house." (Pp. 11-
12, People's Brief.)

At the trial, the four male appellants tried to prove that they were not
at the scene of the crime when it happened. This defense of alibi was duly
considered by the trial court, but it was properly brushed aside as
untenable. In their brief, no mention thereof is made, which goes to show
that in the mind of the defense itself, it cannot be successfully maintained
and they do not, therefore, insist on it. Nonetheless, it would do well for this
Court to specifically affirm the apt pertinent ratiocination of His Honor in
reference thereto thus:
"This defense, therefore, is alibi which, in the opinion of the
court, can not stand firmly in the face of a positive and unwavering
testimony of the prosecution witness who pointed out to the accused
as the authors of the crime. This is so because, first, according to the
three accused — Bides, Tobias and Berras — they were sleeping at
8:00 o'clock that night in the house of Mrs. Bayongan which is only 250
meters away from the scene of the crime. Granting, for the sake of
argument, but without admitting, that they were already sleeping at
8:00 o'clock in the house of Mrs. Bayongan, Corazon Bagabag clearly
stated that her father was gunned down at sunset which is
approximately between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening, hence, the
accused Tobias, Berras and Bides could have committed the crime and
went home to sleep in the house of Mrs. Bayongan after the
commission of the crime. According to Pedro Bides, the house of Mrs.
Bayongan is only 250 meters away from the house of the victim.
Second, the three accused have failed miserably to present the
testimony of Mrs. Bayongan, the owner of the house where they slept
that night to corroborate or bolster their defense of alibi." (Pp. 27A-28A,
Annex of Appellants' Brief.)
xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 "Nemesio Talingdan, alias Oming, the last of the accused, also in
his defense of alibi, stated that on June 22, 1967, he accompanied
Mayor Gregorio Banawa of Sallapadan to Bangued, together with
policeman Cresencio Martinez for the purpose of attending a cursillo in
Bangued. They started in Sallapadan in the early morning of June 22,
1967 and arrived in Bangued the same day. According to him, he went
to accompany the mayor to the cursillo house near the Bangued
Cathedral and after conducting the mayor to the cursillo house, he
went to board in the house of the cousin of Mayor Banawa near the
Filoil Station at Bangued, Abra. From that time, he never saw the
mayor until after they went home to Sallapadan on June 26th.
"This kind of alibi could not gain much weight because he could
have returned anytime on the evening of June 22 or anytime before the
commission of the offense to Sallapadan and commit the crime on the
24th at sunset, then returned to Bangued, Abra to fetch the mayor and
bring him back to Sallapadan on the 26th.
"The irony of this defense of alibi is that the mayor who was
alleged to have been accompanied by witness-accused is still living
and very much alive. As a matter of fact, Mayor Gregorio Banawa is
still the mayor of Sallapadan, Abra, and also policeman Cresencio
Martinez another policeman who accompanied the mayor to Bangued,
is also still living and still a policeman of Sallapadan. Why were not the
mayor and the policeman presented to corroborate or deny the
testimony of Nemesio Talingdan?

"Conrado B. Venus, Municipal Judge of Penarrubia, Abra, and a

member of the Cursillo Movement, was presented as rebuttal witness
for the prosecution. On the witness stand, he stated that he belongs to
Cursillo No. 3 of the Parish of Bangued, Abra, and said cursillo was held
on October 20 to 23, 1966, at the St. Joseph Seminary in Galicia,
Pidigan, Abra, and not on June 23 to 26, 1967. As a matter of fact,
Mayor Banawa of Sallapadan also attended the cursillo held on October
20 to 23, 1966, as could be seen in his 'Guide Book' where the
signature of Gregorio Banawa appears because they both attended
Cursillo No. 3 of the Parish of Bangued.

"(To) this testimony of the rebuttal witness belies partly, if not in

full, the testimony of accused Nemesio Talingdan." (Pp. 29A-30A,
Annex of Appellants' Brief.)

Coming now to the particular case of appellant Teresa Domogma, as to

whom the Solicitor General has submitted a recommendation of acquittal,
We find that she is not as wholly innocent in law as she appears to the
Counsel of the People. It is contended that there is no evidence proving that
she actually joined in the conspiracy to kill her husband because there is no
showing of "actual cooperation" on her part with her co-appellants in their
culpable acts that led to his death. If at all, what is apparent, it is claimed, is
"mere cognizance, acquiescence or approval" thereof on her part, which it is
argued is than what is required for her conviction as a co-conspirator per
People vs. Mahlon, 99 Phil. 1068. We do not see it exactly that way. LexLib

True it is that the proof of her direct participation in the conspiracy is

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 not beyond reasonable doubt, for which reason, she cannot have the same
liability as her co-appellants. Indeed, she had no hand at all in the actual
shooting of her husband. Neither is it clear that she helped directly in the
planning and preparation thereof, albeit We are convinced that she knew it
was going to be done and did not object. (U.S. vs. Romulo, 15 Phil. 408, 411-
414.) It is not definitely shown that she masterminded it either by herself
alone or together with her co-appellant Talingdan. At best, such conclusion
could be plain surmise, suspicion and conjecture, not really ineludible. After
all, she had been having her own unworthy ways with him for quite a long
time, seemingly without any need of his complete elimination. Why go to so
much trouble for something she was already enjoying, and not even very
surreptitiously? In fact, the only remark Bernardo had occasion to make to
Teresa one time was "If you become pregnant, the one in your womb is not
my child." The worst he did to her for all her faults was just to slap her.
But this is not saying that she is entirely free from criminal liability.
There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at the very least
an accessory to the offense committed by her co-accused. She was inside
the room when her husband was shot. As she came out after the shooting,
she inquired from Corazon if she was able to recognize the assailants of her
father. When Corazon identified appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and
Bides as the culprits, Teresa did not only enjoin her daughter not to reveal
what she knew to anyone, she went to the extent of warning her, "Don't tell
it to anyone. I will kill you if you tell this to somebody." Later, when the
peace officers who repaired to their house to investigate what happened,
instead of helping them with the information given to her by Corazon, she
claimed she had no suspects in mind. In other words, whereas, before the
actual shooting of her husband, she was more or less passive in her attitude
regarding her co-appellants' conspiracy, known to her, to do away with him,
after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with them.
These subsequent acts of her constitute "concealing or assisting in the
escape of the principal in the crime" which makes her liable as an accessory
after the fact under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
As already indicated earlier, the offense committed by appellants was
murder qualified by treachery. It being obvious that appellants deliberately
chose nighttime to suddenly and without warning assault their victim, taking
advantage of their number and arms, it is manifest that they employed
treachery to insure success in attaining their malevolent objective. In
addition, it is indisputable that appellants acted with evident premeditation.
Talingdan made the threat to kill Bernardo Thursday night, then he met with
his co-accused to work out their conspiracy Friday and again on Saturday
evening just before the actual shooting. In other words, they had motive —
Talingdan's taking up the cudgels for his paramour, Teresa — and enough
time to meditate, and desist, if they were not resolved to proceed with their
objective. Finally, they committed the offense in the dwelling of the offended
party.
In these premises, the crime committed by the male appellants being
murder, qualified by treachery, and attended by the generic aggravating
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 circumstances of evident premeditation and that the offense was committed
in the dwelling of the offended party, the Court has no alternative under the
law but to impose upon them the capital penalty. However, as to appellant
Teresa, she is hereby found guilty only as an accessory to the same murder.
WHEREFORE, with the above finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
of the appellants Nemesio Talingdan, Magellan Tobias, Augusto Berras and
Pedro Bides of the crime of murder with two aggravating circumstances,
without any mitigating circumstance to offset them, they are each hereby
sentenced to DEATH to be executed in accordance with law. Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as accessory to the same murder, appellant Teresa
Domogma is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five (5)
years of prision correccionalas minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor
as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law. In all other respects,
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Barredo, Muñoz Palma Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Santos, Fernandez and
Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Fernando and Antonio, JJ., took no part.

Separate Opinions
CASTRO, C.J., concurring:

Concurs, with the observations, however, that the evidence points to

the appellant Teresa Domogma as a co-principal and that she should
therefore also be held guilty of murder and sentenced to death.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

Concurs, but join in the partial dissent of Mr. Justice Makasiar insofar as
the penal liability of the accused Teresa Domogma is concerned.

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:

I dissent insofar as the liability of the accused Teresa Domogma who

should be convicted, not merely as an accessory, but of parricide as
principal and meted the death penalty, is concerned. A marriage certificate
is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage; because the
presumption that the deceased and the accused Teresa were married
subsists by reason of the fact that they had been living together for about
thirteen (13) years as evidenced by the birth of the child-witness Corazon,
who was 12 years old at the time her father was killed on June 24, 1967 by
the accused-appellants, and who was 13 years of age when she testified.
They have other children aside from Corazon. LLjur

That appellant Teresa is a co-conspirator, not merely an accessory

after the fact has been clearly demonstrated by the testimony of her own
daughter, Corazon, who declared categorically that she plotted with her co-
appellants the assassination of her own husband whom she betrayed time
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and time again by her repeated illicit relations with her co-accused Nemesio
Talingdan, a town policeman and their neighbor. The record is abundant with
evidence that Teresa, without a feeling for shame and unnaturally lacking
any concern for her minor children of tender age, deserted several times
their family home to live with and continue with her immoral relations with
appellant Talingdan with whom at one time she cohabited for more than
three (3) weeks. Her patient husband had to look for her and to beg her to
return each time she left the family abode for the embrace of her lover.
We should believe Corazon's statement that between 10 and 11 o'clock
Friday morning, she saw her mother, appellant Teresa, meeting with her
other co-appellants in a small hut owned by her father some 300 to 400
meters away from the latter's house near the creek where she was then
washing clothes; that she heard one of the conspirators say "Could he elude
a bullet?"; that when her mother noticed her presence, her mother shoved
her away saying, "You tell your father that we will kill him"; that in the
evening of the following day, Saturday, June 24, 1967, while she was cooking
supper in their house, she saw her mother go down the stairs and meet the
other appellants in the yard about 3 to 4 meters from where she was in the
"batalan"; that she heard them conversing in subdued tones; that she was
able to recognize all of them by the light coming from the kitchen lamp
through the open "batalan"; that she knows all of them very well as they are
all residents of their barrio and she used to see them almost everyday; that
she noted that appellants were armed with long guns; that their meeting did
not last long; that after about 2 minutes her mother, appellant Teresa, came
up the house and proceed to her room while the other appellants hid under
an avocado tree nearby; that when supper was ready she called her parents
to eat; that her father did not heed her call but continued working on a plow
while her mother excused herself by saying she would first put her small
baby to sleep; that she (Corazon) ate alone after which she again called her
parents to eat; that about this time she informed her father about the
presence of persons downstairs but her father paid no heed to what she
said; that her father proceeded to the kitchen and sat on the floor near the
door while Corazon stayed nearby watching him; that at the that moment
her father was shot from below the stairs of the "batalan"; that the four
accused then went up the stairs of the "batalan" with their long guns and,
upon seeing that her father was still alive, appellants Talingdan and Tobias
fired at him again; that when she (Corazon) tried to call for help, appellant
Bides warned her saying "You call for help and I will kill you"; and that
thereafter, the assailants fled towards the east.
The foregoing testimony of 13-year old Corazon should be accorded
belief in the same way that credence was given to her statement that, upon
her mother's inquiry immediately after the shooting as to whether she
recognized the assailants of her father, she (Corazon) readily told her
mother that she identified appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and Bides as
the culprits; for which reason her mother warned her "Don't tell it to anyone.
I will kill you if you tell this to somebody."
On Thursday or two days before Bernardo was shot, he and Teresa had
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 a quarrel during which Bernardo slapped Teresa several times by reason of
which Teresa left the house and sought the help of the police. Shortly
thereafter appellant Talingdan came and called Bernardo to come down.
When Bernardo ignored him because Talingdan was a policeman and was
then armed, appellant Talingdan left after warning Bernardo that someday
he would kill him.
Can there be a clearer demonstration of the active cooperation of
Teresa in the conspiracy against the life of her husband? The majority
opinion admits that Teresa was a paramour of appellant Talingdan; hence,
she wanted freedom from her husband, the victim, so that she could enjoy
the company of her lover, appellant Talingdan. LibLex

From the evidence on record, appellant Teresa had no moral

compunction in deserting her family and her children for the company of her
lover. As heretofore stated, she did this several times and continued to do so
until the violent death of her husband even as she was carrying a six-month
old baby in her womb, the paternity of which her husband denied.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com