ManilaEN
BANC
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. L-32477
October 30, 1981
-versus-
FRANCISCO
APOSAGA
and CONSTANCIO MONTE,
Accused-Appellants.
D
E C I S I O N
MAKASIAR, J.:
Automatic
review of the Decision dated April
28, 1969 of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, Branch I, in
Criminal Case No. 1625 for Murder, imposing the death penalty on
accused-appellants
Francisco Aposaga and Constancio Monte for the murder of Atty. Jose
Barranda.
The victim, who
was popularly called "Attorney",
was a law practitioner in Cotabato and Agusan. At the time of his
death,
he lived in his 36-hectare farm at Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato,
with
his common-law wife Gloria Salongcong and their four children namely:
Ruth,
Samuel, Ester and Jose, Jr. Gloria had four other children by a
previous
liaison, namely: Fe, Noe, Felomena and Fely, all surnamed Cabrera, who
were likewise staying with the couple at their house on the said farm.
In the same barrio lived the two accused-appellants as well as Sotera
Salongcong
Resaba, a sister of Gloria, whose house near the highway is about 1/2
kilometers
away from the Barrandas'; Jesus Francisco, an ousted ex-tenant of
"Attorney"
and a nephew of Gloria and Sotera, whose house is also along the
highway;
and Doroteo Estorque, father of the common-law wife of
accused-appellant
Aposaga.cralaw:red
Monte was
recruited by the deceased from his former
employment as security guard of Lianga Industries, Inc. in Tumbis
,Barobo,
Surigao del Sur, to be the administrator of his farm. He arrived in
Polomolok
with his family in July, 1965 and stayed in a house owned by the
Barrandas
near their own.
From the house of the Barrandas, there were
three,
then as now, possible routes to the provincial highway, one passing
through
the house of Sotera and Jesus on the General Santos side, another
through
the house of Aposaga and Estorque on the Marbel side, and the third was
a short cut through a small road, to the highway.cralaw:red
The deceased was
last seen alive in the morning
of December 13, 1965. He had summoned Monte to their house at about six
o'clock that morning, and they conferred about the farm. Afterwards,
Monte
had breakfast with "Attorney's" family before leaving the house.
"Attorney"
also left shortly thereafter to go to Dadiangas, taking the second
route
[Marbel side] described above. Gloria Salongcong also left the house
one
minute later for Dadiangas, taking the first route on the General
Santos
side, to pass by the house of her sister Sotera to fetch her daughter
Fe,
who was then staying with Sotera, to bring her to Dadiangas for her
medical
examination.cralaw:red
While walking on
the trail to the highway, Atty.
Barranda was chased by 3 men armed with bolos or knives, who acted
concertedly
in hacking or stabbing the victim to death. His lifeless body was later
buried inside a dry well, while his portfolio and personal papers were
buried around 300 meters away from the body.cralaw:red
Nothing was
mentioned or heard about the death
of Atty. Barranda until on January 20, 1966, Pio Francisco came to
Barrio
Palkan to barter fish and visit his son Jesus. The latter told his
father
that he could hardly sleep at night because he was being "abused" or
raided
by Aposaga, Monte and alias Calbo, and that these three had killed the
Attorney. Pio verified the matter from Sotera Salongcong, who confirmed
the killing of the deceased. He decided to report to the authorities,
but
waited for the picture of accused Aposaga in the possession of Gloria
Salongcong
before he made a report.cralaw:red
Pio first
mentioned the matter to a Sgt. Edoria
of the Philippine Constabulary when he saw him in front of their house
on January 30, 1966 or 48 days thereafter. Sgt. Edoria immediately
brought
him, together with Felomena Cabrera, to the office of Sgt. Ricardo
Vargas
of the 101st PC Company. They showed Sgt. Vargas a newspaper clipping
about
a certain Francisco Lozada, who was wanted by the authorities with a
prize
of P10,000.00 on his head for a series of robbery and murder
cases.
After being told that the wanted man was in barrio Palkan, Sgt. Vargas
lost no time in going to the said barrio, together with other PC
soldiers.
When they reached the said barrio, Felomena pointed to them the house
of
Aposaga. But when he confronted Aposaga, he found out that his name was
Francisco Aposaga and not Francisco Lozada, and that his physical
features
did not tally with the description in the newspaper clipping. He,
therefore,
returned to headquarters without making an arrest.cralaw:red
At noon of the
same day, Felomena Cabrera came
to see him again, this time with Jesus Francisco, informing him that
Aposaga
was the killer of Atty. Barranda. It was only then that he learned of
the
murder of Atty. Barranda. He, therefore, returned to Palkan with 2
other
PC officers to conduct an investigation. When they arrived there,
Aposaga
was no longer in his house, having left for Norala to harvest palay,
according
to his wife. Nevertheless, he proceeded with his investigation.cralaw:red
On February 1,
1966, he took the statements of
Constancio Monte [Exh. "k", pp. 19-20, Folder of Exh. Vol. 1] and his
wife,
Bienvenida Ferrer Monte [Exh. "M", pp. 24-25, Folder of Exh. Vol. I],
both
pointing to Aposaga and Calbo as the killers, and of Noe Cabrera [Exh.
"I ", p. 1, Folder of Exh. Vol. 11], naming Aposaga, Monte and Calbo as
the culprits. Thereafter he filed a motion to exhume the body of the
deceased
[Exh. "D", p. 10, Folder of Exh. Vol. I].cralaw:red
The examination
was conducted on February 2, 1966
in the presence of Dr. Teodoro J. Reyes, municipal health officer of
Polomolok,
the PC provincial commander, the chief of police, and members of the
Rural
Health Unit of Polomolok. They found the already decomposing body of
Atty.
Barranda, which was identified through the identifying information
furnished
by his wife, like the dentures, the clothes he was wearing, his height
and built, as well as the I.D. and personal papers in his wallet and
other
things found on his body. After the exhumation, they also unearthed the
valise or portfolio of the deceased which was buried about 300 meters
away
from the body and 15 meters from the house of Jesus Francisco. The spot
was pointed to them by Jesus Francisco himself who admittedly buried
the
same. The valise contained the raincoat and other personal things of
the
deceased. They also recovered a cellophane bag containing some legal
documents
and land titles purportedly removed from the bag of the deceased. On
the
basis of the above, a criminal complaint dated February 1, 1966 was
filed
against Francisco Aposaga, alias Calbo, alias Pedoy,
Sotera
Salongcong and Constancio Monte [p. 5, CFI Rec.].cralaw:red
On February 14,
1966, after more statements were
taken, the complaint was amended [p. 4, CFI, Rec.], such that the name
of alias Calbo was indicated as Alfredo Villanueva, that of alias
Pedoy as Jesus Francisco, and Gloria Salongcong was included
among
the accused. Of the six accused named in the amended complaint
[Aposaga,
Monte, Villanueva, alias Calbo, Francisco, alias Pedoy,
Sotera
Salongcong and Gloria Salongcong], Villanueva remained at large and
never
faced trial; Gloria Salongcong was ordered excluded from the complaint
on June 10, 1966 for insufficiency of evidence [p. 29, CFI Rec.]; and
Jesus
Francisco alias Pedoy was likewise dropped from the complaint
on
January 10, 1967 upon motion of his counsel [pp. 45-48, CFI Rec.] for
the
purpose of utilizing him as a state witness [p. 54, CFI Rec.]; and
Sotera
Salongcong was also excluded from the complaint upon her own motion
[pp.
5051, CFI Rec.] on January 27, 1967. The warrant issued for Gloria
Salongcong
was, therefore, recalled, while Francisco and Sotera, who had been
under
detention, were ordered released. On August 4, 1967, Jesus Francisco
was
ordered re-included in the complaint and a new warrant issued for his
arrest
[p. 76, CFI Rec.]. Yet, despite his appearance in court as a witness
for
the prosecution, he was never re-arrested. Thus, only Aposaga and Monte
faced trial after they waived their right to the second stage of the
preliminary
investigation [p. 79, CFI Rec.], and an information was filed against
them
on April 24, 1968 [p. 81, CFI Rec.].cralaw:red
After trial, the
trial court in its Decision [pp.
136-179, CFI Rec.] dated April 28, 1969, found the two accused guilty
of
murder and sentenced them to the supreme penalty of death and to
indemnify
the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 as well as to pay
the costs. The trial court noted that the evidence for the
prosecution
suffered from many flaws and some inconsistencies [p. 31, RecNevertheless,
it gave credence to the testimonies of two alleged eyewitnesses and
other
corroborative witnesses for the State.cralaw:red
Noe Cabrera, 13
years old, student, and a resident
of Pag-asa, General Santos City, testified that at about six o'clock in
the morning of December 13, 1965, while he was riding his carabao, he
saw
his stepfather, Atty. Barranda, walking towards the highway. Paran
[Francisco
Aposaga] and Calbo [Alfredo or Jessie Villanueva] ran after him. All at
once, Paran hacked him in the neck while Calbo thrust his knife at the
victim. The deceased ["Attorney"] was trying to parry their
blows
with the sweater he was carrying. Then, Constancio Monte arrived and
also
hacked the victim. When the victim stumbled and fell, Monte rode on him
and thrust his knife through the victim's stomach. He was just about 25
meters away from them. Later, the two dragged the victim's body to the
cogonal area, after which they approached the witness [Noe] and Paran
threatened
him that if he should squeal, he and his mother, sisters and brothers
were
going to be killed. Monte got the bag carried by the deceased and they
left towards the direction of the highway. The witness went home to
eat.
His mother was not in the house yet, having left earlier for Dadiangas.cralaw:red
When his mother
arrived home in the afternoon,
she asked him if he had seen his stepfather, to which he answered no.
She,
therefore, asked him to accompany her in looking around for the victim.
They went to the house of Dorot [Doroteo Estorque] where they saw
Dorot,
Monte, Paran and Calbo, the wife of Monte and others, drinking. His
mother
made several inquiries about his stepfather. The wife of Dorot
said
that Attorney rode a yellow bus going to Marbel. Dorot and his son
Vicente
also gave the same information. She asked other persons, who gave
negative
information. When they went home, Monte and his wife came also. His
mother
told them that she was going to San Francisco [Agusan] to look for
Attorney.
But Monte advised her not to go any more because there were three
persons
who came to fetch him to go to Davao. Noe went downstairs. Monte
followed
him to borrow his sledge which he lent to him. Afterwards, he brought
his
horse to Crossing Palkan to drink. When he was returning home, he saw
Vicente,
Calbo and Paran Vicente were riding the carabao while Calbo and Paran
were
following the sledge, where the body of their stepfather was loaded.
They
were going towards barrio Palkan. He let his horse run and headed for
home.
He did not tell his mother or his brothers and sisters about the attack
on his stepfather because he was afraid. It was only when he was
brought
to the PC headquarters in Dadiangas that he talked of the incident for
there he was no longer afraid [pp. 5-63, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
Felomena Cabrera,
16 years old, student and residing
at Pag-asa, Lagao, General Santos City, testified that she was living
with
her mother, stepfather [the victim], brothers and sisters at their
house
in Crossing Palkan on December 13, 1965. In the morning of the said
date,
her stepfather summoned Monte to their house, and the two talked for
sometime.
Thereafter, Monte ate breakfast with them before returning to his
house.
When he had gone, Attorney prepared to leave for Dadiangas. He left via
their kitchen towards the west to the national highway. One minute
later,
her mother also left, leaving her to care for her younger brother. She
cooked soup rice. While cooking, she went to the balcony to get her
younger
brother. From there she saw Monte running towards the direction of
Attorney.
She followed him with her eyes, and saw him hacking her stepfather with
two others, namely Aposaga and alias Calbo. She went to the
house
of Monte and asked Monte's wife, Bienvenida, why they killed Attorney.
Bienvenida answered "because the attorney is a bad man". The two of
them
went down towards the road. They met Monte who warned them not to
reveal,
otherwise, they will kill first Felomena's mother. She just went home
and
fed her younger brother.cralaw:red
When her mother
arrived home that afternoon, she
[mother] asked if the Attorney had returned home, to which she answered
in the negative. Her mother then asked Noe to accompany her in looking
for the Attorney. The two went out and were away for more than an hour,
while she stayed in the house to take care of her younger brother.cralaw:red
Drawing a sketch,
the witness explained the relative
position of their house with those of Dorot [D. Estorque], Sotera and
Monte,
and the national highway, as well as the three [3] possible routes from
their house to the highway [pp. 65-84, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
On
cross-examination, the witness indicated on
the sketch prepared by her, the specific spot where she saw her
stepfather
being hacked, and where she first saw Monte running. She also described
the attacks on her stepfather how Aposaga hacked him first while he was
walking, followed by the thrusting by Monte. She averred that when she
later talked with her brother Noe, they agreed not to tell anyone about
what they saw; otherwise, they will all be killed starting with their
mother.
[pp. 85-135, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
Dr. Teodoro
Reyes, 51 years old, Municipal Health
Officer of Polomolok, South Cotabato, testified that he has been the
Municipal
Health Officer of Polomolok for more than 10 years. On February 2,
1966,
he was fetched by a policeman of Polomolok to exhume the body of Atty.
Jose Barranda. He went to a field about 500 meters north of the
residence
of Atty. Barranda, together with a few policemen and PC soldiers. They
found the already decomposing body buried in a well 5 feet deep and
about
3 meters in diameter, covered with bloodstained newspapers, a jacket
and
soil about one foot deep. He established the identity of the cadaver as
that of Atty. Barranda from the description furnished by Mrs. Barranda
[Gloria Salongcong]. Besides, he knew Atty. Barranda when he was still
alive as he had been handling cases in Polomolok. When he examined the
body, he found 4 fatal wounds, 3 of which were caused by sharp-bladed
instruments
and one by mauling. His findings are embodied in his medico-legal
post-mortem
certificate [pp. 2-4, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. 1], as follows:
DIRECT CAUSES OF DEATH OF THE DECEASED:
Under this are other pertinent
findings on
this
cadaver and its clothings which have bearings on the injuries sustained
or direct causes of death. Premise or statement of the General
Condition
of the Cadaver during time of examination: The cadaver although in a
state
of much decay, there are still some or big portions of the skin left
specially
on the chest, back and abdomen; big portions of muscles much softened
and
some parts melting; big portions of abdominal viscerae are inside and
soft;
and semi-melted. So also is the condition in the chest;
[a] One stab wound on the right chest,
entering
into the interspace between the 5th and 6th costal cartilage. This stab
wound coincides with the cut through the polo shirt of the cadaver and
that of his camiseta T-shirt he was wearing. The cut is about four [4]
cm. wide, going inside the chest to a depth of at least five [5]
inches.
The direction is towards the back. The medial edge of the wound is
2-1/2
cm. lateral to the right lateral border of the typhoid. The width of
the
cut is parallel to the direction of the rib. Wide area of old blood
stain
can be seen on the clothing over the chest, also some part of the upper
abdomen. This is a fatal wound.
[b] A big cross-wise cut on the left
upper
abdomen,
with a length of about five [5] inches, as can be seen on the intact
part
of skin of the cadaver, and cut portions of loops of intestine inside.
The medial edge of this cut or wound starts from about the middle
portion
of the front part of the abdomen going lateralwards to the left to a
length
of about five [5] inches. This is a fatal wound.
Remarks: There is no evidence of cut
on the
clothing,
for we found that all the clothings on the left side of the body were
lifted
or raised that might have escaped the cutting.
[c] Fracture of the left part of the
skull:
Description is divided into the upper
portion
of the skull and that of the lower mandible or jaw.
Upper portion of the skull:
There is a rounded depressed fracture
of the
bone
beneath the left upper gum, about a ten centavo coin size. Its medial
border
is about 1-1/2 inches distant from the center of the upper gum. Also,
the
zygomatic process of the left temporal bone is broken [fractured] and
detached.
That completely broken piece is still attached only by a ligament.
Lower portion of the skull or lower
jaw:
The neck of the head [the posterior
elevation
for articulation] of the left mandible or left side of the lower jaw is
completely fractured, and the head portion is missing. The fractured
head
is missing.
The picture taken for this is herewith
attached.
The back part of this picture is marked 'C'.
Remarks: I honestly believe the
deceased was
mauled
on the left face so hard that caused the fatal fracture. The rounded
depressed
fracture is most probably due to the elevated portion or the nail of
the
hard object used for mauling. This is fatal. The brain cannot
escape
big injury.
[d] A big cut on the apple green
jacket the
cadaver
is covered [with] (picture taken of said jacket herewith attached. The
back part of the picture is marked "D").
Description: There is about 6-1/2 inch
cut
of
the right shoulder of this jacket going medial-ward and more on its
back
portion. The inner shirts on this part are stained with old blood
stains.
The jacket is somewhat loose for the cadaver.
Remarks: I strongly and sincerely
believe
that
this cut involved the lower part and the base of the right side of the
neck. It is a big cut. This is a fatal wound.
With the big cut on the jacket the
cadaver
is
covered on its right shoulder area and reaching up to the base of the
right
side of the collar, with the corresponding cuts on the inner shirts the
cadaver is wearing, but no evidence of cut could be found on the bones
as scapula and right clavicle, simply means that the big cut involved
only
the muscles, big blood vessels and vital nerves of the right side of
the
lower part of the neck and shoulder area near that side of the neck-in
short, the soft tissues were cut, without cutting the bones [called the
hard tissue].
Conclusion: [a] With all honesty and
sincerity,
it is very definite that the cadaver now exhumed is Atty. JOSE
BARRANDA'S.
[b] The causes of death are mentioned
under
the
item
DIRECT CAUSES OF DEATH OF THE
DECEASED.
[c] The causes of death are purely
foul play
or
murder. All the cuts are due to sharp-bladed instruments; the fracture
on the face due to blunt hard object with hard protection on it.
xxx xxx xxx
According to
the doctor, the wound described in paragraph
[a] was a thrust wound inflicted while the victim was standing in front
of the assailant [p. 219, T.S.N.]; the one under paragraph [b] could
have
been inflicted while the victim was lying down; the other one under
paragraph
[c] could have been caused by mauling while the victim was lying down;
and the wound in paragraph [d] was inflicted while the victim was
standing,
with the assailant at the back of the deceased, probably ahead of the
other
wounds [p. 222, T.S.N.].
Sgt. Ricardo
Vargas of the Philippine Constabulary
assigned to the 27th Traffic Team, 45 years old, and residing at
Cotabato
City, declared [pp. 262-320, T.S.N.] that in 1966 he was assigned to
the
101st PC Company at General Santos, Cotabato, having been transferred
thereto
since December 1, 1965. He did not know the accused before, and he met
them only on January 30, 1966. He first met Francisco Aposaga on said
date
when Felomena Cabrera came to his office with Pio Francisco and Sgt.
Edoria
to report the presence in their barrio of a certain Francisco Lozada
who
was wanted by the police with a prize of P10,000.00 on his head for a
series
of robbery and murder cases. After being shown a newspaper clipping
with
a picture and description of Lozada, he went to Palkan, Polomolok,
South
Cotabato with 2 other PC soldiers to verify the report. The house of
Aposaga
was pointed to them by Felomena when they were about 300 meters
therefrom.
Proceeding to said house, they called for Francisco Lozada, but it was
Francisco Aposaga who came and identified himself as Aposaga, not
Lozada.
When Sgt. Vargas compared the photo and description of Lozada from the
newspaper clipping to the person of Aposaga, the description did not
tally,
as there was no mole, scar or tattoos at the back of his body. As a
result,
they returned to the PC headquarters without making an arrest.cralaw:red
After lunch on
the same day, Felomena Cabrera
showed up again at the PC headquarters with Jesus Francisco, the son of
Pio. Jesus was asking him why he released Aposaga when he was the
killer
of Atty. Barranda. That was the only time he learned of the death of
Atty.
Barranda. He lost no time in returning to Palkan. But when he arrived
there,
Aposaga was no longer in his house. His wife informed him that Aposaga
went to Norala to harvest palay. He [Sgt. Vargas] proceeded to the
house
of Monte, who informed him that Aposaga killed Attorney in the morning
of December 13, 1965. Sgt. Vargas invited Monte and his wife to the
headquarters
for investigation. While there, they gave corroborative statements to
the
effect that Aposaga and a companion known as Calbo hacked and killed
Atty.
Barranda upon inducement by Sotera Salongcong who paid them P 200.00
[Exhs.
"K" and "L", pp. 19-21, Folder of Exh. Vol. 1]. He also took the
statements
of Noe and Felomena Cabrera, then filed a motion to exhume the body,
which
was actually done by the municipal health officer in his presence as
well
as in the presence of their commanding officer, Capt. Adriano Bulatao,
the Polomolok chief of police and some other persons.cralaw:red
Jesus
Francisco, 36 years old, farmer and
resident of Marbel Crossing, Tampacan, Tupi South Cotabato, declared
that
on December 13, 1965, he was in his house near Crossing Awas in
Polomolok,
South Cotabato. Constancio Monte passed by his house that morning, then
left in the direction going to Sulit. At about 6:30 a.m., he went to
his
sanguta [where tuba is extracted]. He met Sotera
Salongcong, who
was going to Dadiangas. She gave him P 200.00 from Francisco Mendez,
telling
him to deliver it to Aposaga, which he did at the latter's house at
about
8:00 or 9:00 o'clock. Aposaga was then with Constancio Monte and
Wilfredo
Villanueva, alias Calbo. After that, he saw these three again
at
about 11:00 a.m. near their house which was near his sanguta.
The
three told him that Atty. Barranda was already dead, and gave him the
bag
of the Attorney with instructions to bury it. In the bag was a
cellophane
folder containing papers and documents. He buried the bag in the land
of
Cestua and kept the papers in the cellophane under a banana tree. These
he did because the trio told him he will be killed if he didn't, which
made him afraid. When he asked them why they killed the Attorney, their
answer was "Don't talk". He did not report the matter to the
authorities
because they had been threatening him with death if he did so.
[pp.
322-350, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
The statement of
accused-appellant Monte [Exh.
"K", pp. 17-18, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. I] on February 1, 1966, may be
summarized as follows: that he has been a tenant of Atty. Barranda
since
July 1965; that sometime in the morning of December 13, 1965, Atty.
Barranda
was hacked and killed by Francisco Aposaga and a companion known to him
only as Calbo; that Aposaga told him they were given P 200 by
"Suterania"
[Sotera] Salongcong; that the latter hired them to kill Barranda
because
he had raped Fe Cabrera; that Fe Cabrera confirmed this raping to him;
that the cadaver of Atty. Barranda was thrown into a deep Japanese
dug-out
somewhere in the farm lot of Alfredo Acejo; that Aposaga used a bolo
while
Calbo used a knife [flamingo]; that at the time of the killing,
Barranda was carrying a leather bag [portfolio] containing land titles
and records of cases he was handling; that the said bag was given to
Pedoy,
a nephew of Suterania [Sotera] Salongcong; and that the said bag was
buried
while the contents were wrapped in cellophane and covered by banana
leaves
among banana plants near the house of Pedoy.cralaw:red
These allegations
were mostly reiterated by Monte
in Exhibit "L" [pp. 21-23, Folder of Exh. Vol. I ]. In addition, he
stated
that the killing was plotted by his family, as he accidentally learned
when he overheard a conversation between Gloria and Suterania [Sotera]
Salongcong where the latter was saying "if in case somebody went up the
house Gloria and the children will just go upstairs and they will not
be
disturbed because the purpose is just Atty. Barranda." (sic).cralaw:red
The other
prosecution witnesses were:
[1] Gloria Salongcong, the
common-law
wife
of the deceased who narrated that the latter failed to appear at their
appointed meeting in Dadiangas on December 13, 1965, and that she and
her
son Noe went out to look for him upon her return to Palkan in the
afternoon
of the same day. [pp. 137-173, T.S.N.].
[2] Pio Francisco, who learned
of the
slaying
of the deceased from his son Jesus on January 20, 1966, and who first
brought
it to the attention of the authorities on January 30, 1966. [pp.
187-205, T.S.N.].
[3] Epifanio Doria, the PC
sergeant
who
was first told by Pio Francisco about the killing and who brought him
to
the PC headquarters for the actual reporting. [pp. 178-187,
T.S.N.].
[4] Sotera Salongcong, who
narrated
that
a certain Francisco Mendez gave her P 200 for delivery to accused
Aposaga
without explaining what the money was for, and who delivered it to
Aposaga
through Jesus Francisco without her asking for what purpose it
was.
[pp. 230-260, T.S.N.].
The theory of
the defense is that the charge is a
frame-up on the part of the victim's family, whose members plotted his
murder, with Jesus Francisco as the mastermind and alias Calbo,
the lone hatchetman. Testifying on their own behalf, both accused-
appellants
denied knowledge of and participation in the commission of the crime,
and
maintained that they never knew of the death of the deceased until
investigations
were already under way some two to four months thereafter.
The testimony of
accused-appellant Aposaga, 27
years old, farmer and resident of Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato,
dealt
mainly in explaining about his sudden departure from Palkan on January
30, 1966, the date the PC went to his house. He narrated that when Sgt.
Vargas came to his house [the date of which he could not remember], he
was looking for Francisco Lozada. He informed Vargas that his name was
Francisco Aposaga and not Lozada. Vargas examined his body and was
convinced
that he was a different person. So Vargas left, but not before he told
him that he was going to Iloilo for a vacation. He proceeded to Norala
[South Cotabato] that same afternoon. When he reached Norala, his aunt
told him that his mother was sick so he should proceed to Iloilo.
Because
of such information, he left Norala hurriedly, taking M/V Legaspi at
Cotabato
City and disembarking in Iloilo. He learned of the murder of Barranda,
3 or 4 months later when his wife wrote him informing that he was
wanted
for the murder. He then went to the PC in Iloilo, requesting for an
escort
to Mindanao as he was afraid he might be killed. But the PC in Iloilo
could
not provide him with any escort, so he stayed in Iloilo. He visited the
PC in Iloilo for about 5 times, until the PC from Polomolok came to get
him. He admitted having been a tenant of the deceased, but denied
participation
in his killing. He also denied having received P200.00 from Jesus
Francisco.
He did not know the person of alias Calbo.cralaw:red
On
cross-examination, he stated that he threw
away the letter of his wife when he went to the PC because he did not
think
it was important. He did not know what was the company or
organizational
unit of the PC he visited in Iloilo, nor the name of its commanding
officer.
He stayed in Iloilo for 8 to 10 months.cralaw:red
His cousin, a
certain Jose, who is married to
his first cousin Clomia Viana, fetched him at Palkan because his mother
was ill. He had to go to Norala, however, to inquire from his aunt, Paz
Aposaga, how serious his mother was. His aunt told him in tears to go
home
to Iloilo because his mother was serious, per information of the same
Jose.
He never received any letter from his parents, brother or sister or any
relative from Iloilo asking him to go home. [pp. 440-462, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
Defense witness
Doroteo Estorque, father of the
common-law wife of Aposaga, 58 years old, farmer, and resident of
Crossing
Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato declared that on December 13, 1965,
he
and Aposaga were plowing in the farm lot of the deceased from 6:00 A.M.
to 5:30 P.M., stopping only for breakfast and lunch. There was no
unusual
incident that transpired on said date, except that in the morning he
heard
someone call "wait, wait" and saw Gloria Salongcong coming down their
house.
At that time, Aposaga was 30 meters behind him, also plowing. The place
where they were plowing was about 150 meters from the house of
Barranda.
He did not see Atty. Barranda that morning. He only learned about his
death
through the PC. He knows that Atty. Barranda and Gloria Salongcong
usually
quarrelled about Gloria's children because the place he is working is
near
their house. On cross- examination, he admitted having subscribed to an
affidavit [Exh. "J", p. 16, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. 1] wherein he had
stated that he could not see Aposaga because of the tall talahibs, but
he explained that such answer was wrong and his real answer was, "I
cannot
see him when he was covered by talahibs but if we will be out from the
talahibs, I can see him" [p. 386, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
Vicente Estorque,
20, married, son of Doroteo
and brother-in-law of Aposaga and likewise residing at Crossing Palkan,
Polomolok, South Cotabato, corroborated his father's testimony about
the
whereabouts of Aposaga on December 13, 1965. He testified that on that
day, he had been plowing from 10:00 a.m. with his father and
brother-in-law
Aposaga. In the afternoon, he plowed from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. Afterwards
he met Vicente or Jesus Francisco [Pedoy] on his way home. Francisco
borrowed
his sledge, so he had to carry his plow on his shoulder because he lent
his sledge to Francisco. The sledge was returned two hours later with
bloodstains
and with its bamboo breast missing. He could not, however, recover the
missing part because Francisco had been avoiding him. On questioning by
the court, he stated that they did not go back to plow in that field
any
more [p. 407, T.S.N.]; in fact, that land was never planted because
Aposaga
left for Panay [p. 409, T.S.N.].cralaw:red
Accused-appellant
Constancio Monte, 38 years old,
farmer and resident of Crossing Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato,
testified
[pp. 463-525, T.S.N.] that he met Atty. Barranda when the latter was a
lawyer of Lianga Industry in San Francisco, Agusan, where he used to
work
as guard of its bulldozer department. In July of 1965, Atty. Barranda
convinced
him to go with him to Palkan, South Cotabato, to be the overseer of his
36-hectare farm, as a condition of which he need not give any share of
the harvest to Barranda as landowner but only to his wife, Gloria
Salongcong.
In addition, he [Monte] will get 25% of the proceeds of the 18-hectare
land in Matatum which was planted to potatoes and cabbage, plus P5.00
monthly
per head of the carabaos, horses and cattle he was supposed to care
for.
When he arrived with his family in Palkan in the same month, Atty.
Barranda
called for Sotera Salongcong and Jesus Francisco, his erstwhile
tenants,
and told them that it was their last day as Monte was taking over.
Atty.
Barranda instructed him [Monte] to get the carabao and plow from Jesus
Francisco.cralaw:red
In the month of
December, Fe Cabrera informed
him that she was raped by Atty. Barranda. Sometime later, while he was
under Barranda's house to fetch the cow, he overheard a conversation
among
Jesus Francisco, Sotera Salongcong and Gloria Salongcong, wherein
Sotera
was saying, "we better have Attorney killed so that we can revenge of
what
he has done to your child who was being raped." (sic).
Early one
morning, about the second week of December,
1965 [he could not exactly remember the date], Barranda called for him
to instruct him to take care of the carabaos and cows because he was
leaving
for Agusan to become a judge. After their talk, he took breakfast with
the Barranda family. Thereafter, he brought the children Ruth, Fely,
Samuel
and Noe to his house upon instruction of Atty. Barranda. He went to the
toril with Noe to tie the carabao. While there, Noe told
him
that
Atty. Barranda was leaving. At the same instance he heard someone
shouting,
"wait for me" and saw Jesus Francisco running, followed by Calbo. He
did
not know who Calbo was, but Noe told him that he is from Polomolok.
However,
he did not know what transpired afterwards as he did not look anymore.
From the toril he could see Aposaga plowing with Doroteo
Estorque.
He stayed in the toril for about 30 minutes.cralaw:red
Monte admitted
having gone to the PC headquarters
for investigation and having executed an affidavit [Exh. "K", p. 19,
Folder
of Exhibits, Vol. 1]; but when he appeared before Judge Mirabueno
[municipal
court of Polomolok], he was made to sign by Sgt. Vargas although he
told
the judge that there was an error. The error was that when he mentioned
the name "Francisco" as the person who hacked and killed the deceased,
he meant Jesus Francisco and not Francisco Aposaga. However, since he
had
no lawyer then, he did not know how to go about the correction. It was
only when Francisco Aposaga, who is his friend, contacted his lawyer
that
he was accommodated in his defense by Atty. Velarde, as he had no
money.
As for the second affidavit which he executed one week after [Exh. "L",
P. 21, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. 1], he was made to sign the same
without
appearing before Judge Mirabueno.cralaw:red
On
cross-examination, he maintained that he did
not know who is Pedoy whose name is mentioned in his affidavit as the
nephew
of Sotera Salongcong to whom the killers gave the bag of Atty.
Barranda.
He denied having been asked the question and having given the answers
found
in his affidavits referring to Aposaga. He did not know what he was
signing
as he does not know how to read.cralaw:red
Against this
background, the trial court promulgated
its aforementioned decision on April 28, 1969 and denied the defense's
motion for reconsideration and new trial on May 31, 1969. [p.
200,
CFI Rec.].cralaw:red
Hence, this
appeal.cralaw:red
Appellants now
raise only one issue that the prosecution
failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They try to
discredit
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly those of the
two eyewitnesses which, they claim, are corrupt, biased, unreliable and
incompetent because of their inherent improbabilities" [pp. 86, Rec.],
as shown by the following circumstances:
A. As to Noe Cabrera
1. If Noe really witnessed the murder of his
stepfather, why did he not shout for help [pp. 32-33, T.S.N.]? Why did
he not tell his mother about it when the latter arrived home from
Dadiangas
and was asking about the victim [p. 35, T.S.N.]? Why did he have to go
with his mother around the barrio to look for his stepfather if he
knew
after having witnessed the killing, that his stepfather was dead [pp.
15-18,
T.S.N.]?
2. If he were really threatened by
the
culprits
[p. 10, T.S.N.] so as to produce fear in him, why did he have to go
riding
his horse by himself that evening of the incident [p. 20, T.S.N.]? Why
did he consent to sleep in the house of Monte after the PC arrived to
conduct
the investigation [p. 23, T.S.N.]? Why did he continue to visit the
houses
of Monte and Aposaga after December 13, 1965 [pp. 163-164, T.S.N.]?
B. As to Felomena Cabrera
1. How could Felomena have
witnessed
the murder of her stepfather from the kitchen of their house when,
according
to the PC investigator, Sgt. Vargas, the place of the incident was not
visible from the kitchen or balcony of the Barranda house because it
was
covered by banana hills, talahibs and calamansi trees [pp. 301-302,
T.S.N.]?
2. Why did she not secretly tell her
mother about
the incident [p. 72, T.S.N.]?
3. Why was her first report to the
PC not
about
the murder of her stepfather but about the presence of a certain wanted
man in their barrio [p. 264, T.S.N.]? Why did it take her 48 days to
make
such report?
We find the
above observations insufficient to warrant
the exculpation of the appellants. While it is true that the
testimonies
of the two eyewitnesses may have suffered flaws and inconsistencies,
the
same refer only to minor details which are not sufficient to destroy
their
credibility. Their actuations after witnessing the commission of the
crime
[i.e., not shouting or running for help, not reporting earlier,
etc.] do not indicate that they were not present when the killing of
their
stepfather took place. Likewise, the testimony of the PC investigator
that
the place of the incident is not visible from the kitchen of the
victim's
house, because of the presence of banana hills, talahibs and calamansi
trees, cannot overcome the positive assertion of Felomena that she saw
her stepfather killed, especially so since the investigation took place
about 50 days after the incident and conditions obtaining then may be
different
from those at the time of the offense.
A closer scrutiny
of their testimonies shows convincingly
that they had indeed witnessed the commission of the crime. The only
doubtful
portion is their allegation that they were threatened with death with
their
mother the first to be killed against revealing it. Because, even if
there
were such a threat, they could have secretly revealed it to their
mother
who would certainly take steps to protect them. Besides, if the danger
of the threat was real to them, they should have stopped going to the
houses
of the accused, instead of maintaining normal relations with them after
the incident; Felomena should not have gone to the PC headquarters
twice
on January 30, 1966; and Noe should not have slept in the house of
Monte
after his family had gone to Dadiangas to make the report.cralaw:red
These actuations
are inconsistent with the reality
of the threat. It is easier to believe that they discussed the incident
with their mother but had to deny it to protect her. The maxim "blood
is
thicker than water" must have prompted these two [2] eyewitnesses to
insist
that their mother did not know anything about it. Otherwise, the
involvement
of their mother and other close relatives will be an undeniable
conclusion.cralaw:red
Besides, the
trial court, while noting the same
flaws and inconsistencies, gave credence to the testimonies of the said
eyewitnesses who, despite their minority, the excitement generated by
the
court proceedings and the long and searching cross-examinations, firmly
stuck to their testimonies which pointed to the appellants and a
companion
known as Calbo as the killers of their stepfather. Time and time again,
We have ruled that where the issue is credibility of the witnesses,
appellate
courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial judge, who
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying, unless he has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance
and value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
This
exception does not obtain here. (People vs, Laguisma 98 SCRA 69 [1980];
People vs. de la Cruz, 97 SCRA 386 [1980]; People vs. Bautista y
Aquino,
92 SCRA 465, 472 [1979]).cralaw:red
Furthermore, no
motive was shown why the two eyewitnesses
should testify against them falsely; hence, they must be telling the
truth.
(People vs. Arevalo, 92 SCRA 207 [1979]; People vs. Lim 71 SCRA 249
[1976]).cralaw:red
The appellants
likewise theorize that the prosecution
witnesses Sotera Salongcong, Jesus Francisco and probably Gloria
Salongcong
must have plotted against the life of the deceased. Sotera and Jesus
harbor
resentment against the victim for having ousted them from their tenancy
in favor of Monte. Besides, Sotera wanted to revenge the raping of her
niece by the deceased. These are strong motives to do away with the
victim,
whereas the appellants have no motive to kill him.cralaw:red
In the case of
People vs. Veloso (92 SCRA 515,
524 [1979]), We held that motive, as distinguished from criminal
intent,
is not an essential element of a crime and, hence, need not be proved
for
purposes of conviction. Motive is essential to conviction in murder
cases
only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, something
which
does not obtain in this case. (also People vs. Verzo, 21 SCRA 1403
[1967];
People vs. Caggauan 94 Phil. 188 [1953]).cralaw:red
The defense
vainly tried to utilize the apparent
involvement of the prosecution witnesses Gloria and Sotera Salongcong
and
Jesus Francisco in claiming a frame-up and a scheme to lay the blame on
the two [2] accused-appellants. While We agree with the observation
that
these 3 witnesses are probably involved in various ways and degrees,
and
their exclusion from the charge is questionable, We cannot find any
reason
to believe that the appellants are innocent as they pretend to be. As
aptly
held by the trial court, "that there were principals by induction in
the
commission of a crime who were not prosecuted is no legal impediment to
a finding of guilt of the principals by direct participation for the
same
crime. The non-prosecution of Gloria and Sotera Salongcong in the case
at bar did not make the indictees before Us less guilty much more,
innocent
and has to be blessed with a judgment of acquittal" [pp. 52-53, Rec.].cralaw:red
On the contrary,
the guilt of both appellants
appear to be a moral certainty, even without the testimonies of Gloria,
Sotera and Jesus. Aside from the positive identification of the two
eyewitnesses,
the evidence even of the defense tend to establish the guilt of the
appellants.
The tale woven by Aposaga about his sudden departure from Polomolok as
soon as the authorities started the investigation, was not only
uncorroborated
but was also too improbable to believe. First, he said he told Vargas
that
he was going to Norala for a vacation. When Vargas returned after he
had
gone, his wife told Vargas that Aposaga went to Norala to harvest
palay.
When he reached Norala, his aunt told him to proceed to Iloilo because
his mother was ill. But the source of his aunt's information was the
same
cousin who allegedly fetched him from Polomolok for the self-same
reason,
the alleged illness of his mother. He allegedly stayed in Iloilo for
about
8 to 10 months although according to the records, he was there for more
than a year until the policemen from Polomolok came to arrest him. It
should
be pointed out that his sudden departure must have left his wife and
child
in Polomolok without any means of support, as the land he was plowing
was
never planted after he left [p. 409, T.S.N.]. All these could lead to
but
one conclusion that he had to flee and hide with his guilty conscience
to avoid arrest. Flight and going into hiding indicate a guilty
conscience.
(People vs. Guevarra, 94 SCRA 642 [1979]; People vs. Moreno, 85 SCRA
649
[1978]).cralaw:red
Defense witnesses
Doroteo and Vicente Estorque,
father and brother, respectively, of Aposaga's common-law wife, tried
to
establish an alibi for Aposaga. Their testimonies, however, are
inherently
weak and doubtful in many substantial aspects and appear to be nothing
more than vain attempts to save a "family member" from conviction. For
instance, they testified that Aposaga was plowing with them at the time
of the incident. Doroteo, however, stated that when he heard the shout
"wait, wait", Aposaga was 30 meters behind him although he could not
see
him as he was hidden by talahibs [p. 385, T.S.N.; Exh. "J-1"]. Vicente,
on the other hand, plowed with Aposaga and his father only from 10:00
to
10:30 that morning [p. 404, T.S.N.], whereas the incident occurred
between
6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Doroteo further declared that there was nothing
unusual
that happened on December 13, 1965 and he does not remember what day it
was. Yet, he could recall at the witness stand four [4] years later
that
he saw Gloria Salongcong running at five o'clock that morning; what
dress
Gloria was wearing; what time they started plowing [6:00 a.m.]; what
time
they left the farm; what time they took their meals; what they ate for
breakfast and lunch, and other minor details of daily life. Doroteo
claimed
that he does not know Calbo but he admitted seeing him in the house of
Monte that fateful morning of December 13th [p. 394, T.S.N.]. He never
tried to find out who uttered the words "wait, wait" [p. 394, T.S.N.].
He was surprised to learn of the death of the victim whom he had
believed
to be in Bislig [p. 386, T.S.N.]; but he never visited the remains
after
exhumation when he already knew he was dead [p. 379, T.S.N.]. Is this
the
natural reaction to a surprising death of a barrio-mate who owned the
land
he was plowing? Vicente's testimony likewise suffered from similar
inconsistencies
and improbabilities as to command little, if any, probative value. The
testimonies of these defense witnesses are mere concoctions that cannot
neutralize the positive identification of the appellants by the two
prosecution
witnesses.cralaw:red
Moreover, it is a
well-settled doctrine that for
alibi to be acceptable, it must be shown that the place where the
accused
was alleged to be must be located at such a distance that it is
well-nigh
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime when it was
committed
(People vs. Tirol, L-30538, January 31, 1981; People vs. de la Cruz, 97
SCRA 387 [1980]; People vs. Mercado, 97 SCRA 232 [1980]; People vs.
Angeles,
92 SCRA 432 [1979]). Such was not the situation in this case; for
the place where Aposaga was allegedly plowing was only about 150 meters
from the house of the victim [p. 368, T.S.N.] and within hearing
distance
from the place of the incident. The place of the incident in turn was
only
60 to 70 meters from the victim's house [p. 314, T.S.N.]. It was,
therefore,
very convenient for Aposaga to slip away from his plowing and
participate
in the murder of the deceased even if he actually plowed the farm in
the
morning of December 13, 1965.cralaw:red
Furthermore,
Aposaga was named as a killer of
the deceased in two sworn statements executed by his co-accused Monte
[Exhs.
"K" and "L"], which sworn statements were corroborated by his wife,
Bienvenida
[Exh. "M"]. Monte tried to retract these statements on the witness
stand
by explaining that when he said "Francisco" he meant Jesus Francisco,
and
not appellant Francisco Aposaga, and that the said affidavit was never
read to him by Municipal Judge Narciso Mirabueno, before whom he signed
and swore to it. The latter claim was belied by Judge Mirabueno who
testified
that he read the contents of all affidavits to the affiants and made
sure
they understood. He also asked searching questions to determine the
truth
of their statements [pp. 557-569, T.S.N.]. Since it has not been shown
that the said judge has any interest in the case, it is not difficult
to
determine which of the two [2] testimonies deserves consideration.cralaw:red
As to the claim
of mistaken Identity of the person
named "Francisco", it is obvious from the very substance of Monte's
sworn
statements that the "Francisco Aposaga" he named therein as a killer of
the deceased was different and distinct from the "Jesus Francisco"
[Pedoy]
who buried the leather bag of the deceased. Besides, it is
understandable
that Monte will try his best to save his co-accused who had so
gallantly
provided him a defense counsel which he could not afford.cralaw:red
For his part,
Monte tried to establish his innocence
by pointing out that it was unnatural for him to kill Atty. Barranda
after
the latter had satisfactorily explained about the problems of his work
and after they had breakfast together [p. 82, Rec.]. Besides, he had no
motive to kill his employer and benefactor who had given him better
opportunities
and sufficient means to support his family by taking him as tenant and
supervisor [pp. 89-90, rec.]. Unfortunately, these allegations cannot
overcome
the incriminating testimonies of the two [2] eyewitnesses. Besides,
even
from his own testimony, the following circumstantial evidence appear to
be inconsistent with his innocence:
1. Monte testified that he heard of
a
threat
against the life of the deceased in a conversation among Gloria
Salongcong,
Sotera Salongcong and Jesus Francisco [p. 471, T.S.N.]. Yet, when
he saw Jesus running after the deceased carrying a bolo, he did not
even
look to see what Jesus intended to do [pp. 485486; 500-501, T.S.N.].
2. He did not do anything about
the
disappearance
of his employer for forty-eight [48] days, even though the last time he
saw him [deceased] was when somebody [Jesus Francisco] was running
after
him [pp. 500-501, T.S.N.].
3. If it were true that the
deceased
had
told him he was going to Agusan to become a judge [p. 475, T.S.N.], why
did he not remind Gloria of such fact when Gloria came looking for her
husband [p. 489, T.S.N.]?
4. Although he saw Jesus running
after
the
deceased that morning, he did not say so when Gloria asked him about
the
deceased; and when Gloria expressed the possibility that the deceased
might
have been waylaid, his answer was, "Nobody could do that because it is
daytime" [p. 490, T.S.N.].
5. Monte escaped from the
municipal
jail
on July 9, 1966, allegedly because his wife was sick in San Francisco,
Agusan. He explained that when he wired his wife to inform her that
their
hearing will be in May [1966], his father-in-law replied that she was
sick
[p. 524, T.S.N.]. If that were true and this allegation was never
corroborated,
his escape should have been timed around May, 1966, and not July of
that
year. The records do not disclose any hearing in July 1966. Surely, it
is more logical to conclude that Monte's flight, like that of his
co-accused,
indicated a guilty conscience.
All the above
could lead but to one conclusion, that
the guilt of the two [2] accused-appellants has been proven beyond
reasonable
doubt.
This case should,
however, be further investigated
to determine the participation of Sotera Salongcong, Jesus Francisco
and
Gloria Salongcong in the perpetration of the crime. Their own
respective
statements implicate themselves. Moreover, as pointed out by the
appellants,
these prosecution witnesses have strong motives to kill the deceased:
Sotera
and Jesus for their ouster from tenancy, and Gloria for the rape of her
daughter Fe.cralaw:red
However, for lack
of necessary votes. the death
penalty cannot be imposed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with the modification that appellants are hereby sentenced to
reclusion perpetua, with costs against them.cralaw:red
Let a copy of
this Decision be furnished the Minister
of justice for further investigation so that others who appear
responsible
for the crime may be duly prosecuted.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Fernando, C.J.,
Teehankee, Barredo, Aquino,
Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur. |