Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

027 Phil 103:



[G.R. No. 8971. March 14, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CIRILO BAUA, , Defendant-Appellant.

Bruce, Lawrence, Ross & Block, for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Harvey for Appellee.


1. CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES. — The testimony of accomplices must be weighed with scrupulous care when it is chiefly relied upon to secure the conviction of an accused person. When such testimony develops serious inconsistencies, and there is none other in the record pointing directly to the accused as the guilty person, a reasonable doubt arises as to his guilt. In such a case he must be acquitted.



This is an appeal by Cirilo Baua from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cagayan [Isabela] sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of seventeen years four months and one day, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to the payment of the costs of the cause for the crime of murder.

Jose Garma, a lad about 12 years of age, left his house on Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1912, in search of stray carabao and on the following Monday, November 25, he was found lying dead, in the barrio of Calattao, near his mother’s house, forty-four wounds upon various parts of his body. The prosecution’s case depends almost entirely on the testimony of one witness, named Gaspar Paguirigan, of from 12 to 15 years of age. This witness testified in substance as

"Cirilo Baua invited me to come with him and follow the deceased, whom we had seen ride by on a carabao going in the direction of Callarin. I, knowing that Cirilo had bad intentions toward the deceased, went with him and we came up with the deceased from behind. The deceased did not see or hear us. Cirilo pulled the deceased down from the carabao and attack him with a bolo with which he inflicted many blows. At every blow I heard the deceased cry out, ’Pardon me.’ When I seen and heard this I ran away and while I was running away I heard Cirilo cry out, ’Gaspar, if you are going to tell this to anybody I will kill you.’ On hearing this I ran the faster. I ran on home, approximately half a mile distant, reaching there about 5 o’clock p.m. While I was running I fell and hurt my shoulder." [Witness’ shoulder, upon being exposed to the court, showed a small scar about three quarters of an inch long. ] "I never told the Constabulary that I hurt my shoulder by falling out of some bamboo trees. I scratched my left thumb on some bamboo two days before the day of the homicide." [There was a small scar still visible on the witness’ thumb at the time of the trial. ] "One day when I was in the house of the deceased I learned that the deceased had stolen a penknife from Cirilo. I lived about a hundred and fifty yards from the house of Cirilo and about fifty yards from the house of the deceased. I formerly knew the deceased when we were planting tobacco at Marsibang, but I was neither a friend nor an enemy of his, although I played with him. The only time when I was ever at the house of the deceased was on the occasion when I saw the deceased Cirilo’s penknife. I usually played with the deceased’s brothers. The stains on my clothes which were exhibited were banana stains. The last time I had this bolo (Exhibit 4) was on Monday (November 25), on which day a lady named Aurelia Marfil had taken it from me and since that time it has been in her possession. It is not true that my mother and myself went to Aurelia’s house, weeping, in order to hide the bolo with her. I had some trouble with the deceased at one time when I went to river to take a bath. While I was taking this bath my carabao went to eat the deceased’s pumpkins and when I went to the deceased’s house to get my carabao my pin fell to the ground and when I asked the deceased for it the deceased addressed me in very insulting language. I had no bolo at the time Cirilo attacked and killed the deceased. I did not see any bolo in the hand of the deceased at that time."cralaw virtua1aw library

None of the other witnesses called on behalf of the prosecution claimed to have been present at the scene of the homicide. Of these other witnesses the deceased’s mother knew, as the trial court said, "nothing about the real facts in the case," her testimony in relation to the pursuit of the deceased by Cirilo and Gaspar and the latter’s attack being hearsay only, obtained from information from none other than Gaspar himself. She did, however, have personal knowledge concerning the enmity between her son (the deceased) and Gaspar. She testified that the deceased’s only known enemy "was Gaspar Paguirigan, because this man at the time of cutting tobacco leaves chased my son with a bolo." This was in the month of March next preceding the homicide. Regarding the trouble between the deceased and Cirilo over the penknife, this witness testified that the deceased had returned the penknife to Cirilo two weeks before the date of the homicide.

The chief of police testified that he had investigated the case and had ordered Gaspar’s arrest. The justice of the peace who held the preliminary investigation testified that on the strength of the statement of the mother of the deceased to the effect that Gaspar had previously chased the deceased with bolo he had issued an order for Gaspar’s arrest, and that after the deceased’s body had been found Gaspar pointed out the place of the homicide. The president of the municipal board of health testified as to the indentity of the deceased and the forty-four wounds found on the body. This witness also testified that he had examined the cuts on Gaspar’s shoulder and thumb and was of the opinion that they had been made by a "cutting instrument."cralaw virtua1aw library

The testimony on behalf of the defense tended to prove that Cirilo, at the time of the homicide, was in the barrio of Reina Mercedes, and that the stains on Gaspar’s shirt looked and smelled like blood-stains. The Constabulary officer testified that Gaspar handed him the bolo, Exhibit 4, and that bolo Exhibit 3 was found sticking in the wall of Gaspar’s house. Aurelia Marfil testified that on Monday, after the police had gone for the deceased’s body, Gaspar and his mother came, weeping, to her house in order to hide a bolo there, but that she, Aurelia, had refused to take it. This witness is an aunt of Cirilo.

Upon the evidence before it, the trial court on March 27 found: (1) That the witness Gaspar Paguirigan was present when the crime was committed, if not in the character of principal, in that of an accomplice; (20 that Gaspar Paguirigan was the only eye-witness to the homicide; (3) that there was "very little corroboration of his evidence with the exception of the facts that (a) appellant and deceased were near neighbors and as boys played together; (b) deceased had once stolen a penknife of the defendant," and that (c) Gaspar Paguirigan, "when arrested as a suspect and at the tribunal, described the place where the crime had occurred and pointed out the spot;" (4) that the appellant was guilty of the crime as charged in the information.

It is well settled that we will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of opposing witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight or influence which has been overlooked, or the significance of which has been misapprehended or misinterpreted. (U. S. v. Benitez, 18 Phil. Rep., 513; U. S. v. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. Rep., 295.) This rule necessarily presupposes that a trial court is not infallible in its conclusions drawn from facts and circumstances, or in its considerations, apprehension, or interpretation of them. It is equally well settled that this court will reverse upon the facts the decisions of trial courts if we find the facts fare insufficient to warrant a confirmation. (U. S. v. Federizo, 20 Phil. Rep., 151; U. S. v. Samonte, 20 Phil. Rep., 157.)

We have often said, and the law so states, that very defendant in a criminal prosecution is presumed to be innocent, and that this presumption stands until it is overcome and the guilt of an accused person may be established by the testimony of a single witness even though the witness be an accomplice. (U. S. v. Sy Quingco, 16 Phil. Rep., 416; U. S. v. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. Rep., 295; U. S. v. Callapag, 21 Phil. Rep., 262.) But these decisions lay stress on the rule that such testimony must leave no room for reasonable doubt. The lack of corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice effects his credibility as a witness, but it does not affect his competency as such. If his testimony satisfies the court beyond a reasonable doubt, it is sufficient. (U. S. v. Callapag, supra.)

In the case of United States v. Ambrosio, supra, this court said: "It is unquestionably true that the testimony of an accomplice must be taken with great care and caution. It must be assayed and weighed with scrupulous care. The corroborating testimony must be strong and convincing. It is also true, however, that when the testimony of an accomplice is corroborated by unimpeachable testimony and by strong circumstances, it may be given its true weight and force against the person in regard to whom it is presented."cralaw virtua1aw library

Gaspar Paguirigan was, according to the decision of the trial court, at least an accomplice. His testimony must be weighed wit scrupulous care. In addition we cannot overlook the inconsistencies in Gaspar’s testimony. In identifying the kampilan, Gaspar stated that he had been in the deceased’s house when it was stolen and that this was the only time that he had ever been there. A few minutes thereafter he contradicted this statement by saying that he had been in the deceased’s house on another occasion when the deceased "used bad language toward him." To have lived in a small barrio as near as one hundred and fifty yards, as Gaspar did, without going to the deceased’s house but twice, is somewhat suspicious and doubtful. Gaspar and the deceased were known to be enemies or at least to be on unfriendly terms. Gaspar’s testimony to the effect that Aurelia had taken his bolo and had kept it , is difficult to reconcile with the testimony of Aurelia and the Constabulary soldier. Again, Gaspar’s two different stories about cutting his shoulder and thumb are suspicious, especially when the medical testimony to the effect that the wounds were made by a "cutting instrument" is taken into consideration. Why was Gaspar so anxious to show that the stains on his clothes were not bloodstains? Why could he not have stated that they were bloodstains from the cut on his shoulder received when he fell from the bamboo? Why was he so anxious to show that they were banana stains when they looked and smelled like stains of blood? It would seem as if Gaspar expected the trial court to believe that he fell from the bamboo tree, cut his shoulder, and got a banana stain from it.

The story about the pin is not convincing. Why should the fact of Gaspar’s dropping the pin rather that the fact of the carabao’s eating the pumpkin affect the deceased’s temper to the extent of calling Gaspar names?

Now, looking simply to the general circumstances of the case brought out by the uncontradicted testimony we find (1) that Gaspar was the first person to be suspected of the homicide; (2) that he was present at it; (3) that he had fresh cuts on his shoulder and thumb for which he accounted in two inconsistent ways; (4) that he was known to be an enemy of the deceased; (5) that he himself testified to the existence of bad feeling between the deceased and himself, when that pin of his fell to ground and deceased used insulting language; and (6) that his clothes were found to be stained with something that to disinterested witnesses looked and smelled like blood. All of these are matters of positive truth. Under these highly suspicious circumstances Gaspar surely had everything to gain and nothing to lose in exonerating himself and in fixing the blame upon some definite other person. This other person was Appellant. By way of negative proof the general circumstances disclose (1) that appellant was not the first person to be suspected of the homicide; (2) that there is absolutely no admissible evidence, except the statement of Gaspar, that appellant was present at the time the deceased was killed: (3) that Gaspar was known to be an enemy of the deceased; (4) that is nowhere shown that at the time of the homicide there was any trouble or any reason for any trouble between the deceased and the appellant; (5) that the appellant did not have fresh cuts on his hands and body made a "cutting instrument;" and (6) that his clothes were not found to be stained with stains that looked and smelled like human blood. Do these circumstances pro and con tend to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt? Do these circumstances corroborate the sole incriminating testimony — testimony that is both intrinsically untrustworthy and intrinsically self-contradictory and self-contradicted — of an accomplice himself suspected of the crime? Are these circumstances inconsistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt?

The stealing of the penknife, as we have indicated, is absolutely the only evidence in support of the contention that bad blood existed at one time between the deceased and the Appellant. The penknife having returned, as stated by the witnesses, two whole weeks before the date of the homicide, it would seem that there was left no convincing reason for the existence of subsequent bad blood between these two parties.

From the whole record it appears to us that the trial court failed to give due weight to the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence offered on behalf of the Appellant. Of the witnesses called on behalf of the appellant at least three, the Constabulary corporal, the teniente of the barrio, and the municipal, president, were totally disinterested. The other two witnesses, the appellant himself and himself and his aunt, were interested, but their testimony is competent and no more suspicious per se, or of no more doubtful nature, than that of Gaspar, upon whose testimony alone the conviction rests. All three of the disinterested witnesses saw the stains on Gaspar’s clothes, and , as we have said, Gaspar had good cause to fix the blame on some other person than himself. As opposed to this there is the positive evidence, no less reliable than Gaspar’s, that appellant was not at the place when the killing occurred. None of the testimony of the witnesses called on behalf of the appellant is inconsistent but appears to be a straightforward relation of actual facts within their knowledge. We must therefore conclude that the evidence fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant of the crime committed.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from must be reversed and the defendant acquitted with costs de officio. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Carson, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18


    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39


    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134


    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914


    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258


    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978

  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393


    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447