G.R. No. L-5385. December 28, 1953

This
is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan,
finding appellants Filemon Caggauan, Vicente Orpilla, Federico
Valendia, Estanislao Vidad, Calixto Garma and Emiterio Vidad guilty of
multiple murder, attended with the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation and the aggravating circumstances of treachery, superior
strength, with the aid of armed men, by a band, and uninhabited place,
and sentencing each and every one of them to be electrocuted to death,
and jointly and severally to indemnify the heirs of each of their
victims, namely, Mariano Adviento, Onofre Adviento, Ernesto Adviento,
Herminia Adviento, Radifura Adviento, Silvestra de la Cruz and Mauro
Santos in the sum of P6,000, and to pay the costs. The information upon
which they were tried charged seven accused with the crime, the
appellants herein and Vensiador Guiyab, but the latter was excluded
from the charge upon motion of the fiscal and by order of the trial
court, on the ground that his testimony was necessary to secure the
conviction of the accused.

It appears that in the latter
part of the year 1945, the spouses Mariano Adviento and Silvestra de la
Cruz were living in the sitio of Yagaoyan, barrio of Mabono,
municipality of Gattaran, Cagayan. That they were living at that time
in that place is shown by the fact that their son, Gomez Adviento,
became a teacher of Capissayan, Gattaran in the month of September,
1945, and he used to visit them in that place. Those who lived with the
spouses were their sons Onofre and Ernesto, their daughters Herminia
and Radifura, and a companion named Mauro Santos. About two months
thereafter, Gomez Adviento went to Laoag to study, but before he
proceeded, he visited his parents and brothers and sisters in their
place, and saw them there in Yagaoyan, Mabono still alive. When he went
back on Christmas to his place in Capissayan, he learned that all of
them had been killed. He made inquiries about their lot but to no
avail, as the people were afraid to talk and would not help him in his
inquiries.

The matter (of their killing) seems to have been
forgotten until the month of February, 1950, when Sgt. Lucio Banan was
ordered to proceed to the barrios of Mabono and Pinacpac, Gattaran, to
investigate the strange disappearance of the whole family. Sgt. Banan
found Formoso Siazon and Domingo Cinco, who gave information that
Mariano Adviento and his wife and children had been brought to the
Agnaoan forest by a group of bolomen headed by Filemon Caggauan. A
request for the exhumation of the remains was made on the President of
the Sanitary Division (Exhibit A), and the latter, on March 14, 1950,
proceeded to the supposed place where the victims had been buried,
accompanied by Sgt. Banan. Formoso Siazon and Domingo Cinco directed
their way thru the forest to the scene of the crime. When they reached
the place indicated by Siazon and Cinco, which was near the top of Mt.
Agnaoan and a few meters away from the Agnaoan River, and at the foot
of a big tree, Siazon and Cinco immediately pointed to two supposed
graves where the bodies of the victims were supposed to have been
buried. Three meters from the graves, the party found a skull and two
femur bones strewn around with the leaves of trees. When the two places
indicated were dug, many human bones were found. In one of them, a
human skull and a locket were found. Thirty seven bones identified to
be those of human beings were found in both graves, besides other forty
which could not be identified (Exhibit B.)

The evidence
submitted by the prosecution to sustain the charge against the
appellants consists of the testimony of Vensiador Guiyab, former
accused turned into state witness, and of those of Formoso Siazon and
Domingo Cinco, which may be briefly stated as follows:

Vensiador Guiyab—The appellants and he and Formoso Siazon were all
bolomen under the leadership of appellant Caggauan, with headquarters
at Annipan, Mabono, Gattaran. One morning appellant Demetrio Vidad
(Emiterio Vidad) called him to their headquarters. Upon reaching it, he
found that six of the accused were already there. Mariano Adviento, his
wife Silvestra de la Cruz, his sons Onofre and Ernesto, his daughters
Herminia and Radifura, and their boy, Mauro Santos, were already
detained, with their hands tied at their backs. He asked Caggauan what
offense they had committed, and he (Caggauan) replied that Mariano
Adviento was a Japanese spy. As to the members of Adviento’s family,
Caggauan explained that they would be of utmost damage to them after
the times were settled.

The victims were then brought to the
middle of the forest, and on their way, they passed by the house of
Formoso Siazon, whom Caggauan ordered to join the group. At that time
Cinco happened to be in Siazon’s house and Caggauan also called him to
go with them. Upon reaching a certain place in the middle of the
forest, Vicente Orpilla and Ricardo Alupay stopped with the girls
Herminia and Radifura, while the rest of the bolomen and their victims
proceeded on. About ten meters away from the place where Orpilla and
Alupay and the girls stopped, the party stopped, and Caggauan ordered
three of the party, Calixto Garma, Federico Valendia and Emiterio Vidad
to dig graves. Two graves were dug by them ten meters from where the
party stopped. As the digging proceeded, the girls who had stopped
behind were heard screaming “please do not rape us”. When the digging
was finished the party, the bolomen and their victims came near the
graves, and Caggauan ordered that the ropes tied around the hands of
the victims be untied. The bolomen then surrounded the victims, and
Caggauan fired at Mariano Adviento with his pistol, and ordered his
companions to hack their victims. As Adviento fell down, Caggauan
thrust his sharp pointed bolo thru Adviento’s body, and the surrounded
victims were hacked to death by the bolomen indiscriminately, as Siazon
and Cinco stood by. After they were all killed, Caggauan ordered that
their bodies be thrown in the two graves. After the victims had been
thrown into the graves and covered with earth, the bolomen came
together and Caggauan ordered them to swear that no one should squeal,
otherwise he and his family would be killed by him. After this they
went away and upon reaching the outskirts of the forest, each went his
own way.

Guiyab also declared that the killing took place
between October and December, 1945; that Caggauan had also killed
Manoling Espejo and Fortunato Vallangca; that the edge of the forest
was near the headquarters, but they had to pass by the house of Siazon
upon instructions of Caggauan; that as the victims were being hacked to
death, Mauro Santos tried to run away, but that Caggauan ordered him
(Guiyab) to stab him, which he did, hitting Santos on the arms.

An affidavit, Exhibit 4, purporting to be signed by Guiyab and Eusebio
Villanueva and dated March 5, 1950 was presented to impeach him, as the
affidavit states that Mariano Adviento and Mauro Santos were killed by
Domingo Cinco and Mateo Gilo in the presence of Japanese soldiers, but
Guiyab explained that he signed it when drunk, upon request of
Caggauan, without understanding its contents even if it was read to
him; that Caggauan had asked him to sign the document to show their
unity and companionship, etc.

Formoso Siazon and Domingo
Cinco—They confirm all of the incidents in the killing of the Adviento
family: the identity of the appellants as the killers, with Caggauan
giving the orders, and the identity of their victims; the fact that
Orpilla stopped at a place with the girls while the others proceeded on
till they were around ten meters away from them; that while the digging
of graves proceeded the girls were heard screaming, “please do not rape
us”; the killing of Adviento by a shot from Caggauan’s pistol, followed
by a bolo thrust at the victim’s body, and the subsequent free-for-all
killing of the victims who had been surrounded by the bolomen; the
dumping of their bodies into the graves; and the warning given by
Caggauan that any one who would squeal would be killed as well as his
family. Both Siazon and Cinco stated further that Juan Reves and
Ricardo Alupay also formed part of the group led by Caggauan.

Siazon also declared that that December morning, Caggauan, accompanied
by Reves, came to his home, and ordered him to come down. He tried to
be excused from going with them because he had an ulcer on the foot,
but Caggauan insisted, threatening him with his revolver, so he had to
go down and join them.

On his part, Cinco further declared
that he happened to go to the house of Siazon that morning and while
there Caggauan and Reves came calling for Siazon. Siazon was ordered to
go down and join them. Cinco peeped out of the window and was seen by
Caggauan. After the party had gone away with Siazon, Caggauan came back
and ordered him also to join the group, which he did for fear.

The theory of the defense is that it was the Japanese, and not the
appellants, who had killed the Adviento family. To sustain this theory,
they introduced two witnesses, namely, Catalino Ocampo and Tomas
Agustin. Ocampo testified that in September, 1944 he went to Cumao to
see his parents, who had been detained by the Japanese. It so happened
that the house where he slept was near the house where the Adviento
family was concentrated. At about midnight, he saw six men and women
brought down to the river by the Japanese. He followed the Japanese and
their victims, peeping thru talahib grass. The following
morning, he went to the place beside the river where the six were
brought, to see if his father was one of them, and found out that those
killed were the Adviento family and one other whom he did not know.

The story is, however, inherently weak and difficult to believe. Ocampo
could not tell the specific place where the incident occurred, nor the
owner of the house where he supposedly stayed for the night. It is also
strange that when he went to see the dead early in the morning, he did
not see anyone on the scene. Besides, Gomez Adviento positively
declared that his parents and brothers and sisters were seen by him as
late as September, 1945 at their place in Mabono. And certainly, the
above testimony (of Ocampo) can not overcome the positive testimony of
the three witnesses of the prosecution who testified to having actually
witnessed the murder.

All the appellants, with the exception
of Calixto Garma, admitted being bolomen, an organization of about 20
members in the barrio of Mabono, Gattaran, but they claim that the
organization existed only for a period of three months from February,
1945, and that by the time the crime imputed to them was supposedly
committed in December, 1945, they had returned to their respective
barrios. A close analysis of their testimonies, however, belies their
claim. Thus appellant Estanislao Vidad testified that he crossed the
Cagayan River and returned to his place in Palagao Bato at a time when
American and Filipino soldiers were searching the whereabouts of the
Japanese soldiers (t. s. n., p. 241.) The fall of Manila did not occur
till February 1945, and it is impossible that by April, 1945 the
Americans were already in Cagayan and had hunted down the Japanese
stragglers. If he returned after the Americans and Filipinos had hunted
the Japanese in the forests, he must have returned to his barrio in the
latter part of the year 1945 or early in 1946.

Appellant
Emiterio Vidad also states that he went back to Mabono, the barrio
where the murder took place, when there were already American and
Filipino soldiers, presumably searching for the Japanese (t. s. n., p.
199.) As the Americans could not have been in Cagayan before March,
1945, but about June of that year, because Cagayan was one of the last
places cleared of Japanese, said witness must have already been in
Mabono by the end of 1945. Still another circumstance that there were
Japanese still in the month of October, 1945 and, therefore, the bolo
organization still existed, is the finding of the justice of the peace
court in the case of People vs. Indong, et al., (Exhibit 7;
Exhibit U) that Miguel Vidad was killed by the Japanese stragglers in
October, 1945. If there were still stragglers in October, 1945, the
bolo organization to which appellants belonged must still have been in
existence, as its purpose was to warn the residents of the coming of
the Japanese.

The insignificant circumstances pointed to
above, which appellants must have overlooked in the preparation of
their defense and as to which they must have told the truth, because
they are apparently minor and unimportant details, disprove appellant’s
claim that their organization had already ceased to exist and were no
longer at Mabono when the murder for which they are prosecuted took
place. But there is still more persuasive evidence to disprove their
defense. This is an admission of Delfino Liban, Mayor of Gattaran, that
the Americans appeared in June, 1945, that Gattaran was liberated in
October, 1945, and that even after that time there was an open order to
catch all persons suspected of spying on guerrilla activities (Exhibit
V-1; t.s.n., p. 166). The defense of alibi submitted must, therefore,
be dismissed.

Let us now consider the evidence submitted by
the prosecution, first the apparent incongruities. The most important
one is the declaration of witnesses Formoso Siazon and Domingo Cinco
that Juan Reves and Ricardo Alupay, both deceased at the time of the
trial, participated in the mass murder. It is claimed on behalf of the
defense that as Juan Reves appears to have died three days after
September 25, 1945, as per affidavit of his wife on October 29, 1945
and the complaint therefor (Exhibits 9-a and 9), the testimonies of
Siazon and Cinco should be given no credence at all, since they
asserted the presence at the murder of Reves, who was already dead at
the time of the commission of the offense. It should be noted, however,
that while Exhibits 9 and 9-A are admissible as public records, the
statements contained therein, as to the date of the supposed death of
Juan Reves, are hearsay, because the declarants were not subjected to
the test of cross-examination. The date, September 25, set forth in the
said exhibits is the date fixed by calculation of the affiants or of
the one who prepared the statements. It is true that the statements
made in the complaint are inadmissible per se as hearsay, but
the making of the statement in the complaint or its presentation is
circumstantial evidence to the effect that Juan Reves had already been
killed. But the information is not conclusive as to the time of Reves’
death. It is also possible and probable that the murder charged in the
information may have been actually committed in the month of October
1945, while Juan Reves may have been still alive. Guiyab, apparently
the most intelligent witness, said that the killing must have taken
place between October and December, 1945 (t. s. n., p. 65) when Reves
was still alive. But admitting that Siazon and Cinco made a mistake in
declaring that Reves was among the bolomen that participated in the
group that committed the murder, that fact does not make their
testimonies as to the other facts necessarily incredible. The fact that
Siazon’s house is near the scene of the murder and he and Cinco were
able to point out to the place where the murder victims were buried,
the existence of two graves, the bones found, etc.—all convince us that
in fact they must have actually witnessed the commission of the crime,
especially if we consider in relation thereto the testimony of
Vensiador Guiyab corroborating the fact that they were present at the
scene of the murder, and which testimony is natural, clear, logical,
free from the incongruities with which those of Siazon and Cinco may
have been attended.

It is claimed that Siazon and Cinco
testified against Caggauan and his companions because they had been
accused of killing Miguel Vidad by Estanislao Vidad, Vicente Orpilla
and Vensiador Guiyab. In answer to this claim, Siazon and Cinco
explained that this accusation against them was concocted by the
appellants to gag them and frighten them so that they would not testify
against the appellants in this case. The accusation against Cinco,
Siazon and others is dated March 5, 1950, while the investigation by
the Constabulary of the murder took place much earlier, as proved by
the fact that the request for exhumation of the remains of the murder
victims is dated February 21 (Exhibit A.) So that Siazon and Cinco had
made their declarations implicating the appellants before Siazon and
Cinco were charged in the complaint with the death of Miguel Vidad.
This shows that their testimonies were not in retaliation of the charge
against them. The complaint against Siazon and Cinco was dismissed, and
this shows that said accusation must have been inspired by an ulterior
motive, which may be no other than to frighten them.

Another
contention on behalf of the defense is that the bones actually found in
the graves could not have been those of the supposed seven victims
because the bones were very, few. It is argued that the finding of the
trial court that the bones might have been brought out by wild animals
or by erosion is not justified by the depth of the graves, which is
supposed to have been 1 meter. In the first place, the graves were not
1 meter deep as claimed. It was the president of the sanitary division
that ordered the graves to be dug as deep as 1 meter (t. s. n., p. 6.)
But he said that as soon as they had gone as deep as 1 foot more or
less, bones of human beings began to be found (Id.). On the other hand,
Siazon declared that the holes dug were only 2 feet (t. s. n., p. 95,)
while Guiyab saw the depth was 28 inches (t. s. n., p. 74.) As three or
four corpses were dumped into each grave, it is clear that the
thickness of the dirt or soil covering the graves must have been less
than a foot deep, and therefore easily dug by wild animals. The
explanation of the trial court for the fact that there were but two
skulls and few bones found is, therefore, justified.

Claim
is also made that the story given by the three prosecution witnesses is
improbable in the following respects: (1) that the murder victims were
brought to a place 6 kilometers distant from the headquarters, when
they could have been buried in the forest near the headquarters ; (2)
that they yet had to pass by the house of Siazon, when there was no
need; (3) and that there was no need to call for Guiyab because the
bolomen already present were more than enough to put the victims to
death. The objections do not appear to us of any weight or value at
all. It would seem to have been the plan for the victims to be killed
in a place far from the headquarters. Certainly it would have been
difficult for the bolomen to cut their way thru the forest, thick as it
appears to have been, directly from the headquarters. Passing through
the fringes of the forest was certainly much easier, and this is what
was done. There was, therefore, nothing incongruous in this portion of
the testimony.

The house of Siazon was on the fringe of the
forest and must have been connected with the headquarters by trail.
They evidently took the trail, to get far away from the headquarters
more easily, and they had to call Siazon and Cinco, who happened to be
their companions, to join the party in order that they may become
co-responsible for the crime and thus be prevented from squealing
because they would be implicated thereby. As to Guiyab, it appears that
he must have been an important member of the group, as he had the nerve
to ask their leader the why and wherefore of the killing, and this
evidently was the reason why he was called from a distant place.

It is also contended that there was no sufficient evidence of the
motive that may have impelled the killing. We note that Gomez Adviento
expressly declared that during the first days of December, appellant
Caggauan’s father had a quarrel with his own father about the land in
Yagaoyan that his father was occupying, and which was claimed by
Caggauan’s father, on which occasion also appellant Caggauan made
threat that if they did not leave the place something will happen to
Adviento’s son (t. s. n., p. 143-144). Appellant Caggauan’s father
testified that he had no land in Yagaoyan. This does not prevent him,
however, from having wanted to get for himself that which the deceased
Adviento had occupied.

Assuming, however, that the existence
of the motive testified to by Adviento’s son is not to be believed,
this circumstance is no reason for not finding the appellants guilty.
Proof of motive is necessary when a doubt exists as to whether a crime
has been committed by a person, or by another, or not: but it is not
necessary when, as in this case, three eye witnesses declared to have
actually witnessed the commission of the offense. Whatever the cause of
the killing, it is not absolutely necessary to find a motive therefor.
The question of motive is of course very important in cases where there
is doubt as to whether the defendant is or is not the person who
committed the act, but when there is no doubt, as in the case at bar,
that the defendant was the one who caused the death of the deceased, it
is not so important to know the exact reason for the deed (U. S. vs. McMann, 4 Phil. 561; See also People vs. Ragsac, 61 Phil. 146; People vs. Bastatas and Bastatas, 65 Phil. 543 and People vs. Tagasa, 68 Phil. 147.)

Another argument raised is that it was difficult for the bolomen to
have joined in the killing as they would not profit thereby, as they
had no interest in the land, cause of Caggauan’s resentment against the
Advientos. It must be noted, however, that Caggauan did not state his
real motive to his henchmen; he justified the killing by claiming that
Adviento was a Japanese spy, and further justified the murder of
Advientos family by saying that they would be of damage to them when
peace had been reestablished.

The gist of the claim of the
defense is, in general, that the theory of the prosecution is
improbable and unworthy of belief. We have carefully examined the
evidence and we find that the story given by the three witnesses
Guiyab, Siazon and Cinco, is indeed coherent, natural and logical in
every respect. They testified in a direct convincing manner, and
nothing in the record belies their sincerity or truthfulness. This is
especially so with respect to Vensiador Guiyab, who appears to be the
most intelligent of the three. The apparent incongruities in the
testimonies of the other two have been explained. The trial judge, who
saw them testify, believed them and their story; we have found nothing
to justify us in arriving at a different conclusion. On the other hand,
the mere protestations of denial by the appellants can avail nothing
against the direct and positive evidence submitted by the prosecution.
We are constrained to find, therefore, that the guilt of the appellants
has been established beyond reasonable doubt and that it was they,
under the leadership of Filemon Caggauan, that had committed the
heinous crime that caused the disappearance of the family of Mariano
Adviento towards the end of the year, 1945.

The crime
committed by the appellants is multiple murder, qualified by evident
premeditation and attended by the aggravating circumstances of
treachery and uninhabited place. The penalty provided by law for the
offense committed is death, but as no sufficient number among the
justices of the Court agree thereto, the capital penalty can not be
imposed. The appellants are, therefore, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, instead of death. With this modification, the judgment appealed from is in all other respects affirmed. So ordered.

Pablo, Padilla, Tuazon, Montemayor, Reyes and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

---

 

DISSENTING

PARAS, C. J.:

This case is before us on review of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Cagayan finding the defendants, Filemon Caggauan, Vicente
Orpilla, Federico Valencia, Estanislao Vidad, Calixto Garma and
Emiterio Vidad guilty of multiple murder and sentencing each of them to
death penalty, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of each of
the deceased Mariano Adviento, Onofre Adviento, Ernesto Adviento,
Herminia Adviento, Radifura Adviento, Silvestra de la Cruz and Mauro
Santos in the sum of P6,000, and each to pay 1/7 of the costs.

According to the evidence for the prosecution, one day in December,
1945, Filemon Caggauan, head of a bolo unit in barrio Mabono, Gattaran,
Cagayan, detained in his headquarters in Anipan Mariano Adviento, his
wife Silvestra de la Cruz, his children Onofre Adviento, Ernesto
Adviento, Herminia Adviento and Radifura Adviento, and an old man named
Mauro Santos. In the morning of that day Caggauan asked Emiterio Vidad
to call for Vensiador Guiyab who lived in Capissayan about 8 kilometers
from Caggauan’s headquarters. Thereafter Caggauan, together with Guiyab
and Vicente Orpilla, Federico Valendia, Estanislao Vidad, Emiterio
Vidad, Calixto Garma, Juan Reves and Ricardo Alupay, proceeded to
Agnacan forest located about 6 kilometers from the Anipan headquarters
of Caggauan, bringing with them Mariano Adviento, Silvestra de la Cruz,
Onofre Adviento, Ernesto Adviento, Herminia Adviento, Radifura Adviento
and Mauro Santos. The party, however, stopped at the house of Formoso
Siazon located about 5 kilometers from Caggauan’s headquarters.
Caggauan called Siazon and asked him to come down, otherwise he would
be shot. Siazon had to join the company of Caggauan in the same way
that Domingo Cinco, who was then at Siazon’s house, followed because
the latter was also threatened with being shot if he would not follow.
Upon reaching the Agnacan fastness, Vicente Orpilla and Ricardo Alupay
stopped at a certain point retaining Herminia Adviento and Radifura
Adviento, while the others proceeded. After a while, Guiyab, Siazon and
Cinco heard the girls cry, “Please do not rape us.” After Caggauan and
his men, together with the Adviento family and Mauro Santos, had
reached the place near a creek, Caggauan ordered Estanislao Vidad,
Federico Valendia and Calixto Garma to dig two graves. At this juncture
Orpilla and Alupay arrived with Herminia and Radifura. Caggauan ordered
his men to surround the Adviento family and Mauro Santos, at the same
time telling Siazon and Cinco to untie their hands. Whereupon, Caggauan
shot Mariano Adviento whose abdomen was also boloed by the former.
Simultaneously Caggauan ordered his companions to kill the other
members of the Adviento family and Mauro Santos, an order which was
carried out by all, except Calixto Garma, Siazon and Cinco who were not
armed. It was Guiyab himself who killed his father-in-law Mauro Santos,
under the directive of Caggauan which Guiyab could not disobey. After
all the victims had been liquidated, Caggauan instructed his men to
bury their bodies in the two graves already prepared, about two feet
deep, two meters long and one meter wide. Although the graves were
afterwards covered with earth, the head and feet of some of the victims
protruded. After the fatal ceremony, Caggauan and his companions left,
but only after being warned by Caggauan not to squeal; otherwise they
and their families would be killed.

In 1950, Sergeant Lucio
Banan, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, upon revelations made
by Siazon and Cinco, made certain investigations of the killing, with
the result that on March 14, 1950, Sergeant Banan and Dr. Antonio
Nolasco led a party to Agnacan forest and excavated the graves
indicated by Siazon and Cinco. One skull and some bones were found
scattered on the ground near the graves, and other bones, another skull
and a locket were recovered after the excavation.

According
to the evidence for the defense, the Adviento family and Mauro Santos
were killed by the Japanese soldiers in or about the month of
September, 1944, in the barrio of Cumao, Gattaran, Cagayan. This is
testified to by Sergeant Catalino Ocampo of the ground forces of the
Philippines, and by Tomas Agustin, a resident of Mabono, Gattaran. The
defendant Filemon Caggauan admitted that he was the commander of
company “A” of the bolo unit for the barrio of Mabono, municipality of
Gattaran, but alleged that his unit no longer existed in June, 1945,
after the American bombing had started, because the inhabitants of the
place evacuated to the eastern side of Gattaran, across the river.
Caggauan denied having killed or participated in the killing of the
Adviento family and Mauro Santos and imputed to prosecution witnesses
Formoso Siazon, Domingo Cinco and Vensiador Guiyab a motive for
testifying against Caggauan, arising from the existence between them of
bad blood. The defense also presented in evidence the record of
criminal case No. 13 of the justice of the peace of Gattaran, showing
that Juan Reves, alleged by the prosecution witnesses to be among the
killers of the Adviento family and Mauro Santos, was already dead on
September 25, 1945.

We have examined the evidence thoroughly
and found several circumstances that necessarily create grave doubts in
our minds as to the guilt of the defendants. It is significant that,
although prosecution witnesses Formoso Siazon and Domingo Cinco,
through their own testimony,—and it is not pretended that they gave a
different version when first investigated,—were participants in the
alleged crime, they were not included in the indictment, and no
satisfactory explanation appears to have been offered for the omission.
Said witnesses should have been included in the information and later
excluded, in the same way that Vensiador Guiyab was excluded, in order
to be utilized as government witnesses.

The crime is alleged
to have been committed in the Agnacan forest, about 6 kilometers from
the headquarters of Filemon Caggauan in Anipan. This is rather
unnatural for if the purpose—as it should be—in choosing a forest for
the commission of the unlawful act was to avoid detection and insure
its perpetration, the Anipan forest, which was close to the
headquarters of Caggauan, could have served well, with even less effort
for the malefactors.

From the very evidence introduced by
the prosecution, it appears that Caggauan had already a sufficient
number of armed men when they started the journey towards the Agnacan
forest, with the alleged victims; and it is not easily understandable
why Caggauan had to pass by the house of Formoso Siazon and compel the
latter and Domingo Cinco to join his band. Neither is it understandable
why Caggauan, with already at least six bolo men as his companions,
would still need Vensiador Guiyab who lived about 8 kilometers away
from Caggauan’s headquarters in Anipan, especially considering that one
of the would-be victims was Mauro Santos, father-in-law of Guiyab. The
only explanation would seem to be merely to supply witnesses to the
projected crime, something which naturally would be the last thing
Caggauan would do, assuming, as it is fair to assume, that Caggauan was
in his right senses. The improbability becomes more patent if we recall
that the alleged participation of Siazon and Cinco was to be limited to
the task of releasing the hands of the victims from their ties. In this
connection it is not amiss to mention another inherent improbability
inferable from the allegation that the hands of the victims were first
untied before they were killed. In the usual course, one bent on
killing another would not go to the trouble of that unnecessary
formality, as this may even give the intended victim a chance to
repulse the attack.

It is true that two skulls and a number
of bones were found at the graves or in the vicinity thereof in 1950,
about five years after the commission of the alleged crime, but a doubt
must arise from the obvious fact that the number of skulls falls far
short of the alleged number of victims. The explanation attempted to be
put up, that some of the skulls and bones might have been washed away
by water or lost through the action of boars and lizards, is based on
conjectures not positively established by the evidence. If such
conjectures may be allowed, it is also probable that the skulls and
bones thus found might have pertained to other persons killed during
the Japanese occupation.

Prosecution witnesses Siazon and
Cinco positively testified that Juan Reves took part in the multiple
murder conceived and engineered by Caggauan in December, 1945. However,
according to the record of criminal case No. 13, identified by the
justice of the peace of Gattaran, Juan Reves was already dead on
September 25, 1945. The prosecution alleges that the best evidence of
the death of Juan Reves is the death certificate, and the trial court
in its decision ruled out the admissibility of the record of criminal
case No. 13. The probative value of said record as an impeaching
evidence cannot be doubted, however, especially because the complaint
filed in the justice of the peace court of Gattaran was subscribed and
sworn to by the chief of police on November 2, 1945, while the
supporting affidavit was subscribed and sworn to by the wife of Juan
Reves and his daughter on October 29, 1945, or long before the filing
of this case on March 28, 1950. Moreover, no attempt has been made to
show that Juan Reves was still alive on the date of the filing of the
information in this case.

We cannot also overlook the
circumstance that the alleged crime took place in December, 1945, and
the prosecution of this case was started only in 1950; and no plausible
explanation for the delay appears in the record.

The
evidence for the prosecution tends to show on the one hand that Mariano
Adviento was killed by Caggauan for being a Japanese spy and, upon the
other hand, that Caggauan liquidated the Adviento family because of a
certain dispute over a piece of land in Yagaoyan held by Mariano
Adviento in 1941. The trial court rejected the first motive, and found
that Caggauan was perhaps induced to commit the alleged crime because
of his claim over the parcel of land held by Mariano Adviento. We have
also our doubts on this point, since the record shows that the alleged
dispute was between the father of Caggauan and Mariano Adviento and
dated as far back as 1941, and since even after the Adviento family had
been killed, Caggauan never attempted to take possession of the
controverted land in Yagaoyan.

The foregoing circumstance,
taken in conjunction with the theory of the defense that the Adviento
family and Mauro Santos were killed by the Japanese soldiers in 1944,
as testified to by no less than Sergeant Catalino Ocampo of the ground
forces of the Philippines, and that by the middle of the year 1945 the
bolo unit headed by Caggauan was alreadly dissolved in view of the
American bombing which caused the mass evacuation of the inhabitants of
Gattaran to different places on the other side of the river, cannot but
lead to the conclusion that the defendants are entitled to acquittal at
least on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Wherefore, the appealed decision should be reversed and the defendants acquitted, with costs de officio.

Jugo, J., concurs.