THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. EUGENIO BARCENA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan
finding the defendants, Eugenio Barcena, Crispulo Sandi, Filemon Piaña, Santiago
Pasinos, Quirino Danga and Aproniano Sandi, guilty of robbery with quadruple
homicide and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua, with legal
accessories, and to indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of Geronimo
Rico, Raymundo Rico, Gregorio Rico and Basilio Donato, the first three in the
sum of P2,000 each, and the last in the sum of P2,230, plus proportionate share
of the costs.

The prosecution alleges that at about eight o’clock in the evening of October
9, 1944, the spouses Basilio Donato and Valenciana Rico, who were living in the
barrio of Campo, municipality of Faire, Province of Cagayan, heard somebody
calling from the yard of their house. Basilio, with a lamp and followed by his
wife, went to a window from which seven men, six of whom were armed with bolos
and one with a revolver, were seen below. As ordered by the visitors, Basilio
went down whereupon the former inquired about the latter’s horse, which was soon
found. Basilio’s hands were tied behind his back. Entering the house, four men
threatened to kill Valenciana if she would not deliver the certificate of
ownership of the horse. No sooner had Valenciana opened her trunk for the
purpose than said four men started to ransack it and to take away P200 in cash
and two blankets worth P5 each. After also taking away two saddles valued at P10
each, the group left, taking Basilio along. The same seven men proceeded to the
house of Geronimo Rico, father of Valenciana, from which they took Geronimo and
his two sons, Gregorio and Raymundo, after the hands of the three had been tied
behind their backs. The kidnapped individuals, namely, Basilio, Geronimo,
Gregorio and Raymundo, were never seen alive again. Indeed, their dead bodies
were found the next day in the mountain of Taggat.

On November 19, 1945, or more than one year after the alleged incident, a
criminal complaint for robbery with quadruple murder was filed with the justice
of the peace court of Faire, Cagayan, against the herein six appellants and
Gregorio Castro, which complaint gave rise to the information filed by the
provincial fiscal of Cagayan under date of April 15, 1946, in the Court of First
Instance of said province. Gregorio Castro died while under detention before the
trial in the lower court.

The appellants set up the defense of alibi, in that appellants Eugenio
Barcena, Crispulo Sandi, Filemon Piaiia and Aproniano Sandi were, at the time of
the commission of the alleged crime, working in a Japanese airfield in Buntun,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan; appellant Santiago Pasinos was in his guerrilla camp in
Labben, Al-lacapan, Cagayan; while appellant Quirino Danga was in Malalam,
Solana, Cagayan, sick with malaria and too weak to move about, Buntun being
about 38 kilometers, Al-lacapan about 40 kilometers, and Solana about 28
kilometers distant by straight route from Faire, the place where the alleged
crime was perpetrated.

The prosecution alleges that the identity of the herein appellants has been
successfully established by Valenciana Rico and Albino Rico, alleged to have
been in their respective houses when Basilio Donato and Geronimo Rico and the
latter’s two sons were taken away by said appellants. The trial court
furthermore relied on the testimony of Esteban Empleo, another witness for the
prosecution, who claimed that the appellants admitted before him in the house of
Gregorio Castro that they had already killed the victims mentioned in the
information, and that said admission was made immediately after they had
accomplished the criminal act.

We have carefully analyzed the evidence in this case and are constrained to
hold that there is at least a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
appellants. In the first place, when the alleged incident was reported to the
local authorities on October 10, 1944, that is, the day following the date of
the occurrence, neither Valenciana Rico nor Albino Rico ever mentioned the names
of the herein appellants or any of them. If, as related by said witnesses, they
had known the appellants or some of them even before the incident in question,
they would naturally have revealed to said authorities their names, and this
would be the instinctive reaction of persons offended by such a heinous crime as
that charged in the information. The excuse set up by said witnesses during the
trial that they did not reveal the names of the appellant when they first
reported the crime because they feared for their lives, cannot readily be
accepted, since by merely reporting the alleged incident they should have known
that the authorities would be on the search for the culprits and the latter
would thereby feel uneasy and take measures against the persons so reporting. In
the second place, in their affidavits (Exhibits 1 and 2) respectively executed
by Valenciana Rico and Albino Rico on November 16, 1945, said witnesses for the
first time made mention of the names of only three appellants, namely, Filemon
Piaña, Crispulo Sandi and Eugenio Barcena, thus at least giving the impression
that they were ignorant of the identity of the other participants in the alleged
crime. Said witnesses could not then claim that they were still afraid of the
culprits who might go after them, because they had commenced to give names. If
the alleged killers were in fact seven and already known to said witnesses, the
latter should not have forgotten to mention such important facts in their
affidavits. Our doubt is enhanced by the circumstance that neither of the two
principal witnesses for the prosecution above mentioned had claimed that the
appellants ever tried to disguise themselves while committing the alleged
offense, because, if already known by said witnesses, they would in the ordinary
course of things have taken some precaution to conceal their identity. In the
third place, we are not inclined to give weight to the testimony of Esteban
Empleo as the latter has been shown to have had ill feelings against Gregorio
Castro, deceased defendant, and the appellants herein, not to mention the fact
that he is of bad reputation. Moreover, it was very unnatural for the appellants
to have informed said witness of the accomplishment of the crime charged in the
information, unless said witness Empleo was a party to the criminal scheme. In
the latter case, his testimony comes from a polluted source.

It becomes unnecessary to dwell at length on the merits of appellants’
defense of alibi. While such defense must be proved by convincing
evidence, we have a situation in which the evidence for the prosecution
engenders a reasonable doubt in our minds as to appellants’ culpability,
especially when none of its witnesses claimed to have actually seen the
appellants or any of them perform the act or acts that killed the victims
specified in the information. The guilt of an accused cannot of course be
inferred from any defect in the evidence for the defense.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is hereby reversed and the
defendants-appellants acquitted with proportionate costs de oficio. So
ordered.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, and Briones,
JJ., concur.

---

TUASON, J.:

I disagree with the setting aside of the appealed decision. There is ample
evidence to uphold the findings of the court below.

The delay in the filing of the complaint and the failure of the deceased’s
relatives to reveal the names of any of the defendants to the local authorities
are easily explained by the conditions prevailing at the time of the commission
of the crimes and throughout the following months. Under the then existing state
of peace and order the victims’ relatives were in the grip of fear for their own
lives. They were, or believed they were, at the mercy of the accused. In
reporting the crimes to the barrio lieutenant their sole concern was to recover
the corpses of their kins and give them a decent burial. The barrio lieutenant
and the police themselves, from all appearances, were not over-anxious to make
more than a perfunctory investigation of the horrible crimes.

To be sure, I believe that the testimony of Valencia Rico and Albino Rico,
the two principal witnesses for the prosecution, should not be given credence as
to the identity of four of the accused. These witnesses had stated at the
preliminary examination conducted after liberation that they had recognized only
four of the robbers and kidnappers, knowing three by name and one by sight. As
to the four accused not previously named by these witnesses, I think they either
committed willful perjury or were influenced by suggestion. However, with
reference to the three accused they had mentioned I see no reason to doubt their
veracity. The fact that they did not name all the defendants attests to their
good faith so far as these three accused were concerned. The maxim, “False in
one false in all” is not of general application. We know that a witness may be a
deliberate perjurer in one respect and be absolutely truthful in other matters
relating to the same transaction.

However that may be, Esteban Empleo Calaunan’s testimony is positive, free
from any ambiguity, equivocation or uncertainty. He was the son-in-law of one of
the accused, Gregorio Castro, who died in jail before the trial, and is related
by marriage to some of the other accused. The other defendants were known to him
as intimately as his wife’s relatives. Above all, his evidence has a genuine
ring of truth and earnestness. Here is in substance what he said:

Eugenio Barcena is a relative of his wife. Crispulo Sandi is her uncle. On
the night of October 9, 1944, he was in the house of his parents-in-law. At
about 12 o’clock, someone called out “mother.” He asked who was calling and the
answer said it was Aproniano Sandi and Santiago Pasinos. These two accused came
riding on one horse mounted with two saddles. (Two saddles among other
properties had been carried away from the house of one of the murdered men.) The
saddles were spattered with mud. Both of them said, “Mother is finished” (which
seems to be a coloquial expression suggesting that something has come to an
end). Soon afterwards five more persons came and they were Quirino Dañga,
Crispulo Sandi, Eugenio Barcena, Filemon Piaña and Gregorio Castro. These people
said the same thing, “Mother is finished.” They were carrying bolos except one
who was holding a revolver. That one was Santiago Pasinos. Later on they ate
their supper prepared by Lucia Barcena and Luciana Sandi. Lucia Barcena being
the daughter of Eugenio Barcena. After eating, all the accused left except
Gregorio Castro.

The lower court believed this witness. His Honor had the advantages which we
do not enjoy to gauge his veracity. For this Court to substitute its own
judgment for that of the trial judge regarding this witness’s credibility is to
go against the well-established rule based on natural reason and sound
principles of appellate practice and procedure.

The alleged bad character of Calaunan and his enmity with some of the
defendants, even if true, ought not to sway the court in the evaluation of this
witness’s veracity. The important factors were his manner and behaviour on the
witness stand and the general characteristics, tone, tenor and inherent
probability of his statements. Out of quarrels comes the truth, as the saying
goes. It is to be noted that if, according to the evidence for the defense,
there was bad blood between Calaunan on the one hand and some of the defendants
on the other, he had no cause to falsely implicate the others.

It was nothing strange that the defendants made no attempts to hide from
Calaunan what they had done. In the first place, Calaunan was a son-in-law of
Gregorio Castro and may well have been taken by them into their confidence. In
the second place, the record shows that in that part of the country, as in many
others, lawlessness was rampant, with murders, robberies and other heinous
crimes being committed with apparent impunity. The defendants conceivably may
have gotten the notion that it was going to be like that forever. This comment
answers this Court’s observation that none of the robbers and kidnappers was
disguised.

HILADO, J.:

I concur in this dissent.