THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GENARO GUCOR ET AL., DEFENDANTS. GENARO GUCOR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

In the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Genaro Gucor and Catalino
Logroño were accused of assault upon a person. in authority with
murder, for the killing of Fabian Cenabre, Chief of Police of Inabanga,
Bohol. After trial, Catalino Logroño was acquitted while his
co-defendant Genaro Gucor was found guilty but only of murder and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the
law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Fabian Cenabre in the sum
of P2,000, and to pay one-half of the costs. Gucor is now appealing
from that decision.

The following facts are not disputed. In the month of October,
1947, the campaign for municipal elections particularly for the post of
Mayor of Inabanga, Bohol, was at its height. Margarito Anana was head
of the local Liberal Party and it seems that he was campaigning for his
re-election because he was then the incumbent Mayor. Catalino Logroño
who had in previous years been elected Mayor, was head of the
Nacionalista Party in the town and was campaigning for his own election
as Mayor. Margarito Anana had as Chief of Police the deceased Fabian
Cenabre who, it may be presumed, belonged to his party and was perhaps
helping in the campaign. Logroño had as his constant companion and
bodyguard his co-defendant Genaro Gucor, a first cousin and a loyal
follower.

On October 8, 1947, at about 7 o’clock in the evening, in the
course of their campaign, Logroño and Gucor were returning to the poblacion
of Inabanga from their campaign tour in one or two barrios. Logroño,
according to the prosecution, was carrying a gun or rifle while
according to the defense what he was carrying was only a cane. His
bodyguard Gucor was carrying a carbine (Exhibit B). That same evening
Chief of Police Fabian Cenabre had gone to the barrio of Cogon of the
same municipality, armed with a carbine. He stopped at the store of
Asuncion Melecio and inquired of her about a brother who was reported
to have boxed somebody. In the course of the inquiry and resulting
conversation, the Chief of Police stood outside the store, leaning
against the outside wall thereof with his carbine (Exhibit C) slung
over his right shoulder. Not long after this, the two defendants
Logroño and Gucor passed by the store on their way to the poblacion.
During that chance encounter between the two defendants and the Chief
of Police, Gucor with his carbine fired many shots at the Chief of
Police inflicting on him twelve wounds some of which were necessarily
mortal, on different parts of the body, mainly on ‘che head, chest and
hips, instantly killing the deceased. The prosecution and the defense
naturally differ as to the manner the shooting and killing occurred.

According to the prosecution, earlier that evening of October 8th,
Logroño with appellant Gucor and other companions had been roaming the
streets of Inabanga looking for and challenging the followers and
supporters of Margarita Añana, even maltreating and abusing some of
those followers whom they encountered, Gucor and Logrono were each
carrying a rifle, They announced to all and sundry that they were the
suicide squad of the Logroño faction and that they were looking for
Margarito Ariana and the Chief of Police and one named Jimenez, When
Logroño and Gucor arrived in front of the store of Asuncion Melecio at
barrio Cogon, they passed by Chief of Police Cenabre who was standing
in front of the store but a little to one side so that the bright light
from the Coleman lamp hanging in the ceiling of the store inside did
not directly fall upon him, but there was a small lamparilla (lamp) on
a table outside the store where some wares and merchandise were
exhibited for sale. In passing in front of the store, at a distance of
about eight meters the two defendants apparently at first did not recognize the Chief of of Police, but almost immediately, Gucor turned
back, faced the Chief of Police and said; “So Bian (Fabian), you are
here,” and immediately cocked his carbine and commenced firing at
Cenabre. The shooting stopped, but almost immediately it was followed
by many more shots. According to this version, the deceased was caught
unawares with his carbine still slung over his shoulder. He gave no
provocation and was unable to offer any resistance.

According to the defense, however, this is what happened. Shortly
before reaching the store of Asuncion Melecio, Gucor tarried in order
to pass off water and asked Logroño to go ahead but walk slowly. That
was the reason why Logroño first arrived at the store. Upon seeing him,
Chief of Police Cenabre immediately shot at him twice; Logroño who had
no gun had to run away to save his life. Then Gucor who from a distance
saw and heard the shooting approached Cenabre and said: “Chief, so you
are determined to kill a man” and he tried to wrest the carbine from
the Chief of Police, During the struggle Gucor kicked Cenabre in the
abdomen as a result of which Cenabre fell to a sitting position. Taking
advantage of this discomfiture or disadvantage of the Chief of Police,
Gucor grabbed a carbine that had previously been laid on the table by
one Dionisio Anota, a companion of the Chief of Police, while said
Anota was lacing his shoes. With Anota’s carbine, Gucor fled from the
scene to hide but Cenabre shot at him once or twice.

As a measure of safety, Gucor threw himself down on the ground and
then ensued an exchange of shots between the two men resulting in the
death of Fabian Cenabre. This version given by the defense if accepted,
will naturally result in his acquittal because according to said story,
acted in self-defense.

It is clear that the determination, of this case hinges upon, the
credibility of witnesses and also on the reasonableness of the theory
of each party—prosecution and defense. The trial court considered the
witnesses for the Government as more worthy of credit and accepted
their version. After carefully weighing and considering the oral and
documentary evidence we fully agree with the trial court and find that
Fabian Cenabre was shot and killed in the manner related by the
prosecution witnesses. There are several reasons for our action and
attitude in this regard. The two witnesses for the defense, Eustaquio
Celis and Isabel Vitur who claimed to have witnessed the shooting
contradicted each other as to the number of shots allegedly fired by
the Chief of Police at Genaro Gucor, one saying that there were two
while the other said that there was only one. Another material
contradiction is that while one defense witness says that the remark or
exclamation by Gucor which was,”chief, so you are determined to kill a
man” was made before the struggle between the two men for the
possession of the carbine, the other witness said that it was made in
the course of the struggle. Furthermore defense witness Isabel Vitur
who claims to be at the store of Asuncion Melecio serving as a
salesgirl that evening and therefore saw all that happened, said when,
questioned by Capt. Garces of the Military Police the day following the
shooting, that she was not at the store at the time and did not see the
incident between Gucor and the Chief of Police. Asuncion Melecio also
told the court that she had never employed Isabel Vitur as salesgirl
because her business in the store was so small that she needed no help.
Moreover, it is hard to believe that in the supposed exchange of shots
between Gucor who was supposed to be handling a carbine not his own
because it belonged to one Dionisio Anota, and the Chief of Police who
was using his own carbine and therefore was familiar with its use to
say nothing of the presumption of his being more or less an expert in
the use of firearms because of his position, the deceased should have
received twelve bullet wounds, several in the head, in the face and in
the abdomen and hips while Gucor received not even a scratch. Besides,
if Gucor had really acted in self-defense he should have surrendered
himself to the authorities and reported the killing so as to prove his
innocence. Instead, he fled from the neighborhood and the town, talcing
with him the carbine (Exhibit C) of the Chief of Police and delivered
it to another for safekeeping if not to hide it. He also gave his own
carbine (Exhibit B) to another to be kept. His flight and his failure
to notify the authorities of the killing, including his taking away the
carbine of the deceased neither speak well of nor support his
protestations of innocence. Men guiltless and with a clear conscience
do not act the way he did. When the two carbines in question were
finally found and confiscated by the Military Police, it was found that
the magazine (Exhibit C-1) of Carbine (Exhibit C) of the Chief of
Police, still contained bullets while the magazine (Exhibit B-1) of the
carbine (Exhibit B) of Gucor was empty. There is every reason to
believe that Gucor as soon as he recognized the Chief of Police in
front of the store of Asuncion Melecio, began firing at, him and that
when the Chief of Police slumped to the ground, Gucor emptied his
carbine into his helpless and prostrate victim. We have no doubt
whatsoever that the appellant is guilty of murder. The killing was
qualified by treachery because of the sudden, unexpected attack with a
firearm.

Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellant.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Reyes, JJ., concur.

MORAN, C. J.:

Mr. Justice Padilla voted for affrimance.