THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN CAUILAN AND JOSE QUILANG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan
finding appellants Juan Cauilan and Jose Quilang guilty of murder and sentencing
each of them (1) to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessories of the law; (2) to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the
deceased, Vicente Dammay, in the amount of P2,000 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and (3) to pay one-half of the costs.

The two appellants were convicted upon the single testimony of a supposed
eyewitness, Jose Dammay, the son of the deceased. This witness testified that on
April 28, 1945, in the barrio of Callao, municipality of Peñablanca, Province of
Cagayan, the two defendants, at about 7 o’clock at night, came to his house and
called for his father, Vicente Dammay. The latter followed them and he, the
witness joined his father. Upon reaching the bank of a river, defendant Cauilan
ordered the witness to go to Damian Bacud’s place, but instead of doing so, he
hid himself among guava groves. While thus hiding, he saw the two defendants
kill his father. According to him, defendant Cauilan stabbed Vicente Dammay
under the right armpit, while Jose Quilang boloed the back of the victim’s head.
Vicente Dammay died of his wounds on that same night. The two defendants left
and the witness returned home to call his mother. He and his mother went to the
place where his father was killed and there they found his dead body.

This testimony, however, is contradicted to a certain extent by the witness’
answers on cross-examination. He said, on cross-examination, that in obedience
to Cauilan’s order, he went to the place of Bacud, and when he found nobody
there, he came back to the place where he left his father with the two
defendants, and upon arriving at that place, the two defendants were about to
leave and his father was already dead, meaning thereby that he did not actually
see the killing.

The testimony of this witness is also inconsistent with his testimony at the
preliminary investigation where he made the following statement:

“Q. Why do you know that he was killed by a person?—A. Yes, because at the
time he was killed we were asleep, two persons came to take him, Juan Cauilan
and Jose Quilang, that I went with them. When we arrived just east of the gate
of the farm of Juan Cauilan, I was sent by them to call for their companion in
the house of Roque Bacud. When I returned where I left them, Juan Cauilan, Jose
Quilang and my father, I did not meet them anymore. Then I went home to call for
my brother-in-law Bartolome Cusipag, so that we would search for my father, and
also Jose Quilang and Juan Cauilan, who accompanied my father. That we found the
body of my father already dead with so many wounds inflicted on the body caused
by bolo cuts.

“Q. Whom do you know who killed your father?—A. The two men Juan Cauilan and
Jose Quilang.

“Q. Why do you know that they are the persons who killed your father?—A. Yes,
because they were the ones who took my father away at that night, which was the
same night when he was killed.”

In this sworn statement the witness attributed the crime to the defendants,
not because he saw them kill his father, but because they were the ones who took
his father that night. The witness admits his having made the above-quoted
statement and tried to explain it by saying that he was afraid of the two
defendants who were not yet then arrested. It cannot be true, however, that he
was afraid for in his statement he was already accusing the two defendants of
the murder of his father although he had not seen them in the act of
killing.

Immediately upon finding the dead body of his father, he reported the matter
to Rufo Apattad, municipal councilor, who testified that on that occasion
witness Jose Dammay did not say anything about his having seen the two
defendants kill the deceased. What Jose Dammay then told him was that the two
defendants had taken his father who was found dead later.

Although the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient ground for
conviction when it appears to be persuasive, yet when not only is it
self-contradictory but even inconsistent with previous statements made by the
witness himself, conviction cannot be made to rest wholly on it.

There is nothing to show that the two defendants had any motive to kill
Vicente Dammay. The defendants were members of the guerrilla, and Vicente Dammay
was their companion. There is absolutely no proof that Vicente Dammay was a
Japanese spy to be the object of revenge on the part of the guerrilleros.
Upon the other hand, there is enough evidence to the effect that the two
defendants called the deceased Vicente Dammay by order of Sergeant Parasa who
requested him to supply food to the guerrilla, which Dammay did; that the food
stores of the Japanese army were then raided and the Japanese in turn rounded up
and killed almost all male persons in that barrio and in the surrounding
barrios, and it is not unlikely that one of them was Vicente Dammay.

For all the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and appellants are acquitted,
with costs de oficio.

Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, and Briones, JJ., concur.

MORAN, C.J.:

Mr. Justice Bengzon concurs in this
decision.

---

PERFECTO, J., with whom concur PADILLA, and
TUASON, JJ.:

Micaela Soriano, 40 years old, widow, resident of Callao, Peñablanca,
Cagayan, testified that she knows accused Juan Cauilan and Jose Quilang. She
pointed at them in the court room. Her dead husband was Vicente Dammay. On the
night of April 28, 1945, she was with her husband and five children at their
home. The accused came to call for her husband. The husband went with the
accused accompanied by his son Jose Dammay. Only Jose returned. The husband did
not return. When Jose arrived he informed his mother that he wanted to look for
his father because the same was killed by the accused. The witness, her son Jose
and Antonio Tuliao went out to look for the deceased. Bartolome Cusipag went
after them. Jose led the party to the place where his father was killed. The
party found the body of Vicente Dammay at the bank of the river at the sitio of
Fugu, Peñablanca. The body of Vicente Dammay showed wounds in several parts. The
witness reported the matter to Councilor Rufo Apattad, who went to the scene to
investigate. Apattad called some persons to carry the corpse to witness’s house.
The dead was later buried. The accused went to the house of the deceased at 11
o’clock at night. The witness recognized them very well because there was
moonlight and there was light inside the house. Because of their having a small
child, the witness usually kept the light burning the whole night. The witness
recognized the accused by their faces, although they only stood at the
batalan of their house. When Jose informed the witness of the death of
his father, he returned not long after he followed the accused. Jose returned
immediately. The witness found the corpse of her husband that very night in a
place about three kilometers from their house. The witness went direct and
straight to the place where the body was lying. Besides the dogs were lapping
the blood of the deceased and howling. She found in the body of her husband the
following wounds: one in the right wrist, one in the right elbow, one in the
right forearm, one between the right armpit and nipple, one at the side of the
right nipple, one under the right nipple, one under the left nipple and one
across the face. There was also one at the occipital region.

Jose Dammay, 20, married, resident of Callao, Peñablanca, testified that he
knows Juan Cauilan and Jose Quilang. On the night of April 28, 1945, the accused
came to their house to call for his father Vicente. His father and himself went
with the accused who told them that they were to go up to a place called Manga,
east of Fugu. They did not reach Manga because when they reached the bank of the
river, the accused made action already, wanting to kill his father. Cauilan
ordered the witness to go to Damian Bacud’s place but the witness, instead of
going to said place, hid among the guava groves from where he saw the accused
actually killing his father. Cauilan stabbed his father under the right armpit.
Quilang boloed the back of the head of the deceased. His father died of the
wounds he received from the accused. He died that same night. When his father
fell, the accused left. He then returned home to call for his mother. Witness
and his mother went to look for his father whom they were able to find that very
same night covered with wounds. They reported the matter to Councilor Rufo
Apattad who made an investigation. After that the body of the deceased was
brought to their house. They buried him the following morning. When the accused
went to their house they had just finished eating their supper. The accused did
not call for anybody but his father, but the latter asked him to go with them.
He told his mother of the place where his father was killed. His mother and
himself immediately went to the place where they found the body of his father.
There was moonlight. The height of the moon was around 10 o’clock. There were no
clouds. The witness reached only the fifth grade in school. He does not know how
to determine or calculate time. When his mother and himself went to look for the
dead body of his father, Bartolome Cusipag also went with them. Nothing was
stolen from his father. There was an enmity between his father and the accused,
which arose out of driving horses inside a corral. The river at the bank of
which his father was killed is named Pinakanawan.

Rufo Apattad, 58, testified that before the Japanese came he was municipal
councilor and up to April, 1945, there has never been an election. No one has
been appointed in his place as municipal councilor. He knew Vicente Dammay, the
deceased. His wife and son sent for him on April 28, 1945, and then the
government in Peñablanca was not yet reorganized although there were barrio
lieutenants. He saw the dead body of Vicente Dammay. He advised the people to
register the dead body of Vicente Dammay but they were afraid of the Japanese.
At that time the Japanese were after the male persons. The widow of Vicente
Dammay told the witness that Vicente Dammay was taken by the two accused. When
Jose Dammay and Micaela Soriano informed the witness that Vicente Dammay was
killed, the witness went to the place where the cadaver was. The witness
recognized the body as that of Vicente Dammay. The witness gave instructions for
the burial of the cadaver. The family buried it. Vicente Dammay died on account
of the wounds he received.

Jose Quilang, 27, testified that on April 28, 1945, he was at home. A
sergeant and nine soldiers of the Philippine Army, came to call for him. They
wanted him to lead their way. He was in Sisim. He went with them to Lagum at
about twilight. The soldiers went to Juan Cauilan’s house. They asked permission
to be allowed to rest in his house. The purpose of the soldiers was to raid
Japanese bodega. Before that occasion he did not know Juan Cauilan. The sergeant
sent Juan Cauilan to take Vicente Dammay. They wanted to talk to him. Cauilan
went with the witness and one soldier to call for Vicente Dammay, but only
Cauilan and himself reached Dammay’s house because the soldier stopped in a
place quite far from the house. Cauilan talked with Vicente Dammay. Cauilan
said: “Lieutenant come with us. The sergeant calls for you.” According to
Cauilan, Vicente Dammay was the barrio lieutenant. Vicente followed and they
went direct to Juan Cauilan’s house. The soldiers requested Vicente Dammay to
donate one carabao for the camp. The soldiers were guerrillas, they were
soldiers of the American Army. Dammay answered: “I can give if it is for you.”
Afterwards the soldiers sent him away. Vicente Dammay left immediately. And then
they went to raid the Japanese bodega in Dabba in the western part of Manga. One
Japanese died during the raid. He was killed by the soldiers. Three soldiers
fired at the Japanese. The Japanese was actually raiding them. Two Japanese were
killed. The soldiers ordered the civilians to get all the provisions in the
bodega. After taking the goods they went direct to Sisim. Juan Cauilan returned
to his place. It is not true that Jose Dammay came along with his father and the
accused.

Basilisa Pauig, 36, widow, testified that she is a resident of Lagum,
Peñablanca, Cagayan. Her husband, Francisco Lim, died on April 29, 1945. He was
killed by the Japanese. That was the time when the Filipino soldiers attacked
the Japanese in Dabba, which was three kilometers from her place. The attack
took place at night. On the morning of April 29, 1945, her husband and other men
were taken by the Japanese and were brought to Fugu. His companions were Vicente
Dammay, Juan Ligutan, Pio Fuggaban and others. Her husband is a Chinese. There
were three Chinese who were taken by the Japanese. The other two were Antonio
Lim and Kiawa. Antonio Lim died while Kiawa is still alive. She never saw her
husband again after April 29, 1945. Her husband and the other persons were taken
by the Japanese between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning. She was able to find the
bones of her husband one or two weeks after he disappeared on April 29, 1945.
She saw Vicente Dammay on the morning of April 29, 1945. She went with her
husband.

Juan Cauilan, 22, testified that on April 28, 1945, he was at his home in
Manga, Peñablanca, Cagayan. On that day, nine soldiers and a civilian arrived at
his place. The head of the group was Sergeant Paraza. They arrived at twilight.
Witness entertained them and they ate supper at his home. On that night they
sent him to call for Vicente Dammay. They were three sent to call for Vicente,
he, a soldier, and Quilang. He himself talked with Vicente Dammay. They talked
at the latter’s door because they had already spread their mat. It took place at
about 7 o’clock. The witness saw Micaela Soriano, the wife, and talked with her.
There was light. Jose Dammay did not go with them. When Dammay was taken to the
house of the witness, the soldiers asked him to donate a carabao for them.
Dammay did not stay long. The soldiers sent him away. The soldiers went to Dabba
to raid the place. Upon reaching that place, they saw two Japanese whom they
attacked by surprise. They took some of the provisions of the bodega and brought
them home. The witness brought what he could carry. He returned to get the
things from the bodega. Pio Fugaban, Juan Ligutan, Joaquin Mole, Terio Tirungan
and Vicente Dammay went with them. On the morning of April 29, 1945, the
Japanese went to take all the civilians of Fugu, Peñablanca. They took all the
male persons. The reason for taking them was because of looting the bodega. The
persons taken by the Japanese were Vicente Dammay, Pio Fuggaban, Terio Turingan
and Joaquin Mole. The Chinese taken were Kiawa, Francisco Lim and Tek Seng.
Francisco Lim is the husband of Basilisa Pauig. The witness was not taken by the
Japanese because he was able to run away. He hid himself. When the witness went
to get Vicente Dammay, the sergeant also went with him. Dammay promised to give
the carabao requested by the soldiers as soon as he could be able to catch one.
The carabao was supposed to be brought to the camp at Dalanak. The Japanese came
to Lagum. The witness did not run right away. He saw the Japanese going from
house to house to get the men mentioned. Before he could run, he could see the
getting of the men. The witness was the only one who was able to run and hide.
He does not remember how many Japanese came because they came one after the
other. When Vicente Dammay was taken by the Japanese he was about 200 meters
from the witness. The witness immediately ran away. The Japanese caught Vicente
Dammay inside his house, so with the other arrested persons. They were arranged
in rows when they were caught. The witness does not know how to read and
write.

Antonino Arugay, 46, widower, testified that on April 28, 1945, he was in
Cabasan, Peñablanca, in his home when nine soldiers arrived headed by Sergeant
Paraza. The witness was a barrio lieutenant. Paraza asked him the way to Lagum.
After feeding them, the witness called somebody to guide them to Sisim. On the
morning of April 29, 1945, the soldiers came again to his house. They came from
Lagum. They carried five sacks but the witness did not know what their contents
were. After eating their lunch, they left. They ate salmon and gave the witness
five cans of it.

Testifying in rebuttal, Micaela Soriano said that it is not true that on the
morning of April 29, 1945, her husband was still alive as declared by Basilisa
Pauig and Juan Cauilan. It is not true that the Japanese went to barrio and took
her husband and the others. She did not see any Japanese that morning in the
place. Her husband was never arrested by the Japanese any time during the month
of April, 1945. Jose Dammay, also testifying on rebuttal, said that it is not
true that the Japanese came to arrest his father on the morning of April 29,
1945. His father was no longer alive on that morning.

Recalled again by counsel for the defense, Jose Cauilan testified that he
reached the sixth grade in school and is able to read and write.

The above recital of the substance of the testimonies both of the witnesses
for the prosecution and for the defense shows that appellants’ guilt has been
proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

The enmity between the deceased Vicente Dammay and the two accused, testified
to by Jose Dammay, has not been denied by either one of the two accused. No one
of their witnesses belied it. There was, therefore, a clear motive why
appellants may want to kill the deceased. Jose Dammay testified also that in the
night of April 28, 1945, he saw the two accused stab his father until the latter
fell down dead. No one of the two accused dared to deny having stabbed and
killed Dammay at the bank of a river where the corpse of the deceased was found
and recovered in the same night of April 28, 1945. Micaela Soriano and councilor
Rufo Apattad testified that they went to the place and they have seen the
cadaver of the deceased, whose blood were being lapped by the dogs, under the
moonlight. That same night the dead body was brought to the Dammay house, and
the next morning was buried. There is no scintilla of evidence showing why the
witnesses for the prosecution should offer perjured testimonies to impute a
heinous crime to the two accused and desire that they be meted a heavy
punishment. Their narration of facts rings with truth.

The evidence for the defense was not able to shake the credibility of the
witnesses for the prosecution. That Vicente Dammay was taken by the two accused
only to be requested later to contribute a carabao, which seemed a matter of
course, Vicente Dammay being a guerrilla, appears to be incredible. Could not
the accused themselves have asked Dammay if he was willing to give the
contribution? What was the purpose of the trouble of taking him from his house
and compelling him to make the trip to Cauilan’s house? There was no other
except to offer an explanation for the taking of Dammay from his house, but the
explanation does not tally with the normal course of human affairs.

Lacking the courage to belie Jose Dammay’s testimony to the effect that he
saw his father being killed by the accused, the latter tried to prove that
between 8 and 9 on the morning of April 29, 1945, the Japanese arrested all the
male persons of the place, including Vicente Dammay, and executed all of them,
except a Chinese, named Kiawa. The testimonies of Basilisa Pauig and accused
Cauilan to said purpose appear to us to be unbelievable. Pauig said that the
three Chinese taken by the Japanese were Francisco Lim, Antonio Lim, and
Kiawa, while Cauilan said that they were Francisco Lim, Tek Seng, and
Kiawa. The underlined names show an unexplained contradiction. Cauilan testified
at first that when the Japanese came to Lagum to make the arrests he did not run
right away, but in a later part of his testimony he said that he immediately ran
away. He declared that he saw how the men were being taken in their homes, and
he was the only one who was able to run and hide. If this is true, he failed to
give any explanation how Jose Dammay and Councilor Rufo Apattad were able to
appear and testify in person at the trial of this case. If all the men of the
place were caught and killed, excepting only Kiawa, the Chinese, then Jose
Dammay and Rufo Apattad must have also been caught and killed. Were they
resurrected just to belie Cauilan?

For all the foregoing, we vote to affirm
the appealed decision, with the sole modification that the penalty imposed upon
appellant Juan Cauilan should be one grade lower than reclusion perpetua,
as the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction must be considered in his
favor.