G.R. No. L-24454. June 22, 1968
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VALERIANO MANANGUITE @ ANOY, REYNALDO MORILLO @ REYNING AND EDENCIO MONTAÑO @ EDEN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
SANCHEZ, J.:
Called to trial on a charge of murder were Chief of Police Valeriano Mananguite, alias Anoy, Sergeant of Police Reynaldo Morillo,
alias Reyning, and Policeman Edencio
Montaño, alias Eden, all of the municipality of Mondragon in Samar. The alleged triggerman, policeman Fidel Cerenado, alias Bakot, eluded
arrest, never faced trial, got a provisional dismissal. Upon the finding of conspiracy, the first
three were found guilty of murder, sentenced to life imprisonment, required to
jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the victim in the sum of
P6,000.00, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.[1]
The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the convicted
defendants. Their vehement claim is that
they were not involved in the crime at all; that the prosecution witnesses were
trapped in the bogholes of falsity; that at the very
least the story related by said witnesses lacks the stamp of credibility and is
denuded of that illuminating concreteness so essential to bring about
conviction. Their attack is levelled primarily on the two alleged eyewitnesses to the
crime, namely: Gregorio Navarro and Paciencia Gulariza Vda. de Silva. Did
the two tell the truth? Here are their
respective versions:
Gregorio Navarro.
His narrative begins with the statement that at about 8:00 o’clock on
the night of March 15, 1964, he (Gregorio, alias Regor),
together with his brothers Briccio Navarro and the
deceased Perfecto Navarro, alias Pistoy, came from
their farm, proceeded to town (Mondragon). While on the street leading to Perfecto’s
house, they came upon a group of policemen.
They greeted them “Good evening.” The latter did not
answer. They proceeded to the house of Paciencia Gulariza Vda. de Silva at Dalakit Street, in the same
town of Mondragon. Perfecto asked Paciencia
for a cigarette. The latter gave him
tobacco instead. While Perfecto was
rolling the tobacco, chief of police Mananguite
barked an order: “Alright, you kill
him now because he is already here.” Fidel Cerenado,
alias Bakot, fired a shot from a carbine while
Perfecto was standing. It found its mark
in Perfecto’s left leg producing a through and through wound. Fidel followed this with a second shot which
hit Perfecto on the right buttock. This
felled Perfecto. Down, Perfecto (Pistoy) said:
“Enough now, because Pistoy is already
dead.” Fidel fired the 3rd, 4th and 5th shots which missed as Perfecto had
already fallen down. When the shooting
occurred, Gregorio and Briccio were on both sides of
the victim about 1-1/2 meters away from the latter. Fidel was two meters away from the victim
when the chief gave the order; Mananguite, Morillo and Montaño were opposite
the Navarro brothers, also at a distance of about two meters. Gregorio knew that these officers had their
pistols cocked because “there was clicking sound and there was loading of
ammunition in the chamber.” The night was dark. But he was able to recognize defendants
because the latter then had a torch with them.
Gregorio and Briccio Navarro left their
brother Perfecto when he was already dead.
They proceeded to Perfecto’s house, which was some 30 meters away,
informed Perfecto’s wife, Eutiquia Manongsong, that her husband was dead. The brothers visited the cadaver of
Perfecto. They wanted to report to the
authorities but were afraid of the chief of police.
Paciencia Gulariza
(Vda. de Silva). Her version is this: About 3:00
o’clock in the evening of March
15, 1964, she was at her residence (Dalakit Street). She knew that the shooting took place after 8:00 o’clock because she heard the church bell
toll the hour. Gregorio and perfecto
Navarro popped up in her house. They
came from the farm. Perfecto asked for
tobacco. She gave him tobacco leaf. Perfecto dried it on her lamp, crushed the
same, wrapped it in newspaper. She was
then by the window. While Perfecto was
lighting the smoke, chief Managuite remarked: “Alright, you kill him now because he is
still standing.” Fidel Cerenado fired. Perfecto cried “I am hit,” then
fell. Fidel Cerenado
fired again. Perfecto, raising his hand,
remarked: Enough now because Pistoy is already dying.” After that, Fidel approached
Perfecto and asked: “Pistoy, are you still alive?” The latter did not
answer. He was already dead. Chief Mananguite
then approached Perfecto, inquired:
“Do you recognize me, I am the Chief of Police of Mondragon.” No answer came.
The companions of Perfecto (Pistoy)
remained standing at the place for about one hour.
Fidel Cerenado
ordered Paciencia to get out of her house. Together with her three daughters, she went
to the house of Oboy (Pablo Loyogoy),
husband of a certain Bening, her cousin, which was
about two meters from her home. While on
her way to her cousin’s house, she saw Reyning
(Reynaldo Morillo), Anoy (Valeriano Mananguite), Bakot (Fidel Cerenado), and Eden
(Edencio Montaño) in the
yard.
She called to the occupants of the house of Loyogoy
(Oboy) which was already closed, to open the door,
saying: “Oboy,
I will go upstairs because Pistoy is already
dead.” She had a short conversation with Loyogoy’s
wife, Bening, telling the latter that she heard five
shots, and then they went to sleep.
Following are other pertinent facts:
Cause of death of Perfecto Navarro was severe hemorrhage from the
femoral vessels which were hit. The
autopsy, performed the next morning by Dr. Manuel C. de Leon, municipal health
officer, at the municipal building, revealed that Perfecto’s stomach
contained: “liberal amount of fluid
which smells [of] a local beverage (tuba) with light brown color. Gas in the stomach emits a sour tuba
odor.”
Evidence stands uncontradicted that in
the early morning of the next day, March
16, 1964, Eutiquia Manongsong
and Francisca Navarro, widow and sister, respectively, of the deceased Perfecto
Navarro came to the home of defendant chief of police Valeriano
Mananguite.
The two solicited his help in reference to the death of Perfecto
Navarro, whose body then lay dead at the scene of the crime. The police chief inquired from Eutiquia how Perfecto was killed and who killed him. Eutiquia answered
that she did not know. The police chief
then told the two to stay in his house as he was to fetch another policeman to
go with him to where Perfecto’s body was.
At the municipal building, the police chief got hold of his
co-defendants here, Sgt. Reynaldo Morillo and
policeman Edencio Montaño. They passed by the chief’s house, picked up Eutiquia and Francisca Navarro, went to the scene of the
crime. There, they found below the
window of the house of Pacencia Gulariza
the body of the deceased Perfecto Navarro.
Found near the body was a bolo, Exhibit “9”. Francisca Navarro picked up an empty carbine
shell which is now Exhibit “8”.
After the autopsy, Dr. de Leon who examined the premises recovered one
slug, Exhibit “C”, beside the post of the house where Perfecto was shot.
The accused police chief Mananguite
started an investigation. He called upon
the people in the neighborhood to shed light.
Five persons gave their versions:
Prosecution witness Paciencia Gulariza Vda. de Silva, defense
witness Probo Loyogoy, Virgines Majerano, Eugenio Esuga and Emilio Montaño. The chief
asked them to fall in line. Paciencia was the first to be questioned. Paciencia stated
that she did not know who killed Perfecto Navarro near her house because it was
dark the previous night. Loyogoy was next. He
answered that he did not know as it was dark.
Virgines Majerano
also gave an identical answer. And, so
did Esuga and Montaño. All that they could tell the police chief was
that they heard gun reports.
The police chief then asked his men to request the municipal
judge and the municipal health officer to come.
The policemen returned without them.
The municipal judge could not be located; he was out. The doctor told them that if the relatives of
the deceased would consent to the autopsy, the cadaver should be brought to the
municipal building. Eutiquia
Manongsong, the widow, agreed. She said she was interested to know who
killed her husband. The police chief
sent for Gregorio and Briccio Navarro, brothers of the
deceased. Parenthetically, it may be
stated that, according to the defense, at about 8:30
in the night of March 15 chief Mananguite himself
jailed Gregorio and Briccio Navarro because they were
“very drunk,” and that they were only released at about 6:40 that morning of the 16th.
The two brothers brought the body of Perfecto in a hammock to the
municipal building where the autopsy heretofore adverted to was performed.
The chief of police continued the investigation at his office in
the municipal building. There, separate
statements were made by the five persons heretofore mentioned: Paciencia Gulariza Vda. de Silva, Exhibit
“1”, subscribed before municipal judge J. Manuel Mangada,
translation, Exhibit “1-A”; Probo Loyogoy, Exhibit “3”, translation, Exhibit
“3-A”; Virgines Majerano,
Exhibit “4”, translation, Exhibit “4-A”; Eugenio Esuga, Exhibit
“5”, translation, Exhibit “5-A”; and Emilio Montaño, Exhibit “6”, translation, Exhibit
“6-A”. The essence of all of
these statements is that nobody knew who killed Perfecto.
1. Will the testimony of
the two alleged eyewitnesses to the crime survive conscientious appraisal?
The description made by Gregorio Navarro as to how the crime was
committed, right at the very start, dealt a crippling blow to the People’s case. Here is what he said:
“Q. This Fidel Cerenado was facing you when he fired his gun, is that
right?
A He was facing our brother.
(p. 16, Tr., 1st vol.)
* *
* *
COURT
Q When the first shot was
fired, what was the position of your brother, Perfecto?
A His back was facing…
Q Was his back towards
Fidel?
A The back of Perfecto was
turned towards Fidel Cerenado.
Q After that shot what
happened to Perfecto?
A He fell down. (p. 17, Tr., 1st vol.)
*
*
* *
Q Those five shots were all
fired while Perfecto was still standing?
A At the first shot
Perfecto was not hit and the second he did not mind it because they would have
thought that Perfecto would fight back and Perfecto never thought he would be
killed.
Q And the 3rd and 4th
shots?
A The second shot
was the shot which hit him on the right buttock which hit his
left and right thigh.
Q You said that the first
shot did not kit Perfecto and now you said that he was hit on the buttock,
which is which?
A The first shot
hit him oh the left leg but it was through and through. The second shot hit his buttock.
Q The first and second
shots were fired when Perfecto was still standing?
A The first shot of which he
was hit on the left leg he was still standing and the second
shot was the one which caused him to fall.” (pp. 18-19, Tr., 1st vol.;
emphasis supplied).
But the testimony of Dr. Manuel de Leon which follows sweeps the ground
from under Gregorio’s version:
“Q Will you please, doctor,
tell this court what you found on the
cadaver of Perfecto Navarro?
A I
autopsied the cadaver of Perfecto Navarro on March 16, 1964 and I found an entrance
gunshot wound, as stated in this report, on the right dorso-medial aspect of the right thigh
coming out on the upper third of the ventral, aspect of the medial portion of
the same thigh and entered again on the left upper third
of the left thigh on the ventro-medial aspect which
measures 1 inch in diameter circular in form and at the same level of the exit
wound of the right thigh coming out on the lower third
of the ventral aspect of the left thigh.
Q Those are the injuries only, doctor?
A Yes, sir.
Q In other words, how many bullets entered the body?
A One (1) bullet entered.
Q From the position of the wounds, will you be able to demonstrate
the position of Perfecto Navarro when he was hit?
A I think so.
Q What was the position of Perfecto Navarro, doctor?
A He must have been slightly crouching.” (pp. 45-46, Tr.,
2nd vol.; emphasis supplied).
This is confirmed by his medico-legal
necropsy report, Exhibits “A” And “A-1”, and his
diagrammatic representation of a human body showing the trajectory of the
wounds caused by one single shot, Exhibit “A-2”, and the fact that
the doctor himself found at the scene of the crime one carbine slug, Exhibit
“C”. It cannot therefore be
true, as stated by Gregorio Navarro, that his brother Perfecto Navarro was
first shot at while standing, and that two different shots hit
his body, first on the left leg, and second on the right buttock.
If Gregorio Navarro were to be believed, that night he informed Eutiquia Manongsong, wife of
Perfecto, that the latter was dead.
Strangely enough, this very same wife early the following morning went
to the chief of police asking for help to ascertain who the killer was. In the normal course of events, Gregorio
should have told the wife who gunned down Perfecto – if he really
knew. Nothing in the record
suggests that he did so. The balance of
probabilities then is that Gregorio, with his brother Briccio,
was not at the scene of the crime.
Because that night, both were incarcerated for drunkenness. Police blotter, Exhibit “10-A”,
confirms this.
If the chief of police was really the author of the crime, it is
doubtful if he could have had the temerity of testifying in court that Eutiquia Manongsong and Francisca
Navarro, wife and sister of the deceased, came to see him – to help identify
the killer. The chief’s instinct of
self-preservation would then have warned him that the two women would naturally
contradict him if what he said were not true.
More so, because before he took the stand, Gregorio Navarro and Paciencia Gulariza had already
pinpointed him as the man who, in their presence, ordered Perfecto’s
liquidation. But the People did not care
to present the widow or the sister to destroy this version of the police
chief. We find no difficulty in saying
that if the wife or the sister had information that the chief of police was
involved, neither one nor the other would exhibit any hesitancy in going to
court. After all, a wife is a wife, and
a sister is a sister. The inference is
quite obvious.
Gregorio Navarro testified that he visited the cadaver of his
brother at the place of the crime.
According to Paciencia Gulariza
Vda. de Silva, Gregorio and Briccio
Navarro stayed at the scene of the crime for a space of about one hour after
the shooting. But they did not take the
body away. Could they not have taken the
cadaver to the home of Eutiquia Manongsong,
their sister-in-law, which was but 30 meters away? Gregorio’s excuse: he was afraid. But nobody was there. If Gregorio was afraid, could he have visited
the dead body? There is evidence that he
was troublesome – especially when under the influence of liquor. Was he really afraid?
We now come to Paciencia Gulariza Vda. de Silva. Her testimony, referring to the time of the
shooting, indicates that only two of the accused were then present: Anoy (chief of
police Valeriano Mananguite),
and Bakot (Fidel Cerenado),
the alleged triggerman. Gregorio
Navarro, it will be remembered, declared that there were four of them: Mananguite, Morillo, Montaño and Cerenado. The first
time that Paciencia ever made mention of defendants Morillo and Montaño was when she
went to the house of her cousin Bening. According to her, she saw the four in the
yard of Bening’s house.
A shoddy strand, we believe, in the fabric of Paciencia’s
court testimony is her sworn statement, Exhibit “1” (translation,
Exhibit “1-A”). That affidavit
was but a confirmation of her oral version given to the police that same
morning at the place of the incident.
There, during the earlier spot investigation, so many people were
present. One of them was Probo Loyogoy the husband of Paciencia’s own cousin Bening. But Loyogoy testified
in court that late in the night of the crime, when Paciencia
came unexpectedly up his house, she told him that “Pistoy
was shot,” but, in Paciencia’s own words,
“I do not know (who killed him) because it was dark and there was no
person there anymore.” (Tr., p. 35, 1st vol.). Loyogoy further
declared that in the investigation at the crime scene, Paciencia
verbally repeated that she did not know who killed Perfecto. And then, so Loyogoy
added, at the subsequent investigation in
the municipal building, when Paciencia’s written
statement was prepared, the latter confirmed what she told the chief of police
at the place where the killing occurred.
And this, not to mention the testimony of defendants, police chief Mananguite, and policemen Morillo
and Montaño.
They all stated, too, that during the investigation at the place where
the dead body was found, Paciencia disclaimed
knowledge of who the killer was.
The statement, Exhibit “1”, is clear in that Paciencia did not know who killed Perfecto Navarro because
she was then asleep, and she had
gone to sleep at about 12:00 o’clock that night. A wide time-gap exists between her testimony
in court as to the time the crime occurred (past 8:00
p.m.) and the time she slept according to her statement (about midnight).
There is of course no denying the fact that Paciencia’s
sworn statement was prepared in the office of the chief of police. Equally true is that at the time that
statement was taken, there were four other persons present who were waiting for
their turn to make affidavits: her
neighbors Probo Loyogoy, Virgines Majerano, Eugenio Esuga and Emilio Montaño. In court,
however, Paciencia was to say that they – without
mentioning names – “were intending to shoot me,” if she did not sign
Exhibit “1”, only to soften afterwards to tell the court that chief Mananguite merely taught her what she was to declare
in her sworn statement, Exhibit “1”.
The improbability of her court version is at once apparent.
Paciencia had time to throw that
affidavit away. She did not right away
subscribe thereto. She told the court at
the trial that at the time she signed the affidavit, only Municipal
Judge Mangada and she were present. Mananguite was not
there.
But in the vertiginous version Paciencia
gave out in court, we find surfacing the fact that the questions and answers
that are stated in her sworn statement, Exhibit “1”, were
correct. Said she:
“Q Was that investigation
read by the municipal judge to you?
A It was read to me.
Q Did you understand what was read to you by
the municipal judge?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you answer that the
questions were correct as well as the
answers?
A Yes, sir.
Q If I show you that document, would you be able to identify that?
A I can recognize it.
Q Showing
to you this document, which for purposes of identification I request that the
same be marked as Exh. “1” for the accused and the
translation as Exh. “1-A”, will you please see
whether you have thumbmarked on this document?
COURT
Mark them.
WITNESS
A That is the one. (Witness identifying her own thumbmark.) (Tr., pp. 37-38, 2nd vol.; emphasis supplied).
* *
* *
COURT
Q In other words, what
those people wanted you to sign was not the truth?
A The truth.
Q But that was
the very thing you ratified before the Justice
of the Peace
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that paper which
according to you they wanted you to sign and you only signed it because you
were threatened to be shot?
A They asked me to sign
that because they wanted me to testify what they taught me.
Q. What was that fact which
they told you to declare?
A Anoy
taught me to testify that I heard a gun report but I did not see the
person who made the shot.
Q Did you say that to the
Justice of the Peace?
A I told him.
COURT
Proceed, Atty. De Guia.
ATTY. DE GUIA
Q How did you tell the
Municipal Judge what you have just stated now?
A What I narrated was what
was taught to me that I would say that I heard a gun report but I did
not see the person who shot.
Q But you said a while ago
that this document, Exh. “1”, was read to you by the
municipal judge and you confirmed that all the statements you made in
answer to the questions appearing therein were correct?
A Yes, sir, the
truth.” (Tr., pp. 40-41, 2nd vol.; emphasis supplied).
It would seem that at the investigation
leading to the execution of Exhibit “1”, Paciencia
had to make a position statement. For,
the chief of police did ask her to lay bare the truth. And this was because Eutiquia
Manongsong, Perfecto Navarro’s widow, pointed at her
the finger of guilt for her husband’s death and accused her of being her
husband’s paramour. The police chief
goaded her “tell the truth, do not hide anything.” (Tr., p. 53, 2nd
vol.). That was after the statement was
already typed. The chief of police was
to testify on this point that this drew a reply from Paciencia
who, crossing her fingers, said: “I
have nothing more to say, Chief, because these are the whole truth even if I
will be killed.” (Tr., p. 85, 2nd vol.).
Or, according to witness Loyogoy, Paciencia’s retort was:
“that is all the truth Mano Anoy (Mananguite)”; and she
even said, “I could die if what I’m testifying now is not true.”
(Tr., p. 53, 2nd vol.).
Misgivings here could still be entertained as to the voluntariness of Paciencia’s
sworn statement, Exhibit “1”, were it not for the presence therein of
one piece of evidence which is at once inaudible but hugely formidable. Before that statement was sworn to, Municipal
Judge Mangada obviously was not satisfied with the
completeness thereof. So, Judge Mangada asked the following questions from Paciencia and got the following answers (written by the
judge himself in ink at the margin of Exhibit “1”) thus
–
“Q Did you hear gun
explosions last night?
A Yes, four gun explosions.
Q What did you do?
A I seized my children, then I ran to the house of Pening Montaño.”
The circumstance just noted nails down the question – the
statement was voluntary.
The foregoing all serve to underscore the fatal distance between
doubtful proof and proof beyond reasonable doubt. We say that the People failed to make out a
legally sustainable case against defendants.
2. It would thus serve no
useful purpose now to dig deep into the claim defendants so elaborately
presented at the trial that the prosecution herein was politically motivated. Nor do we find it necessary to describe at
length defendant’s alibi. Whether
political persecution against defendants was the motive or not, or that their
alibi is weak or strong, would not now be of any consequence. Neither of these two defenses would alter the
legal precept that in criminal cases the burden is on the People to prove
defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[2]
For, such is a marked characteristic of our criminal law. Absent proof beyond reasonable doubt in the
present case, herein defendants are entitled to acquittal.
Viewed in the light of the entire record, we vote to
reverse the judgment under review.
Defendants-appellants are hereby acquitted. Their immediate release is hereby ordered.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, and
Angeles, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J., took no part.
[1]
Criminal Case C-1042, Court of First Instance of Samar,
Branch IV-Catarman entitled “People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff, versus Valeriano Mananguite, alias Anoy, et al.,
Accused.”
[2]
People vs. Fraga, L-12005, August 31, 1960, cited in
People vs. Cunanan, L-
17599, April 24, 1967, 1967B Phil. 38, 50.