G.R. No. 17763. July 28, 1923

This appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the Province of Pampanga, finding the appellants, Proceso Bustos,
Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, Filomeno Sunga, Donato Benosa, and Irineo Cailao,
guilty of the offence of homicide, committed on June 19, 1920, in the
municipality of Macabebe, in the Province of Pampanga, upon the person of
Liborio Bustos, with the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of superior
strength, and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for seventeen
years, four months and one day, reclusion temporal; to indemnify jointly
and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000; and to pay each
the one-ninth part of the costs.

Three other individuals, to wit, Alejandro Ronquillo, Francisco Reyes, and
Roman Bondoc, were named in the original information as joint authors of the
same crime with the six appellants; but these three were acquitted by the trial
judge, and they are not concerned in the present appeal.

A somewhat peculiar turn has been given to the case by the circumstance that
after the six appellants had been convicted in the court below of the crime of
homicide committed upon the person of Liborio Bustos, an independent prosecution
was instituted against one Pablo Ocampo as author of the same homicide, and upon
his conviction of the same offence, he also appealed to this court.

As Ocampo had been used as a witness for the prosecution in the trial against
Bustos and his associates (the present appellants), and the two prosecutions are
otherwise intimately related, it became important that this court should have
before it the record in both causes before determining either appeal; and
although the case to be disposed of in this opinion (People vs. Bustos et
al., G. R. No. 17763) was submitted to us a short while before the second case
(People vs. Ocampo, G. R. No. 18869)^[1] reached the calendar, the voluminous record
in the two causes have been examined together.

Proceso Bustos is an influential resident of the municipality of Macabebe, in
the Province of Pampanga; and at the time of the homicide in question was
holding the office of president of said municipality. Felipe Bustos is a cousin
of Proceso Bustos and at the time of the homicide was the municipal secretary of
Macabebe; while Donato Benosa appears to have been an amanuensis in the office
of the president. Filomeno Sunga was chief of police of the municipality. Irineo
Cailao, Francisco Reyes, and Roman Bondoc were members of the police force under
Filomeno Sunga; and Alejandro Ronquillo was a domestic servant of Proceso
Bustos. Liborio Bustos, the deceased, was a prominent resident of the same
municipality of Macabebe and a cousin of Proceso Bustos. At the time of his
death Liborio Bustos was vice president of the municipality.

For some months prior to the date of the homicide, Proceso Bustos had
entertained the belief that his cousin Liborio Bustos had been guilty of
improprieties with the former’s wife; and this conviction, whether rightly or
wrongly entertained, engendered in the bosom of Proceso Bustos a feeling of deep
resentment against Liborio Bustos, calling for vengeance. At the same time,
owing to political differences, animosity existed between Jose Blanco and
Liborio Bustos. As a result of the antagonisms above-mentioned Liborio Bustos
was not in friendly relations with Jose Blanco, and the relations between
Liborio Bustos and Proceso Bustos were so strained that the two did not speak to
each other even in the meetings of the municipal council.

On the night of June 19, 1920, an exhibition was given in Macabebe by a
traveling circus; and upon that occasion, in the circus tent, an assault was
made upon Liborio Bustos which cost him his life. The details of this affair, as
related by credible witnesses, are substantially these: After the first act of
the performance had commenced, Liborio Bustos came in, accompanied by his wife,
a son (Felicisimo) of the age of fourteen years, and two small nieces, together
with a house girl or nurse. Upon entering the tent, he conducted his family
around towards the right of the ring used by the performers and placed them on
the first row of seats to the right of the central aisle. After the members of
the family had been thus accounted for, it appeared that no chair was there
available for Liborio himself; and in order to provide himself with a seat it
was necessary to go around to the left side of the ring. Upon passing around in
that direction, he found a vacant chair between Irineo Cailao and Alejandro
Ronquillo, and he accordingly took possession of this seat. Proceso Bustos at
the same time was sitting near by on the left of Irineo Cailao, who in turn was
seated at the immediate left of Liborio Bustos. Filomeno Sunga was seated in a
chair behind the one taken by Liborio Bustos, and others of the nine persons
named as defendants in the original information were sitting in close proximity.
Liborio Bustos, apparently thus led by chance rather than design, had planted
himself squarely in a nest of his personal and political enemies surrounded by
their dependents or partisans.

After Liborio Bustos had been thus seated for a few minutes and the circus
act then under way had been concluded, a number of spectators indicated their
approval of the performance by applause; and Liborio Bustos himself joined in
this manifestation by clapping his hands. As he lowered his hands after thus
applauding, his right arm was seized by Alejandro Ronquillo who was on his
immediate right, and at the same instant his left arm was seized by Irineo
Cailao; while Filomeno Sunga approached from behind and with his right hand
caught Liborio by the hair, at the same time passing his left arm around
Liborio’s neck. Others belonging to the same gang immediately swarmed around and
blows began to fall upon various parts of the victim’s body, including his
chest, face and back. In this assault Felipe Bustos and Jose Blanco took a
conspicuous part. One or both of these individuals were armed with a revolver
and Jose Blanco either struck Liborio in the forehead with the barrel of his
revolver or pointed the weapon at his head in a threatening manner. The
policemen meanwhile used their clubs on the deceased, and Donato Benosa struck
him either with brass-knucks or with his fist. As the assault proceeded Felipe
Bustos called aloud more than once “kill him.”

The commotion which had thus arisen around Liborio Bustos of course attracted
the immediate attention of the spectators of the circus, and its significance
was not lost upon the elder members of Liborio’s family who, as already stated,
were sitting almost directly across the circus ring from the point where the
assault had occurred. Among these observers was Felicisimo, the fourteen-year
old son of Liborio Bustos, whose eye had caught the first signs of trouble, and
who bounded across the ring, now vacated by the performers, and placed himself
at a point near the assailants, from which he would be able to see whatever
might happen. To this spot the boy was followed by his mother.

Meanwhile Proceso Bustos, with a dagger in hand, approached the circle where
Liborio Bustos was standing engaged with the individuals who had seized and were
still holding him. Seeing this act on the part of Proceso Bustos, and
comprehending the danger with which her husband was threatened, the wife of
Liborio Bustos threw herself in front of Proceso and besought him to do her
husband no harm. Prcceso Bustos, however, gave the woman a shove which caused
her to fall to the ground, and he then made his way into the circle where
Liborio Bustos now stood erect and with an upward movement of the right hand
Proceso Bustos stabbed Liborio in the left epigastric region with a dagger. The
wound thus inflicted appears to have been several inches deep, and it resulted
in the perforation of the stomach in two places. This injury having been
inflicted by Proceso Bustos, the assailants desisted from the attack; and the
wife of Liborio Bustos, assisted by Julian Mendoza, were able to approach the
injured person and take him in hand. Weakened by the wound and exhausted no
doubt in part by the numerous blows which he had received on various parts of
the body, Liborio Bustos quietly left the circus, supported on either side by
his wife and Julian Mendoza, by whom he was conducted to the residence of his
mother, situated about one hundred and fifty meters away.

The voluminous proof contains many details which, when understood in their
proper relations, enable one to visualize the scene more clearly, but for the
most part these details are either unnecessary to an understanding of the real
nature of the assault or are not established with sufficient certainty to
justify a court in attaching much weight to them. For instance, one of the
prosecuting witnesses says that before Alejandro Ronquillo began the assault by
seizing the right arm of Liborio Bustos, Alejandro Ronquillo glanced towards
Proceso Bustos, who had his eyes fixed on Ronquillo, and who then with an
approving nod gave the signal to Ronquillo to proceed. Several witnesses further
say that as Proceso Bustos entered the group which surrounded Liborio Bustos,
preparatory to stabbing the latter, Proceso Bustos said, “Make way, let me pass”
(Den me paso, den me paso). Another circumstance, accredited by many
witnesses, is that when the scuffle started some one called aloud “Liborio
Bustos is drawing a revolver.” Alejandro Ronquillo says that he was the person
who made this exclamation; and his testimony, as well as that of other witnesses
examined in behalf of the defendants, is to the effect that Liborio Bustos had a
revolver on his person and attempted to draw it. Other proof, however, shows
that in all probability Liborio Bustos was unarmed on this occasion; and the
exclamation emitted by Alejandro Ronquillo was without doubt a mere ruse,
intended to mislead the bystanders as to the true nature of the commotion.

When Liborio Bustos, with the assistance of his wife and Julian Mendoza,
arrived at the home of his mother, he was at first placed in a chair in front of
the house, but a little later he was taken inside and placed on a bed in the
front room.

At about 9 p. m., two physicians arrived, namely, Jose Talag and Lazaro
Yambao. Upon casual examination of the wound in the side, it was at once seen to
be of a serious nature; and though nothing was said to excite the injured man,
Dr. Yambao told the family that the first symptom of nausea and vomiting would
be a danger signal, as it would indicate the existence of peritonitis resulting
from perforation of the intestines. In such eventuality, he told them, it would
be necessary to carry the patient at once to Manila where an operation might be
performed with some hope of saving life. Later in the night this symptom of
nausea and vomiting manifested itself in violent form, and arrangements were at
once made to take the patient to Manila. To this end an automobile was procured;
and the patient left Macabebe at between 1 and 2 a. m. on the morning of June
20, accompanied by a physician and other persons.

After a journey of several hours, made tedious from the necessity of going
very slowly, owing to the condition of the sufferer, the party arrived in
Manila; and at about 8 a. m. he was placed in the Philippine General Hospital.
An operation was there performed, but the patient began to sink during the day
and died in the evening, about twenty-four hours after the injury had been
inflicted.

Upon examining the body of the deceased, both at the time of the surgical
operation and upon the subsequent occasion of the post mortem autopsy,
the physicians found that the weapon used had perforated both the anterior and
posterior walls of the stomach of the deceased. In addition to this wound, which
was necessarily fatal, various bruises were found on the breast, back, and
forearms of the body, as well as on the face, one considerable bruise being
found immediately between the eyebrows. Neither physician was able to say with
certainty whether the instrument used in making the wound had two cutting edges
or only one, but the stroke had been evidently made in a direction from below
upwards.

The proof shows conclusively that from the beginning Liborio Bustos believed
he had received a fatal injury and that death was certain. While he was still
sitting in the chair in front of his mother’s house, the justice of the peace of
the municipality, Aureliano Dizon by name, came up. Seeing Dizon, the deceased
said: “Judge, I am going to die,” at the same time observing that he had been
attacked by Proceso Bustos, Felipe Bustos, and the policemen. The son,
Felicisimo Bustos, was then crying; and the deceased said to him, “my son, do
not cry, for you will not be poor. Your uncle Marcelino will not desert you, and
you can continue your studies better. Call the priest, I want to confess.” In
response to the request for spiritual assistance, Father Guevara, the parish
priest, was sent for; who presently came, and finding the deceased prostrated in
bed, took his confession and administered the last sacrament in conformity with
the rites of the Church. Another circumstance which shows that the deceased
fully realized the fatal nature of the wound he had received, is that he
objected to being taken to Manila, on the ground that it would be of no use.
Furthermore, in the ante mortem statement signed by himself, to which
more particular reference will be made hereafter, the deceased declared that his
declaration was given in contemplation of approaching death and the consequent
necessity of soon presenting his soul before the Almighty Creator. Immediately
before this statement was signed, the deceased had been vomiting blood; and some
of the material ejected from his stomach was at that time scattered over the
floor. Even Dr. Talag, who testified as a witness for the defendants, admits
that the deceased said he was going to die, though neither nervous nor unquiet,
and he remained throughout in the full possession of his mental faculties.

When Aureliano Dizon, the justice of the peace, encountered Liborio Bustos at
the house to which the latter had been carried, he was not at first impressed
with the idea that the injury would necessarily prove fatal, although even then
Liborio Bustos said he was going to die. Dizon therefore did not at once make
any preparations for the taking of an ante mortem statement from Bustos;
but as the night advanced and alarming symptoms developed, Dizon determined to
procure a written statement from the injured man. To this end he caused his
typewriting machine to be brought to the house and, placing it upon a table at
the bedside of the sufferer, he proceeded to reduce to writing in the Pampangan
dialect a narrative of the occurrence substantially in the form in which it was
dictated by the declarant. This statement is in evidence as Exhibit B of the
prosecution. It fills a single sheet of ordinary legal-cap paper and in addition
to being signed by Liborio Bustos Zabala, as declarant, it bears the signature
of Dr. Jose Talag, as witness.

The testimony shows that this statement, after being reduced to writing by
Aureliano Dizon, was read over to the declarant and signed by him while in bed.
Dr. Talag, the attesting witness, admits his signature, and though evidently
hostile to the prosecution, he virtually admits that the document was signed by
the deceased in his presence; since he says that he saw the deceased with pen in
hand preparatory to the act of signing, in which instant he turned away to the
light to examine the material in a pan into which the deceased had just vomited.
Antonio Garcia, of the age of twenty-nine years and a school teacher by
profession, happened to be in the house at the time. He says he saw Liborio
Bustos sign the paper in question as well as Dr. Talag, and that after Liborio
Bustos had read and signed the paper himself, he handed the pen to Dr. Talag in
order that the latter might sign. Other testimony with reference to the same
incident shows conclusively that Liborio Bustos was fully informed of the
contents of this paper and signed the same with his own hand while in the full
possession of his mental faculties.

It appears that Aureliano Dizon began the work of typewriting this statement
possibly before midnight, and the final clause recites that it was signed by the
declarant on June 20, 1920, at 1.40 a. m. In the original document, however, the
figures indicating the day of the month (20) appear to be printed over the
figures “19.” Dizon explains this by saying that, as he was conscious that the
affair at the circus had occurred on the nineteenth of June, he at first wrote
this date, but immediately noticing that the clock then showed the hour of 1.40
a. m., he changed the date by writing the figures “20” over the “19.” The
explanation of this error is so entirely reasonable and natural that its
truthfulness cannot be doubted.

The following additional circumstance in connection with the signing of this
document is also in evidence; and we think it of some value as showing the
scrupulous exactitude of the declarant, as well as the sense of responsibility
exhibited by Aureliano Dizon in the matter of taking the declaration. In this
connection it appears that in the course of reducing the declarant’s statement
to writing the declarant had said that while the chief of police was holding
him, Jose Blanco was pointing at him with a revolver. In putting this statement
on paper Aureliano Dizon had caused the declarant to say that while the chief of
police was holding the declarant, Jose Blanco was “pointing,” omitting to add
the words “at me with his revolver.” The sentence as thus written, while
intelligible, was nevertheless incomplete; and when the statement was read over
to Liborio Bustos, or by him, his attention was attracted by the omission of the
quoted words. He thereupon requested Aureliano Dizon to add the words “at me
with his revolver.” Dizon thought it inadvisable to make the correction by
inserting the words on the typewritten sheet, and probably in view of the
approaching departure of the declarant for Manila, he did not attempt to copy
the statement off again. He therefore wrote the words “at me with his revolver,”
or their equivalent in the Pampangan dialect, on a separate slip of paper and
attached it with a clip to the declaration itself, with marks indicating the
point at which the words should be inserted. As thus amended the statement was
approved by the declarant.

The statement shows on its face that it was made in contemplation of
approaching death; and the narrative contained therein covers not only
circumstances connected with the act of homicide, but certain facts relating to
the history of the trouble between the declarant and his assailants and the
motive for the killing. Now, it is a well-recognized rule that an ante mortem
statement made under the requisite conditions by the victim of a homicide is
admissible in a trial against its author, or authors; but it is equally well
settled that such a declaration is admissible only in so far as it relates to
the homicide itself. So far, therefore, as this statement relates to past
history, its contents are inadmissible, and to that extent the court must
exclude it from consideration. But this does not make such statement
inadmissible in so far as it is confined to the immediate act of homicide.

Upon examining the declaration in the light of this consideration, it will be
found to contain substantially the following competent facts, namely, that while
the declarant was sitting on a stool at the circus on the night in question, he
was approached by Proceso Bustos, Filomeno Sunga, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco,
and Donato Benosa. Felipe Bustos struck him without provocation; and Sunga
placed his arm firmly around the declarant’s neck. While the declarant was in
this position, Proceso Bustos stabbed him with a dagger, inflicting the wound
below the ribs in the left side. In addition to this the policeman Irineo Cailao
struck the declarant with his club. While Sunga was holding the declarant, Jose
Blanco pointed at him with his revolver.

We have been careful to state with precision the facts relating to this
written statement of Liborio Bustos exactly as they are revealed in the record
by what appears to us to be the overwhelming weight of the evidence; and this
for the reason that the defence in this case is largely planted upon the
proposition that this document is a fabrication concocted by Aureliano Dizon and
that the signature of Liborio Bustos thereto is a forgery. In view of this
imputation upon the honesty of the justice of the peace and the good faith of
the case of the prosecution in general, we deem it important to collate from the
record certain other circumstances which corroborate this document in a most
emphatic manner.

In the first place, we note that Dr. Lazaro Yambao, who was introduced as a
witness for the defendants and who exhibited manifest hostility to the case for
the prosecution, admits having had a conversation with Liborio Bustos while in
attendance upon him on the night of the homicide. Dr. Yambao says that in this
conversation Liborio Bustos told him that Proceso Bustos and his companions were
the ones who had assaulted him, or as the deceased said, “Proceso y
compañia,” mentioning in this connection the names of Felipe Bustos, Jose
Blanco, and Filomeno Sunga, in addition to that of Proceso Bustos, as being
among those who were engaged in the assault. When this conversation between Dr.
Yambao and Liborio Bustos is viewed in connection with the proof relating to the
condition of the deceased and his state of mind during the whole evening, we see
no reason to doubt that it is itself independently admissible as an ante
mortem declaration and competent evidence against the four persons therein
mentioned. Though the declarant did not attempt to go into details to Dr.
Yambao, the statement made to him corroborates the written declaration fully
upon the point that said four individuals participated in the assault; and these
four are precisely the ones who were chiefly responsible for the killing, the
others being mere tools or dependents.

Further corroboration of the truthfulness of the ante mortem statement
is found in the testimony of Telesforo Martinez, a captain of the Constabulary
and a resident of the Province of Pangasinan, who was in Macabebe on the night
of the homicide. This witness states that, hearing of this affair, he went
between 12 and 1 o’clock a. m., to the house of Liborio Bustos’s mother, in
company with the acting governor of the province, the provincial fiscal, and
another. Upon arriving in the house at the time stated, he found Liborio Bustos
lying in bed, and the latter related to the witness what had occurred that
night. Of this conversation Captain Martinez made certain notes in writing, in
conformity with his duty and practice as an officer of the Constabulary. These
notes were produced in court by the witness and introduced in evidence as
Exhibit Z, which is of the following tenor:

“VICE PRESIDENT.—Entered circus with family. Took seats on right side for
wife. Opposite this place on other side of ring saw an empty chair and occupied
it. Sat between Irineo Cailao and president’s muchacho Ronquillo. After first
act a few minutes after he sat down felt held by Ronquillo and Cailao. Saw
striking him F. Bustos struck him on nose (pointing on bridge). Filomeno Sunga,
C. of P., held him from behind on neck and head. Jose Blanco struck him with
muzzle of revolver on his forehead (pointing just above bridge of nose). These
parts of face show contusions, and just above bridge of nose shows about 1/8
part of circle like scratch slightly bleeding. Proceso Bustos stabbed him in
abdomen. Surrounded and held by other policemen, among whom he mentioned Roman
Bondoc and Policronio Bondoc.

“(The above taken in V. P.’s own house while in his bed June 19 ’20. V. P.
fearing death, as from his answers and statements to me and
fiscal.)”

After Captain Martinez had concluded his conversation with Liborio Bustos, he
asked the fiscal if it were not necessary to take his formal declaration. The
fiscal replied that the declaration had already been taken. The witness then
asked Liborio Bustos if he had made such declaration, and he answered that he
had, and he said that he had signed it. The witness then saw the declaration
itself (Exhibit B) in the hands of the fiscal.

The statements of the deceased in this conversation with Captain Martinez
fully corroborate the formal declaration (Exhibit B) in respect to the
complicity of Proceso Bustos, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, Filomeno Sunga, and
Irineo Cailao; and said statement was also given under circumstances that make
it independently admissible as an ante mortem statement. Barring the
reference to Policronio Bondoc, whose complicity does not appear by other
sufficient evidence, the statement made by Liborio Bustos to Captain Martinez
conforms in all material particulars with the account given of the killing in
the opening statement in this opinion.

But this is not all. The authenticity of Exhibit B as a veridical declaration
of the deceased is further corroborated by the testimony of Augusto Reyes, who,
at the time of the commission of this homicide, was the provincial fiscal of
Pampanga. On the night of the homicide he went between 12 and 1 o’clock a. m.,
to the house of the mother of Liborio Bustos, entering at about the same time as
Captain Martinez. The witness approached the bed where the deceased was lying
and listened to the conversation which passed between the deceased and Captain
Martinez. While the two were conversing, the justice of the peace (Dizon) came
and handed the witness the ante mortem statement (Exhibit B) of the
deceased, saying that it had been signed by Liborio Bustos and attested by Dr.
Jose Talag. The witness then asked Liborio Bustos if the signature appearing
thereon was his, and he replied that it was. The witness then asked Liborio
Bustos how it had happened, and the latter told the witness of what occurred at
the circus. Afterwards, upon causing the signed statement of the deceased to be
translated to him, the witness recognized that the narrative given to him by
Liborio Bustos coincided with the declaration contained in said document.

In the light of all this testimony it is impossible to entertain any doubt
whatever that the Exhibit B was signed by Liborio Bustos in the full possession
of his faculties and that it contains an authentic statement by Liborio Bustos
of the facts regarding the homicide, as he understood them.

But there still remains to be considered the evidence afforded by an
inspection of the questioned signature itself. In this connection it should be
observed that after the case had been heard in the lower court and the six
appellants there convicted, and after the cause had reached this court upon
appeal, a petition was here filed in behalf of the appellants, asking that the
case be reopened for the reception of the newly discovered evidence; and certain
affidavits were exhibited which tended to show that expert evidence could be
procured to the effect that the signature of Liborio Bustos Zabala to the
Exhibit B is a forgery. Upon the presentation of said request this court at
first withheld its approval, reserving, however, the right to act favorably upon
the petition, if the interests of justice should so require, at the time when
the cause should come on to be heard. At a later date, in view of developments
in the related case against Pablo Ocampo, and particularly in view of the
attitude of both the Attorney-General and of the attorneys for the present
appellants, this court ordered that the record (G. R. No. 17763) should be
returned to the lower court for the taking of additional proof. (Orders of March
23, and March 28, 1922.) Pursuant to this authority, additional proof was
submitted by the defence, the purpose of which was to impeach the authenticity
of the ante mortem declaration (Exhibit B); and in rebuttal thereto
additional proof was submitted by the fiscal to establish the authenticity of
the same document. All of this additional testimony, having been incorporated in
the record with the consent of all parties, and with the prior approval of this
court, is competent to be here considered; and it has been duly weighed by us in
connection with all the other proof. Its general effect may be stated in a few
words to be this, that, far from bearing out the imputation of forgery with
respect to the signature of Liborio Bustos Zabala to the statement in question,
it completely refutes that imputation and demonstrates the authenticity of said
statement beyond a shadow of doubt. In other words, the opening of the case for
additional proof has produced the complete collapse of the attack made by the
appellants upon the authenticity of the document in question. In partial
confirmation of this we point to the circumstance that it was by this means that
the testimony of Captain Telesforo Martinez, Augusto Reyes, and Antonio Garcia,
relating to the conditions under which the statement in question was signed by
Liborio Bustos, was first brought into the record. But inasmuch as the substance
of their testimony in this connection has already been stated in this opinion,
no further comment will be made thereon, and we confine ourselves at present to
a consideration of the evidence supplied by the questioned signature itself and
the testimony of the single “expert” examined with reference thereto.

In order to supply a basis of comparison, three signatures of Liborio Bustos
Zabala, but appearing once in the form Liborio Z. Bustos, have been brought
before us. These three signatures are taken from official documents and about
their authenticity no question is made. For our own satisfaction, and in view of
the importance of the point at issue, we have caused a photograph to be made of
these three genuine signatures in company with the disputed signature; and as
the four signatures were photographed together upon the same card-board backing,
all are necessarily upon the same scale.

(See Image)

Upon examining these signatures together, the uninformed person would, we
think, hesitate some time before hazarding a conjecture as to which one of the
four may be the questioned signature, so strong would be the conviction that all
four were made by the same hand. We may state, then, that the signature
photographed at the bottom of the plate is the one that has been questioned; and
upon careful comparison with its companions it will be found to differ from them
chiefly in the circumstance that as the pen proceeds to the formation of the
last word in the name, i. e., Zabala, there is a growing uncertainty of
movement and a consequent irregularity in the shape of the letters, as compared
with “Zabala” in the first and second of the authentic signatures. Then there is
lacking the period at the conclusion of the name, which the writer placed after
each of the three admittedly genuine signatures. For the rest, all four of the
signatures are so clearly the work of the same hand that it is almost
superfluous to attempt to point out the numerous minor resemblances and
differences which prove the identity of authorship.

Doctor Warren D. Smith, who assumed the role of handwriting expert in behalf
of the defendants and undertook to maintain that the questioned signature is a
forgery, admits that he has had little technical instruction in the art, or
science, of judging handwriting; and his practical experience as an expert
witness in such matters seems to have been limited to appearances in the Court
of First Instance of Manila in two cases mentioned by him.

In beginning his exposition of the matter now under consideration, Dr. Smith
admonishes the court that no handwriting expert would wish for his testimony to
be received as unquestionable authority, the idea being rather that it is the
function of the expert to place before the court data upon which the court can
form its own opinion. We admit the propriety of this observation, especially as
related to the case in hand, and we commend the diffidence which the witness
exhibits with respect to the conclusion advanced by him.

The first proposition which the doctor advances is that the questioned
signature is altogether too well formed to be genuine, considering the
conditions under which it is supposed to have been made. This signature, the
doctor suggests, is about what it might have been if it had been written under
normal conditions, and it cannot be supposed that a person lying stretched upon
a cot and suffering from a mortal wound of the character of that inflicted on
Liborio Bustos could sign his name as well as this. In this connection we quote
the following passage verbatim from the testimony of Dr. Smith, as it appears in
the transcript:

“The main thing is that the script is too well formed for a man who was dying
of hemorrhage caused by a mortal wound. There should be much more difference
than that which actually appears. The trouble is that the difference is not the
true difference that should appear between the two signatures” (i. e.,
between the questioned signature and one of the authentic signatures). “There
should be indications of shaking or signs of a trembling of the hand When a man
writes under the stimulus of powerful pain there should be signs of it,
characteristic of his condition. And it is the duty of a handwriting expert to
know what those signs are. For the reasons stated I am sure, according to my
judgment, that a man placed in these conditions could not have written this
signature” (i. e., the questioned signature) “in the form in which it is
written.”

The doctor hastens to add that he is not testifying on this point as a
physician; and it should be stated that he is not a doctor of medicine. He is
speaking, so he says, rather in the light of general knowledge and common sense,
since it is known that the state of the nerves and the condition of blood
pressure leave their traces in the character of the writing.

It results, according to the witness’ own statement, that the criterion upon
which he pronounces the signature a forgery has no relation to the specialized
knowledge with which experts in handwriting should be conversant; and the
circumstance will not pass unperceived that his argument rests upon an
hypothesis of fact totally at variance with the facts revealed of record. The
defendants’ own witness, Dr. Jose Talag, testifies, as we have already stated,
that Liborio Bustos, while appreciating fully his precarious condition, was
neither nervous nor unquiet at the time he signed the document in question and
that he was then in the full possession of his mental faculties. Moreover, it
must be remembered that this signature was made only three or four hours after
the injury had been inflicted and about twenty hours before death supervened.
The assumption that the injured man ought not to have been able to make as good
a signature as this at the time he signed the questioned document is, therefore,
wholly gratuitous and unwarranted.

But of course there is truth in the general proposition that the physical and
nervous condition of a writer should be reflected to some extent in his script;
and we point to the irregular formation of the word “Zabala” in the questioned
signature and the absence of the customary period after the signature as
indicative of increasing weakness as the hand of the writer moved over the
paper.

We have been at pains to exhibit clearly the principal argument used by this
witness not only to expose its weakness but in order to exhibit with greater
clearness the inconsistency between his main proposition and his subsequent
comment upon the signatures before us. In this connection it will be observed
that, after planting his attack upon the proposition that the signature in
question is too well formed, the witness proceeds to enumerate twelve points
wherein the questioned signature differs from one or more of the three
admittedly genuine signatures. In other words, the witness would first have us
believe that the questioned signature is so much like the others that it cannot
be genuine and again that it differs from them in so many features that it must
likewise be pronounced a forgery. This is absurd. The twelve points of real or
imaginary difference to which the witness refers are in our opinion rather
twelve reasons for believing the questioned signature to be genuine.

It is a first principle in writing that exact coincidence between two
signatures is absolute proof that one or the other is a forgery. There must be
some difference before authenticity can be admitted; and the general rule is
that authenticity reposes upon a general characteristic resemblance, coupled
with specific differences, such as naturally result from the infinite variety of
conditions controlling the muscles of the writer at each separate effort in
forming his signature.

In the case before us we may point to the following points of similarity
between the questioned signature and one or more of the genuine signatures as
indicative of unquestionable authenticity: (1) The similar general effect of all
the signatures taken in their entirety; (2) the similarity between the third and
fourth signatures as to the alignment of the word “Liborio Bustos;” (3) the
similarity of all the signatures in respect to the inclination of the letters,
and especially as regards the slight inclination to the left of the letter B in
the name Bustos; (4) the manifest confidence exhibited by the writer of the
questioned signature as regards sequence of effort, there being no indication at
any point of hesitation or lack of confidence as to the next stroke to be made;
(5) the similarity of all the signatures in respect to certain combinations of
letters made after the muscles of the hand had become free and automatic as
“ibori” in Liborio, and “ust” in Bustos; (6) the similarity of the formation of
other particular letters, notably the B in Bustos, the small “b” throughout, and
the characteristic mode of connection between Bustos and Zabala; and (7) the
notable similarity of pen-pressure in curves lying at similar angles. Thus, it
will be noted that in the small “b” in both Liborio and Zabala, the pressure is
invariably on the right nib of pen.

Our conclusion, then, after a careful comparison of the questioned signature
with the genuine signatures of Liborio Bustos, must be that the signature
attached to his ante mortem statement (Exhibit B) was undoubtedly made by
him and by no other person. This is in conformity with the credible testimony of
persons who were present when the statement in question was signed, which
testimony has not been contradicted by any witness. It results, as already
suggested, that the attack upon the authenticity of this document must be
considered to have completely collapsed.

We have now arrived at a point where it is desirable to make comment upon the
personality and character of the principal witnesses for the prosecution, as
well as their opportunity to know the facts about which they speak, and
particularly with reference to the circumstances immediately connected with the
stabbing of Liborio Bustos in the circus. But by way of preface to what is now
to be said, an observation or two may be justly made concerning the conditions
with which the prosecuting officials were apparently confronted when conducting
their investigations in this case.

In this connection it appears that after the homicide was committed, a rumor
began to be propagated in the municipality of Macabebe to the effect that
anybody giving information with respect to the killing would be joined as an
accused person in the prosecution which was presently to be begun. Witness after
witness for the defendants have testified to the fact of this rumor; and
although the same witnesses have, as we well know, testified falsely as to the
identity of the immediate perpetrator of the homicide, we see no reason why
their statement with respect to the currency of this rumor might not be accepted
as true. Of course such a rumor could not possibly have been put out by the
investigating officers, for what they were after was information; and naturally
it was desirable from their point of view that every person knowing anything
should reveal it. Such a rumor, in the nature of things, could only have
emanated from the accused or persons acting in their behalf. However, whether
due to that rumor or to the ramifications of wealth, power and kinship enlisted
in behalf of the accused, the mouths of some persons who might have been
supposed to know something about the killing were mysteriously sealed; and it is
noteworthy that even the two physicians who attended Liborio Bustos on the night
he received the fatal injury were examined as witnesses for the accused and both
showed a marked bias in their favor. Rarely indeed has a case come before this
court in which the administration of justice has been so manifestly imperilled
by influences deriving from the potency of an accussed person.

The witnesses who testified in court with reference to facts occurring in the
circus at the time the homicide was committed, and as to whose truthfulness we
entertain no doubt, are four in number. Two of these, to wit, Julian Mendoza and
Felicisimo Bustos, saw Proceso Bustos drive the dagger into the body of Liborio
Bustos; a third, Florencio Coquia, saw most of the assault from the beginning;
and though the movement of Proceso Bustos at the time he made the fatal stroke
was shut off from the view of this witness, and hence the fatal blow was not
seen by him, he saw practically everything else, including the knife in the
hands of Proceso Bustos after the stabbing was over. The fourth of the witnesses
referred to is Aureliano Dizon, the justice of the peace, who saw the beginning
of the assault; but who, believing, with good reason, that his own life was in
danger, immediately withdrew from the circus.

Julian Mendoza is a notary public in the municipality of Macabebe, of the age
of 34 years. At the time of the homicide he was upon friendly relations both
with Liborio Bustos and the accused; and on the night in question he had gone
with Aureliano Dizon to the circus, the latter being accompanied by members of
his own family. They arrived at the circus a few minutes before the family of
Liborio Bustos appeared; and passing around to the right, they took seats in the
front row, adjacent to those taken a few minutes later by the family of Liborio
Bustos when the latter arrived at the circus. The witness noted the arrival of
the family of Liborio Bustos and observed that Liborio Bustos had to go over to
the other side of the ring to find a seat for himself, there being no other seat
in the place where his family had been bestowed. The witness further saw Liborio
Bustos seat himself between Irineo Cailao and Alejandro Ronquillo, under the
circumstances already described in this opinion. The instant the assault on
Liborio Bustos began, the witness hurried across the ring, believing that as a
friend of both parties he could safely intervene and put an end to the
disturbance. He saw the various accused participating in the assault
substantially in the manner already set forth in this opinion; and in particular
he saw Proceso Bustos making his way into the circle, and heard him at the same
time say “Make way; let me pass,” as testified to by Felicisimo Bustos. The
witness said that he was at the distance of about one meter from Proceso Bustos
when the latter stabbed Liborio Bustos with a dagger ten or twelve inches long;
and he demonstrated the manner, i. e., from below upwards, in which the
stroke was delivered by Proceso Bustos.

A careful perusal of the testimony of this witness fails to reveal the
slightest reason to doubt the substantial truthfulness of any part of it. The
circus was at the time well lighted by four large and bright lights. When the
trouble began the witness was about ten meters distant, being seated in the
front row on the right; while Liborio Bustos was seated in the front row on the
left, and almost immediately opposite. At the same time the ring had just been
vacated by the performers; and there was nothing whatever to obstruct the view
of a person placed as was this witness, or to prevent him from seeing the
assault from the moment of its inception. When he crossed the ring, as he at
once did, to separate the contending parties, his opportunity for seeing what
occurred was improved; and, as already stated, he was only one meter away from
Proceso Bustos when the latter delivered the fatal blow. To believe that this
intelligent witness, who is friendly to all concerned, has perjured himself in
order to convict nine innocent men on a charge of murder is preposterous.

Felicisimo Bustos, at the time of this homicide, was about fourteen years of
age and was then a student in the seventh grade of the Burgos Institute in the
City of Manila. On the night in question he was seated near Julian Mendoza at
the circus and had the same opportunities for observation as the latter. He says
that he knew that a state of enmity existed between his father and Proceso
Bustos, but he was ignorant of the cause. This witness, as already stated in
this opinion, saw the first movement of Alejandro Ronquillo as the latter
grabbed the hand of Liborio Bustos; and the witness immediately crossed over to
a point near the place where the disturbance had arisen and was there able to
see perfectly every important movement made. A careful examination of his
testimony is convincing to the effect that he speaks with candor, and we believe
that he has described the scene exactly as he saw it.

Doctor Hans Gross, a celebrated Austrian jurist and expert in criminology,
has made an observation as to the weight to be attached to the testimony of
youths, which we here quote as pertinent to the point of the weight to be
conceded to the testimony of Felicisimo Bustos. Says this learned author:

“An intelligent boy is undoubtedly the best observer to be found. The world
begins to take him by storm with its thousand matters of interest; what the
school and his daily life furnish cannot satisfy his overflowing and generous
heart. He lays hold of everything new, striking, strange; all his senses are on
the stretch to assimilate it as far as possible. No one notices a change in the
house, no one discovers the bird’s nest, no one observes anything out of the way
in the fields; but nothing of that sort escapes the boy; everything which
emerges above the monotonous level of daily life gives him a good opportunity
for exercising his wits, for extending his knowledge, and for attracting the
attention of his elders, to whom he communicates his discoveries. The spirit of
the youth not having as yet been led astray by the necessities of life, its
storms and battles, its factions and quarrels, he can freely abandon himself to
everything which appears out of the way; his life has not yet been disturbed by
education, though he often observes more clearly and accurately than any adult.
Besides, he has already got some principles; lying is distasteful to him,
because he thinks it mean; he is no stranger to the sentiment of self-respect,
and he never loses an opportunity of being right in what he affirms. Thus he is,
as a rule, but little influenced by the suggestions of others, and he describes
objects and occurrences as he has really seen them. We say again that an
intelligent boy is as a rule the best witness in the world.” (As quoted in Moore
on Facts, vol. II, pp. 1055, 1056.)

Florencio Coquia is a native and resident of the Province of Pangasinan, but
for some time prior to the homicide in question he had been acting as postmaster
of Macabebe. He happened to be at the circus in Macabebe on the night when
Liborio Bustos was slain, having taken a seat in the front row to the left of
the entrance. The seat occupied by him appears to have been about three meters
distant from the place where Liborio Bustos had found a seat. When the
disturbance began he directed his attention to the scene and at the same time
moved out to a point somewhat more in front of the actors and about one meter
farther away. He saw the various assailants engaged substantially in the manner
already explained in this opinion; and in particular we note that he mentions
Felipe Bustos as one who struck the deceased in the face and he also describes
the act of Jose Blanco in placing his revolver against the forehead of the
deceased. He saw the wife of Liborio Bustos catch Proceso in her arms as the
latter hurled himself at Liborio Bustos, and saw Proceso push the woman to the
floor. He did not see Proceso Bustos stab Liborio Bustos, but, as already
stated, he saw the dagger in the hand of Proceso Bustos when the assault was
over and Liborio Bustos had been carried out. This witness also states that he
did not observe the presence of the boy, Felicisimo Bustos, until Liborio Bustos
was being removed, when he noticed that the boy was helping his mother and
Julian Mendoza, as they conducted the deceased out of the circus.

A careful examination of the testimony of this witness fails to reveal any
sufficient reason for doubting the substantial truth of his testimony; and no
motive is apparent or imaginable why he should have testified as to these facts
against the accused, supposing them to be innocent of the crime charged. In
weighing his testimony it should be noted that since the commission of this
homicide this witness has returned from Macabebe to live in his native province
of Pangasinan, and he is therefore separated from the local prejudices and local
influences that might operate to create a bias in the mind of a resident of
Macabebe.

Aureliano Dizon, the justice of the peace, at the time the trouble arose was
sitting near Julian Mendoza and Felicisimo Bustos; and he had equal opportunity
with them of seeing the beginning of the disturbance, which he describes
substantially as narrated by others. Indeed, this witness testifies to a fact
which, if it occurred, was not observed by either of the three witnesses already
mentioned. We refer to the approving nod given as a signal by Proceso Bustos to
Alejandro Ronquillo when the latter first seized Liborio Bustos. While it is not
impossible that such a signal may have been given, there is a possibility that
the witness may have misinterpreted the movement attributed to Proceso Bustos,
and we pass the incident as unimportant.

Aureliano Dizon recounts that in December, 1919, or several months prior to
the homicide, Proceso Bustos confidentially told him to keep away from Liborio
Bustos, adding at the end, “Take care, if you do not mind my advice as a brother
and a friend.” It was upon this occasion that Proceso Bustos told Dizon that
Liborio Bustos had proved a traitor, referring to the matter of improper
relations between Liborio Bustos and a woman. Dizon thereupon tried to soothe
Proceso Bustos, saying that he believed the rumor was groundless and pointing
furthermore to the fact that Liborio Bustos had valiantly supported Proceso
Bustos in his candidacy for the office of president. This effort of Dizon to
quiet the feelings of Proceso Bustos was ineffectual; and as Dizon continued in
friendly relations with Liborio he recognized that he himself had incurred the
enmity of Proceso Bustos. Accordingly when he saw the beginning of the assault
upon Liborio Bustos, he naturally believed that, if he attempted to interfere,
he himself would be slain. For this reason he left the circus at once and
hastened to the municipal building to report the trouble by telephone to the
Constabulary. From this point he directed himself towards home, passing on the
way the house to which Liborio Bustos had been conveyed; and, as already stated,
he there found Liborio Bustos sitting in a chair in front of the house, and
Dizon remained with him practically until the time of the departure of Liborio
Bustos for Manila.

As Aureliano Dizon took the dying declaration of Liborio Bustos, and has
otherwise manifested interest in the prosecution of the present appellants, his
personality has been made a target in the attacks of the defence; and his
activities have thus been subjected to considerable criticism. We find little or
nothing in the record to justify these criticisms; and we believe he has acted
throughout with the commendable purpose of assisting in the administration of
justice, a duty incumbent upon a person in the office of justice of the
peace.

In closing our observations upon the testimony of the more important
witnesses for the prosecution upon whom full reliance is placed by this court,
we should not omit to mention Aquilino Silva, a cousin not only of the deceased
but of Proceso Bustos and Felipe Bustos as well. This witness testifies to the
deep feeling of enmity with which Proceso Bustos regarded Liborio Bustos, due to
the fact that Felipe Bustos had told Proceso Bustos of improper relations
between Liborio Bustos and Proceso’s wife; and the witness says that upon a
certain occasion (December 22, 1919) he had sought an interview with Proceso
Bustos in the hope of bringing about a reconciliation. He found Proceso Bustos
highly inflamed towards Liborio, and the friendly efforts of the witness were
unavailing. The testimony of this witness, apart from being wholly
uncontradicted in the record, bears every appearance of truth, and no motive
appears that would have impelled him to testify falsely against his two cousins
and their associates in this case.

We now proceed to consider the testimony of Pablo Ocampo, the last of the
witnesses for the prosecution requiring particular mention; and we have
designedly reserved this subject for comment at the end, not only because of his
relation to the defence but because his antecedents and character are such as to
require a court to accept his statements with reservation.

It appears, then, that a few months prior to the homicide, Pablo Ocampo
emerged from prison, after having extinguished a sentence of seventeen years for
a homicide committed by him many years ago while serving in the Philippine
Constabulary in the Province of Albay. Upon the termination of this long period
of incarceration Ocampo naturally turned his steps in the direction of the
municipality of Macabebe, having been there brought up as a child upon the
estate of Felix Bustos, the grandfather of Proceso Bustos. With no present means
of support, he applied to Proceso Bustos for employment; and the latter accepted
him as a cropper, placing at his disposal three cavans of land located near the
home of Proceso Bustos in Saplat, Macabebe. As the land thus let to Ocampo
contained no house upon it in which the renter could live, Proceso Bustos took
Ocampo into his own house, and Ocampo thus became virtually a member of the
household of Proceso Bustos. This relation was established in April, 1920. Very
soon thereafter, according to the witness, Proceso Bustos approached the witness
with a proposition that the witness should assist in putting Liborio Bustos and
Aureliano Dizon out of the way. The motive which impelled Proceso Bustos to this
step, as stated by Bustos, was that Liborio Bustos had been intimate with
Proceso’s wife. As against Aureliano Dizon, the grievance was that Dizon was a
friend of Liborio Bustos and otherwise obnoxious to Proceso Bustos. The witness
says that Proceso Bustos promised him, in case he should slay Liborio Bustos, to
increase the three cavans of land, which Ocampo then held, to six, and further
to give him the sum of five thousand pesos. This proposition, the witness
pretends, was not received with enthusiasm by him, and this fact having been
noted by Proceso Bustos, the latter became irritated and indulged in veiled
threats towards the witness in case he should not make himself subservient to
his master’s will. The result was that the witness gave in and exhibited
external indications of a willingness to assist in the projected double
homicide. The witness insists, however, that it was a complicity on the part of
the body only and not of the mind, and he says that he had a secret reservation
not to assist in carrying the project out. Nevertheless he says that, during the
month of May, 1920, he accompanied Proceso Bustos to two different
fiestas in different barrios of the municipality of Macabebe, with the
avowed intention, on the part of Proceso Bustos, of slaying Liborio Bustos and
Aureliano Dizon if they should be so unfortunate as to show themselves on either
of those occasions. As they did not appear those two schemes failed of
effect.

The witness then goes on to declare that the homicide committed upon the
person of Liborio Bustos in the circus at Macabebe on the night of June 19,
1920, was the direct result of a premeditated plan arranged on that date by
Proceso Bustos with the assistance of Felipe Bustos and Jose Blanco and other
henchmen and dependents of Proceso Bustos. In this connection the witness says
that Proceso Bustos, having become aware that the performance was to occur on
the night stated, provided himself with a number of tickets and advised Ocampo
to be on hand. The final conference among the conspirators was held, so the
witness states, in the afternoon of the date stated, at the house of Felipe
Bustos, at which place were collected a number of individuals who were expected
to take part in the tragedy.

The witness says that Proceso Bustos was at first inclined to confide the
work of killing Liborio Bustos to Ocampo himself, observing that Ocampo was the
most brutal of the gang and had already been in prison. Jose Blanco objected to
this, on the ground that inasmuch as Proceso Bustos was the person who had been
dishonored by Liborio Bustos, Proceso Bustos himself ought to assume the role of
the slayer of Liborio Bustos. This suggestion met with approval from others; and
it was agreed that Proceso Bustos should kill Liborio Bustos, while Ocampo was
appointed to make way with Aureliano Dizon. At this conference arms, including
four pistols, were distributed among the conspirators.

The circus tickets used by the members of the gang on this occasion called
for reserved seats, and Ocampo was at first seated next to Alejandro Ronquillo
in the front row on the left, the other conspirators being disposed
substantially in the manner stated by other witnesses for the prosecution. After
the party had been thus seated for a few moments Proceso Bustos directed Ocampo
to vacate his seat and go back towards the entrance and seat himself in that
section of the circus assigned for general admission. The purpose of this
maneuver was to place Ocampo behind his intended victim, Aureliano Dizon, and
somewhat between Dizon and the door. This order Ocampo obeyed. The witness says
that he was told to assault Dizon at the moment when the disturbance, to be
promoted by others against Liborio Bustos, should begin.

Supposing the witness to have spoken truly with respect to this shifting of
his position in the circus, it is obvious that a vacant seat was thus left in
the front row next to Alejandro Ronquillo though apparently to his right.
Ronquillo must then have shifted over to the seat vacated by Ocampo, with the
result that the seat between Ronquillo and Cailao became vacant. In this, as we
have already seen, Liborio Bustos presently seated himself. Fortune was
evidently for once playing into the hands of his enemies.

The account given by Pablo Ocampo of the circumstances immediately connected
with the killing of Liborio Bustos in the circus agrees in most particulars with
the narrative given by other credible witnesses for the prosecution, though
Ocampo is apparently somewhat less trustworthy than the others. According to
Ocampo two sons of Proceso Bustos were original parties to the plot, though he
does not say that they took a direct part in the killing; and he also intimates
that Policronio Bondoc was implicated. Neither of these three individuals have
been prosecuted in this case. Another point upon which the witness is not borne
out by other testimony is this: When first examined, he said that after Liborio
Bustos had been stabbed he was carried out by two of the policemen. This
statement was clearly incorrect, as other proof shows that Liborio Bustos was
taken out by his wife and Julian Mendoza, accompanied by the son, Felicisimo
Bustos. This error on the part of the witness was evidently called to his
attention during an intermission of the session of the court; and when he
returned to the stand he changed his testimony on this point and said that he
then remembered that Liborio Bustos had been conducted out of the circus by his
wife and another person.

It will be remembered that, according to Ocampo, he had been deputed to slay
Aureliano Dizon, but he says he had never intended to commit any such murder;
and he permitted Dizon to leave the circus without molestation. For this failure
of Ocampo to carry out his part of the murderous compact, he says he was roundly
abused by Proceso Bustos that night, after the conspirators had withdrawn from
the circus.

Considering the bad antecedents of this witness and other proof of his
untrustworthiness and corruption revealed in the record, we think the trial
judge was justified in making casus omissus of his testimony and in
deciding the case upon the testimony of other credible and unimpeached
witnesses. As we shall follow the same course in here disposing of the case, we
shall not encumber the record with any lengthy discussion of his testimony. In
this we do not close our mind to the possibility, not to say probability, that
there was some sort of preconceived plan to take the life of Liborio Bustos, in
which the accused in this case may have participated. But the testimony of Pablo
Ocampo cannot safely be accepted as proving the existence of such a conspiracy.
Having admitted his own complicity, he occupies virtually the position of a
co-conspirator who testifies against his fellows, and his testimony cannot
safely be accepted against them upon points where it is uncorroborated.

Having concluded our review of the proof submitted for the prosecution and
having indicated the parts thereof which we consider true and irrefutable, we
proceed to consider the testimony of the principal witnesses for the defence.
Upon turning our attention to this branch of the case, we find that the defence
is chiefly planted upon the proposition that Liborio Bustos was not slain by
Proceso Bustos at the place where the disturbance occurred in the circus but by
Pablo Ocampo in another place. Upon the question as to the exact place where the
fatal blow was delivered, the witnesses testifying for the defence in the case
now before us and those testifying against Ocampo in the other case are not in
harmony among themselves; and a careful examination of this important and fatal
discrepancy in the proof for the defence becomes desirable. The discussion
incidentally brings to light a striking illustration of the futility of
attempting to fabricate proof successfully upon a material matter when related
circumstances are ascertainable with reasonable certainty. In order, however,
fully to exhibit the falsity of the proposition that Ocampo was the slayer of
Liborio Bustos, it is necessary to consider the manner in which this pretence
was introduced into the case, the character of the witnesses relied upon to
prove it, and the manner in which the proof has been varied to meet the
exigencies of the defence.

It appears, then, that Pablo Ocampo was before the court as a witness for the
prosecution on three successive days, namely, April 12, 13, and 14, 1921. With
the presentation of his testimony the case for the prosecution was closed. The
defence then began to put its witnesses on the stand, and the hearing of these
witnesses occupied a period of several days. Five days after the testimony of
Pablo Ocampo had been concluded, or on April 19, two witnesses for the defence
were examined, to wit, Tomas Laquindanum, and Jacinto Manansala. They were
followed on the next day by Ciriaco Cunanan; and these are the three who were at
first relied upon by the defence to prove the fact that the homicide had been
committed by Pablo Ocampo. To them we now accordingly direct our attention.

At the very outset it must be stated that no one of these witnesses has a
personality, character, or antecedents such as would tend to generate confidence
in his testimony. Tomas Laquindanum is a frequenter of cockpits, by his own
admission; and though he was a member of the local band of musicians which was
employed to supply musical entertainment at the circus, he admits that he was
not with the band on the night in question. He also admits that he had taken his
family to Antipolo in the month of June, 1920; and after the homicide occurred
he told Florencio Coquia, whom we credit as an unimpeached witness, that he
(Laquindanum) was not in Macabebe on the night of the homicide, not having as
yet returned with his family from Antipolo. It is furthermore noteworthy that
this witness did not reveal the information which he now pretends to possess
concerning the homicide until the Tuesday preceding the day when he appeared in
court, and apparently after he had heard Ocampo testify as a witness on April
12, 1921, which was Tuesday. Nevertheless he was fully aware that the homicide
in question had been the subject of investigation soon after it occurred. All
external indications point to the conclusion that Laquindanum’s testimony is a
mere fabrication from beginning to end and that he was not even in the circus on
the night in question.

Jacinto Manansala and Ciriaco Cunanan belong to a class which seems to be
numerous in Macabebe, namely, that of ambulant merchants or peddlers,—an
occupation well adapted to the purveyance of irresponsible gossip. Although both
of these witnesses now pretend to know about the killing of Liborio Bustos,
neither confided his important information to the prosecuting officials at the
time of the investigation or thereafter; and the testimony of both must be
considered as a new revelation brought into the case after the testimony of
Pablo Ocampo had been given in open court and reduced to certainty. It is true
Jacinto Manansala pretends to have intimated on one occasion to Aureliano Dizon
that Ocampo was the person who killed Liborio Bustos; but this is denied by
Dizon, and in all probability the assertion of this witness upon this, as upon
other points, is false. Both Manansala and Cunanan assert that their preceding
silence was due to the insistent rumor that any person who gave information
about the killing would be punished, or joined in the prosecution to be promoted
by the public authorities. Yet Manansala admits that as a member of the
Philippine Constabulary many years ago he had learned that people who denounce
crimes in this country are protected from molestation.

What then is the story told by these impostors? It is in brief this: That
Liborio Bustos, unnecessarily and in a spirit of bravado, planted himself in the
seat between Alejandro Ronquillo and Irineo Cailao, deliberately refusing
another seat to which he had been directed by the usher; and that soon after
thus seating himself, Liborio Bustos began a disturbance and attempted to draw a
revolver. Upon this some one cried aloud, “Liborio Bustos is drawing a
revolver;” and Proceso Bustos, observing the commotion, called aloud to the
police to arrest the disturbers. In obedience to this command the policemen who
were near Liborio Bustos wrested a pistol from his hands; after which Liborio
Bustos disengaged himself from the persons who had seized him and hurriedly
proceeded towards the exit of the circus in order apparently to make his way
out. All three of the witnesses agree that when he left the spot where the
disturbance occurred, his movements were free and unobstructed and that he
proceeded from that spot towards the exit alone. Meanwhile, according to the
same witnesses, during the disturbance which we have described Felipe Bustos was
occupying the position of a mere spectator, standing in a chair a little
distance away with a child in his arm; and as the commotion subsided, Jose
Blanco raised his hands aloft, as if to command attention, and said to the
public, “Do not move, the trouble is now over.”

The witnesses referred to are further a unit in saying that as Liborio Bustos
approached the exit on his way out of the tent, he found his progress blocked in
some measure by persons collected near the door inside; and as he passed
through, Pablo Ocampo stabbed him with a big knife, inflicting the wound which
caused death. Upon receiving this blow, Liborio Bustos is said, upon the same
authority, to have addressed to Pablo Ocampo a base exclamation not infrequently
heard among Filipinos of the lowest type but unfit to be reproduced in print,
adding, “You have wounded me.”

The foregoing narrative contains the important features of the testimony of
the three witnesses mentioned; and upon these points concert is so obvious as,
in our opinion, to be indicative of previous instruction. The capital thing of
course is that Liborio Bustos was killed by a stab from a big knife in the hands
of Pablo Ocampo; and all three agree that the blow was struck within the tent
and before Liborio Bustos had reached the exit.

We now proceed to demonstrate the impossibility of such an occurrence; and
for this purpose we limit the discussion exclusively to the testimony of
witnesses introduced by the defendants themselves. The names to be thus invoked
by us are Juan Yuson, Aurelia Bondoc, Macaria Mallari, Olimpia Gutierrez, Irineo
Cailao, Felipe Bustos, and Jose Blanco. Juan Yuson was introduced by the
defendants with a view to showing that Liborio Bustos was armed and that the
tumult was caused by an attempt on his part to draw a pistol. The witness says
that when the disturbance occurred he arose from his seat in the part of the
circus assigned to general admission, and inasmuch as this part of the enclosure
was elevated at least a meter above the center, he was able to see clearly what
then occurred. According to his statement, Liborio Bustos, after having been
disarmed in the manner described by other witnesses for the defence, made his
way unmolested and unaccompanied to the exit of the circus. At one point he
seems to say that he saw Liborio Bustos pass out of the circus; but apparently
becoming immediately conscious of the delicacy of the point, he qualified this
statement by saying that he saw him go towards the exit but did not follow him
with his eyes all the way. One thing is certain from his testimony and this is
that not the slightest indication of disorder occurred within the circus while
Liborio Bustos was passing out. If any such incident had occurred as the
stabbing of Liborio Bustos by Pablo Ocampo at that place and time, this witness,
who was near the door, would have undoubtedly seen it; and yet according to his
testimony it is clear that nothing of the kind occurred.

Aurelia Bondoc, wife of Roman Bondoc, one of the accused, testifying as a
witness for the defendants, says that after the disturbance had occurred, in
which Liborio Bustos is supposed to have been disarmed, she saw him run towards
the door alone and unaccompanied. As he went towards the door, no disturbance,
great or small, occurred. The only tumult, according to her, was that which had
taken place at the point where Liborio Bustos had had his altercation with the
policemen when they are supposed to have disarmed him.

Macaria Mallari, the wife of Felipe Bustos, another of the accused, was also
introduced as a witness for the defendants. She was present at the circus with
her husband and two children. She saw the disturbance, as described by other
witnesses, and saw Liborio Bustos leave the place of the altercation and go out.
He went at a pace somewhat quickened, and she observed him until he passed out
at the door. According to this witness, he was alone as he passed out; and he
proceeded apparently without molestation.

Olimpia Gutierrez, testifying as a witness for the defence, saw Liborio
Bustos go out from the circus, proceeding from the place where the disturbance
had occurred. He was alone, and was not accompanied on his way out by any
policeman or any other person. She saw no disturbance at or near the exit as
Liborio Bustos went out.

More suggestive than anything else found in this connection is the testimony
of the three defendants, Irineo Cailao, Felipe Bustos, and Jose Blanco. These
are the only ones of the nine accused who testified on their own behalf, the
other six having elected to remain silent. Of the three who testified in court,
not one had the temerity to open his lips and say that Liborio Bustos was slain
by Pablo Ocampo.

Irineo Cailao, the first of the three mentioned, describes the incident
substantially as follows: While the first act was being presented by the circus
performers, this witness saw Liborio Bustos put one leg over the other, but as
the act was being concluded, he changed his position, placing the leg that had
been below over the other. At the same time Liborio Bustos spat out some tobacco
juice and ejected a quid of tobacco on the floor in front of Proceso Bustos who,
as will be remembered, was one seat further removed to the left. After this, the
witness heard some one say aloud, “Liborio Bustos is drawing a pistol.” The
witness then turned his head and saw Alejandro Ronquillo and Roman Bondoc
snatching a revolver from Liborio Bustos, and he himself then intervened to
assist them. In the course of the scramble over the pistol the weapon fell to
the floor and was picked up by Roman Bondoc. The witness denies that Filomeno
Sunga took any part in the affair, although then present in the circus. He says
that after Liborio Bustos was disarmed he ran out, unaccompanied by any one on
his way to the exit.

Felipe Bustos, the second of the accused who testified for the defence, saw
Liborio Bustos hastily leave the circus after the disturbance. The latter,
according to this witness, was unaccompanied by any one as he went towards the
door.

Jose Blanco, the third of the accused who testified for the defence, pretends
to have been completely innocent of all participation in the affair; so much so
that he did not even see Liborio Bustos at the circus, his back being turned
away when a slight disturbance occurred a few meters away from where the witness
was sitting.

From the testimony of all these witnesses, it becomes absolutely certain that
no commotion whatever could have occurred near the exit from the circus; and it
is impossible that Liborio Bustos could have received the fatal stab from Pablo
Ocampo at that place.

In the opinion in the lower court the trial judge did not fail to comment
with much effect upon this feature of the defence; and when his decision was
published, it must have been obvious to any one that a serious mistake had been
made by witnesses for the defence in supposing that Ocampo had struck the fatal
blow inside the tent. With this in mind it is instructive to note the
developments that thereafter occurred in the efforts of the defence to remedy
this blunder.

In this connection it appears that, after the judgment convicting the
appellants had been entered in the lower court, an uncle of Proceso Bustos, by
the name of Isip, produced two new witnesses, to wit, Honorio Garcia and Fausto
Navarro, who pretend to have seen Ocampo inflict the fatal wound upon Liborio
Bustos; and the affidavits of these two individuals were submitted in connection
with the petition to open the cause for new proof, which was presently filed in
this court. After that application had been granted, their testimony was duly
taken in connection with the proof by which it was intended to impeach the
authenticity of the signature of Liborio Bustos to the ante mortem
statement, Exhibit B. Both of the new witnesses to whom reference is now made
belong to the class of petty ambulant merchants, or peddlers, so numerous in
Macabebe; and the important information which they claim to possess had been
carefully guarded as a secret in their own bosoms until casually disclosed to
Isip at the time when new proof was so badly needed by the defendants in this
cause.

We consider it morally certain that Fausto Navarro was not present at all in
the circus on the night of the homicide; and for that reason alone his testimony
with reference to what occurred in the circus must be taken to be absolutely
false. The reason for saying this is, that a short while after the homicide was
committed a brother of the deceased, one Agustin Bustos, embarked in an
automobile belonging to Ramon Yanga, which was going from Macabebe to Manila.
When the party in this auto reached Apalit, Fausto Navarro asked as a favor to
be taken to Manila. The request was granted, and Navarro got in. In the course
of this journey to Manila, Navarro asked Agustin Bustos a number of questions
with respect to the homicide, stating that he himself had not been present in
Macabebe on the night in question.

Now, what is the story told by these two new witnesses? It is to the effect
that while Liborio Bustos was in fact killed by Pablo Ocampo, as other witnesses
for the defence had claimed, the blow was not given within the circus—as said
witnesses had erroneously supposed—but at the entrance to the circus door. It
will be observed that the problem of locating the spat where the killing
occurred was one that involved some nicety of discernment, since it was
necessary to place the scene of the tragedy at a point where it could be seen
only by a few persons inside the tent (i. e., those falsely pretending to
have seen it), and by none others. Honorio Garcia says that Ocampo stabbed
Liborio Bustos in front of the door of the circus; or, as he puts it in another
place, just as Liborio Bustos emerged from the door of the circus. Fausto
Navarro says that he was sitting near the door and as he saw Liborio Bustos
going out, he (the witness) followed and saw the act of aggression committed by
Pablo Ocampo in the door of general admission looking into the street. This
witness brings out the fact that there were also two side door of admission to
the circus but the exit was only through this door looking into the street; and
it was in front of this door that the killing occurred. Both witnesses report
the exclamation supposedly made by Liborio Bustos at the time of receiving the
stab from Ocampo in the same words as the other three witnesses (Laquindanum,
Manansala, and Cunanan). The purely artificial character of all of this alleged
new evidence is too manifest to require discussion; and when the entire proof is
carefully considered, it becomes clear that this branch of the defence is as
fragile as that which supposed the forgery of Exhibit B.

There are, however, numerous circumstances, as yet unmentioned, which
likewise show the falsity of the testimony which imputes the crime to Pablo
Ocampo. In the first place, no reasonable motive has been shown why Pablo Ocampo
should have committed the homicide; while the existence of a revengeful spirit,
or malice, on the part of Proceso Bustos towards Liborio Bustos is abundantly
shown. It is true that some testimony has been submitted in behalf of the
defendants to the effect that Pablo Ocampo had a grievance against Liborio
Bustos, arising from the supposed failure of the latter to pay the former some
petty wages for labor alleged to have been performed by Ocampo. We consider this
proof too insignificant to require analysis.

In the second place, the testimony which supposes the fatal blow to have been
given by Pablo Ocampo near the door of the circus fails to account for the
circumstance that Liborio Bustos should have been allowed to leave the circus
alone, or should have desired to leave the circus alone under the circumstances
supposed. If Liborio Bustos was a disturber of the peace or an aggressor in an
assault attempted by him upon others, he would have been arrested, as the
municipal president is said to have ordered; and the numerous policemen present
were the ones who would have made the arrest. In that case the natural thing
would have been for some of the policemen to accompany him as he was conducted
out. Again, supposing the disturbance to have been of the trivial nature
suggested by some of the witnesses for the defence, no reason is apparent why
Liborio Bustos should have left the circus at all, especially as his family was
then presumably still within the tent.

It will be noted that the preceding exposure of the pretence that Ocampo was
the slayer of Liborio Bustos is based upon the inherent weakness of the
testimony submitted by the defence; and when, as against this, is placed the
affirmative proof for the prosecution, no doubt can be entertained as to where
the truth lies.

The trial judge evidently attached great weight to the ante morten
statement of Liborio Bustos (Exhibit B); and in this his Honor was clearly
right. Liborio Bustos could not possibly have been mistaken as to the
personality of the individual who stabbed him and the place where the act was
done. In this connection it must be remembered that the conditions surrounding
the tragedy were not such as to permit of confusion as to the identity of the
assailant, that is, as between Proceso Bustos and Pablo Ocampo; for it is not
pretended by the defence that Ocampo took any part in the altercation near the
circus ring. In the very nature of things Liborio Bustos must have known truly
whether he was stabbed in that place or outside the tent; and if he was stabbed
at the place claimed by him, the act could not possibly have been done by Pablo
Ocampo.

Another consideration showing that the ante mortem statement of
Liborio Bustos is entitled to much weight is to be derived from the lack of
motive on his part to involve persons in ruin against whom he could have
entertained no real enmity. Granting that he recognized Proceso Bustos as his
personal enemy, and that he also entertained malice against Felipe Bustos and
Jose Blanco, it is not easy to see why he should have wished to involve several
other innocent persons in destruction. If it was his purpose falsely to accuse
his three enemies, would it not have sufficed to have named those three in his
ante mortem statement as the authors of the homicide? From whatever angle
the matter be viewed, the essential truth of the ante mortem statement is
apparent.

In concluding our analysis of the case a few words of comment will be added
upon certain aspects of the evidence supposedly favorable to the accused which
have not already been the subject of treatment in this opinion.

The proof shows that Pablo Ocampo is left-handed; and, as we have already
seen, Liborio Bustos was wounded in the left side. From this it is argued that
the wound must have been made by Pablo Ocampo, while standing on the left of
Liborio Bustos as the latter passed out of the circus tent. But this proves
nothing. The wound was exactly where it would have been if inflicted by a
right-handed person confronting the person against whom the blow was directed.
And this is precisely the position occupied by Proceso Bustos with relation to
Liborio Bustos at the time the fatal blow was given, by all reasonable inference
from the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution.

It has also been argued that Liborio Bustos could not have been killed by
Proceso Bustos for the reason that the fatal wound was apparently made with a
weapon having a single cutting edge, and it will be remembered that the
witnesses for the prosecution have said that Proceso Bustos used a dagger (in
Spanish puñal). As the trial judge pointed out in the appealed decision,
the use of the word dagger does not necessarily indicate that the instrument had
two cutting edges, and it does not appear that the witnesses for the prosecution
intended by that term to indicate such an instrument. We note, furthermore, that
a physician who examined the body of the deceased in Manila would not undertake
to say whether the wound had been inflicted with a weapon having one or two
sharp edges.

We have now traversed the proof in this voluminous record and have faithfully
recorded such facts and considerations as are calculated to exert any decisive
influence on the decision of the case. The conclusion is inexorable that the
homicide in question was committed by the individuals named as defendants in the
information filed in this cause, cooperating with each other in the manner and
to the extent already stated in this opinion. There was present, as against all
of the accused, the generic aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken of
superior strength. The trial judge, therefore, committed no error in sentencing
the six appellants, under article 404 of the Penal Code, to undergo punishment
as stated in the first paragraph of this opinion.

The information charges the offence as constituting murder, assigning as
qualifying circumstances that the crime was committed with a known premeditation
and alevosia. Neither of these factors is in our opinion proved with
sufficient certainty to be made the basis of judgment. The testimony of Pablo
Ocampo undoubtedly indicates the possibility that the homicide was planned
beforehand and was the result of a deliberate conspiracy; but, as already
indicated, the antecedents of this witness are not such as would justify the
acceptance of his uncorroborated statement as to the existence of conspiracy.
Evident premeditation is therefore not shown beyond a reasonable doubt, as
against any of the accused. As to the element of alevosia it appears that
Proceso Bustos struck the fatal blow while the deceased was engaged in a scuffle
with others of the accused and possibly while he was actually held firmly by
three of them. This undoubtedly tends to show the presence of alevosia;
but we think the circumstance mentioned is adequately appreciated in the generic
circumstance of abuse of superior strength, and alevosia otherwise does
not sufficiently appear.

The judgment appealed from must therefore be affirmed; and it is so ordered,
with proportional costs of appeal against each of the appellants, it being
understood furthermore that, in addition to the penalties imposed by the trial
judge, each of the accused shall also suffer the accessory penalties prescribed
in article 59 of the Penal Code. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Avanceña,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Romualdez, J., concurs in the
result.

---

^[1] For resolution on motion for rehearing,
see p. 159, post.

^[1]
Page 67, post.

---

MALCOLM, J.:

I concur with the learned and exhaustive decision prepared by Mr. Justice
Street in so far as it relates to the defendant and appellant Proceso Bustos. I
concur with the equally learned dissenting opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Johns
in so far as it relates to the other defendants and appellants. I desire to add
a word of explanation with reference to my stand.

There are four possible courses for the court to take in the instant case
against Proceso Bustos et al., and in the related case against Pablo Ocampo;
namely, first, to acquit both Bustos and Ocampo because of the failure of the
proof; second, to convict Bustos and to acquit Ocampo; third, to convict Ocampo
and to acquit Bustos; and fourth, to convict both Bustos and Ocampo. Curious as
it may seem, the last theory appeals to me as the correct one, Bustos being
guilty as the author by induction and Ocampo as the probable perpetrator of the
crime; but, unfortunately, this theory will fit into neither one of the
informations. Accordingly, in concurring with the result arrived at by the
majority, and in so doing, waiving such doubt as may persist with regard to the
authenticity and value of the proof, I at least am permitted to join in
convicting the principal accused.

I cannot conceive that any conspiracy or
common agreement existed between the defendants to kill Liborio Bustos.
Accordingly, the criminal responsibility is individual and not collective. For
that reason, I think it unjust and unlawful to condemn the defendants other than
Proceso Bustos to long terms of imprisonment.

---

JOHNS, J.:

On June 19, 1920, Liborio Bustos was stabbed with a dagger in the
municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga, P. I., from the effects of which he died on
or about June 21, 1920. On the night that he was stabbed he verified the
complaint before Mr. Aureliano Dizon, justice of the peace, in which he charged
Proceso Bustos, Jose Blanco, Felipe Bustos, and Filomeno Sunga with the crime of
frustrated murder.

It is alleged “that on or about June 19, 1920, the accused acting and
confederating together did voluntarily, unlawfully, and criminally, Jose Blanco
being armed with a revolver, point to the complainant threatening to kill or
fire at him in case he should move, while said complainant was firmly held by
the chief of police, Filomeno Sunga, and the municipal president, Proceso
Bustos, and while the complainant was in this condition, the former wounded him
with the dagger, which he was carrying, in the abdomen and the accused Felipe
Bustos, taking advantage of this opportunity, gave the complainant several blows
with his fist, inflicting several contusions and light injuries on his
face.”

On June 20, 1920, at 1.40 a. m., Liborio Bustos made the following ante
mortem statement, known in the record as Exhibit B:

“I, Liborio Bustos, of age and a peaceful resident of the municipality of
Macabebe, Pampanga, P. I., under solemn oath and having in mind that I am about
to die, truthfully declare the following:

“That between 9.00 and 10.00 o’clock tonight and while I was seated on a
chair on the stage of the circus show where a performance was being given in
this municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga, P. I., Proceso Bustos, municipal
president of Macabebe, the chief of police, Filomeno Sunga, the municipal
secretary, Felipe Bustos, and Jose Blanco and Donato Benosa approached me.
Felipe Bustos slapped me without any reason, and the chief of police, upon
seeing this, seized me strongly by the neck and when I was in such a position,
Proceso Bustos slapped me also and struck me with a dagger, as a result of which
I was wounded in the abdomen beneath the rib on the left side. Not content with
this, a policeman by the name of Irineo Cailao also beat me with his club. All
of these people consider me as their enemy. Before the last election was held, I
slapped Jose Blanco on the street because he was insulting and belittling me
before the crowd. Proceso Bustos was jealous of me and his wife without any
lawful ground, and for this reason they tried all means to falsely accuse me.
They accused and charged me with having fired at the house of secretary Felipe
Bustos; they induced a Chinaman to accuse me of the crime of robbery although I
was innocent of this. On account of the actions of my aforesaid enemies I am now
involved in many prosecutions. While the chief was holding me, Pepe Blanco was
pointing a revolver at me. These two people, the president and his secretary,
have on various occasions threatened to have me killed or maltreated.

“And tonight, therefore, without any evil intention, I entered the circus
with my beloved family to free my thoughts from the many dangers brought about
by my bitter enemies, who yesterday were my friends, because they envy my
peaceful life and the estimation in which I am held by my townsmen. Tonight I
became the victim of these people who are my enemies.

“All of the foregoing is the whole truth, because at this time it seems as
though death is approaching me and it is necessary to present my soul spotless
before the Almighty God.

“In testimony whereof I have signed this, notwithstanding that I am lying on
my mat, this 20th day of June, 1920, at 1.40 here in Macabebe, Pampanga, P.
I.

(Sgd.) “LIBORIO BUSTOS ZABALA

“Witness:

       (Sgd.) “JOSE TALAG, M. D.”

In its opinion, the trial court says:

“The court, in order to arrive at the truth of what actually occurred,
necessarily has to make an analytical examination of all the elements of proof
adduced at the trial, because it feels that it cannot accept the evidence for
the prosecution in its entirety, nor that of the defense, without committing a
grave error. * * *

“The established facts are, that on the night in question all of the accused
were gathered together in the theater where the incident occurred; that Liborio
Bustos provoked the accused, Proceso Bustos, by a challenging glance, and, in
his presence, casting aside the cigar which he was smoking, whereupon a fracas
immediately occurred at the particular place where Liborio Bustos was seated.
These facts were unquestionably proven at the trial. * * *

“If the theory of the prosecution cannot be absolutely accepted, nor that of
the defense, how can we establish the truth of what occurred?

“The court, considering together all the evidence adduced at the trial, and
according to the ante mortem declaration of the deceased (Exhibits B and
B-1), in which it is clearly stated who had wounded him, believes, and is
convinced, that the accused Proceso Bustos, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco, Filomeno
Sunga, Donato Benosa, and Irineo Cailao are the persons who attacked and
assaulted Liborio Bustos on the night in question. * * *

“From the evidence presented, it is not reasonable to suppose that Liborio
Bustos did not recognize his aggressors, having been face to face with them, in
a well-lighted circus show, on the night in question when he received his wounds
and bruises. * * *

“Liborio Bustos, in his ante mortem declaration, as well as the other
witnesses for the prosecution, pointed to Proceso Bustos as the person who
struck him with the dagger and that the accused, Felipe Bustos, Jose Blanco,
Filomeno Sunga, Irineo Cailao, and Donato Benosa, who were mentioned in the
ante mortem declaration, had taken part in the commission of the crime in
the manner already stated. * * *

“Therefore, the act cannot be qualified as murder by the circumstance of
treachery, unless the court believes the fact brought out by the witnesses for
the prosecution that Liborio Bustos was held by Ronquillo and Cailao while being
assaulted by the other defendants; but as expressly stated above, this part of
the testimony of the witnesses cannot be believed because Liborio Bustos, being
a man of education, would not have overlooked this important detail in his dying
declaration. As he did not mention this fact, it seems reasonable to believe
that he was not held by Ronquillo and Cailao. * * *

“Referring to the defendants Alejandro Ronquillo, Francisco Reyes, and Roman
Bondoc not being mentioned at all by the deceased in his ante mortem
declaration, the court is of the opinion that they did not have any
participation whatsoever in the crime, and if they have been named by some of
the witnesses for the prosecution, it was probably due to the confusion at the
time of the occurrence.”

From the foregoing, it is very apparent that the trial court convicted the
defendant upon the strength of the ante mortem statement of the deceased,
and that he did not believe any of the evidence for the prosecution, except in
so far as it tended to corroborate that statement. In other words, in the
opinion of the trial court, without the ante mortem statement the
evidence would not have been sufficient to convict the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt.

The evidence shows that this dying statement was prepared by Mr. Dizon on a
typewriter in an adjoining room. It will be noted that the first complaint
charges Proceso Bustos, Jose Blanco, Felipe Bustos, and Filomeno Sunga with the
crime of frustrated murder and the dying statement charges that the crime was
committed by Proceso Bustos, the municipal president, Filomeno Sunga, the chief
of police, Felipe Bustos, the municipal secretary, Jose Blanco, Donato Benosa,
and a policeman by the name of Irineo Cailao. In other words, two persons are
charged in the dying statement as parties to the crime who are not mentioned or
described in the verified complaint for the crime of frustrated murder which was
made by the deceased, under oath, before Mr. Dizon, as justice of the peace, who
is the identical person that prepared the dying statement on the typewriter.

Whatever may be said about the authenticity of the dying statement and the
mental condition of Liborio Bustos at the time it was made, it must be conceded
that the criminal complaint is authentic and that the deceased knew the contents
and what he was doing at the time he signed it. Yet, twenty-four hours
afterwards he makes, what purports to be, a dying statement and charges two
other men with the crime of murder who are not mentioned or included in the
complaint for the crime of frustrated murder.

Much is said in the majority opinion about the dying statement, tending to
show that the signature of the deceased was genuine. Although the question is
not free from doubt, for the purpose of this dissenting opinion, I will treat
the signature of Liborio Bustos to the dying statement as genuine. But even so,
it clearly shows upon its face that it is not the statement of a dying man.

The proof is conclusive that at the time the dying statement was prepared,
the deceased was lying in bed in one room and that the statement was written on
a typewriter by Mr. Dizon in another room. The deceased was then a very sick man
and, at times, was vomiting blood. Outside of the instrument itself, there is
nothing in the record which shows, or tends to show, that the deceased ever
dictated the dying statement, or told Dizon to prepare it, what he should write
or what the statement should be. It is very apparent that it is not the
statement of a dying man and that it was prepared by Mr. Dizon without any
directions or suggestions from the deceased, and that after it was prepared the
deceased signed it as it was prepared, at the instance and request of Dizon.

Again, the dying statement is flatly contradicted by the actual, physical and
undisputed facts. It recites: “While I was seated on a chair on the stage of the
theater,” the defendants “approached me.” That statement is flatly contradicted
by every eye-witness for both the prosecution and the defense and the findings
of fact made by the trial court above quoted, in which it is recited:

“The established facts are, that on the night in question all of the accused
were gathered together in the theater where the incident occurred; that Liborio
Bustos provoked the accused, Proceso Bustos, by a challenging glance and, in his
presence, casting aside the cigar which he was smoking, whereupon a fracas
immediately occurred at the particular place where Liborio Bustos was seated.
These facts were unquestionably proven at the trial.”

The trial court expressly finds as a fact that “Liborio Bustos provoked the
accused, Proceso Bustos, challenging him, etc.” The dying statement then recites
that “Felipe Bustos slapped me without any motive,” and that upon seeing this,
the chief of police “seized me strongly by the neck and while I was in such a
position, Proceso Bustos slapped me also and stabbed me.”

The testimony is conclusive that at the inception of the trouble Proceso
Bustos was sitting in another and a different part of the theater with his own
family. All of the eye-witnesses for the prosecution testify that after the
trouble started Proceso Bustos left the place where he was seated and,
brandishing a dagger above his head where it could be seen by all of the three
or four hundred people who were in the theater, went directly to the place where
the trouble was and inflicted the fatal wound.

Under the theory of the eye-witnesses for the prosecution, as well as the
dying statement, at the time the wound was inflicted, the deceased was
completely surrounded by, at least, a half a dozen persons with whom he was
struggling and by whom he was securely held around the arms, body and neck,
before Proceso Bustos left the place where he was seated.

Assuming this undisputed testimony to be true and that the deceased was
stabbed at that particular place, it is a physical impossibility for him to have
known by whom he was stabbed or that he was stabbed by Proceso Bustos.

Again, the dying statement further recites that he “entered the circus with
my beloved family to free my thoughts from the many dangers brought about by my
bitter enemies, who yesterday were my friends,” yet, by the undisputed
testimony, after going to the theater with his family, he voluntarily left the
place where his wife and son were seated and went directly to the place where
his enemies were seated and took a seat between them, and, as the trial court
found, “provoked the accused.”

This dying statement must be construed as a whole, and if it is false in any
one of its material portions, then the whole instrument should be treated as
false, but here all of its material portions are flatly contradicted by the
actual, physical, undisputed facts testified to by both the witnesses for the
prosecution and the defense.

Again, if the deceased was stabbed by Proceso Bustos, as the prosecution
contends, it is a matter of common, ordinary knowledge that blood would have
flowed from the wound and there would have been some evidence of blood at the
place of the struggle, which would have been an easy matter to have proved. The
prosecution not only failed to prove that any blood was found there, but
witnesses for the defense testified that no evidence of any blood was found.

In the final analysis, the defendants were convicted by the trial court upon
the strength of the ante mortem statement, which is flatly contradicted
by the actual, physical, undisputed facts, and that court found as a fact that
in many important particulars the testimony of the eye-witnesses for the
prosecution was not worthy of belief. He saw and heard the witnesses testify and
in a case like this his findings upon the weight of the evidence in particular
should be sustained.

The majority opinion of fifty-seven pages is largely devoted in an effort to
sustain the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution whom the trial
court found as a fact to be unworthy of belief.

A detailed discussion of the evidence would not serve any useful purpose. The
theory of the prosecution and the majority opinion is largely founded upon the
fact that the deceased and the defendant, Proceso Bustos, were personal and
political enemies; that for such reason Proceso Bustos had a vindictive motive
for killing the deceased, and because he had such a motive it must follow that
he committed the crime.

At the time in question, Proceso Bustos was municipal president of Macabebe,
Pampanga, and Felipe Bustos was municipal secretary, both of whom were related
to the deceased. Jose Blanco previously held an important office; Filomeno Sunga
was chief of police; Donato Benosa was clerk to the municipal president; Irineo
Cailao, Francisco Reyes, and Roman Bondoc were municipal police and Alejandro
Ronquillo was a servant of the municipal president. A large majority of them
were men of high standing in the community in which they lived, held responsible
positions and had taken a solemn oath to uphold and enforce the law. Their
character, standing, and reputation are all waived aside, they are now declared
to be felons and convicted of the crime of murder upon a dying statement which
was prepared by Dizon, who was their political enemy and a personal friend of
the deceased, a fact which is overlooked in the majority opinion.

Because Dizon prepared a statement showing that the defendants were guilty,
it is assumed that they are guilty. Dizon was the justice of the peace. The
deceased was seriously wounded by some one and was on the verge of death. If
Dizon, as an official, wanted to be fair and impartial and find out what Liborio
Bustos knew and obtain the actual facts from him as to who was guilty of the
crime, the most natural and ordinary thing to have done was to have called in
two or three responsible disinterested persons and, in their presence, to have
taken the ante mortem statement at the bedside of the dying man. That was
not done. Instead, Dizon went alone into another room and prepared a statement
in his own language, and, outside of his signature, there is nothing in the
record that tends to show that Liborio Bustos ever made any dying statement to
Dizon, or told him what it should contain, or the cause of the trouble, or how
it happened, or who was guilty. This dying declaration is a very forcible
illustration of the Biblical saying that “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the
hands are the hands of Esau.”

The ante mortem statement, on its face, purports to have been made by
the deceased, but, in truth and in fact, it was made and prepared by Dizon, an
avowed personal and political enemy of the defendants, and a personal friend of
the deceased, and seems to have answered its purpose.

It is admitted that soon after the trouble occurred, the deceased made and
verified a criminal complaint, under oath, before Dizon, a justice of the peace,
charging some of the defendants with the crime of frustrated murder. All of the
facts were then clear in his mind and the deceased then knew what he was doing.
Within twenty-four hours after that was done, when the deceased was vomiting
blood and writhing in pain, he signed a statement, which Dizon personally
prepared, in which he accused two other defendants here of the crime of murder
who are not mentioned or described in the verified criminal complaint, and yet
nothing is said about the verified criminal complaint in the majority opinion
and the ante mortem statement is treated as a verity.

The writer does not believe that men of the prominence and standing of the
defendants would ever commit the crime of murder in a public theater where every
act and movement could be seen by three or four hundred persons. It is indeed
strange that out of the whole number in the theater less than a half a dozen
persons were called and testified as witnesses for the prosecution. If the crime
was committed in the way and manner in which the prosecution contends, it could
have, and must have, been seen by every person in the theater.

The majority opinion lays great stress upon the fact that the defendants were
prominent citizens and for such reason all other persons in the theater were
afraid to testify as to what they saw. That is a sad commentary on the
administration of justice in the Philippine Islands, but it is the only way by
which the prosecution in this case can be sustained.

Again, the majority opinion affirmed the decision of the lower court which
finds all of the appellants guilty, sentenced each of them to imprisonment for
seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal. Under
the theory of the prosecution, the deceased was stabbed by Proceso Bustos.
There is no evidence of any concert of action between the remaining
defendants and Proceso Bustos. There is no evidence that either of them
inflicted upon him serious bodily injury, or that they were directly, or
indirectly, the cause of his death. Neither is there any testimony whatever
tending to show that any of the co-defendants of Proceso Bustos were acting in
concert with him, or that they seized or held him so that Proceso Bustos
could stab the deceased, or that they knew or had any reason to believe that
Proceso Bustos, or anyone else, would stab the deceased, or that either one of
them had any intention of doing the deceased any great bodily harm or injury. If
that had been their purpose or intent, the injury could have been inflicted long
before Proceso Bustos arrived on the scene. The testimony tends to show that
they were trying to prevent Liborio Bustos from drawing his revolver in a
crowded theater. That was their official duty. Yet, because they were
discharging their official duty they are now sentenced, by a majority opinion of
this court, to seventeen years of solitary confinement.

Under the facts shown to exist, the guilt of the co-defendants of Proceso
Bustos as found by the trial court, and as affirmed in the majority opinion of
this court, cannot be sustained upon any legal principle and is clearly in
conflict with the decision of this court in United States vs. Magcomot
(13 Phil., 386), which reads:

“In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the
criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the
same person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is
liable only for the acts committed by himself.”

The law of that case has been affirmed in other recent decisions.

It is conceded that the death of Liborio Bustos was caused solely by a stab
with a dagger and that any other injuries which he received were minor and not
of a serious nature, and that all of the proof of the prosecution, including the
ante mortem statement, tends to prove that he was stabbed by Proceso
Bustos. How then, and upon what theory, under the facts shown in the record, can
his co-defendants be convicted of the crime charged?

The majority opinion is apparently founded upon the fact that because the
deceased was stabbed by Proceso Bustos during the time that he was held by the
other defendants, the court has a right to infer that the defendants were all
acting together. But here again it should be noted that upon that point the
trial court found as a fact that the evidence for the prosecution, to sustain
such an inference, was unworthy of belief; and, hence, in the absence of any
clear or convincing testimony, under every rule of law, the defendants are
entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt.

Upon such facts, there is no rule of law of this or any other court that will
sustain the conviction of the co-defendants of Proceso Bustos of the crime
charged in the information. It is a fundamental rule of law in criminal cases
that to sustain a conviction the evidence must be sufficient to prove the guilt
of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In the opinion of the writer, that
is an inherent, constitutional right of which the defendants have been deprived
in this case.

Before leaving for the States, Mr. Justice Ostrand read and
re-read the whole record in this case, and with me is of the firm opinion that
the defendants are the victims of a “frame-up” by Dizon, their political enemy,
and that all of them should be acquitted.