G.R. Nos. L-18660 and L-18661. November 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE ALTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
CASTRO, J.:
On December 7, 1956
an indictment for multiple murder (criminal case 4167)
and another for frustrated multiple murder (criminal case 4181) were filed with
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
In criminal case 4167, Jose
Alto, Bienvenido Almuete, Melencio Gregorio, Melchor de Leon, Melencio Marcos,
Pedro Paras and Ismael Dungao were charged with multiple murder, committed, in the
language of the information, as follows:
“That on or about the 15th day of December, 1951, in the municipality of Quezon province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named defendants, Jose Alto,
alias ‘Alonso’, Bienvenido Almuete
alias ‘Almo‘, Melencio
Gregorio alias ‘Melencio‘, Melchor
de Leon alias, ‘Commander Melchor‘, alias Melchor‘, Melencio Marcos alias
‘Commander ‘Rodil‘, Pedro Paras
alias ‘Golong‘ and several others whose names and
identities are still unknown, all armed members of the HMB Organization,
conspiring together and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill,
treachery and evident premeditation, night time purposely sought to facilitate
the commission of the crime with impunity and in consideration of the reward of
P2,000.00 made by the accused Jose Alto, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, criminally, feloniously and illegally waylay and ambush Mayor
Eduardo Joson, Cayetano Tangunan, Pedro Elvinia, Simplicio Siazon, and their other
companions while on their way to reinforce the TPs at
barrio Bertese, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, and fire and shoot
at said Mayor Eduardo L. Joson arid his companions as
a result of which, Cayetano Tangunan,
Pedro Elvinia and Simplicio
Siazon received various fatal and serious gunshot
wounds in different parts of their bodies which caused their instantaneous
death.”
Of the above-named accused only Jose
Alto, Bienvenido Almuete, Melencio Marcos, Melencio
Gregorio and Ismael Dungao
stood trial. The rest were either at
large or already dead.
In criminal case 4181, Jose Alto, Melchor
de Leon, Pedro Paras, Ismael
Dungao, Melencio Gregorio and others were
charged with multiple frustrated murder.
The information recites
“That on or about November 12, 1950, in the municipality of Sto. Domingo, province of Nueva Ecija, Republic of the Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said defendants, Jose Alto alias
‘Alonso’, Melchor de Leon alias ‘Melchor’,
John Doe alias ‘Johnny’, Pedro Paras alias ‘Colong‘, Ismael Dungao alias ‘Maeng’, Melencio Gregorio alias ‘Melencio‘,
and several others whose names and identities are still unknown, all armed
members of the Huk Organization conspiring together
and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, evident premeditation
and at the instigation of the accused Jose Alto alias ‘Alonso’ who paid
P2,000.00 to his co-accused as a reward for the killing of Mayor Eduardo L. Joson, of Quezon, Nueva, Ecija did then and there wilfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, criminally and illegally waylay and ambush said Mayor Eduardo L. Joson while riding in a jeep accompanied by Araceli N. Joson, Consuelo L. Joson, Vicente Bautista, and Tomas N. Joson
on their way from Sto. Domingo to Quezon
and fire and shoot at said Mayor Eduardo L. Joson and
his companions, said accused having performed all the acts of execution which
should have produced the crime of multiple murder as a consequence but which
nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the said accused and as a result of which serious physical injuries were
inflicted upon the bodies of Eduardo L. Joson, Araceli N. Joson and Consuelo L. Joson, necessitating their hospitalization for quite sometime.”
Of the above-named accused only Jose
Alto, Ismael Dungao and Melencio Gregorio stood trial. The others were either at large or already
dead.
After a protracted
trial at which the prosecution presented separate evidence for each of the two
cases while the defense introduced joint evidence for both cases, the trial
court, on May 3, 1961, or
almost five years after the filing of the two informations,
rendered judgment as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 4167, the accused Jose Alto, Bienvenido Almuete, Melencio Gregorio, and Melencio
Marcos are each sentenced to three reclusion perpetua
for the death of Cayetano Tangunan,
Pedro Elviña, and Simplicio
Siazon, and to pay the heirs of each of the said time
P6,000.00 and to costs of the suit. Ismael Dungao is acquitted for lack of evidence. In Criminal Case No. 4181, the accused Jose
Alto, Ismael Dungao, and Melencio Gregorio are each sentenced to four (4)
indeterminate penalties, each of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional,
as minimum, to twelve years five months and eleven days of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the offended parties
in the total amount of P10,000.00, for the frustrated murder of Eduardo Joson, Consuelo Noriel, Tomas Joson and Vicente Bautista, and to pay the costs of the
suit; provided, however, that the maximum penalty to be served by the accused
Jose Alto, Melencio Gregorio, Melencio
Marcos, and Bienvenido Almuete
shall not exceed threefold of the severest penalty and in no case shall it
exceed 40 years. The accused shall pay the
costs. The accused should be credited
with one-half of their preventive imprisonment.”
From this decision, all the
defendants, except Bienvenido Almuete,
appealed directly and separately to this Court.
The
appeal of Melencio
Gregorio,[1] Melencio Marcos[2] and Ismael Dungao[3] were subsequently withdrawn
by them. We
are here therefore concerned solely with the appeal of Jose Alto.
The following are the uncontroverted salient facts: (1) In the years 1949, 1950 and 1951 Nueva Ecija was a Huk-infested province.
Frequent clashes took place during that period between the dissidents and the temporary police (T. P.) and the “civilian guards” of the various
municipalities. In the municipality of Quezon, in particular, the then incumbent Mayor Eduardo L. Joson, the principal complainant in both cases, led a
vigorous and unrelenting campaign against the Huks. (2) In the local elections of 1947 and 1951
Eduardo Joson and Jose Alto were the major candidates for the mayoralty of Quezon, Nueava Ecija. Joson won over Alto in both
elections. The latter admitted that
after the 1947 election he chanced to remark that he had been cheated because “the civilian guards of Mayor Joson
had carried away the ballot boxes.” However, he never filed any formal
protest. (3) On November
12, 1950, at the
junction of Sto. Domingo and Quezon,
Nueva Ecija, dissidents
ambushed Joson who was returning to Quezon in a jeep
with an aide and members of his family.
Mayor Joson, Vicente Bautista, Consuelo L. Joson, Arceli Joson
and Tomas Joson sustained
serious physical injuries. (4) On December
15, 1951, at Curva Quezon, the Huks ambushed Mayor Joson and
some regular and temporary policemen of Quezon while
these were on their way to reinforce the temporary detachment detailed at barrio
Partese. As a
result, policemen Cayetano Tangunan,
Pedro Alvinia and Simplicio
Siazon of Quezon were
slain.
The appellant Alto was
linked to the two offenses solely on the basis of the price or reward of P2,000 he allegedly had given to the Huks
for the liquidation of Mayor Joson.
The complete measure of
the evidence on record inculpating the appellant as principal inducement is the
totality of the declarations of prosecution witnesses Laureano
Salvador, Toribio Garcia and Dominador
Pineda and a sworn statement of Melencio Marcos, one of the accused.
I.
In adjudging the
appellant guilty, the trial court almost wholly relied upon the testimony of Laureano Salvador.
What is Salvador‘s story? He testified that he
was “in charge” of the Tanggulang
Bayan[4]
in barrio Parukot, Quezon, Nueva Ecija from 1946 to
1952. (In this latter year he
surrendered to the authorities and severed his connections with the Huks.) In such capacity, he operated under the command of
Isaac Francisco who was the supreme leader of the various Tanggulang Bayan units in Quezon and
the neighboring localities. At the
behest of Francisco, he attended a meeting at the house of Carlos Gabriel
around the middle of August, 1950. Present at the meeting, aside from Francisco
and Salvador, were commanders Marcial,
Melchor and Reyes.
Francisco informed them that Jose Alto had offered P2,000 for the liquidation of Mayor Joson,
and those present unanimously agreed to the proposal. More than two months later, or more
specifically on the day following all Saints’ Day (November 2, 1950), Salvador
went with Francisco to the house of Jose Alto in the poblacion
of Quezon where they conveyed to the latter the
acceptance by the Huk commanders of the appellant’s
proposition. Alto then gave to Francisco
the promised P2,000, with the explicit instructions
that the money be delivered to commander Marcial and
that the ambush of Mayor Joson be effected. Forthwith, the two emissaries left. On the afternoon of thee same day they proceeded to Pantok
in barrio Parukot, a part
of the land owned by Alto, where Francisco
delivered the P2,000 to commander Marcial in the
presence of commanders Melchor and Reyes and another
person whom Salvador could not identify.
Francisco informed the Huk commanders about
Alto’s instructions. The commanders then
issued a receipt for P2,000, and swore – by raising
their hands – that they had received the money.
After this occasion, he never again saw Marcial,
Melchor and Reyes.
He admitted that he did not witness the two ambushes in question.
Because
the principal foundation of the entire case against the appellant is Salvador‘s testimony, it behooved us to scrutinize
and examine it with painstaking care.
Even after three readings of the entire transcript, we must confess that
we are unable to shake off nagging doubts as to the veracity of Salvador‘s declarations.
1. To begin with, his testimony is utterly uncorroborated in its vital
points. As far as the record goes – and
we have repeatedly probed the four corners of the record – Salvador was the only
eyewitness to the handling by Alto of the amount of P2,000 to Francisco and
the subsequent delivery by the latter to Marcial. The two other witnesses, Toribio Garcia and Dominador
Pineda, were not privy to the passing on the money from hand to hand. The sworn statement of Melencio
Marcos speaks of knowledge supposedly acquired by him after the money
had been delivered. On top of this,
Francisco, who was allegedly with Salvador when the money was given by Alto, is already dead and therefore cannot be cross-examined.
This uncorroborated
testimony of Salvador is considerably enfeebled by his own
admission that he was an accomplice.
Although the law does not exclude evidence given by an accomplice, our
jurisprudence has consistently enjoined courts, in the appreciation of such
evidence, to exercise the greatest degree of caution and circumspection. In People vs. Asinas, [5] this Court emphasized “that a defendant
in a criminal case cannot be convicted on the evidence of an accomplice only, and to sustain such conviction, there must be other evidence corroborating that of the accomplice which tends to show the guilt
of the defendant.” In an earlier case, this Court stated that the testimony of
an accomplice “must be assayed and weighed with scrupulous care,” and
that “the corroborating testimony must be strong and convincing.’[6]
And
the proper test to determine whether there is sufficient corroboration of the
testimony of an accomplice is to “examine the evidence or evidences of the
other witness or witnesses with a view to ascertaining if there be inculpatory evidence – evidence tending to connect the
defendant with the offense. If there the
accomplice is corroborated; if there is no inculpatory
evidence there is no corroboration, although the accomplice may be corroborated
in regard to any number of facts sworn to by him.”[7]
2. The intrinsic and basic inverisimilitude
of Salvador’s testimony is underscored by his repetitious
invocation of dead persons like Francisco and Marcial
who can never be confronted by the
accused. The defense proved the fact of death
of Francisco and Marcial by presenting their
respective death certificates (exh. 3-A and exh. 3-E,
respectively). Salvador himself, in his
affidavit, owned that he knew at the time he was testifying in court
that Francisco was already dead, as was Carlos Gabriel in whose house the
alleged initial meeting took place (exh. C).
3. Not
only is the testimony of Salvador uncorroborated in its essential points; it is gravely flawed by a
plethora of material contradictions. To mention only a glaring few.
(a) During the trial Salvador declared that he and Francisco went to the
house of Alto on the day following All Saints’
Day (November 2, 1950) in order to convey to the appellant the adherence of the Huk commanders to his proposal and to receive the promised
reward. Thus –
“Q. Now, sometime in
November, 1950, did you have occasion of seeing the accused Jose Alto?
“A. I saw him sir.
“Q. Can you give the precise
time and date when you saw him in that
month of November, 1950?
“A. I could.
“Q. Please state it.
“A. The next day after
All Saints’ Day of November.
“Q. What time of the day
did you see him?
“A. At
about 8:00 more or less.
“Q. Day or
night?
“A. In the morning.
“Q. Where?
“A. In his house, sir.
“Q. Were you alone or in
company?
“A. I was in company.
“Q. Who was your
companion?
“A. Isaac Francisco.
“Q. Were you able to see
him that morning, and will you please state to the court what transpired
between you and the accused Jose Alto?
“A. We met in his
house, sir, and Isaac Francisco and I told Jose Alto about our agreement
with the Huks.
“Q. What was that
agreement with the Huks which you told Jose AIto?
“A. The agreement we
have had was that for Jose Alto to give P2,000 for the ambush of Mayor Joson.
“Q. After
you have conveyed to the accused Jose Alto that agreement of the Huk commanders that you have mentioned, what did the
accused Jose Alto say?
“A. The answer he made to me
and to Isaac Francisco was ‘If they would agree, I will give P2,000.00,’ and it was then when he invited us
to go upstairs in his house.
“Q. You stated that the
accused Jose Alto gave P2,000.00. To
whom did he give the P2,000.00?
“A. To Isaac Francisco.
The
above declarations contradict his previous statement made at the preliminary
investigation to the effect that he and Francisco went to the house of Jose
Alto to get the money after only a few days had passed from the time the
meeting was allegedly held, which was around the middle of August, 1950 – or
still within the month of August! We quote the pertinent portion of the transcript:
“T. Anong
buan noun ng kayo ay kapulungin ni Isaac Francisco?
“S. Buan pa ng Agosto taong
1950.
“T. Nagpunta
ba kayo doun sa bahay
ni Carlos Gabriel?
“S. Nagpunta po.
”T. Ano
ang nangyari doun sa bahay in Carlos Gabriel?
“S. Nagpulong po kami nila Isaac Francisco,
Commander Melchor, Commander Marcial,
Commander Reyes, at saka isa
pang hindi ko kilala.
“T. Ano ang inyong
pinagpulungan?
“S. Nagpahayag po si Isaac Francisco na
ang ating pagpupulungan ay tungkol po kay Mayor Joson ng rnagbibigay raw
po si Jose Alto ng dalawang libong
piso para liquidahin si Mayor Joson. Ang sagot po
nila Commander Melchor,
Commander Marcial, Commander Reyes ng ayos.
“T. Pagkatapos noung pulong na iyong
ay ano ang nangyari?
“S. Omowe
na po kame
at nagpaliban kami
ng ilang araw at nagpunta kami sa bahay
ni Jose Alto.
“T. Sino ang kasama ninio?
“S. Si
Isaac Francisco po.
“T. Napunta
ba kayo sa bahay ni Jose Alto?
“S. Napunta po kami.
“T. Ano ang nangyari
sa bahay in Jose Alto?
“S. Dinaanan po namin sa
lupa at niyaya po kami sa
itaas at ng kami po ay nasa
itaas na ay itinanong ni Isaac Francisco kay Jose Alto na papano ba young atin pinagusapan. Ang sagot po ni Mr. Jose Alto ay ibibigay
ko ang halagang
dalawang libong piso, isagawa lamang ang pagtambang kay mayor Joson.
“T. Naibigay ba noung araw
ang halagang dalawang libong piso?
“S. Naibigay
po.
(Preliminary investigation conducted by Judge Ignacio Lustre of the Justice of the Peace Court of Quezon on July 1,1955.)
(b) In a previous
testimony (exh. N) Salvador categorically stated that he did not know
the real name of commander Melchor. At the trial, however, he testified that he
knew Melchor because they were “in-laws” (magbilas). It
stands to reason that Salvador should have known the real name of Melchor,
especially so when both resided in the same community and belonged to the same
subversive organization.
(c) Salvador declared that after he and Francisco
delivered the money to Marcial, at no occasion did he
again see Marcial, Reyes and Melchor. This contradicts his previous affirmation
that he saw Melchor in December, 1951 when the latter
told him about the plot to ambush Mayor Joson at Curva (ex. N).
4. Furthermore, the long
continued silence of Salvador – for a duration of almost four years before
he suddenly volunteered to testify for the prosecution, engenders serious
doubt as to his motives and renders his testimony suspect. Of course he tried to justify his long
silence by saying that he feared reprisal from the Huks. To our mind, this is preposterous – for did
he in 1952 have any apprehensions about incurring the animosity of his comrades
when he deserted them and jumped over to the side of the law and the duly
constituted authorities? If indeed he
had knowledge of the events, as he professed he had, why did he not
make report of them earlier, or in 1952 when he abandoned his arrant ways and
retraced his steps to the path of the law?
In People vs. Marcos, et al.,[8] a witness for the prosecution claimed to
have been present in the various stages of a conspiracy and to have
participated in the commission of the offense.
Nevertheless, he remained silent for approximately three years. This Court took a dim view of the witness’
“long continued silence” and his motives for breaking his silence,
saying, in no uncertain terms, that the change of attitude “could have not
been due to a desirable impulse to serve the interest of justice and proves, if
it proves anything at all, the tardy revival of stultified civic
consciousness.”
5. Finally, the testimony
of Salvador was traversed to its very core not only by
the appellant Alto but more importantly by Lucia va. de Gabriel, the widow of Carlos Gabriel in whose house the alleged
initial meeting in the middle of
August, 1950 took place. The transcript
speaks for itself.
Testimony of Alto:
“Q. You said you had just
seen the person of Laureano Salvador this morning in
the provincial jail. Was this morning
your first time to see him?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. When did you see him
before today?
“A.
The first time when he testified
against me.
“Q. In these cases at
bar?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Do you know commander Marcial?
“A. No, sir, I do not
know him.
“Q. Do you know commander
Reyes?
“A. No Sir, I do not
know him.
“Q. Did you know or do you
know commander Melchor?
“A. No, sir, I do not know him.
“Q. According to this Laureano
Salvador he and Isaac Francisco went to
see you at your house in Quezon, Nueva,
Ecija, somewhere in 1950 and during that occasion you
delivered P2,000.00 to Isaac Francisco to be delivered to commander Marcial, is that true or not?
“A. That is not true.
”Q. In November 1950,
that is after All Saints’ Day where were you?
“A. I was at home in Quezon,
Nueva Ecija.
“Q. In your drugstore?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. According to Laureano Salvador testifying before this Honorable Court on
May 3, 1957, this Laureano
Salvador and Isaac Francisco talked with you in your house at Quezon and the subject matter of your conversation was your
agreement with the huks. Is it true you talked with Isaac Francisco and Laureano
Salvador on the day after All Saints’ Day of November, 1950 at your house in Quezon?
“A. No, sir, that is
not true.
“Q. He also stated that
there was an agreement between you and the huks that
you would give P2,000.00 for the ambush of Mayor Joson
on the same occasion he testified
before this Honorable Court on May 3, 1957, also regarding the agreement
between you and the huks that you would give
P2,000.00 for the ambush of Mayor Joson?
“A. There was no such
agreement.”
The appellant likewise denied knowing Carlos Gabriel and Isaac
Francisco. Thus:
“Q. Do you know Carlos Gabriel?
“A. I do not know him.
“Q. But do you know
Isaac Francisco?
“A. Neither I know.”
Testimony of Lucia. Vda. de Gabriel:
“Q. Do you know Carlos
Gabriel?
“A. He was my husband, sir.
“Q. Where is Carlos Gabriel
now?
“A. He is already dead.
“Q. Where did he die?
“A. In Parukot,
sir.
“Q. When did he die?
“A. Long time ago already, about eight years ago,
sir.
“Q. When your husband
Carlos Gabriel died about eight years ago where were you residing?
“A. At Parukot
sir.
“Q. Do you have a house
in Parukot?
“A. Yes sir.”
“Q. In 1950 you had a house
in Parukot?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. According to the
declaration of Laureano Salvador before this
Honorable Court, he declared that in the month of August, 1950, during the
night thereof, Isaac Francisco, Carlos Gabriel, Commander Marcial,
Commander Reyes and one he could not identify in name gathered in your house in Parukot,
Quezon, Nueva Ecija, and on that occasion Jose Alto offered to give P2,000.00
and in fact gave P2,000.00 to Isaac Francisco after the meeting in your house
,in Parukot, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, in 1950, is that
correct?
“A. No sir.
“Q. Have your house been
the meeting place of the Huks during the period, that
year 1950?
“A. No sir.
“Q. In 1951 to
1953 had there been any meeting of the huks in your
house?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Had the premises
around your house been the meeting place of huks from
1949 to 1953?
“A. No, sir.”
Of incalculable import is the fact that Lucia’s disavowal of any
meeting in her house attended by Francisco, Salvador
and Alto was never rebutted by the prosecution.
II.
The second witness for the prosecution, Toribio
Garcia, testified at length on Alto’s alleged cabals with the Huks in furtherance
of the conspiracy to liquidate Joson. At the outset, it bears emphasis that Garcia
does not lay claim to any personal knowledge that Alto gave P2,000 to the Huks,
or more particularly to Isaac Francisco, nor that the said amount was in fact
delivered by the latter to Marcial.
Let us examine Garcia’s story.
Since 1940, so he declared, he had been a member of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan, otherwise known as
the HMB. He abandoned this organization
in September, 1951 when he surrendered at Camp
Murphy to General Duque. In 1950 Ramson was in command of the HMB military forces in Nueva Ecija, Estrada of the 12th field unit which embraced Quezon and Sto. Domingo in its area of operations. Upon instructions of Ramson
and Estrada, Garcia used to procure medicines and rice from Alto. In the year 1950 he saw and met Alto
thrice: in barrio Osmeña around the middle of October, in Pantok (Parukot) toward the end
of October, and in Malayok about the end of
December. When he met Alto in Osmeña, the latter was looking for Estrada in order to
inquire why the agreement regarding Joson had not yet
been implemented. He told Alto that he
would relay the inquiry to Estrada.
Before he left, Alto said that the Huks must
send for him the moment they were in the vicinity. When he later met Alto in Pantok,
the latter was accompanied by Laureano Salvador and
Isaac Francisco. Also present at this
meeting were Estrada and himself. Alto
remarked that “Ding” – referring to Joson –
could already be ambushed because he used to commute between Sto. Domingo and Quezon. Estrada told Alto that although he could no
longer direct the ambush because he had been assigned to Laguna, he would nevertheless
assign Marcial and Melchor
to effect it, and added that the money should be given
to Marcial.
Garcia did not witness the ambush staged on November 12, 1950, although he later learned about it from Marcial.
Subsequently, he met Alto in Malayok, toward
the end of December, 1950. Alto was then
with Paulino Santiago while he (Garcia) was with
Estrada. At this meeting Alto remarked that
“Ding” could not be ambushed anymore because he was always
“ready,” and that they should wait a few months. Estrada agreed, adding that a new plan was
necessary.
1. We are of the view
that Garcia’s version is not entitled to credence. Of the array of prosecution witnesses, only
Garcia testified on the alleged meetings had by Alto with the Huks concerning the liquidation of Joson. Not even the principal witness, Laureano Salvador, made any advertence to the meetings
allegedly had at Osmeña, Parukot
and Malayok.
Garcia was categorical on the presence of Salvador at the meeting
between the appellant and Estrada in Parukot. But Salvador never even as much as hinted at
this conference, and as a matter of fact he denied having had any conversation
with Alto prior to November 2, 1950.
The drift of Garcia’ s
declarations is that the conspiracy to liquidate Joson
was originally conceived by Estrada and Alto, and that Marcial
and Melchor learned of the plot only after the
meeting in Parukot had toward the end of October,
1950, at which time Estrada informed Alto that he could not anymore direct the
ambush as he had been assigned to Laguna.
This belies the asseveration of Salvador that the conspiracy was forged
in the middle of August, 1950 when Francisco for the first time relayed to Marcial, Melchor and Reyes the appellant’s offer.
Salvador testified thus:
“COURT:
“Q. The Court
understands that you and Isaac Francisco had entered into the agreement with
Commanders Reyes and Melchor, and two other parties to ambush Mayor Joson for P2,000.00. Is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. When did you enter
into that agreement?
“A. In the month of August,
1950, sir.
“Q. What date in August?
“A. More or less about
the middle of the month.”
The
inconsistencies between Garcia’s narration and Salvador’s story are so patent
and so palpably irreconcilable, that this Court is inclined to agree with the
contention of the defense that the charges against Alto were fabricated.
2. The improbability of
both the story of Salvador and the narration of Garcia is heightened when we consider that they
in effect picture Alto as so naive and utterly reckless as to conspire with
numerous persons of divergent and heteregeneous backgrounds
and persuasions regarding an evil and dangerous mission. It stands to reason that one who plots evil
hides in the cloak of secrecy, if not anonymity. The prosecution has projected Alto’s image as that of a man who
scuttled all precaution and discretion, and not only called and attended
meetings with Huk commanders to discuss the alleged
conspiracy, and but as well even went to the extent of divulging his design to
mere dissident followers. Against this cumulation of acts imputed to Alto is the defense’s
unembellished recitation of the life of a respected man in society, a pre-war
mayor of Quezon, a family man with eight children,
all of whom were then studying at the University of Santo Tomas (four in the
college of medicine, one in the college of law, one in school of architecture,
and two in high school), a progressive business man who owned a pharmacy,
sari-sari store and a gasoline station, and operated a thriving transportation
system, “The Angelita Transit.” For such a
man to risk his entire future and that of his family in one pitch and toss by
confederating openly with the Huks, he must be driven
by an overriding compelling motive. No
such motive appears on record. True it
is that Alto
was embittered by his defeat to Joson in 1947 and that he made the remark
that he had lost because Joson’s “civilian
guards” ran away with the ballot boxes.
But remarks of this nature arc
ordinary woof and warp of the lives of politicians – who must make excuses for
their defeats. It could be said, too,
that Alto probably did not mean what he said because he did not even file a
formal protest. Furthermore, this remark
was made shortly after the elections in 1947 – and Alto is charged with
conspiring in 1950 to have Joson killed, that in,
after a lapse of three years!
In the oft-cited case of
Daggers vs. Van Dyke,[9] New Jersey Vice Chancellor Van Fleet quite
aptly stated:
“Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself – such as the
common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances. We have no test of the
truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and-experience. Whatever
is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial
cognizance.” (emphasis
supplied)
3. Like Salvador, Garcia repeatedly referred to Alto’s alleged
criminal alliance with persons whom, he knew at the time he gave his testimony
in court to be already dead, and who could not therefore be
cross-examined. The following admissions
are revealing:
“Q. On that occasion when you
were being investigated by Sgt. Malubag you knew
already that Major Estrada was already dead?
“A. I already know.
“Q. You knew also then that
Commander Marcial whom you mentioned in this
affidavit Exhibit 2-impeachment is also dead?
“A. I know it already
sir.”
4. Again, like Salvador, Garcia said that he was privy to the
conspiracy to liquidate Mayor Joson, but kept silent
for more than five years, only to emerge in unexplained suddenness to narrate
his tale.
5. Finally, when Garcia testified for the prosecution, he was
already a tenant of the principal complainant Joson,
who admitted their landlord-tenant relationship after some hesitation:
“Q. Is it not a fact that Toribio Garcia is one of your tenants in your farm in Parukot?
“A. No, he is not a
tenant. I have no farm in Parukot.
“Q. Where is your farm?
“COURT:
“Q. Is he your tenant?
“A. No, your Honor.
“Q. Has he ever been
your tenant?
“S. Only this year,
your Honor.”
Obviously Garcia’s motives in testifying
against Alto are suspect.
III.
The third witness, Dominador Pineda,
implicated Alto with the second ambush staged on December 15, 1951 at Curva.
1. The only relevant declaration of Pineda with respect to the
alleged complicity of the appellant is his statement that he saw Alto in his
house talking with commander Rodil (Melencio Marcos) about Mayor Joson. He did not, however, elaborate nor give details
of the conversation, although he stated that he overheard Rodil
say to Alto that the “scales” (kaliskis)
of Joson are of high quality and that he (Alto) must
not be impatient. However, on
cross-examination, Pineda gravely contradicted himself by admitting that this
alleged statement was addressed to him by Rodil. Thus:
“Q. Are you sure of
that, – that you did not have any conversation with the companions of Melchor de Leon that night?
“A. I was able to talk to Rodil then, sir.
“Q. What did Rodil or Melencio Marcos tell
you?
“A. He said that the Mayor
is of a high quality (mataas ang kaliskis).
“Q. That is all you heard from Melencio Marcos?
“A. That was the only thing Melencio Marcos told me, sir.”
2.
Pineda’s testimony is impeached by the manifest improbability of his
assertions.
First. – He
testified that the Huks frequently gathered and ate
in his house, and that on the night of the ambush at Curva,
Rodil and his companions met in his house before
proceeding to the ambuscade. However,
Pineda admitted that his house was only 300 meters away from the municipal
building, and that the temporary police were in constant patrol in that
vicinity. In fact on the night he
allegedly saw Rodil and Alto talking, he brought his family to his parents’
house because he feared that the Huks and the temporary
police might meet in armed encounter. It
would seem then unusual that the Huks frequently
gathered at his house and more unnatural that they made it their precise
rendezvous point on the night of the attack at Curva
despite its proximity to the municipal building and the patrol activities
thereabouts of the temporary police.
Second. – Despite
Pineda’s supposed closeness to the Huks, he admitted
that on the night of the ambush at Curva, Rodil, before leaving, had him guarded on surveillance by a
Huk soldier.
Third. – Pineda
testified that Bertese is about three kilometers
distant from his house, but when asked, upon cross-examination, to calculate
the time which transpired from the moment the Huks
left his house to the time he heard the first volley of shots at Bertese, and also to approximate the time which elapsed
from the moment and his companions left his house to the time they returned for
the Huk soldier, he (Pineda) made patently ridiculous
estimates:
“Q. If you smoke a cigarette
from the time these people you said ate in your house up to the time the first
volley of shots occurred in Bertese how many could
you have consumed?
“A. Are you referring
to the occasion beginning the time when they left?
“Q. Yes, from the time they
left to the first volley of shots?
“A. More or less one
cigarette.
“Q. How many cigarettes would
you have consumed if you smoked from the time the guard guarded you up to the
time they took him away?
“A. About after smoking a
cigarette.
“Q. That is the time
from the time they left you with a guard up to the time they passed by the
guard?
“A. Yes, sir.”
IV.
The prosecution sought to bolster its case against the appellant
by introducing in evidence a sworn statement of Melencio
Marcos, a co-accused, made by the latter while he was a detention prisoner in
the provincial jail of Nueva Ecija. This sworn statement, to which the trial
court accorded inordinate credence, recites
that Melencio Marcos was the representative or
“kinatawan” of the commander of the PC -12,
a military unit of the HMB; that on August 12, 1950 he saw Alto, Apolinario Ocol, Blas Angeles and Isaac Francisco in the house of Carlos
Gabriel in barrio Parukot at a meeting
attended by himself, Marcial, Melchor,
commander Golong and Telmo;
that Alto said that the meeting was called in connection with the liquidation
of Mayor Joson as to which he was offering a reward
of P2 ,000; that Alto added that if the Huks wanted
they could send someone to get the money from him the next day; that the money
was received from Alto the following month (September), but of the amount of
P2,000, only P1,800 was delivered by Francisco to Marcial
and Melchor before November 10, 1950 because
Francisco retained the sum of P200; that subsequently Joson
was ambushed at Mambarao, Quezon,
Nueva Ecija; that more than
a year later, or on December 12, 1951, Marcos again saw Alto, Ocol Angeles and Francisco at Dulong
Bayan in Quezon together
with colonel Aleman, commander Melchor
and Golong; that at this meeting Alto, Ocol, Angeles and Francisco suggested that the best way to
kill Jason was to attack barrio Bertese and to ambush him at Curva
on his way to aid the detachment at Bertese; and that
scheme was carried out and on December 15, 1951 Mayor Joson
was ambushed at Curva.
Is this sworn statement
entitled to credence, assuming that it is admissible as against
appellant? We do not believe so.
1. We underscore the fact
that this sworn statement was unequivocally retracted by Melencio
Marcos. But before delving into the whys
and wherefores of the said retraction, let us first analyze Marcos’
declarations. The impression that
immediately comes to the fore is that his story is completely at variance with
the already conflicting accounts made by Salvador and Garcia. In fact it contradicts the testimony
of Salvador on the matter of the price of P
2,000 which Alto allegedly gave to the Huks. Marcos declared that he knew that the money
was taken from Alto during the month following their meeting in August, 1950,
that is, in September 1950;
His declaration to this effect is as follows:
“T. Nalaman
mo ba kung nakuha, iyong kualta kay
Jose Alto ni Isaac Francisco?
“S. Opo,
nakuha po, nuong pong susunod na buan na
iyon pero hindi ko lang
matandaaan kung anong petsa ng intrego
ni Isaac Francisco kay Kumander Marcial. Pero natitiyak ko po
na bago dumating
ang Nobiembre 10,
1950.”
Whereas,
Salvador testified that Francisco and he got the money from Alto on the day
following All Saints’ Day (November 2, 1050).
Marcos also declared that of the P2,000, Francisco delivered to Marcial only P1,800, because Francisco retained P200. Thus:
“T. Magkano
iyong kualtang iniyabot?
“S. Ang
nakito ko pang iniyabot ni Ronquillo
kay Numander Marcial, Melchor ay pagkakabilang ay P1,800. 00 at nuong
iniyabot iyong ay sinabi ni Ronquillo
na iyon ay P2,000.00 at hiniram lang niya
ang P200.00.”
On
the contrary Salvador categorically declared that on the afternoon of the day
following All Saints’ Day Francisco delivered the P2,000 to Marcial
and in fact a receipt for such amount was issued, attesting that they had
received the full promised reward of P2,000.
2. Surprisingly, Garcia
who testified on the conferences allegedly attended by Alto in Osmeña, Parukot and Malayok never mentioned the presence of Marcos, and Marcos
himself did not mention the presence of Garcia in any of the said conferences. Neither did
Salvador mention the presence of Marcos in the said conclaves. And although they were unanimous that
Francisco, Estrada and Marcial were present at the
various meetings which they attended, the cold undeniable fact is that all
these Huk leaders are dead and could not be
confronted by the appellant.
3. Moreover, the
statement of Marcos deserves no credit, not only because it was recanted, but
also because it was given upon the repeated inducements of Joson
while Marcos was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of Nueva Ecija. The following declarations of Marcos during
the trial are significant:
“Q. Will you please tell us
why you signed this Exhibit E for the prosecution, and according to you have
not seen Jose Alto in the month
of August 1950, in the house of Carlos
Gabriel pertaining whom you stated a while ago you did not know that fellow?
“A. The reasons why I signed
that document, sir are: first, because I
was intimidated by the policemen of Mr. Joson;
second, because Mayor Joson promised me that he would
help me in my two other cases that I have besides these ones; and third, that
he would procure my release by the filing of a bond.
“Q. Any other reason for your signing this
document Exhibit E?
“A. Yes, sir. There are some
more.
“Q. Will you please tell us?
“A Other reasons for my having signed
the said document was that Mayor Joson together with
Jose Corpuz promised that after I would be released
upon the filing of a bond, I would live in
any place in Quezon, Nueva Ecija, and that he would lend me three hectares of land
which I could farm for my own benefit and that the produce will be exclusively
mine until the cases are finished.
“Q. Did you know that when
you signed this Exhibit E that you
were declaring against Jose Alto, Ismael Dungao, and Melencio Gregorio in this case?
“A. It was only against
Jose Alto that I knew that I was testifying, sir, but with respect to Ismael
Dungao and Melencio
Gregorio and Bienvenido Almuete I did not
know that I was testifying against them.
“Q. Had you talk about Jose
Alto with Mayor Joson concerning this Exhibit E, the
statement of yours?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What did he tell you about Alto?
“A. He told me for me
to sign that document in order to send to jail Jose Alto after which he would
do me every favor if he would succeed.”
Verily, Marcos executed
the said sworn statement, not to uphold public interest, but to obtain
concessions from the authorities.
In People vs. Capadocia,[10] this Court in debunking the credibility of a
vital prosecution witness, observed that
“The inherent
weakness, from the objective viewpoint, of the evidence given by Ternura is compounded by the existence of subjective
reasons for him to implicate appellant.
He was a confessed Huk under detention at the
time. He knew his fate depended upon how
much he cooperated with the authorities, who were then engaged in a vigorous
anti-dissident campaign.”
The testimony of Marcos
regarding his reasons for making the sworn statement was corroborated by Bartolome Bernardo whose pertinent testimony is summarized by
the trial court in its decision, as follows:
“Sometime during the middle of October, 1954, Mayor Joson went to the house of Bartolome
Bernardo and requested the latter to help Mayor Joson
by testifying in his favor, and Mayor Joson promised
that he would take care of the cases of Melencio
Marcos and secure his release on bail.
Mayor Joson and Bernardo went to the
provincial jail where Melencio Marcos was and is
still presently confined, and Bernardo
informed him of the wishes of Mayor Joson. Melencio Marcos
refused to testify in favor of Mayor Joson because,
according to him, he did not know anything about the matter and that was the
same answer that he gave to Mayor Joson when the
latter talked with him. Mayor Joson and Bartolome Bernardo
again returned to the provincial jail about the end of October with the same
request and with the same promises, but again Melencio
Marcos refused.”
It must be noted that in
the original information for multiple frustrated murder (criminal case 3372)
and multiple murder (criminal case 3671) filed on February 10, 1955, which were
subsequently provisionally dismissed[11] for insufficiency of evidence, Melencio Marcos, Melencio
Gregorio and Bienvenido Almuete
were listed as witnesses for the prosecution.
It was only after the retractions of Gregorio and Almuete
and the desistance of Marcos from testifying for the prosecution that these
three were included as defendants in the informations
subject of the present appeal.
When the threat or
promise was made by, or in the
presence of, a person in authority, who has, or is supposed by the accused to
have power or authority to fulfill the threat or promise, the confession of the
accused will be presumed inadmissible.[12] A confession made under the influence of
threat or promise of reward or leniency is inadmissible.[13]
It is thus that the sworn
statement of Marcos does not deserve modicum of credence.
V.
In according credit
to the prosecution witnesses, the trial court observed that “these
witnesses for the prosecution had demonstrated a fair knowledge of the Huk organization and the functions of each of the branches
thereof. It is not denied for example,
that in any given section or command the military branch could not do anything
without consulting the civilian branch of the organization.” But it is
precisely because of their intimate knowledge of the organizational set-up and
operations of the Huk organization that any
fabricated charge against the appellant could be given the semblance of
verity. It is also obvious that these
confessed Huks would with alacrity ally with the
authorities just to purchase their security, knowing that the said authorities
could at will revive charges against them.
As a salutary proposition, this Court usually desists from
disturbing the conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses,
in deference to the rule that the lower court, having seen and heard the
witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better
position to appreciate the evidence.[14]
But this doctrine must bow to the superior and immutable rule that the guilt of
the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, because the law presumes
that a defendant is innocent, and this presumption must prevail unless
overturned by competent and credible proof.
We find the record wanting of competent and credible proof to sustain a
moral certainty as to the guilt of the appellant.
Viewing the record in its entirety, we are not prepared to say
that the evidence adduced precludes the possibility that the charges against
Alto were politically motivated and contrived.
Nor is the evidence incompatible with the suggested probability that the
ambushes in question were integral parts of a determined campaign by the Huks to eliminate Mayor Joson who
was an avowed mortal foe – of which campaign Alto may have been completely unaware; or if he was aware
thereof he had no complicity therein.
ACCORDINGLY, the appellant Jose Alto is hereby
acquitted, with costs de oficio.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando and
Capistrano, JJ., concur.
[1]
Resolution of March 6, 1962.
[2]
Resolution of June 27, 1966.
[3]
Resolution of October 7, 1966.
[4]
Civilian unit of the HMB or the Huk Organization.
[5]
53 Phil. 59; see also People vs. Dizon and Dizon, 7C Phil. 265; People vs. De Otero, 51 Phil.
203.
[6]
U.S. vs. Remigio, 37 Phil. 599, 610-611. See
also People vs. Lanas, L-5086, March 25, 1953.
[7]
Weldon vs. State, 16 Tex. App. 400, cited in People vs. Bagos and Bagos, L-6808, L-6809
and L-6810, October 29, 1954.
[8]
70 Phil. 468.
[9]
37 N.J. Eg.
130, 132; see also People vs. Diño, 46 Phil.
396; U.S. vs; Sta. Cruz, 1 Phil. 726.
[10]
L-5796, August 29, 1966.
[11]
Order of April 29, 1955 of the CFI of Nueva Ecija.
[12]
Early vs. Com., 80 Va. 921, 927, 928, 11 S.E. 795; Searcy vs.
State, 28 Tex. App. 513, 14 S.W. 782.
[13]
See U.S. vs. Caballeros, 4 Phil. 350; U.S; vs. Lamadrid, 27 Phil. 76; U.S. vs. Jose, 6 Phil. 211.
[14]
People vs. Dayday, L-20806-07, Aug 14, 1965;
People vs. Pasiona, L-18295, April 30, 1966.