THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS SIMPLICIO MACASO ET ALS., DEFENDANTS. SIMPLICIO MACASO, MARCOS BISA, IRINEO GUTIERREZ, JUANITO SABLAY, PASTOR GUTIERREZ…

The six accused and about thirty others, three of whom are said to have been
killed and the rest at large, fired volleys of shots into a house, killing
eleven and wounding several others. The firing and the resulting casualties are
not denied. What is denied is that the defendants started the shooting. They
claimed that they merely returned the fires of Remigio de Veyra and his
companions who were inside the house. The main or sole issue boils down to
this.

It appears that Remigio de Veyra, a former guerrilla, was authorized by one
former guerrilla captain, A. G. E. Cinco, said to be a pacification agent, to
confiscate unlicensed firearms. Simplicio Macaso,who heads the list of
defendants and a former member of the Philippine Army and also a former
guerrilla, was engaged in a similar mission. He said he belonged to the
organization of Captain Cinco and was commissioned “as a member of maintenance
of peace and order” and “to drive away the bandits and bad elements from places
where they were making troubles,”

On July 8, 1946, feast of the patron saint of barrio Wilson, municipality of
Dulag, province of Leyte, De Veyra and his men numbering fifteen were guests in
Tomas Lazar’s house situated right at the public plaza. Between 11 o’clock a.m.
and 12 o’clock n. of that day, while the “guests were eating, some at the table
and others, including De Veyra, on the porch, the firing broke out.

De Veyra said substantially as follows. He and his fifteen companions came to
Wilson on the afternoon of July 7, at 5 o’clock, which was the eve of the Wilson
barrio fiesta. At Tomas Lasar’s place he met Macaso who talked with him. He told
Macaso that he had Cinco’s authority “to investigate guns or rifles having no
license,” and showed Macaso his paper. Macaso, upon reading his appointment,
remarked, “You are a spy of the Military Police Command,” and handed it back to
him. After he answered Yes, Macaso and his men moved on in the direction of the
schoolhouse. The next morning Macaso and men “continued passing by.” At 11
o’clock, Lazar announced luncheon ready. As there was no more seat at the table,
he (De Veyra) picked up a plate and came to the porch. As he and other guests
were eating, Macaso reappeared and told De Veyra that he and his men were
leaving, De Veyra asked Macaso if he already has his luncheon, and Macaso
answered that they were in a hurry because they had to stop at Union to pick up
a machinegun. But instead of moving away, Macaso and his men surrounded Lazar’s
house and the former ordered the latter to fire. They fired into Lazar’s house,
and a girl named Guining Carmal, who was near De Veyra, was hit. De Veyra jumped
out of the house and ran to his barrio, Mayorga, never to come back to Wilson.
Prom Mayorga, he fled two days later to Surigao where he stayed about one year,
but before sailing for Surigao he for two days hid in a ricefield near his
home.

De Veyra further said that Macaso had a pistol and the rest were armed with
pistols, carbines, and also a sub-machinegun and Garand rifles. He testified
that he and his men had confiscated from civilians 16 firearms which he intended
to turn over to Captain Cinco in barrio Abuyog. Some of these guns, he said,
were under the table and others were standing against the wall when they were
attacked, and all of said weapons were left in the house in their flight. He
denied that he or any of his men fired at the defendants and their
companions.

Tomas Lazar testified as follows: On July 8, 1946, he was at home waiting on
the persons who were eating. Some of his guests were Remigio de Veyra and his
companions. Some of them were sitting at the table and those who could not be
accommodated at the table were seated on the veranda. “While they were eating
including the persons who accompanied Remigio de Veyra, Macaso and his men fired
into the house. They were around the house, from the kitchen to the veranda.
They fired continuously while Macaso was ordering ‘Go ahead boys, fire, boys,
fire.’ ” What he did was to lie low. People in the house scampered for safety
while he and his wife, being wounded in the feet and unable to run, moved only
to a thicket about ten brazas from the house and there lay down and
kept quiet. When he returned to the house from the thicket, he saw seven dead
men inside and three under the eaves in the kitchen. Because of fear, he went
away again and stayed this time under the bridge, where he saw one dead body
stretched face down. Those whom he recognized among the dead were his son Nazar
and Hilaria Quintana. He was not able to recognize the others as he only counted
the bodies, being in a hurry to get away because he was afraid. He did not know
where Remigio de Veyra and his men went but some of those who were sitting
around the table fled and those who did not were killed. Is to Remigio’s and his
companions’ guns, he said “some were leaning near the wall, some were under the
table.” When he came back to the house after Macaso and his men had disappeared,
he did not see any of these guns. He saw Macaso and his men heading for
Capudlusan after the shooting.

Anatalio Verona testified that when the shooting commenced he was cooking in
his kitchen near Tomas Lazar’s house and saw Simplicio Macaso and his men
surround and fire at that house; that Macaso was at the edge of the plaza; that
he heard a man shouting “Fire boys, fire, advance.”

Agustin Mundala testified that he went to Wilson on July 8 to attend the
fiesta and stopped at Tomas Lazar’s house; that Macaso fired several times into
that house; that after the firing, Macaso and his men came up and carried away
utensils, firearms, shoes and a wrist watch; that when Macaso and his men
entered the house he was downstairs being held by Maglaoay; that he was taken
together with Anastacio Roquino, Jovito Daya and Rosendo Jadaron to Palale,
Macaso’s barrio; that he, Anastacio Roquino and Jovito Daya were hogtiedj that
Rosendo Jaradon being injured in the thigh was not bound but vras shot by Macaso
with his .25 caliber pistol.

Macaso, his co-defendants, and other witnesses gave evidence for the defense.
There is no need of transcribing each witness’ testimony separately. The
following statement, mostly taken from Macaso’s testimony, epitomizes the theory
of the defendants:

Macaso was a pacification agent appointed by Captain Cinco with authority to
confiscate firearms. He had been a member of the USAFFE and had been discharged
in 1946. He had been authorized by Captain Cinco to lead Cinco’s men and given
the designation of first lieutenant. Captain Cinco also had ordered Valeriano
Maglaoay “to patrol the troubled places in order to pacify them (and) to drive
away the bandits and thieves.” This order was issued on July 4, 1946. On July 7,
Macaso visited his parents in barrio Palale, municipality of Abuyog, near
Wilson. He passed the night in Palale and in the morning Valeriano Maglaoay and
others arrived and told Maeaso that they were going on patrol in barrio
Tarragona, Capudlusan, Libas, Wilson and La Paz. At 3 o’clock p.m. Maglaoay and
his men went to barrio Wilson and Macaso came along. They were 25 altogether,
all armed because they were after dissident elements. On the morning of July 8,
after breakfast, Maglaoay told Macaso that he was going home via Capudlusan,
Osmena, Liwayway and Palale. After 10 o’clock they started to go home passing
“by these people grouped in a house all armed” and whose leader, Remigio de
Veyra, was Macaso’s friend “during the guerrilla time.” When they were in front
of Tomas Lazar’s house, De Veyra and his men were standing up in line by the
house. Macaso was the last man in his group and was asked by De Veyra,”What,
Macaso, going home already?” When Macaso answered “yes”, De Veyra asked him,”Did
you eat anything,” and he said, “We have eaten.” After Macaso had walked less
than seven meters, with the men of Valeriano Maglaoay ahead of him, on their way
to Capudlusan, they were fired upon. Some of Macaso’s companions were wounded
and three were killed. De Veyra and his men had tommy guns, carbines and Garrand
rifles. There was no warning except the word “fire” followed by a burst of
shots. The order to fire came from Remigio whose voice he recognized. Because
some of Macaso’s companions had been wounded and others killed, and because
Valeriano Maglaoay, who was the patrol leader, was also wounded, Maglaoay
shouted, “Companions, take vengeance of me, I am going to die.” So Maglaoy’s men
fired back. As for Macaso, he took cover because he had only a pistol, and he
was far, about 60 meters from Remigio de Veyra. Some of De Veyra’s men were also
killed and the rest ran away. When Maglaoay told his men to shoot, De Veyra and
his men had stopped shooting but they were advancing towards Macaso and the
latter’s group. After the men of Maglaoay started firing, De Veyra lay flat on
the ground and others continued firing. Afterward De Veyra and his men ran away
and Macaso proceeded to Palale. The wounded and the dead among Macaso’s and
Maglaoay’s band were carried by their companions; there were three killed and
nine wounded, but Macaso was unscathed. Maglaoay died on the way to Palale. The
wounded were Marcos Bisa, Eliseo Espada, Irineo Gutierrez, and others. These
were not Macaso’s men. As to De Veyra’s motive, Macaso found it out when he
reached Palale, at 5 o’clock p. m. on July 8. Vileriano Maglaoay’s wife and his
brother, Juan Maglaoay, told him that Valeriano was once in the same company
with Remigio de Veyra and that there was ill-feeling between the two men. Macaso
personally did not have any grudge against Remigio or his men.

The trial judge found against the defendants. His Honor observed that all the
witnesses for the defense are the defendants themselves and men from Palale,
barrio of most of the accused, while the witnesses for the prosecution were
undeniably eye-witnesses to the crime and were, in his opinion, unbiased. His
Honor discovered no reason for De Veyra to” harm the defendants.

The record fully sustains the trial court’s conclusions. In contrast to the
defendants’ evidence, the testimony of the witnesses for the government has the
stamp of verisimilitude, is clear-cut, and is more in harmony with
well-established facts.

That De Veyra started the shooting is untenable. It would have been foolhardy
for De Veyra and his men to attack Macaso and his men from a house which was
full of people, endangering not only the lives of their hosts and other innocent
persons but their own. Macaso and his men were superior in number and armament,
and the house, which was of frail construction, not only would not afford De
Veyra and his men protection, as they well knew, but would make their escape
difficult. Had they wanted to attack Macaso and his men, they could have
selected a less vulnerable place where they would not be so dangerously exposed
to retaliatory action and whence they could get off easily and safely in the
event they were overpowered.

De Veyra, as the trial court said, had no motive to provoke Macaso. Veyra’s
friendliness towards Macaso was evident from the fact, confirmed by the
defendants, that De Veyra asked Macaso why they were leaving so soon, and had
they already had their meal? There is no indication or allegation that De
Veyra’s solicitude was a feint.

Granted that between Maglaoay and De Veyra there was bad blood, such enmity
could be used against the defendants more than against De Veyra as proof that
the former were the ones who looked for trouble. But the court believed, and
Macaso’s remarks to De Veyra show, that Macaso suspected de Veyra of being a spy
for the Military Police Command who, the evidence Indicates, were after Macaso
for reasons not revealed by the record. He also said that “De Veyra was the
leader of a band known as ‘Bellescotes’ which was engaged in looting and
committing crimes.” If Macaso was commissioned, as he said, to suppress
lawlessness, he must have considered De Veyra and his men as elements coming
within the realm of his mission.

Macaso, top leader of the group, if there was any other leader, pretends to
be absolutely blameless. He and his fellow defendants pin the entire
responsibility on De Veyra and Maglaoay. The latter, according to the
appellants, was killed but according to prosecution witnesses was uninjured. At
any rate, Maglaoay, though included in the information, had not been arrested,
making the “passing of the buck” to him uncompromising.

It is significant that except the six appellants, all the men in Macaso»s
band were at large at the time of the trial, afraid to face arrests and
prosecution, a conduct indicative of a troubled conscience. On the other hand,
De Veyra from Surigao wrote Secretary Kangleon of national Defense several
letters denouncing Macaso and his men for the outrage they had committed. De
Veyra fled to Surigao because he was afraid, not of the lawful authorities but
of Macaso and members of his band.

The defendants’ testimony that De Veyra and his men were on the ground in
battle formation is belied by the fact that the dead were in the house. The
spots where the corpses were sprawled were revealed not only by Tomas Lazar but
by the dead men’s relatives who came to identify and claim their bodies. There
is evidence that the cadavers had not been touched before the authorities took
charge.

There is serious doubt about the testimony that three of Macaso’s men were
killed and several others wounded. No unbiased witnesses declared having seen
any casualties on the assailants’ side. Every bit of evidence on this point came
from the lips of the accused and their witnesses who, as the court noted, have
given clear indication of being untrustworthy. For one thing, there were
witnesses who said they saw Maglaoay march away with the appellants and their
companions when they left Wilson after the shooting was over. However that may
be, the losses on Macaso’s side, if there were losses, could very well have been
caused by the appellants’ own comrades who were on the opposite side of the
building. Macaso and his men formed almost a complete circle about the
house.

In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the evidence against the appellants
is overwhelming, without taking into consideration the written and sworn
confessions and pleas of guilty before the justice of the peace of Macaso’s five
co-defendants, confessions and pleas which they repudiated at the trial, and
without taking into account the very damaging statement of their chief counsel
in the court below, in his return to the citation for contempt issued by this
Court for his failure to appear and file brief for his clients or former
clients.

The court properly found that there was conspiracy. It is evident from the
circumstances surrounding the shooting that the appellants acted in concert.

The lower court found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of “multiple murder,” as charged, and “sentences each of them to
life imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of
P2,000 for each of the victims, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.” The
information did not allege physical injuries.

Some members of the Court opine that the proper penalty is death, under the
circumstances of the case, but they fall short of the required number for the
imposition of this punishment. The sentence consequently is reclusion
perpetua; but each appellant is guilty of as many crimes of murder as there
were deaths (eleven) and should be sentenced to life imprisonment for each
crime, although this may be a useless formality for in no case can imprisonment
exceed forty years. The indemnity to be paid the heirs of each of the deceased
should be raised to P6,000 and the liability of the appellants joint and
several.

The judgment appealed from is modified in accordance with the tenor of this
decision with proportionate shares of the costs of this appeal.

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

MORAN, C. J.:

Mr. Justice Montemayor voted in accordance with this decision.