G.R. Nos. L-38101-02. June 29, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ISABELO ANGGOT ALIAS “BILLY KID”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DE CASTRO, J.:
On automatic review are the eight (8) death sentences imposed on accused
Isabelo Anggot alias Billy
Kid by the Court of First Instance of Lanao del
Norte, for eight (8) separate crimes of murder[1]
comĀmitted, according to the evidence of the prosecution, which is hereĀunder
fully quoted as recited in the People’s brief, together with relevant facts
subsequent thereto, as follows:
“This tragic incident which occurred on August 23, 1971 at Sapad,
Lanao del Norte was one of the major highlights of
the intense and bitter, and we might
say even ruthless, conflict between Christians and Muslims. The Muslims, who at that time seemed to have
had the upperhand, were on a rampage causing
thousands of Christians to flee to safety.
On that fateĀful day, about twenty Christians boarded Atlantic Bus No.
10 at Buriasan, Lanao del
Norte bound for the town of Kapatagan, of the same province. For some of them, it would be a journey they
would never forget. But for others, it
was a trip they never lived to tell.
“Atlantic
Bus No. 10 is a closed type bus with one door at the right side (tsn p. 44, July
24, 1972). As it left Buriasan, Lanao del Norte, it was
fully loaded with passengers as well as cargoes and whatever little earthly
possessions these evacuees could bring with them (tsn
p. 49, ibid). Upon reaching Sapad (formerly a barrio of the municipality of Kapatagan), Atlantic Bus No. 10 was hailed to a stop by
five (5) armed men, four of whom were identified to be Andam
Langi, Penorac Macabebe, Macapanton Arimpo and accused Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid (tsn pp.
10-11, ibid). When the bus stopped, Andam Langi ordered the male
passengers to stand and raise their shirts and at the same time asked them if
they were carrying firearms (tsn pp. 11, 12, 56,
ibid). Seeing no firearms in the
possession of the male passengers, Andam Langi peremptorily ordered:
“Fire”. Hell broke
loose as the five armed men lined up along the right side of the bus indiscrimiĀnately
fired upon the bus with their weapons (tsn pp. 12-Ā14,
ibid). Not contented with just raking
Atlantic Bus No. 10 with bullets, one of the five armed men shot the gas tank,
filled a basin with gasoline, poured it upon the bus and lighted it (tsn pp. 22-23). Some
of the passenĀgers scampered out to safety as the bus turned into a burning
inferno (tsn p. 16, ibid). However, Anselmo Sugang, Virgilio Abecia, Evangeline Abecia, Herculo Retis, Primitivo Retis, Renato Imborong, Hernando Pepito and Venancio Abecia never had a chance to esĀcape, and they died on the spot (tsn
pp. 16-17, ibid). The bodies of Virgilio Abecia and Evangeline Abecia were not recovered because they were burned with the
bus (tsn p. 28, ibid).
“Two priests belonging to the parish of KapaĀtagan,
Fathers Sullivan and Diamond together with Father Galensoga,
who was then visiting Kapatagan at that time, went in
two jeeps towards Sapad and stopped one kilometer
away from the scene of the ambush (tsn p. 191, Sept. 21, 1972). There they picked up some survivors fleeing
from the scene of the incident, namely: Felisa Abecia, Juanito Abecia, Jr., Daylinda Abecia, Pablita Pepito and Romeo Pepito (tsn pp. 29-30, 82-83, July 24, 1972). The wounded were brought to the Gonzales
Clinic at Maranding for treatment, then to Tubod, Lanao del Norte, and
finally taken by a pump boat to Ozamis City (tsn p. 31, ibid).
“Juanito Abecia,
Jr. a ten-year old boy was wounded through and through in the right knee and
suffered linear fracture on the right femur (Exhibit “A”, p. 6,
Rec.). Pablita
Pepito suffered a through and through gunshot wound
on the left leg (Exhibit “B”, p. 3, Rec.). Daylinda Abecia suffered a compound fracture on the right forearm
secondary to gunshot wound, a compound fracture on the left leg, a through and
through gunshot wound on the right leg and multiple powder burns on the left
upper extremity and the face (Exhibit āCā, p. 4, Rec.). Felisa
Abecia suffered an abrasion with contusion on the
right tempral region, multiple gunshot wounds on the
right upper thigh, and a lacerated wound on the left upper thigh (Exhibit āDā,
p. 5, Rec.). Romeo Pepito likewise suffered gunshot
wounds (tsn p. 157, August 23, 1972).ā[2]
Appellant admitted that he was appointed as helper-mechanic in
the provincial motor pool by Vice-Governor Malamit Umpa; and state witnesses Felisa Abecia, Juanito Abecia, and Romeo Pepito
testified that they had seen appellant many times in the company of Jimmy Umpa, son of the Vice-Governor, when the former ran for
mayor of Buriasan town. Being beholden to the Vice-Governor, Malamit Umpa, and his son, Jimmy Umpa, appellant obviously was only too glad and willing to
and did join the ambushers upon being told to go with them.
Secondly, appellant’s testimony that he was merely brought to the
scene of the incident by Jimmy Umpa, Andam Langi, Penorac
Macabebe, and others whom he did not know, and made
to witness, without partiĀcipating in, the brutal slaying of the passengers of
the ill-fated Atlantic Bus No. 10 at Sapad, is highly
improbable if viewed in the light of common human experience. On this point, the observations made by the
Solicitor General are hereby quoted with approval:
“Finally, Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid’s assertion that he merely witnessed
the incident, but did not in any way participate in it is maniĀfestly a very
shallow defense and typifies a last ditch effort to counteract the positive
identificaĀtion by the People’s witnesses of appellant. Common experience has time and again shown
that persons plotting to commit a crime plan it with utmost secrecy, not only
to assure success but primarily to hide their identities and escape criminal
responsibility. Yet, appellant Isabelo Anggot alias Billy Kid
would want to impress upon this Honorable Court that the malefactors fetched
him from his house, brought him with them against his will, coerced him to
witness the bloody incident and afterwards warned him not to reveal the
identities of the perpetrators of the crime.
However, if the assailants were apprehensive about the possibility of
their identifiĀcation, would it not be more logical that they should not have brought with them the accused appellant at
all? What possible motive could the
malefactors have in taking along with them the accused appellant? Is it just to make the latter a witĀness to
their dastardly deed? And having
witnessed the massacre of his Christian brothers and having escaped from his
alleged captors a few hours after the incident, why did appellant not report to
the authorities the identities of the assailants? The defense has offered no explanations. We find none.”
If the appellant were not a co-conspirator in the ambuscade, his
two armed escorts and the other armed members of the group would have pursued
him to his hide-out only about two kilometers away from his house, where he hid
for a few days before he allegedly fled to a town in Zamboanga. The armed group would have easily captured and liquidated him, if he did not freely join them
from the very beginning. As a matter of
fact, his alleged escape as described by him was too easy. He merely told his two armed escorts that he
was going to change his dirty clothes, and he was allowed to go. After having gone upstairs, he jumped out of
the window and ran towards their land at Pinamparan
about two kiloĀmeters from his residence, and from there left for Mahayag after a few days.
II
The main opinion puts so much significance on the failure of the
prosecution witnesses namely, Juanito Abecia, Jr., Romeo Pepito and Pablita Pepito,
to mention the name of appellant in their respective affidavits as one of the ambushers notwithstanding their
testimonies that they knew him even before the incident. The discreĀpancy pointed out, however, is
inadequate to weaken and destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses
who positively identified the appellant during the trial as one of the
perpetrators of the dastardly act. Aside
from the positive identification of appellant by said state witnesses,
appellant himself admitted that he was present at the scene of the crime. Moreover, the records do not disclose, and
neither did appellant suggest, any improper or evil notice which could have
impelled the prosecution witnesses to make any malicious imputation against
herein appellant.
Finally, the main opinion harps on the alleged improbability of
the testimony of witness Felisa Abecia. However, the testimony of this witness is not
at all impaired or vitiated if taken in the light of the pecuĀliar situation
she was in at the time of the commission of the crime. Having with her two sons (one of whom died),
a daughter-in-law, a grandson, and a nephew in the same bus (all of whom died),
this witness could have been impelled by a strong desire to take a look thru
that hole on the wall of the bus and see what was actually done by the armed
men. This was a natural reaction on her
part knowing that her life and the lives of several members of her family were
at stake. Thus, her testimony that she
saw appellant fired his gun should have been afforded weight in the absence of
clear showing that this particular witness committed falsehood.
Furthermore, this issue being one of credibility, the rule is
well-settled that the same be left to the discretion of the trial judge who has
had the opportunity to observe the
conduct and demeanor of the witness during the trial.
His being a Christian does not render impossible his joining a
Muslim band of outlaws who apparently were protected by a Muslim Vice-governor,
who was his employer. Renegades,
Benedict Arnolds, Quislings, traitors, opportunists can be found also among
ChrisĀtians. Doubtless, appellant is one
of them.
Hence, the judgment of conviction imposed by the lower court
should be affirmed.
With the foregoing conclusion, the other assigned errors need not
be discussed.
WHEREFORE, for failure of the evidence to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and appellant,
acquitted with cost de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando, C.J., Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concurs J. Makasiar in his dissenting opinion.
[1] pp. 48-70, Rollo.
[2] pp. 4-6, Appelleeās Brief,
p. 124, Rollo.
170
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
DISSENTING OPINION
MAKASIAR, J.:
Certain overriding factual considerations attendant to the case
at bar compel me to dissent.
I
The main line of defense advanced by appellant, as stated in the
main opinion, runs this way:
“Thus, he testified that in the morning of August 23, 1971, a
Toyota jeep stopped near his house in Magpatao, Lala, Lanao del Norte, whose
passengers were Barracudas, two of whom, Penorac Macabebe and Andam Langi, were
the only ones he knew because Langi was a policeĀman and Macabebe was the
security guard of Malamit Umpa, them the Vice-Governor, to whose house he was
brought along by the jeep-riding Barracudas with force and with violence and
maltreatĀment at gun point; that at Malamit Umpa’s house, he was made to sit on
a chair, while the people in the house were eating breakfast, but after half an
hour, he was made to ride on the Toyota jeep together with Andam Langi, Penorac
Macabebe, Jimmy Umpa and others whom he did not know, and headed for Sapad where
they stopped at a certain place near a
house; that they forthwith alighted from the jeep, and he was made to stand
near that house, the other men in fatigue uniform surroundĀing him, Langi and
Macabebe standing around two (2) meters at his back; that after a while,
Atlantic Bus No. 10 passed by and was stopped by his companions; that the bus
was fired upon by those fatigue uniform clad men who were heavily armed
but whose names he did not know, while he was just near Jimmy Umpa; that after
the firing, some of his companions ran towards the mountain while Jimmy Umpa,
Andam Langi and Penorac Macabebe and others whom he did not know boarded the
Toyota jeep which he also boarded, and they proceeded to the house of
Vice-Governor Umpa, where he was brought upstairs and there was threatened with
death, including that of his relatives, if he talked about the incident, that
in the evening, he was escorted by two armed persons, but telling his escorts
that he wanted to change his clothes which were already dirty, he went home
from which he succeeded in escaping when he went upstairs and jumped out of the
window and ran towards their land at Pinamparan, two (2) kilometers, more or
less, from his residence, and after a few days, left for Mahayag, Zamboanga
because of fear. It is this feeling of
fear that deterred him from reporting the culprits to the authorities.”
The foregoing tale woven by appellant appears as unnatural as it
is absurd even to the ordinary layman.
His bare assertion that he was forcibly taken, against his will, by a
group of Toyota-riding armed men and later brought to a place to witness the
gruesome massacre of innocent civilians is extremely unbelievable.
First of all, appellant’s claim that he was forcibly taken by
armed men and brought to the house of then Vice-Governor Malamit Umpa is
obviously an after-thought too naive to be worthy of belief. Why should appellant be maltreated and
forcibly taken when he was a well-known henchman or follower of the Vice-Governor
to whose house he was brought? Appellant
even admitted that he knew two of the men —
Andam Langi, a policeman, and Penorac Macabebe, a security guard of the
Vice-Governor — who picked him up.
These two men could not have overlooked the fact that appellant was,
like them, also a follower of the Vice-Governor.
on the right forearm secondary to gunshot
wound, a compound fracture on the left leg, a through and through gunshot wound
on the right leg and multiple powder burns on the left upper extremity and the
face (Exhibit “C”, p. 4, Rec.).
Felisa Abecia suffered an abrasion with contusion on the right temporal
region, multiple gunshot wounds on the right upper thigh, and a lacerated wound
on the left upper thigh (Exhibit “D”, p. 5, Rec.). Romeo Pepito likewise suffered gunshot wounds
(tsn p. 157, August 23, 1972).”2
Appellant does not deny having been in the company of the group
that held up the Atlantic Bus No. 10, but claims to have been forcibly asked to
join the group, when he was picked up by four men from his house, but never
joined them in their criminal design, as he was not even armed with any gun,
nor participated in the commisĀsion of the dastardly crime charged in the
instant case.
Thus, he testified that in the morning of August 23, 1971, a
Toyota jeep stopped near his house in Magpatao, Lala, Lanao del Norte, whose
passengers were Barracudas, two of whom, Penorac Macabebe and Andam Langi were
the only ones he knew because Langi was a policeman and Macabebe was the
security guard of Malamit Umpa, then the Vice-Governor, to whose house he was
brought along by the jeepriding Barracudas with force and with violence and
maltreatment at gun point; that at Malamit Umpa’s house, he was made to sit on
a chair, while the people in the house were eating breakfast, but after half an
hour, he was made to ride on the Toyota jeep together with Andam Langi, Penorac
Macabebe, Jimmy Umpa and others whom he did not know, and headed for Sapad
where they stopped at a certain place near a house; that they forthwith
alighted from the jeep, and he was made to stand near that house, the other men
in fatigue uniform surrounding him, Langi and Macabebe standing around two (2)
meters at his back; that after a while, Atlantic Bus No. 10 passed by and was
stopped by his companions; that the bus was fired upon by those fatigue uniform
clad men who were heavily armed but whose names he did not know, while he was
just near Jimmy Umpa; that after the firing, some of his companions ran towards
the mountain while Jimmy Umpa, Andam Langi and Penorac Macabebe and others whom
he did not know boarded the Toyota jeep which he also boarded, and they
proceeded to the house of Vice-Governor Umpa, where he was brought upstairs and
there was threatened with death, including that of his relatives, if he talked
about the incident; that in the evening, he was escorted by two armed persons,
but telling his escorts that he wanted to change his clothes which were already
dirty, he went home from which he succeeded in escaping when he went upstairs
and jumped out of the window and ran towards their land at Pinamparan, two (2)
kilometers, more or less, from his resiĀdence, and after a few days, left for
Mahayag, Zamboanga because of fear.3 It is this feeling of fear that
deterred him from reporting the culprits to the authorities.4
With appellant’s story, one is naturally led to ask why the real
culprits, particularly Andam Langi, Penorac Macabebe and Jimmy Umpa, wanted to
bring him along merely to be a witness to the commission of their heinous
crime, and yet warned him with threat of death, not only his, but that of his
relatives, not to reveal their names.
From this seemingly incredible aspect of his testimony, being quite
unnatural, the testimony of the state witnesses that they saw appellant not
only armed with a gun but saw him in the act of squeezing the trigger, would
indeed gain credibility. However,
appellant points to some facts which allegedly render the testimony of those
witnesses far from being reliable enough to validly sustain his conviction with
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Firstly, in the affidavits executed by Juanito Abecia, Jr., Romeo
Pepito and Pablita Pepito, the name of appellant was never mentioned despite
their knowing him even before the incident.
Secondly, Felisa Abecia’s testimony that she saw appellant squeeze the trigger of
his gun which is obviously improbable.
The absence of any mention of appellant’s name in the affidavits
earlier referred to by passengers of the ill-fated bus cannot but detract from
the credibility of the affiants’ testimony during the hearing that appellant
was one of the ambushers that actually fired their gun. In explaining this omission, the state
counsels resort to the oft-repeated observation on the incompleteness and
inaccuracy of affidavits taken ex-parte.5 The omission, however, refers to a
very important deĀtail of the incident that one relating the incident as an
eye-witness would not be expected to fail to mention such detail. The interrogator would not have himself
failed to urge the affiant to tell all he knew and saw of the gruesome
killing. Since, admittedly, appellant
was known to the affiants, and perhaps known to be a Christian like themselves,
in the company of Muslims, their ire
against him would have been more fierce that he should have stood out distinctly
in their memory as not to be missed in their giving the names of the culprits,
but at least desĀcribed as strangely the only Christian in the group of
Barracudas.
The testimony of Felisa Abecia that she even saw appellant
squeeze the trigger of his gun is extremely improbable. The actual firing was preceded by the command
of the group leader: “Fire.”
The order to fire naturally warned the passengers to take cover, and more than
likely, to instinctively close their eyes in anticipation of the gun burst. This witness, in fact, testified that on
hearing the order to fire, she immediately crawled and sought cover. It is thus well-nigh impossible for her to have seen the appellant
squeeze the trigger of his gun, which she claims to have done so through a hole
on the wall of the bus. In crouching for
cover, this witness must have not only closed her eyes as anyone would do in
expecting the loud explosive sound of gunfires, but must have looked directly
downward, not sideward at the wall of the bus, much less in the direction of
where the bullets would come from, to be able to see appellant squeeze the
trigger.
The obviously exaggerated testimony of Felisa Abecia had to be
offered by the prosecution if it expects to succeed in pinning guilt on
appellant, the only one tried, of several accused who had remained at large, as
it might have anticipated the testimony of appellant, being the truth, that he
was with the armed group against his will, totally unarmed, and was thus only
present at the scene without having participated in the firing, nor joined in
the criminal design of his companions –
not at all unlikely, considering that he is a Christian who has not been shown
to have compelling reason to join cause with the Muslims in their recurring
conflict with the Christians in the region.
Appellant’s failure to explain why he had to be threatened and
maltreated to have him join the Muslim group is, admittedly, the weak link in
his testimony. But in saying that he was
never told the purpose of their bringing him with the group, nor was he able to
ask them, the credibility of his testimony is not necessarily impaired or
vitiated. He testified that he was
trembling with fear, and that it was only Jimmy Umpa who told him that he was
brought to the house of Vice-Governor Umpa because they wanted him to go with
them to Buriasan.6
Buriasan is where about twenty Christians boarded the ill-fated bus. It was when the bus had reached Sapad that it
met with its fiery end. Evidently,
Buriasan is predominantly a Christian town.
Could it be that to put up deceptively an appearance of friendly misĀsion
in Buriasan, the Muslim group wanted the company of a well-known
Christian? But that when they saw the
bus coming from Buriasan, they held it up at Sapad to get the firearms the passenger
may have carried with them. Of course,
the state witnesses testiĀfied that there were no firearms carried by any of
the passengers, but the violent reaction of the Muslim group firing
indiscriminately at the passengers and burning down the bus would not seem to
lend credence to this testimony. They
obviously could not have given a different tesĀtimony for they would then
jeopardize the cause of the prosecution.
Appellant is a Christian.
While he was given a job as a helper-mechanic in the motor pool of the
province by Muslim Vice-Governor Umpa, this is a simple and a normal political
gesture to one of the constituents, but certainly not enough to have made appelĀlant
turn traitorously against his Christian brothers, to the extent of siding with Muslims
in their deep-seated conflict against the ChristĀian population in the region
and joining them in the cold-blooded slaying of Christians, like himself. This highly improbable alliance which alone
could have given reason for appellant to join the Barracudas who picked him up from his residence willingly and in conspiĀracy
to commit the dastardly crime they planned to commit against innocent
Christians cast a thick cloud of doubt
on the veracity of the state witnesses, and lends plausibility to appellant’s
profession of innocense, corroborated as his testimony was by a credible
witness, Supremo Manior,7 enough to make the mind uneasy in the certainty of his guilt.
2
pp. 4-6, Appellee’s Brief, p. 124, Rollo.
3
pp. 249-265, t.s.n. Feb. 15, 1973.
4
pp. 265-286, t.s.n. Feb. 15, 1973.
5
p. 8, Appellee’s brief, citing People vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812, 820,
p. 124, Rollo.
6
pp. 265-286, t.s.n. Feb. 15, 1972.
7
pp. 287-293, t.s.n. March 13, 1973.