G.R. No. L-24371. April 16, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ANGELES, J.:
Constancio Guevarra and
Felipe Cornelio were charged with murder in the Court of First Instance of
Oriental Mindoro, in an information filed by the
provincial fiscal, alleging that on or about November 12, 1959, at about 8:00
o’clock in the evening, and within the jurisdiction of the court, the said
accused, both policemen of the municipality of Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro, aiding one another, with treachery
and evident premeditation, and taking advantage of their superior
strength and official positions, and in the darkness of the night, wilfully and feloniously shot Agapito
Salazar, who was mistaken by the
said accused to be Andres Papasin, inflicting upon
the said Agapito Salazar, a gunshot wound at the
center of the neck, 1-1/2 inches above the superior border of the sternum, as a consequence of which the said Agapito Salazar died instantaneously.
After trial, the court found Constancio
Guevarra guilty of the crime of murder qualified by
treachery without any modifying circumstance, and sentencing him to suffer reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Agapito Salazar in the sum of six thousand pesos (P6,000.00), with the accessories provided by
law, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to be credited
with one-half (1/2) of the preventive imprisonment, if any, and to pay the proportionate
costs the accused Felipe Cornelio was acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Constancio Guevarra appealed
from the decision.
The facts of the case, as
disclosed from the evidence, are as follows:
Late in the afternoon of November 12, 1959, appellant Constancio Guevarra, together
with Felipe Cornelio, Estelito Frayre,
Gregorio Mercado and Jugo Fajardo,
all policemen of the municipality of Naujan, Oriental
Mindoro, went to the house of Mayor Amando Melgar in barrio San Jose
No. 2, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro,
to inquire from Mayor Melgar what benefits would be
accruing to them for the services they have rendered as policemen, inasmuch as
they were contemplating of tendering their resignation in view of the defeat
of Mayor Melgar in the election of that year. Guevarra was in
civilian clothes carrying about his person his service pistol. Afterwards, said policeman went to a store in
front of the house of Mayor Melgar owned by Sgt. Garchico, where they drank wine. Yolando Sarabia, a friend of the policemen joined them. They commented about the rumor coming from
the barrio of Inarawan, Naujan,
where Andres Papasin, a defeated candidate for councilor
in the last election, a Liberal, had said that Mayor Melgar,
a Nacionalista, lost in the elections because of the
abuses of the police force of Naujan. They discussed about what as be was best to
take under the circumstances. In the
course of the conversation, Cornelio remarked that if there was some truth to
the rumor, something would happen. Apparently,
the group entertained a general feeling of resentment against Andres Papasin. Cornelio
and Frayre volunteered to go and ask Papasin about the rumor.
They left the store and proceeded to the house of Papasin
which was about 400 meters away. On the
way, Sarabia who followed them, tried to dissuade
them from seeing Papasin, but they proceeded
nevertheless. Upon arrival in the house,
Papasin invited Cornelio and Frayre,
and the latter told the former that they would like to talk about something. Sarabia did not go
up but stayed by the gate of the fence.
He was later joined by appellant Guevarra, and
the two waited at the gate.
After a while, Papasin went down and
proceeded to the store of Minerva Montejo, opposite
the road. Cornelio and Frayre followed him.
Appellant Guevarra and Sarabia
also followed but they stayed only by the door of the store. Inside the store were Gregorio Mercado and Jugo Fajardo. Papasin ordered
drinks. Shortly thereafter, a heated
discussion between Cornelio and Papasin ensued, in
the course of which Cornelio bluntly told Papasin
about the rumor attributed to him. Papasin denied the charge; he asked Cornelio who gave him
the information, and the latter said he would call the person. Apparently, Cornelio was satisfied with the
explanation of Papasin. Frayre, however,
was not satisfied, and in an ugly mood said:
“Tirahin na iyan.” Upon
hearing those words, appellant Guevarra pulled out
his .45 caliber gun and was about to fire at Papasin
when Amado Garing, who was
standing beside appellant Guevarra, grabbed the gun
and foiled his attempt against Papasin. Soon Papasin’s
wife arrived and she led her husband out of the store and together they
returned to their house.
After Papasin had left, Frayre broke the bottles
on the table. Then, Cornelio, Mercado, Frayre and Sarabia went back to
the store in front of the house of Mayor Melgar. In the store of Montejo,
appellant Guevarra was heard to have said that he was
going home to the poblacion and took the road that
passes by the house of Papasin. Sarabia followed
him. Mercado also followed and joined
appellant Guevarra in going back to the poblacion where they were still assigned for duty. Appellant Guevarra
stopped under a tamarind tree opposite house of Papasin,
which was about 20 meters to the house
of Papasin, and waited there.
In the meantime, friends of Papasin
arrived in a jeep driven by Antonio Valencia.
Amado Garing told Valencia
to advise Papasin not to go down the house. Later, Agapito
Salazar, a cousin of Papasin, arrived and also told Papasin not to go out of the house. Valencia
stood near his jeep which was parked in front of the house of Papasin.
Shortly thereafter, Agapito Salazar
went down the house, crossed the road and proceeded to the coconut groove to
take the shortcut path to his house.
That road taken by Salazar, however, leads towards the very place where
appellant Guevarra was at the time waiting under the
tamarind tree. And when Salazar was
about 15 meters away from appellant Guevarra, the
latter fired his gun. After firing,
appellant Guevarra emerged from under the tamarind
tree, moved to an atis tree nearer to Salazar,
and from there, at a distance of 6 to 8
meters, successively fired two more shots. Salazar fell.
Upon seeing his victim fall, appellant Guevarra
ran away, but in his hurry, he bumped his head against a guyabano tree.
He fell to the ground, and as soon as he had recovered, he pursued his way
passing at the back of the house of the barrio lieutenant until he reached the
house of Mayor Melgar which he entered through the
back door.
Mayor Melgar,
witness for the defense, declared that:
“A.- When Constancio Guevarra arrived in my
house, I was still in the porch and when I returned, one of my visitors, I
could not remember the name, told me that Constancio Guevarra was inside my store room, so I went there and I
saw Constancio Guevarra
lying on my cot. x x x x I saw the gun of Constancio Guevarra on the cot x x x which was a .45
caliber. x x x and I delivered the gun to
Capt. Nevero;”
appellant Gueverra is his god-son in marriage.
“Q.- And when you found
him wounded on the forehead lying on your cot, he told you: ‘Ninong, bahala na kayo sa aking asawa
at anak?
A.- I cannot remember
if he said that, but I saw him and I asked him why he was wounded and he told
me that while he was running, he happened to collide with some pointed objects.”
x x x
“A.- He told me that
while he was going to San Jose No. 1, x x x he heard a shot from the house of Mr. Andres Papasin and then what he did was to fire a shot pointing to
the sky.”
As appellant Guevarra
was bleeding, Mayor Melgar told Sarabia
to accompany Guevarra to the poblacion
for treatment of his head wound.
Appellant Guevarra and Sarabia
rode in a jeep and went to the
clinic of Dr. Ferriols in the poblacion.
Policeman Gregorio Mercado, who also followed appellant Guevarra when the latter left the store, reached the place
where appellant Guevarra was under the tamarind tree,
and it was at that precise moment when Guevarra fired
a shot. The next day, Mercado learned
that the man who was shot was Agapito Salazar.
Antonio Valencia saw
appellant Guevarra fire the shots at someone in the
coconut grove where a moment before Salazar had gone.
Sarabia notified the PC soldiers and
accompanied them to the place of the incident and there they found Salazar
dead.
Staff Sgt. Carlos Angcao conducted an investigation, and he summoned for the
doctor and the Justice of the Peace.
Dr. Edith Panganiban performed the
autopsy that same night. She certified
that the cause of death was the acute circulatory and respiratory failure due to non-penetrating gunshot wound at the
neck. The slug which was extracted from
the neck of Agapito Salazar could have been fired
from a .45 caliber pistol.
The next day, November
13, 1959, Sgt.
Perfecto de la Rosa of the PC brought appellant Guevarra,
Cornelio, Frayre, Mercado and Fajardo
to the PC headquarters in Calapan, Mindoro. They
were all questioned about the incident.
Appellant Guevarra gave his statement, Exhibit
A, to Sgt. de la Rosa which was reduced to writing after which Guevarra was brought to the office of the clerk of court of
first instance of Oriental Mindoro, where he swore to
the truth of the contents of his statement before the clerk of court, Crisanto Paras, in the presence
of Primitivo Alcote and
Alfonso Mendoza, clerks in said office.
Appellant Guevarra admitted in his statement that he shot Agapito Salazar, mistaking him for Andres Papasin.
“T.
– Ano ang masasabi mo kung may nalalaman ka tungkol sa pagkabaril
kay Agapito Salazar na kanyang ikinamatay
ng ang oras
ay mga alas 8:00
ng gabi, Nobyembre 12, 1959, doon sa barrio ng San
Jose 2, Naujan, Silangang Mindoro?
S. – Ako po ang
nakabaril sa
kanya at pinagkamalan ko siya na
si Andrito Papasin.
x x x
T. – Ano namang baril
ang ginamit mo sa pagbaril
kay Agapito Salazar?
A.
– Pistol po, na calibre
.45, No. 2126835 po.
T.
– May
gaano ang layo sa iyo ng taong
binaril mo at natumba?
S.
– Mga labing-apat (14) na
metro po buhat sa akin.
In this appeal, appellan Guevarra assails of
the decision of the trial court
under three assignment of errors: (1) “x x x by giving weight to the testimony of prosecution
witnesses Yolando Sarabia,
Gregorio Mercado and Antonio Valencia x x x“; (2) “x x x in holding that the extra-judicial confession, Exhibit A,
of appellant Constancio Guevarra
was proven to be voluntary x x x“;
and, (3) “x x x in not
holding that the prosecution failed to established the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt, x x x.”
1.- The witnesses for the
prosecution who declared having seen appellant Guevarra
fired the shots were Yolando Sarabia,
policeman Gregorio Mercado and Antonio Valencia.
Yolando Sarabia
testified that while Andres Papasin, appellant Guevarra, Felipe Cornelio, Gregorio Mercado and Hugo Fajardo and himself were in Montejo’s store, Cornelio asked Papasin
if it was true that he, Papasin, had said that the
reason Mayor Melgar lost in the elections was due to
abuses of the policemen of Naujan. Papasin denied the
charge and asked Cornelio who informed him about it. Then, Frayre
said: “Tira-hin
na iyan.” No harm,
however, was done to Papasin. Papasin’s wife
arrived and they left the store and went home.
The group of policemen left the store of Montejo. Appellant Guevarra
also left the store, and in front of the house of Papasin,
he stopped under a tamarind tree. Sarabia who was following appellant Guevarra
also stopped thereat. As they talked,
appellant Guevarra was looking towards the direction
of the house of Papasin. When they saw a man coming from the house of Papasin towards them, appellant Guevarra
fired at once towards the direction of the house of Papasin. The distance from the tamarind tree to the
man, was about 6 meters. Then, appellant
Guevarra moved to an atis
tree which was nearer to the man. The
distance from the atis tree to the man was
about 4 meters. From the atis tree, appellant Guevarra
fired two more shots directed toward
the man who was already inside the coconut plantation. Upon seeing the man fell, appellant Guevarra ran away towards
the direction of the house of Mayor Melgar. As he was running, he bumped his head against
a guyabano tree and fell. Upon recovering, appellant continued to run
towards the house of Mayor Melgar. Sarabia followed
appellant. In the house of Mayor Melgar, he saw the four policemen, Cornelio, Mercado, Frayre and Fajardo. Gregorio
Mercado, policeman, declared that at about 7:30 or 8:00 o’clock in the evening of November
12, 1959, he was
with appellant Guevarra, Cornelib,
Frayre and Papasin inside
the store. He heard Cornelio said to Papasin that “if he had any gripe before it was more
now because he (Papasin) was telling the people in Inatawan that they have done something wrong and that was
the reason Mayor Melgar lost.” Papasin denied the charge.
After a while, Papasin’s wife arrived at the
store. The spouses left and went
home. Appellant also left telling his
companions that he was going to the poblacion. Mercado followed appellant so that they
could go together to the poblacion, and when he
overtook him, it was then when the appellant fired his gun and he saw the man
who was walking fell down. At that time,
the witness (Mercado) did not know who was the man fired at. It was only after the
investigation when he learned that the man was Agapito
Salazar. After the firing, the appellant
went to the house of Mayor Melgar.
Antonio Valencia declared
that at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening of November 12, 1959, he was in San
Jose No. 2, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro;
he saw appellant at the foot of the atis tree
from which place he fired his gun towards the direction where the sun sets;
Salazar passed by going towards the plantation; he saw appellant when he
hurriedly left the atis tree, but he stumbled;
the distance between appellant and the place where the man fell was between 5
to 7 meters; the place where appellant fired the shot was a higher elevation, and at that time he
(witness) was about 15 meters away from the appellant.
(a) The credibility of Yolando Sarabia is assailed in this wise: Sarabia had
declared that when Salazar was shot by the appellant, Salazar was about 5
meters from the atis tree where Guevarra was standing, and, since according to Sgt. Angcao, on that particular night, a person at a distance of
5 meters could be recognized, ergo, “the testimony of Constancio Guevarra that he could
not possibly mistook Salazar, when he knows for a long time, for Papasin, stands credited.
Conversely, the testimony of Yolando Sarabia that at the aforementioned distance, accused Guevarra shot and killed Salazar, is inherently improbable that it could not be
given credit.” (p. 17, brief.)
The argument implies that appellant Guevarra
did not shoot the victim, for, at a distance of 5 meters, said appellant could
not have failed to recognize Salazar, and as the latter was a friend, he had
no reason or cause to shoot him. As a
corollary thereto, appellant argues “that the aforementioned bullet came
not from the gun of Guevarra but from somebody
else.”
It will be noted that the argument is anchor-red on an inference
drawn upon an assumed fact, that at that particular time and place, the appellant
had recognized Salazar, and he will not shoot him because he was a friend. The inference, however, is rebutted
by the testimony of no less than three eyewitnesses, one of them a fellow
policeman, and they declared that they saw the appellant fire the shots, and
they were positive thereof because the spark of the gunburst
came from
the place where the appellant was hidden, and after the firing, the appellant
had emerged from the place.
(b) Likewise, the credibility of Gregorio Mercado
is attacked in this respect: Mercado had declared that “he was only about
5 meters away from Guevarra when Guevarra
fired his second shot directed towards a man about 15 meters away and saw the
man fell.” Yet, “he did
not know the direction where the man was walking,” and counsel
argues, “It is apparent from the foregoing testimony of this witness a
showing of mark self-contradiction that are not badges of truth or sincerity
for if he could not possibly determine even the direction where the man was
walking at that aforementioned distance, it logically follows that he could not
see a man fell down at that distance, much less, determine that the bullet that
hit that man came from the gun of Constancio Guevarra, taking into consideration that it was about 7:30
to 8:00 o’clock at night.” (p. 20, brief.)
The argument is misleading. Counsel
failed to take into account the witness’ other answers on direct and
cross-examination which have shown that when Guevarra
fired the second volley of shots, the witness was only 5 meters away from him,
and after the firing, Guevarra emerged from the place
where he was hiding, and he was seen by the witness coming out from that
place. To quote his testimony:
“Q.- And do you know
whether Andres Papasin, together with his wife,
really went to his house that night?
A.- They
went there, but I do not know if they proceeded to their house.
Q.- What
else transpired?
A.- When
they were already far, Constancio Guevarra
followed.
Q.- What
else transpired?
A.- I saw that Constancio Guevarra was following
them.
Q.- What
else transpired?
A.- I
followed with the intention of fetching him (Guevarra)
so that we could go home to the poblacion.
Q.- When you saw Constancio Guevarra over there,
did you see him doing anything?
A.- When I arrived there
it was the time when he fired.
Q.- And
then what did you do?
A.- I saw that the
man who was walking fell down.
Q.- In relation to
the firing made by Constancio Guevarra,
how many seconds elapsed when you saw the man fall down?
A.- When
I saw spark from the gun, the man fell down.
Q.- After
the firing, what did Constancio Guevarra
do?
A.- He
left.”
On cross-examination, Gregorio Mercado
said:
“Q.- And that second shot
which you heard, can you not calculate how far were you from Constancio Guevarra?
A.- About
5 meters, sir. x x x.
Q.- Are you
sure of that?
A.- Yes,
sir.”
(c) Appellant also tries to discredit the testimony of Antonio
Valencia arguing that as this witness had “testified that he was about 15
meters away from Constancio Guevarra
when Guevarra fired his gun, and he only came to know
that Agapito Salazar was hit by a bullet while he
(witness) was already in the municipal building, and the distance from the
place where Salazar fell and the atis tree
where Guevarra fired his gun was about 5 to 7 meters,
x x x it clearly shows that
the aforementioned bullet came not from the gun of Guevarra
but from somebody else.” (p. 22, brief.)
The argument is also misleading.
The witness testified that he saw the spark of the gunburst
from the tamarind tree, and after the firing, Guevarra
emerged therefrom, and Valencia
saw him coming out. To quote his testimony on cross-examination:
“Q.- When did you for the
first time hear Constancio Guevarra
fire the first shot?
A.- I just heard a
gunshot near the tamarind tree.
Q.- You do not know
who fired that shot?
A.- I only learned
that it was Constancio Guevarra
who fired because he came out
from that place of the tamarind tree.
Q.- But you did not
actually see him fire?
A.- I saw a man who
fired a gun near the tamarind tree and I have seen that Constancio
Guevarra came out.
Q.- That is why I am
asking you definitely, you are not sure that it was Constancio
Guevarra who fired near the tamarind tree because
what you only saw was Constancio Guevarra
coming out from that place.
A.- Why would I not
be sure that same man who fired was the same who came out.”
Appellant testified that before November 12, 1959 he did not have
any misunderstanding with Andres Papasin when he was
in front of the house of Papasin in the evening in
question, he saw the latter in the balcony of his house holding something,
which he presumed to be a gun; when he heard a gunburst
coming from the house of Papasin, he believed that Papasin fired it; he did not think that the shot was
intended for him; however, he became afraid, because he knew that Papasin had a gun; he ran towards the tamarind tree where
he hid under it; and while in a hidden position, he fired three consecutive
shots into the air to identify himself as a policeman.
Mayor Amando
Melgar declared that in the evening of November 12,
1959, Guevarra, Cornelio, Mercado, Frayre and Fajardo went to his
house to inquire for their government benefits; Sarabia
was also in his house; after one hour and a half, they all left the house;
while he was talking with some of his visitors, he heard two shots in front of
his house; he went out and inquired from Frayre and
Cornelio, who were in front of his house, for the cause of the firing; after a
while, he saw Guevarra with a wound on his forehead;
he asked Sarabia to accompany Guevarra
to town to have his wound treated; he took the pistol of Guevarra
and gave it to Capt. Nevero of the PC; he confiscated
the pistols of the other policemen; after learning that the suspects were Guevarra and Cornelio, he suspended them.
Hugo Fajardo
declared that between 7:30 to 8:00
o’clock in the evening of
November 12, 1959, he was in the house of Mayor Melgar;
he saw Guevarra, Cornelio and the other policemen in
the house; Sarabia was in the house; he helped Guevarra to go
to the poblacion;
he saw Mercado in the house, but did not see him go out except when he went to
the yard.
The claim of Guevarra that he did not
have a misunderstanding with Papasin may be true, in
the sense that they may not have had an occasion when personally they had
confronted each other, but the evidence shows that on the night in question,
when the group of policemen were in the store and were commenting on the rumor
attributed to Papasin, and when Frayre,
in an ugly mood said: “Tirahin na iyan“;
Guevarra drew out his service pistol and prepared to
shoot at Papasin, but he was frustrated in his attempt
because Amado Garing, who
was behind him, grabbed his pistol.
That he entertained resentment and ill-feeling against Papasin, is further shown by the fact, as testified to by
his fellow-policeman Gregorio Mercado, and corroborated by Yolando
Sarabia, that when Papasin
had left the store to go to his house, Guevarra
followed him, and once he was in front of the house of Papasin,
he stopped and hid under the tamarind tree, and waited thereat, and when he saw
a man coming down the house of Papasin, and believing
him to be Papasin, he shot at the man. The overt act of the appellant shows his
intent to kill.
The testimony of Mayor Melgar, instead
of being an impeachment of the testimony of the eyewitness for the
prosecution, has served to corroborate the evidence of the prosecution. It appears that after the firing, Guevarra went to the house of Mayor Melgar,
and instead of reporting to the Mayor, and to have his injured forehead treated
by a doctor, what he did was to hide in the store-room of the house of the
Mayor, like any common criminal trying to escape from the clutches of the
law. He did not account where he
happened to suffer the fresh injury on his forehead. But the witness for the prosecution was
definite and clear in their testimony that he suffered his forehead injury
when he stumbled against a tree in the coconut plantation where he was waiting
to ambush his enemy.
2.- Under the second assignment of error,
the admission of the extra-judicial confession of appellant Guevarra, exhibit A, is attacked, appellant contending that
the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove that the confession was
voluntary. In this respect, the trial
court said:
“The accused Constancio Guevarra admitted that he signed the said Exh. A after it was read to him by the clerk of court (Paras, p. 5, Oct. 9, 1962); that he swore to the truth of its contents (Id. p. 5); that he did
not air any complaint to the clerk of court or to any other authority
thereafter (Guevarra pp. 49-52); his excuses, later
made on the witness-stand, as to the involuntariness of his statement of
admission, cannot be believed by this court.
First, he said that he was threatened with bodily harm by Sgt. De la
Rosa (Guevarra, p. 45). Later, he alleged that he signed the same Exh. A on the promise of Sgt. De la Rosa
to release him and exclude him from the information (Guevarra,
p. 43). On further
cross-examination, he admitted that he was not really threatened with
maltreatment, but that he signed the document because he did not want to
embarrass Sgt. De la Rosa before Andres Papasin and
he wanted to extend a favor to Sgt. De la Rosa (Guevarra,
p. 53). Yet, when he found out later on
that he was made an accused together with Felipe Cornelio said Guevarra did not even ask Sgt. De la Rosa why the latter welshed on his promise to release him and to exclude him
from the complaint (Guevarra, p. 49). Said Sgt. De la Rosa was a friend of his
since childhood. They grew up together
in Naujan and studied in the same school. Up to the date of trial, Guevarra
and De la Rosa did not have any misunderstanding or enmity. Besides, accused Guevarra
is a high school graduate (Guevarra, p. 147) and a
policeman at that time. The court has
observed well his appearance and his manner in the courtroom and on the
witness-stand. He appears to be
intelligent, physically well-built and speaks and moves with the indefinable
air that exudes only from daring and brave men.
Such shifting, contradictory and puerile excuses show to what extreme
this accused Guevarra had gone in order to extricate
himself from the situation in which he had placed himself. The court believes that only the urgings of
his conscience and the truth must have compelled him to subscribe to a confession of his guilt before the PC
authorities and the clerk of court.
x x x x
Besides, the confession, Exh.
A, has not been proven false or untrue.
On the contrary, said confession agrees in essential particulars with
the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and the other facts proven
in the case.” [In parenthesis supplied, referring to
pages of transcript of the testimony of witness.]
Upon the foregoing established facts, We
concur in the finding of the trial court that the confession of the appellant,
Exhibit A, was freely and voluntarily made by the appellant.
Appellant’s denial at the
trial that he shot Agapito Salazar on the night in question, was not believed by the trial court, it being
“highly incredible”. The court
said:
“Upon the other hand, his testimony that he did not shoot
anyone that night; that he fired his pistol cal. 45 in the air only to identify
himself as a policeman; that Papasin and he did not
have any misunderstanding and they were in fact in good terms, the very core
and substance of his whole defense – is highly incredible. Such testimony remained not only
uncorroborated but as has already been heretofore shown, had been contradicted
by his previous sworn statement, Exhibit A, executed by him the next day after
the commission of the crime when he did not have the opportunity to
contrive. His claim is likewise belied
by the testimony of his own friend and brother policeman who positively
testified that they saw him shoot his
gun at the deceased. Moreover, when he
ran away to Mayor Melgar’s house after supposedly
firing the shots in the air, he avoided the straight and direct road to the
house of the Mayor, and instead went thru a circuitous and dark route by the
backyard and coconut grooves, as a result of which he suffered a wound on the
head. Only a guilty conscience would
try to sneak away unnoticed from the scene of the crime. Guevarra believed
that the shot he heard was not intended for him. If these were true and he wanted to make
known his
presence as an officer of the
law, why did he not go into the open, approached Papasin
and make the formal inquiries, instead of running away like a fugitive from
justice? As he did not
report the matter to the Mayor, the theory of the prosecution that Guevarra sought sanctuary and refuge in the house of the
Mayor who was his benefactor and godfather in marriage, gains validity and
credibility.
Thus, in his confession made the day after the crime, he admitted
that he was in the store of Montejo with his
fellow-policemen, and they had agreed to ask Papasin
to account for his utterances against the police force; that when his
fellow-policemen left the store, he too left the place; that passing by in
front of the house of Papasin, and claiming to have
heard the cocking of a gun followed by a shot, he hid under a tamarind tree in
front of the house of Papasin, and waited thereat,
and when he saw a man cowing towards him, he fired at him believing him to be Papasin; that his distance to the man he shot was 14
meters; that he used his service pistol caliber .45. The foregoing salient facts in the
confession of the appellant have been corroborated by the witnesses of the
prosecution, and one of them his fellow-policeman, Gregorio Mercado, who had
no motive or cause to testify in the manner he did pointing an accusing finger
to the appellant as the man whom he saw shoot the victim. Moreover, the forehead injury of the
appellant is an undisputed fact. The
witnesses of the prosecution said that appellant’s head injury was caused when
he bumped his head against a guyabano tree
while running away from the place after
having shot the victim. Appellant failed
to account where he received his forehead injury, and why he had to hide in
the store-room of the house of Mayor Melgar like a
common criminal, instead of giving an official account of his whereabouts to
his superior officer.
To the findings made and conclusion arrived at by the trial
court, We fully agree, it appearing that it is sustained by the evidence on the
record, and We find no reason to depart from the settled rule that appellate
courts will not interfere with the conclusion of the trial court concerning the
credibility of witnesses for the latter is in a better position to appreciate
the same, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behaviour and manner of testifying during the trial.
The crime committed by the appellant is murder qualified by
treachery. When he shot the victim,
appellant was then well hidden behind a tree that the victim, who was unarmed
and unaware, had no way of defending himself.
Thus, appellant employed means, methods or forms to insure the
execution of the crime, without risk to himself.
As the appellant committed the act with intent to kill and with
treachery, the purely accidental circumstance that as a result of the shots a
person other than the one intended was killed, does not modify the nature of
the crime nor lessen his criminal responsibility, and he is responsible for the
consequences of his acts.
“The qualifying circumstance of treachery may be properly
considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the
defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the
two persons could in any manner put up defense against the attack or become
aware of it.” (People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil.,
907; People vs. Tolentino, et al., 82 Phil. 808;
People vs. Mamasalayan, 92 Phil. 639; People s. Gabbunton, L-2435, May 10, 1950.)
The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated because the deceased was not the intended victim (People vs. Guillen, supra);
neither the aggravating circumstance of night time may be appreciated for the
reason that the same is already absorbed in the qualifying circumstance of
treachery; nor the aggravating circumstance of superior strength for the reason
that only appellant Guevarra was responsible of the
crime, or that of official position for the reason that there is no proof that
the appellant has used the influence, prestige, or ascendency
which his office gives him as the means by which he realized his purpose. (U.S.
vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 156.)
WHEREFORE, the decision is affirmed in all respect, with
costs against the appellant.
Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.