THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CONSTANCIO GUEVARRA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Constancio Guevarra versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the appeal of Constancio Guevarra, a policeman of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro convicting him of murder for the shooting death of Agapito Salazar, whom he mistook for Andres Papasin. Guevarra was charged together with Felipe Cornelio, who was acquitted on reasonable doubt. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of eyewitnesses, the voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession, and the qualifying circumstance of treachery in an ambush carried out in the darkness of night.

Procedural History

The provincial fiscal of Oriental Mindoro filed an information for murder against Constancio Guevarra and Felipe Cornelio in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro. After trial, the court found Guevarra guilty of murder qualified by treachery, without any modifying circumstance, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Agapito Salazar in the sum of six thousand pesos, with the accessories provided by law, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the proportionate costs. The court acquitted Felipe Cornelio on reasonable doubt. Guevarra appealed from that decision, and the appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court.

Facts

Late in the afternoon of November 12, 1959, Guevarra and several fellow policemen of Naujan went to the house of Mayor Amando Melgar to ask about the benefits due them, since they were thinking of resigning after the Mayor's defeat in the election. They then drank at a store in front of the Mayor's house. The talk turned to a rumor from the barrio of Inarawan that Andres Papasin, a defeated candidate for councilor, had said that Mayor Melgar lost because of the abuses of the Naujan police force. The group resented Papasin. Cornelio and Estelito Frayre went to Papasin's house, and later Papasin came down and proceeded to the store of Minerva Montejo, followed by the policemen.

Inside the store a heated discussion ensued. Frayre, in an ugly mood, said "Tirahin na iyan." Upon hearing those words, Guevarra pulled out his forty-five caliber gun and was about to fire at Papasin when Amado Garing grabbed the gun and foiled the attempt. Papasin's wife then led her husband home. Guevarra left the store saying he was going to the poblacion, and he stopped and waited under a tamarind tree opposite Papasin's house, about twenty meters away. Shortly thereafter, Agapito Salazar, a cousin of Papasin, came down the house and took the path that led toward the very place where Guevarra was waiting. When Salazar was about fifteen meters away, Guevarra fired. He then moved to an atis tree nearer to Salazar and fired two more shots from six to eight meters. Salazar fell, and Guevarra ran away, bumping his head against a guyabano tree, then proceeded to the house of Mayor Melgar, where he hid in the store room.

Three eyewitnesses testified for the prosecution: Yolando Sarabia, policeman Gregorio Mercado, and Antonio Valencia. Dr. Edith Panganiban performed the autopsy and certified that the cause of death was acute circulatory and respiratory failure due to a non-penetrating gunshot wound at the neck, and that the slug could have been fired from a forty-five caliber pistol. The next day Guevarra gave a statement to Sergeant Perfecto de la Rosa, which was reduced to writing and sworn to before the clerk of court. In that statement Guevarra admitted that he shot Agapito Salazar, mistaking him for Andres Papasin.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Yolando Sarabia, Gregorio Mercado, and Antonio Valencia.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the extrajudicial confession of Guevarra was proven to be voluntary.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Guevarra beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision in full. It applies the law on murder qualified by treachery, and it treats the extrajudicial confession under the rules on evidence governing voluntariness. The Court's reasoning rests on the settled rule that a confession is presumed voluntary until the accused shows otherwise, and on the rule that treachery qualifies a killing when the offender employs means that tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense the victim might make.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in crediting the three eyewitnesses. The appellant argued that at a distance of five meters he could not have failed to recognize Salazar, a friend, and so the bullet must have come from someone else. The Court found this argument anchored on an inference drawn from an assumed fact, and held that the inference was rebutted by three eyewitnesses, one of them a fellow policeman, who were positive that they saw the appellant fire the shots because the spark of the gunburst came from the place where he was hidden and he emerged from that place after the firing. The Court likewise rejected the attack on Mercado's credibility, noting that counsel failed to take into account the witness's other answers showing that when Guevarra fired the second volley the witness was only five meters away and saw him come out. The Court also rejected the attack on Valencia, quoting his testimony that he saw a man fire a gun near the tamarind tree and saw Guevarra come out, and that he could not doubt that the same man who fired was the same who came out.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the finding that the extrajudicial confession was voluntary. The trial court found that Guevarra admitted signing the statement after it was read to him by the clerk of court, that he swore to the truth of its contents, and that he aired no complaint to the clerk of court or to any other authority thereafter. His excuses on the witness stand, first that he was threatened with bodily harm by Sergeant de la Rosa and later that he signed on the promise of release and exclusion from the information, were inconsistent and could not be believed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that Guevarra entertained resentment and ill feeling against Papasin, as shown by his drawing his pistol when Frayre said "Tirahin na iyan," and by his following Papasin and hiding under the tamarind tree to wait. When he saw a man coming down the house of Papasin and believed him to be Papasin, he shot at the man. The Court held that the overt act of the appellant showed his intent to kill. The testimony of Mayor Melgar, instead of impeaching the prosecution, corroborated it, because after the firing Guevarra hid in the store room like a common criminal trying to escape, and did not account for the fresh injury on his forehead, which the prosecution witnesses clearly traced to his stumbling against a tree in the coconut plantation where he waited to ambush his enemy.

Doctrine

First, the credibility of eyewitnesses is a matter for the trial court, and the Supreme Court will not disturb it where the witnesses were positive and their testimony was corroborated by the spark of the gunburst and the emergence of the accused from the place of firing. Second, an extrajudicial confession is presumed voluntary, and the accused bears the burden of showing that it was extracted by force, threat, or promise; inconsistent excuses made for the first time on the witness stand do not overcome that presumption. Third, treachery qualifies a killing when the offender, as here, waits in ambush in the darkness of the night and fires successively at a victim who is unaware and defenseless, thereby insuring the execution of the crime without risk to himself. Fourth, flight and concealment after the act are circumstances that corroborate guilt.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Constancio Guevarra of murder and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of Agapito Salazar.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an ambush in the darkness of the night, with the accused waiting under a tree and firing successively at an unsuspecting victim, is murder qualified by treachery. Examiners use this case to test the presumption of voluntariness of an extrajudicial confession and the weight given to positive eyewitness testimony over the accused's bare denial.