G.R. No. L-6909. May 26, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ISIDRO GAMLOT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BENGZON, J.:
Isidro Gamlot to life imprisonment and to pay P6,000.00 to the heirs of Rufo
Baldasan, the man he murdered in sitio Nalseb, Municipal District of Kabayan,
Benguet, Mountain Province.
Principal witness against the prisoner was Teresa Tobias, the widow of the
deceased, who declared that in the night of September 18, 1951, she was awakened
by repeated knocking at the door of their house, and that having opened it, she
met lsidro Gamlot, with a companion; that Gamlot pushed her out saying he was
going to shoot her husband; that she wanted to scream, but Gamlot threatened to
kill her if she did; that the accused then entered the one-compartment dwelling
and at a distance of about two meters fired three bullets at the sleeping Rufo
Baldasan; that she rushed back to embrace her “wounded husband, but was dragged
away by Gamlot, who compelled her to escape with him, that very night, to
Sayangan, Km. 52 of the Mountain Trail where they arrived the next morning;
.that there she stayed in the house of one Into, whose wife Juanita gave her a
dress and some money for her transportation to Baguio; that when she started for
Baguio, she was rejoined by Gamlot who invited her to a shed, where they had
sexual intercourse (thru intimidation according to her); that thereafter he
conducted her to the house of Salia, his cousin, in “Bontoc, and the latter
brought her to the house of his sister Rosa in Natonin; that in this last house,
Gamlot and Teresa practically lived as husband and wife, he having had carnal
knowledge with her many times; that about a year afterwards she was found and
when investigated by the authorities she at first declared it was one Pil-ong
Markes who had killed her husband, said Pil-ong being in love with her; that she
made such false imputation at the suggestion of the Mayor of Natonin, after the
latter had come to know from her own lips that said Pil-ong had previously wooed
her.
Additional details supplied by other witnesses and by Teresa herself,
disclose that Teresa Tobias, 16, was married by her parents to Rufo Baldasan,
25, it being a loveless match. On. her wedding day she escaped and went to work
in a vegetable garden in Sayangan owned by Into, and there she met Isidro
Gamlot, who almost immediately paid court to her – she was admittedly
attractive. About nine days afterwards, Rufo Baldasan, accompanied by her sister
and brother found her, and brought her – back to their house in Nalseb; but
three days later she fled again to the garden of Into where she stayed £or about
six days, until her sister and husband took her back to Nalseb. Gamlot renewed
his attentions this second time, and evidently was rewarded or given hopes,
because the girl confessed to him that “she could not have two husbands”. Here
is obviously the motive of the assassination, which took place almost two weeks
after: Gamlot naturally understood that he could have her “if” her husband
should disappear. And he acted boldly and swifly by killing the latter.
There is no question that Rufo Baldasan was shot dead. There is also no
question that Teresa disappeared that night, and went to live first in the house
of Salia, and then in the house of Rosa (sister of the accused) until she was
discovered and taken by the authorities.
The accused denied having murdered Baldasan, and tried to lay the blame on
the man (Pil-ong) mentioned by Teresa Tobias before the town officials of
Natonin, even on her, some defense witnesses having testified to admissions she
allegedly made of having slain her husband.
The trial judge whose peculiar province is to resolve questions as to the
credibility of witnesses has thoroughly examined the testimony, in a quite
extensive and exhaustive decision covering the principal issues of fact, and
expressly accepted the account given by the eye-witness, Teresa, which account
appears to be amply confirmed by the undeniable circumstance that immediately
after the shooting she took flight with Gamlot and maritally lived with him for
almost a year.
Appellant insists in his printed brief that Teresa’s testimony implicating
him should deserve no credence because it is full of material contradictions,
inconsistencies and improbabilities. No. less than nine such contradictions are
listed and fully set out; besides, three improbabilities are described.
We have given close attention to the quoted passages. But the inconsistencies
which the industry of counsel has spotted in the course of her long testimony
are more apparent than real; and may admit of explanations harmonizing the whole
story. The nature and form of some questions, the emphasis given to certain
words or ideas might have prompted the witness to respond in terms inaccurate
because imcomplete, even erroneous, because of mistaken assumptions.
But judges know how to make allowances for variations in the declarations of
a witness, and what with their advantage of having observed his gestures,
features, demeanor and manner of testifying, their conclusions are not usually
disturbed, unless substantial reasons warrant a different course of action.
Teresa obviously saw her husband’s assailant. Perhaps the killing was
committed with her previous knowledge or consent. And except for her effort to
minimize her own part in the grim occurrence, (which may explain some of her
inconsistencies)[1] she gave a version
that in its main features appears to be wholly believable, human nature
-primitive and unrestrained- being prone to grab what it desires, obstacles or
no obstacles, law or na law. The picture was essentially this: Gamlot wanted
Teresa as a mate, her husband stood in the way, and had to be liquidated.
The fact that Teresa lived, for over a year, under the protection of Gamlot
and his relatives, -not to mention her sexual relations with him- constitutes
sufficient assurance that hers was not a tale designed to send an innocent
person to jail. Neither may the suspicion be entertained that Gamlot’s
prosecution was a convenient means to canceal her (possibly) guilty connivance
in the murder of her unfortunate husband; because it was enough for her to
declare that she could not recognize the midnight assassin and that she escaped
to live with friends, either sorely disappointed, or for fear of being
unnecessarily harassed.
Then there is this Pil-ong Markes on whom the defense points the accusing
finger. The trial judge believed Teresa’s explanations that when investigated by
the Mayor of Natonin she happened to mention Pil-ong Markes as one of those who
had sent her some love letters and said official advised her to declare it was
this person who had slain her husband. At that time Teresa was accompanied by
Rosa, and in all probability she indicated Pil-ong Markes, to avoid having to
squeal on Gamlot. And the mayor, perhaps in good faith counselled her to stick
to her story, believing it to be the truth. Yet as the record shows, Pil-ong was
too young (14-year old) to think of, or attempt any homicidal expedition; and in
the face of Teresa’s testimony in court, no doubt may now be entertained as to
the real culprit,
As we said before, there is a possibility that Teresa knew beforehand, or
consented to, or abetted the killing of her husband, (The Fiscal should further
investigate this). There is also the possibility that she had no such previous
knowldege; but that after the deed had been consummated, she voluntarily went
with Gamlot -albeit reluctantly at first- because she was then an unmarried
woman. At any rate, there is no reason to refuse her credence, it being
improbable that she would perversely allow her one-time lover to undergo a
life-long confinement in Muntinglupa.
The crime is murder committed in the dwelling of the victim. But the
aggravating circumstance is compensated by the ignorance of the accused which
the trial judge has noticed. Life imprisonment plus indemnity are provided by
law.
As these are the penalties imposed in the appealed decision, the same is
hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and J.B.L. Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] A desire for self-justification
could sometimes lead to unintended inaccuracies.