THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. WENCESLAO PAGULAYAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. WENCESLAO PAGULAYAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela in
Criminal Case No. 2079 finding appellant Wenceslao Pagulayan, guilty of the
crime of robbery with homicide, and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua.

The record shows that Rev. Jose Miedes, a Venezuelan Catholic priest, was
living alone in a low house which served as his convent or rectory near his
chapel, in the barrio of San Antonio, municipality of Ilagan, province of
Isabela. Said barrio is within the Hacienda de San Antonio belonging to the
Compania General de Tabacos (Tabacalera). Father Miedes was at the same time
cashier of the Tabacalera, with a salary of P300 a month. His sexton or
sacristan, Candido Pagulayan, who was living in another house nearby,
used to help Father Miedes in the chores of the convent, and sometimes made
deposits in the bank for the Reverend Father who reputedly kept money in the
house.

On the night of November 16, 1949, at about seven o’clock, while Father
Miedes, with his sunhelmet on, was reading at his desk in one corner of the
convent, facing the wall, suddenly received from behind a bolo blow on the head
from his sacristan Candido Pagulayan, slitting the helmet which fell on the
floor. The priest stood up in order to get out of the house, and when he reached
the main door leading to a small balcony before reaching the stairs, he was met
by appellant Wenceslao Pagulayan, the sacristan’s son, who also hacked
him with a bolo on the face, the blow landing on the bridge of the nose. The
priest continued to run downstairs, but fell at the foot of the stairs, face
down and in a kneeling position. At this juncture, appellant again hacked the
deceased twice on the back, who died on the spot. Appellant and his father then
ransacked the convent and stole P1,000 in cash which was kept in a wardrobe.
Thereafter, both escaped under cover of darkness.

Nearby stood the building belonging to the Tabacalera which owned the
Hacienda. Its manager, Angel Garcia Peña, who at the time was playing
mahjong with his wife in the balcony of the Tabacalera building, upon
hearing an outcry of anguish coming from the direction of the convent, went down
with some houseboys with flashlight to see what it was all about, and saw that
Father Miedes was already dead at the foot of the stairs. Police was accordingly
notified. Dr. Jose G. Valdez, the medical officer of Ilagan, who examined the
body, found six wounds inflicted by a cutting instrument on the deceased, the
two head wounds being fatal.

Several suspects were investigated by the police and the Philippine
Constabulary, among whom were the sacristan Candido Pagulayan and his
son, now appellant, as well as other Hacienda tenants like Joaquin Galamay and
Arturo Manuel; but for unknown reasons nobody was prosecuted. Candido Pagulayan
attempted to commit suicide after he was investigated, but eventually died a
natural death, and the crime remained unsolved for about seven years.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) then took a hand in the case,
picking up where the constabulary authorities left off, and running down all
possible clues. After an undercover sleuthing, Assistant Director Mariano S.
Almeda with three NBI agents went to Ilagan on August 24, 1956, to again
question Joaquin Galamay and Arturo Manuel, and this time both readily admitted
that they saw how appellant and his deceased father Candido Pagulayan had killed
Father Miedes because they were with them on that occasion; that they were
merely invited by the Pagulayans upon a ruse that they would be treated with
some drinks, but that upon reaching the convent they were told to remain in the
yard and be on the lookout for anybody that was coming. They also told Director
Almeda that when they were investigated by the PC back in 1949, they did not
reveal what they knew because the elder Pagulayan (Candido) had gone to their
house and had warned them that should they tell anybody what they had seen, they
and their families would be killed. Their statements were taken down.

In that month (August, 1956), appellant was then serving a prison term for
robbery in Iwahig Penal Colony, but was temporarily taken to Ilagan to be a
witness in a certain criminal case. Director Almeda accompanied by Joaquin
Galamay and Arturo Manuel went to see appellant in the provincial jail on August
25, 1956, and when confronted with the statements of Galamay and Manuel in their
presence, appellant paled and trembled, and made a clean breast of the crime,
implicating, however, Galamay and Manuel. His written sworn statement Exhibit A
was taken down by Director Almeda. Thereafter, appellant himself, with the help
of Galamay and Manuel and in the presence of NBI agents, re-enacted the crime in
the different stages of its execution, which were accordingly photograph by the
NBI. Photograph Exhibit B shows how appellant and his father went up the stairs
of the convent, with Galamay and Manuel remaining in the yard as lookouts;
Exhibit C shows how the elder Pagulayan hacked the deceased from behind and how
appellant himself stood guard by the door, bolo in hand, out of the sight of the
deceased; Exhibit D shows appellant himself delivering the bolo blow on the face
of the stooping victim on the latter’s way to the stairs; Exhibit F shows how
appellant himself hacked the deceased at the back after the latter had fallen at
the foot of the stairs; and Exhibit J shows how Galamay and Manuel stood at the
yard witnessing the killing of Father Miedes.

In the information subsequently filed, Joaquin Galamay and Arturo Manuel were
included as defendants. In the course of the proceedings, however, the
Provincial fiscal moved for and the court granted, the dismissal of the case as
against them for the purpose of utilizing said defendants as witnesses for the
People.

Appellant did not offer a serious defense but simply repudiated his
confession Exhibit A, alleging that its contents were merely dictated by
Director Almeda, and that he had to make that confession after he had suffered
maltreatment from his cellmates two days before. He also set up an
alibi to the effect that at the time the deceased was killed, he and
some friends were in another barrio some nine or ten kilometers away, attending
a prayer for the dead.

Assuming that Director Almeda dictated the contents of the confession, the
evidence shows, clearly, that before taking it down Almeda had already talked to
appellant in the morning of that day, who admitted his guilt in the presence of
Galamay and Manuel, so that said confession is but a reproduction of what
appellant had already told Almeda. The fact, however, is that Exhibit A was
taken by questions and answers. It is hard to believe that Almeda could have
possibly dictated the contents of Exhibit A all by himself without the details
therein contained having been furnished by appellant. Anent the alleged
maltreatment which appellant supposedly received from his cellmates two days
before, there is no showing that Almeda had anything to do with it. On the other
hand, appellant’s own witness, Ernesto Castañeda, an inmate who typewrote
Exhibit A and who signed as one of its witnesses, assured the court that no
violence of any kind was ever employed on appellant during the taking of said
confession, and that thfe same was signed only after its contents had been read
by the warden to said appellant. Furthermore, the subsequent re-enactment made
by appellant of the various stages of the crime, describing the respective
positions and actions taken by the persons involved, with himself performing the
important part and showing how he stood guard at the door, bolo in hand, while
his father made the initial attack (Exhibit C); how he hacked the deceased on
the face while the latter was trying to escape (Exhibit D); and how he again
hacked the already fallen victim at the back (Exhibit F), precisely clarifies
and supplements the material facts stated in the confession, and these
circumstances could only be furnished by no other than the one, such as
appellant, who had first-hand information thereof.

At all events, even if we were to brush the confession aside for a moment,
still the testimonies of eyewitnesses Galamay and Manuel, confirmed by the
re-enactment made by appellant himself, corroborated by the autopsy findings of
Dr. Valdez and the slit on the sun-helmet, are sufficient to show his guilt.
Counsel, however, claims that the testimonies of Galamay and Manuel should not
be given their face value not only because it took them seven years to reveal
what they allegedly knew, but also that it is not usual for those bent on
mischief, like appellant and his father, to take in third persons like Galamay
and Manuel, to witness their deed which they could otherwise have done with
impunity and without such third persons. We find that this contention was
adequately answered by Arturo Manuel himself who testified that he and Galamay
kept their tongues in check, because they believed that the Pagulayans really
meant to carry out their threat judging from the manner in which they killed
Father Miedes in cold blood, and that they were only free to reveal what they
knew when they were interviewed by Director Almeda in 1956, after the elder
Pagulayan had already died and after appellant had already been confined in
jail. Besides, they were not investigated by any authority, during that
interregnum. Galamay and Manuel are simple and unschooled farmers who might be
easily induced to accompany appellant, and his father to the convent upon the
pretext of treating them with some drinks, belonging to the priest, when the
real intent was to post them as lookouts, and then threatened, as they were,
with telling effect.

We cannot afford to overlook the record pointing appellant’s cunning and
insincerity to the court when, through secret correspondence with prison inmates
he caused convicts Federico Peñascosa and Artemio Carrasco, who were serving
life imprisonment in Muntinlupa, to write to the presiding. Judge of the trial
court, owning the killing of Father Miedes (Exhibit M). This letter was referred
to the fiscal who, in turn, passed it on to the NBI. Upon personal investigation
by Director Almeda, however, it turned out that these two convicts were merely
induced, upon monetary consideration, to write such letter, and that they could
not have been in Ilagan when the deceased was killed, because on that very date
one of them was a prisoner in Santa Cruz, Laguna.

The prosecution has presented a clear case which leaves no room for doubting
appellant’s guilt, whose negative defense amounts only to a poor and flimsy
excuse for the crime at bar.

Finding nothing to warrant the disturbance of the decision appealed from, the
same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.