G.R. No. L-39519. November 21, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. DANIEL PINTO, JR. AND NARCISO-BUENAFLOR, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
FERNAN, C.J.:
As an aftermath of the mission of the Legazpi
City Police Department to serve on Christmas day in 1970 a search warrant on
Francisco Bello who was allegedly training a private
army, patrolmen Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by
the then Circuit Criminal Court in said city, of killing not only Bello but also 9-year-old Richard Tiongson
and Rosalio Andes and seriously wounding Maria
Theresa Tiongson.
The dispositive portion of the decision of June 13, 1974[1]
reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Narciso
Buenaflor, Jr. and Daniel Pinto, Jr. GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of:
(a) MURDER in CCC-X-288-Albay, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment for the rest of their lives
(Reclusion Perpetua); to indemnify the heir of Rosalio Andes in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally; and to pay the costs;
(b) MURDER in CCC-X-289-Albay, and hereby
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment for the rest of their lives
(Reclusion Perpetua); to indemnify the heirs of
Francisco Bello in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand
(P25,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally; and to pay the costs;
(c) MURDER in
CCC-X-298-Legazpi City, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer
imprisonment for the rest of their lives (Reclusion Perpetua);
to indemnify the heirs of Richard Tiongson in the
amount of Twenty five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos, jointly and severally; and
to pay the costs;
(d) FRUSTRATED MURDER
in CCC-X-299 Legazpi City, and hereby sentences each
of them to suffer imprisonment of from Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor as Minimum, to Twelve (12) Years and One (1)
Day of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum; to indemnify the victim, Maria Theresa Tiongson, in the amount of Eight Thousand (P8,000.00)
Pesos, jointly and severally; and to pay the costs.
In addition to the foregoing the accused are sentenced to suffer
perpetual disqualification from public office.”
According to the prosecution, on December 25, 1970, the Legazpi City Police secured from the City Court of Legazpi a warrant for the search of the house and premises
of Francisco Bello in Mariawa,
Legazpi City on the ground that the police had
probable cause to believe that Bello illegally
possessed a garand rifle, a thompson
submachinegun and two automatic pistols.[2]
The police had earlier undertaken a surveillance of Bello
on the basis of information it had received that he was conducting an
“obstacle course” or training men for combat since October, 1970.[3]
Upon receipt of the search warrant, the Chief of Police, Dr.
Solomon Adornado, [4]
called his officers to a “confidential conference” at the residence
of Mayor Gregorio Imperial. Present at
said conference were the mayor, his secretary, and the officers of the patrol
division, secret service and the administration of the city police. The Chief of Police was assisted by Major
Alfredo Molo, head of the intelligence division of
the city police, in briefing the group on how to serve the search warrant and
to arrest Bello as the latter had been identified as
the one who shot Salustiano Botin
the night before. At the time of the
briefing, no warrant of arrest had yet been issued against Bello.[5]
The policemen were divided into three teams and around five
members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) who were also present were assigned
to the different teams.[6]
Team 3 was placed under the charge of Sgt. Salvador de la Paz with a policeman
named Luna and appellants Buenaflor and Pinto as
members. Wilfredo
Romero was the PC member assigned to the team.[7] Except
for Romero and Pinto who were each armed with a carbine, the policemen of Team
3 each carried a .38 caliber pistol.[8]
Loaded in four vehicles, the three teams proceeded from the
residence of the Mayor to barrio Homapon arriving
there at around seven o’clock in the
evening. The four vehicles met at the
junction of Homapon and the road to Mariawa. They had
decided to ride on the way to Mariawa when one of the
jeeps bogged down because of the muddy road.
Hence, the three teams had to walk in single file on the right side of
the road with the teams maintaining a distance of around ten meters between
them.[9]
Suddenly, Romero noticed the members of his team running. He ran with them and then he heard someone
shout “Pondo!” (stop). The shout was followed by a shot and then a
burst of gunfire. The team had by then
deployed to the right side of the road.
When Romero checked the men by shouting the agreed pass?word of
“bayawas” for which the person challenged
answered “santol“,[10]
he found that Buenaflor was 5 meters in front of him
“at the bank of the road”, Pinto was two meters to the right of Buenaflor, Sgt. de la Paz was two meters to his (Romero’s)
right, Luna who was holding a walkie-talkie was to his left and another
policeman was in front of Luna.[11]
When Romero heard the gunburst, he saw “flashes
of fire” “just in front” of him or from the place where Buenaflor was.[12]
The area where the team deployed was lower in elevation than the
road but Romero heard the rumbling of a jeep going towards the direction of Homapon when he heard the burst of gunfire and saw the
flashes of fire from the direction of Buenaflor.[13]
On the jeep which passed by the deployed policemen were Fr. Felix
Capellan, Mrs. Zenaida Stilianopolous Tiongson, her six
children and the driver. They had just
come from a lechonada party in the hacienda in Mariawa of Mrs. Purificacion Napal Anduiza, the mother of
Francisco Bello.
Fr. Capellan had celebrated mass to
commemorate the death anniversary of Mrs. Anduiza’s
father. When Fr. Capellan
decided to go back to his parish, the Anduizas
offered their jeep for his transportation.[14]
Seated on the front seat of the “McArthur type” jeep which had only a canvass
top but no cover on the sides and back,[15]
were the driver, Mrs. Tiongson with a child on her lap
and Fr. Capellan.[16]
Richard Tiongson was seated on the steel seat behind
the driver while his sister Maria Theresa was beside him.[17]
The three other children were also seated at the back.
After crossing the creek on their way to Homapon
and as the driver “changed to high gear with a dual”,[18]
Mrs. Tiongson saw blinking lights some 300 yards
ahead.[19]
Fearing that there might be “people with bad intentions” or
hold-uppers, Fr. Capellan told the driver to go
faster.[20] Then
Fr. Capellan heard one shot and after a few seconds
and around 50 meters ahead, there was rapid firing with some of the bullets
hitting the jeep.[21]
According to Mrs. Tiongson, the widow of Col. Angel Tiongson of the PC, the rapid firing sounded “automatic”.[22] The firing came from the left rear side of the
jeep.[23]
Before they were fired upon, Maria Theresa saw a man lying flat
on his stomach while holding a gun on the left side of the road just ahead of
the jeep.[24]
Through the light of the jeep, Maria Theresa noticed that the man was wearing a
jacket and a hat and he was on the shoulder of the road.[25]
After passing the man, the rapid firing ensued.
Richard said “ugh” and fell on the floor of the jeep. Maria Theresa was about to hold Richard when
she felt herself hit at the buttocks.
Then they all screamed.[26]
The jeep continued its fast uphill climb until it reached a level
area and almost fell into a ditch were it not for a clump of banana
plants. The jeep came to a full
stop. Fr. Capellan
saw three men with flashlights but he could not distinguish their faces as it
was dark and their flashlights were focused on the ground.[27]
Mrs. Tiongson saw a PC jeep and some cars and,
believing that one of the cars was that of the Mayor, she called Tia Citang, the mother of the
mayor, at the same time identifying herself.[28]
She must have managed to take Richard from the jeep and was cuddling him on the
ground near the left rear end of the jeep when she requested Fr. Capellan to administer extreme unction on Richard. As Fr. Capellan had
no holy oil, he gave the boy absolution.[29]
Even after Mrs. Tiongson had identified
herself as the widow of Col. Tiongson to the men
around, nobody listened to her appeal for help.
When she approached Chief of Police Adornado,
she hit him and asked him why they shot her and her companions. The Chief of Police replied that the shooting
was no longer his fault because Mrs. Tiongson and her
companions did not stop when told to do so.
She requested the Chief of Police for a car in which to take Richard to
the hospital or for a driver and even for a walkie-talkie so she could talk to
Mayor Imperial but the Chief of Police did not heed her pleas.[30]
(TSN, February 9, 1972, pp. 17-22).
A few minutes later, a jeep driven by Fernando Anduisa arrived. Mrs.
Tiongson and her children boarded the jeep. At the intersection of the road to Legazpi City proper and the road to Mariawa,
the area was brightly lighted and armed men ordered them to put their hands
up. They were told to alight from the
jeep to be searched but Mrs. Tiongson begged the
lieutenant manning the area to let them pass so they could bring her two
children to the hospital.[31]
Richard and Maria Theresa were brought to the Sacred Heart Clinic
in Legazpi City.
Thirteen-year-old Maria Theresa was treated for a gunshot wound at the
“right upper quadrant of the right buttocks”.[32]
Her pelvis and abdomen were x-rayed. One
of the x-ray plates[33]
revealed an oval spot indicating a foreign body in Maria Theresa’s pelvis. The attending physician decided not to
extract the foreign body as Maria Theresa was not a “very good surgical
risk”.[34]
The hospital charged P282.90 for Theresa’s hospitalization.[35]
She was later brought by an army plane to the PC Station Hospital in Camp Crame, Quezon City for further
treatment and hospitalization[36]
but the foreign body was never removed from her pelvic area.
Richard sustained a gunshot wound at the back about the level of
the 5th lumbar vertebrae. The bullet traveled
obliquely to the left kidney, the lesser sac, the liver and the right auricle.[37]
Richard was operated at the hospital but he died at 8:45 the following morning
due to massive hemorrhage caused by the gunshot wound.[38]
When he was autopsied, a lead slug was found embedded in his heart.[39]
His mother paid P862.35[40]
for his hospitalization and was charged P200 by the church. Mayor Imperial paid P500 to Funeraria Oro for Richard’s
burial.[41]
Meanwhile, according to Chief of Police Adornado,
after the shooting incident involving the Tiongsons,
the police pursued their mission to serve the search warrant on Bello. When they
reached Bello’s residence in Mariawa,
they were met by a “volley of fire.” Suddenly, the house was lighted
and a certain Escober met him. Although Bello and
his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Anduiza, were not around,
the police searched the area and found a Japanese Springfield rifle, ammunition
of a garand rifle, ammunition of a carbine, live
ammunition for a .38 caliber pistol and 380 bullets for an automatic pistol.[42]
Thereafter, the Chief of Police declared the search terminated and the entire
searching party left for headquarters.[43]
The following day, he issued Special Order No. 24 which states:
“.December 26, 1970
“To All Concerned:
“The following men mentioned below are hereby assigned at Homapon until their mission is accomplished, effective as
of today, December 26, 1970:
“1. Sgt. Salvador de la Paz, In-charge
“2. Pfc. Carlos Barbin,
member
“3. Pat. Eduardo Arcinue,
member
“4. Pat. Juan Luna, member
“5. Pat. Daniel Pinto, member
“6. Pat. Celedonio
Abordo, member
“7. Pat. Narciso
Buenaflor, member
“Report progress of mission any time of day through the radio
system. For strict compliance.
(Sgd.)
SOLOMON B.
ADORNADO
Chief of Police
“Copy furnished: The Honorable City Mayor, The Patrol Command,
LCPD, the OIC and file.”[44]
The mission was to keep peace and order in the specified place
and to determine the whereabouts of Bello.[45]
It was not necessary to specify the mission in the order itself because the
Chief of Police “had a close understanding with the squad that went to Homapon“.[46]
For a “convenient tactical deployment,” Sgt. De la Paz further
divided Team 3 into three groups with patrolmen Buenaflor
and Pinto composing Group II.[47]
At noontime of December 26, 1991, Francisco Bello,
more popularly known as Paquito, arrived at the
residence of Inocencia Malbas
in sitio Ando, Talahib, Daraga, Albay. He was with Inocencia’s
brother, Francisco Andes, Francisco’s son Ananias,
and Leoncio Mostoles. Rosalio, another
son of Francisco, also arrived with the group.[48] Bello requested Inocencia and her
husband that he and his group be allowed to spend the night in Inocencia’s house.[49]
Inocencia woke up at around 5:00
o’clock in the morning of December 27, 1991.
At the sala, on her way from her room to the
kitchen, she saw Bello sleeping alone. From the kitchen, Inocencia
went to the balcony through the sala. On her way back to the kitchen, she noticed
that Bello, who was wearing a red shirt and an
underwear, had awakened. Bello opened the window, spat out and went to the
balcony. He reentered the sala and, saying that it was cold, Bello
put on his clothes and pants. He also
wore his jacket. He went back to the
balcony and asked for water. Inocencia’s husband gave Bello a
glass of water. After gurgling, Bello placed the glass on the window sill and asked Inocencia’s husband for a cup of coffee.[50]
Inocencia’s husband was about to offer Bello a cup of coffee when she heard a successive burst of
gunfire. Bello,
who was on the balcony facing the copra kiln (“agonan“)
with his back towards the pili tree, gradually fell
to the floor with his hands above his head.
Then there was another burst of gunfire.
From the kitchen, Inocencia rushed to the door
from where she saw a man holding a long firearm, whom she later identified as
Pinto, near the pili tree which was around eight
meters from where Bello was, and another man, also
holding a gun, crouching near the stairs.[51]
Inocencia, with her two-year-old child
in her arms,[52]
was about to rush to Bello when her husband pulled
her. Just then a man, whom Inocencia identified as Buenaflor,
came up the house, pointed a gun at Inocencia and her
husband and told them to lay flat on the floor.
The man asked them where the gun was.
Inocencia told him that there was no gun in
the house but then, when she looked around, she saw a long firearm with its
muzzle pointed upward leaning against the wall near the door around two meters
from where Bello laid flat on his back. Bello himself had a
gun but it was in its holster tucked on his waist.[53]
It was Buenaflor who took both the long firearm and
the gun in Bello’s holster.[54]
When Francisco Andes went up the house, he told Inocencia that Rosalio was dead.[55] Inocencia went near the pili tree
where Rosalio’s body was, knelt down and asked the
man with a long firearm why he killed Rosalio. The man answered that Rosalio
fought back. However, Inocencia did not notice any weapon near Rosalio’s body.[56]
Bello’s hands and feet were tied
together and a bamboo pole was inserted between them so that two men, one of
them being Francisco Andes, could carry the cadaver.[57] Bello died because of “shock secondary to massive
hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds”.[58]
A former pilot and 28 years old at the time of his death, Bello
sustained a gunshot wound at the left temple, an inch above the highest point
of the pinna of the left ear. The bullet which entered his head through the
squamous temporal bone travelled
towards the occipital region down to the floor of the left middle cranial fosa until it reached the base of the tongue.
Bello had three gunshot wounds on his
chest. One bullet entered the superior
part of the right scapular area about the level of the third thoracic vertebrae. The bullet travelled
to the right inna in a slightly upward direction
making its exit at the lateral part of the right supraclavicular
fossa above the clavicle. The second gunshot wound was at the left side
inter?scapular area. The bullet travelled upwards and to the right fracturing the 7th rib,
entered the lower lobe of the left lung, punctured the pulmonary conus, went through the junction of the right auricular
appendage and the right auricle, the anteromedial
side of the pericardium, grazed the medial surface of the middle lobe of the
right lung and exited at the right side of the chest. The third gunshot wound was below the right
nipple. The bullet went to the chest
cavity, the lower lobe of the right lung, the dome of the diaphragm, the right
lobe of the liver, the 8th thoracic vertebra and exited at the left of the
midline at the inferior interscapular area.[59]
While Bello’s corpse was being
autopsied, a slug fell from his jacket.
A bullet jacket and lead fragments were found at the base of his skull
and a slug was extracted from the floor of his mouth.[60]
Rosalio Andes, 23 years old, also died
of shock due to multiple gunshot wounds.
A bullet entered his right temporal area, macerated the brain, fractured
both parietal bones and exited at the left parietal bone. Another bullet entered the left interscapular area below the level of the 6th rib, travelled to the dome of the left diaphragm, the left lobe
of the liver, the pancreas, the small intestines, and the perineum below the ramus of the right pubis.
The slug was found at the gluteoperineal
junction about 2 inches below the tip of the coccys
and 2 1/2 inches above the gluteal line. A third bullet entered the left knee and
exited at the medial side of the leg.[61]
The slugs and parts of bullets which were extracted from the
bodies of the victims were turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) on December 29, 1970 by Fiscal Aquilino Bonto for safekeeping purposes.[62]
The empty shells and slugs which both the PC and the Legazpi
City police found in Talahib were also turned over to
the NBI[63]
in the same manner that the four empty carbine shells[64]
found by the PC near the coconut tree a meter from the shoulder of the road to Mariawa were also turned over to the NBI.[65] Also
submitted to the NBI for ballistic examination were twelve Smith & Wesson
caliber .38 revolvers, two Smith & Wesson “paltik”
caliber .22, four Tell caliber .38 revolvers, one Bosque automatic pistol
caliber .380, four US carbine Inland rifles caliber .30, three US Springfield
rifles caliber .30, one Thompson submachine gun caliber .45 and one Colt
automatic pistol caliber .45.[66]
Defendants Pinto and Buenaflor both
denied having fired at the jeep bearing the Tiongson
family.[67]
Pinto, who admitted carrying a caliber .30 carbine during the incident,[68]
testified that the shooting occurred because the Tiongsons‘
jeep “was going towards” them.[69]
According to Pinto, when they reached Mariawa,
it was he who fired one shot in the air.[70]
After the search had been conducted in Bello’s
premises, Team 3 was instructed by a “superior officer” “to
remain and maintain peace and order in (the) vicinity including Mariawa“.[71]
While he and Buenaflor were patrolling the area, at
around midnight, they “chanced upon a house” wherein Bello and his group were staying. They captured four of Bello’s
bodyguards and tied them to a pili tree with the torn
shirt of one of the captives.[72]
At daybreak, Pinto saw Bello smoking at
the porch. Buenaflor,
who was behind him, called Bello. Then a single shot coming from the house rang
out. It was answered by a burst of fire
which Pinto “presumed” came from Buenaflor. By reflex action, Pinto transferred from the pili tree to a nearby coconut tree. But before he reached the coconut tree, he
saw a man with a bolo in his hand running towards him. As the man was menacingly near him, Pinto
shot him.[73]
After a lull in the firing, he went up the house to look for Bellos‘ other companions.
He saw the body of Bello on the porch and
“near” it was a garand which he took. He also got Bello’s
short firearm “from a holster.” He turned over both the garand and the short firearm to Buenaflor. One of the captured persons kicked Bello’s body saying that if not for Bello,
his son would not have been killed. Thereafter,
the two dead person were carried by the captured bodyguards to Mariawa.[74]
In Mariawa, Pinto contacted (through
the radio) police outpost No. 5 in Banquerohan and
two jeeps arrived. When they reached the
junction in Homapon, Major Molo,
who was with Fiscal Benito Se, told Pinto to go back with him to Talahib. Although
Pinto warned Major Molo that it would be dangerous to
go back because one of Bello’s men had escaped, they
nevertheless proceeded to Talahib. With three other policemen, they arrived there
between eight and nine in the morning where they were instructed to “look
for evidence specifically x x x
for a thompson.” He found in the porch two
shells and the others found a hat and a flashlight. Thereafter, they returned to Mariawa and later, to Legazpi
City proper.[75]
On cross-examination, Pinto stated that he did not know that they
found Bello in an area which was beyond the
jurisdiction of Legazpi City. He admitted that while they were instructed
to patrol the area, they were also told to effect the arrest of Bello even if no complaint had been lodged against him.[76]
According to Pinto, of the fifteen bullets in the magazine of his carbine, only
two remained. He fired “most”
of the thirteen shots during the “Bello
incident”.[77]
Pinto shot the man later identified as Rosalio
Andes when he was at a distance of around three meters. Rosalio was
“face-to?face” with him when Pinto shot him. As Rosalio did not
fall from the first shot, Pinto continued shooting him.[78]
When he went up the porch he saw the garand
“lying on the floor” but the gun tucked on Bello’s
waist was still in its holster.[79]
On the Tiongson incident, Pinto
asserted that he did not fire his carbine.[80]
When he saw the headlight of the Tiongsons‘ jeep, he
also saw a flashlight being waved. A
little later, he heard a shout ordering the jeep to stop. Then he heard one shot and immediately after,
the volley of fire as the jeep was going towards his direction. As it passed by him, he heard the jeep’s
passengers shriek.[81]
For his part, Buenaflor declared that
during the mission to serve the search warrant on Bello,
he carried the “.38 caliber revolver Tel.” (sic) which had been
issued to him by the Legazpi City Police
Department. He did not fire his gun at
the Tiongsons and, “as a matter of fact,”
he surrendered his firearm for ballistic examination.[82]
In the afternoon of December 26, however, Major Molo
issued him a Thompson submachinegun.[83]
While patrolling Homapon, he and Pinto
“chanced upon” some persons who told them that they could guide them
to where Bello was.
At the place which they later found to be Talahib,
they went near a pili tree from where they saw a
house “below.” Then he saw a man who turned out to be Mostoles. Buenaflor apprehended Mostoles
because the latter was Bello’s bodyguard and he had a
.22 caliber firearm with him. He came by
another man with a bolo, named “Banteque”
and apprehended him also. Then, from
behind the pili tree, Pinto appeared with yet another
man. They waited for a while until
another man, who turned out to be Francisco Andes, came within four meters of
him. Buenaflor
pointed his submachinegun at him so Andes approached
him. Buenaflor
confiscated Andes’ .22 caliber firearm.[84]
From the group, Buenaflor learned that Bello provided them with firearms and that Bello himself had a pistol tucked in his holster as well as
a garand. He
and Pinto then tied the men to the pili tree. Later, he saw a person in the balcony of the
house below and Buenaflor shouted twice: “Paquito, mag-surrender ka!” Then Buenaflor
heard “a shot coming from the direction of the balcony followed by
successive shots.” He sought cover behind the pili
tree and, while in a crouching position, fired his submachinegun
towards the balcony. Pinto was then
behind him. As Pinto shifted his position
while firing his carbine, Buenaflor went down to the
“elevated portion going down to the nipa
shack” until he was near the coconut tree.
There he found a person lying with his face down. He later found out that the person was the
son of Francisco Andes.[85]
After the firing had stopped, Pinto told him that Bello was dead.
Pinto then went up the house. Buenaflor went back to the pili
tree, untied the four persons they had captured, and told them to do something
so they could carry the bodies of Bello and (Rosalio) Andes.[86]
Like Pinto, on cross-examination, Buenaflor
also asserted that he did not fire his gun at the jeep carrying the Tiongsons.[87]
While admitting that the person who led them to Bello
had told them that the latter was in Talahib, Buenaflor did not know that Talahib
was a barrio of Daraga, Albay
and not of Legazpi City.[88]
He reiterated that he shouted at Bello urging him to
surrender[89]
but he was not able to fire a warning shot or identify himself as a member of
the police force “because after the second shot there was already a
burst of gunfire”.[90]
Buenaflor affirmed that the first shot
emanating from the balcony of the house in Talahib
which was around fifteen meters from the pili tree,
came from a “high caliber firearm.”[91]
After they had found out that Bello was dead, Pinto
went up the house. Later, Pinto gave him
Bello’s 380 automatic pistol and garand.[92]
Although he looked at those firearms, he did not determine whether they had
been fired.[93]
He noticed, however, that the magazine of the garand
was “intact”.[94]
Aside from Bello’s fire?arms, Buenaflor and Pinto confiscated two .22 caliber revolvers
and two bolos from Bello’s bodyguards.[95]
Buenaflor stated that his Thompson submachinegun had two clips with each clip containing 30
bullets. When he gave back the firearm
to Major Molo, only four bullets were left of the one
clip he had used.[96]
He remembered having squeezed twice the trigger of his Thompson submachinegun or automatic rifle in Talahib.[97]
His service revolver was still with him then.[98]
As a result of this series of events, four separate informations were filed against Pinto and Buenaflor. The
information charging Pinto and Buenaflor for the
murder of Andes which was filed on July 26, 1971 reads:
“That on or about the 27th day of December, 1970, in sitio Ando, Barrio Talahib, Daraga, Albay and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the accused, conspiring and confederating
together and mutually helping one another, without any justifiable cause or
motive, with intent to kill, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with treachery and evident premeditation, accused Pat. Narciso Buenaflor, Jr and Pat. Daniel
Pinto, Jr., and by means of a Cal. 45 Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, SN-213436 and a
US Carbine Inland, Cal. 30, SN-5099407, owned respectively by said accused,
shoot one Rosalio Andes, inflicting upon him gunshot
wounds as described in the attached Autopsy Report marked as Annex
“A” and being made an integral part of this information, thereby
causing upon said Rosalio Andes serious and mortal
wounds which led to his instantaneous death.
“Contrary to law.”
The information charging Pinto and Buenaflor
with having murdered Bello contains basically the
same allegations as the above and it was filed on the same date. On August 24, 1971 two other informations were filed against Pinto and Buenaflor: one for
the murder of Richard Tiongson and another for the
frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson. On arraignment, Pinto and Buenaflor
both pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
After trial, the trial court rendered the aforementioned judgment
of conviction. For the killing of Bello and Andes, the trial court appreciated evident
premeditation as a qualifying circumstance and treachery, nighttime and use of
public position as aggravating circumstances.
For the incident involving the Tiongson
children, it considered the crimes as qualified by treachery and aggravated by
the use of public position.
Pinto and Buenaflor instituted the
instant appeal praying for exoneration mainly on the basis of their claim that
the killings were perpetrated in the course of the performance of their
official duties as peace officers in obedience to the lawful order of their
superiors.
In order that the
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code may be successfully invoked, the defense has to prove that
these two requisites are present: (a)
the offender acted in the performance of a duty and (b) the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful
exercise of such duty. In the absence of
the second requisite, the justification becomes an incomplete one thereby
converting it into a mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the
same Code.[99]
Admittedly, the appellants and the rest of the police force
involved, originally set out to perform a legal duty: the service of a search warrant on Bello. In the
process, however, the appellants abused their authority resulting in
unauthorized and unlawful moves and consequences. Armed with only a search warrant and the oral
order to apprehend Bello, they went beyond the ambit
of their mission and deprived Bello and two other
persons of their lives.
While the defense presented proofs that Bello
had a string of record in the police blotter for misdeeds ranging from taking
the harvest of their hacienda without the permission of his parents to
assaulting his stepfather, and that he was “dangerous while under the
influence of liquor”,[100]
there was no proof that he had been convicted of any offense or that he was a
dangerous fugitive from justice which would warrant a “shoot-to-kill”
order from police authorities. Proof of
bad moral character of the victim only establishes a probability that he
committed a crime but it certainly cannot be the reason for annihilating him
nor may it prevail over facts proven showing that the same victim had been
cold-bloodedly killed.[101]
As such, the suspicion that Bello was maintaining a
private army was not a sufficient justification for his being rubbed out
without due process of law.
The police theory that Bello authored
the shooting of one Salustiano Botin
on Christmas eve is neither a justification for his arrest without a
warrant. It should be observed that
while the police had obtained a search warrant for illegal possession of
firearms against Bello even on Christmas day which
was supposed to be a holiday, no such effort was made in securing a warrant of
arrest for Bello’s alleged frustrated killing of Botin. The
improbability of the defense evidence through the testimony of Botin himself that Bello had shot
him in the evening of December 24, 1970 is bolstered by the same testimony
showing that while he was shot by Bello in the
presence of the police force who were converging at the Junction of Homapon and Mariawa, the same law
enforcers were unable to arrest Bello. Besides the fact that no other eyewitness
corroborated Botin’s testimony even in the face of
his own admission that Bello had no reason to shoot
him, no complaint was ever lodged against Bello for
the alleged shooting.[102]
On the other hand, the prosecution, through eyewitness Rogelio Escober, tried to establish that during said shooting
incident, the police were looking for Bello at the
store of a certain Serrano.[103]
Unable to find Bello, the police, specifically Pinto,
mauled Escober while asking him to testify against Bello for allegedly shooting Botin.[104]
The police had focused their vehicles’ headlights near the bodega of ex-Mayor
Los Baños in their effort to flush out Bello who, unknown to the police, had earlier left the
vicinity. It was when the police fired
at the said bodega that Botin must have been
accidentally shot.[105]
This story was uncorroborated but if true, would show the police’s dangerous
propensity for using otherwise official operations in an unlawful manner.
A propensity for rash judgment was likewise amply shown at the
incident involving the Tiongson children. Since the jeep coming towards them was owned
by the Anduizas, the appellants acted obviously in
the belief that Bello was its passenger and posthaste
they fired upon it even without any reasonable inquiry as to the identity of
its passengers.[106]
Granting that the police indeed fired a warning shot, sound discretion and
restraint dictated that, there being no responding shots from its passengers
after the alleged warning shot and considering the condition of the road which
was not only muddy but uphill, instead of directing aimless gunburst
at the jeep, the most that they could have done was to render the jeep immobile
by shooting its tires. That way, they
could have verified the identity of the passengers. ‘As it were, they riddled the jeep with
bullets injuring in the process innocent passengers who were completely unaware
of what they were up against.
Appellants’ stark denial of firing their guns upon the Tiongson family falls flat in the face of various
circumstantial evidence which point to their culpability. There is the unflinching testimony of Sgt.
Romero that he saw “flashes of fire” from the direction of Buenaflor as the jeep bearing the Tiongsons
passed by. Said testimony was
corroborated by that of Rafael Jacob, the PC member of team 2, that while no
one in his team fired his gun, the “sporadic firing” came from team 3
after the first burst of fire which occurred while the jeep was “abreast
of team 2”.[107]
Even defense witness Mariano Rico, a policeman who led team 1, was
“sure” that he heard gunshots at the moment when “the jeep had
just passed team 2”.[108]
Then there are the four empty .30 caliber carbine shells which
were found near the coconut tree where, according to Romero, Pinto was
deployed. While he himself carried a
carbine, Romero did not fire it and his testimony was never contradicted. When the four empty shells were compared with
the test shells which were fired from the US carbine, caliber .30 Inland
Division, SN-5099407, which, according to the aforequoted
information charging appellants with having killed Andes, was used by Pinto,
they were found to have “significant similar individual
characteristics”.[109]
While it is true that the ballistic report reveals that the lead
bullet taken from the body of Richard was fired from a Smith & Wesson type
firearm[110]
and Buenaflor was proven to be carrying a .38 caliber
Tell revolver, the findings of expert witnesses or, in this case, the ballistic
report pointing to another kind of caliber .38 weapon as the source of
Richard’s wound only serves as a guide for the courts after considering all the
facts of the case.[111]
The undisputed fact is that Buenaflor was
specifically pointed by Romero as the one who fired his firearm as the Anduiza jeep bearing the Tiongsons
passed by. Inasmuch as no evidence that
Romero would prevaricate to pin responsibility on Buenaflor
was ever presented, there is, therefore, no reason to discredit his testimony.[112]
In addition to all these, Buenaflor’s
motive for wanting to do away with Bello has been
established. Such motive provided
circumstantial evidence leading to the inference that indeed he fires his gun.[113]
According to the unrebutted testimony of Rogelio Escober, an overseer of the Napal
hacienda and constant companion of Bello, on November
1, 1970, Buenaflor and another policeman named Santos
Urbina, Jr. borrowed Bello’s
jeep on the pretext that they needed it to transfer Moscoso,
the suspect in the Perez killing, to the Albay Police
Headquarters. When it was returned, the
jeep had bloodstains. Bello and Escober later learned
from a PC officer that the jeep had been used in dumping in Guinobatan
the body of Moscoso.
Confronted by the PC officer, Bello admitted
that the jeep was borrowed by Buenaflor and Urbina and agreed to execute a sworn statement on the
matter. Consequently, the PC authorities
notified Mayor Imperial of the solution of the Moscoso
killing.
Three days later, Escober and Bello met Urbina who warned Bello, “Kit, if you want to give your statement, just
say that I borrowed your jeep for thirty minutes. This is a brotherly advice because something
might happen to you.” Bello retorted that he would
do what was right and that was to tell the truth. Urbina said that it
was up to Bello but he repeated that he was giving Bello a brotherly warning that something might happen to
him[114]
(TSN, August 23, 1973, pp. 4-20). These
facts were of course denied by Buenaflor. However, as between the positive declaration
of a prosecution witness and the negative denial of the accused, the former
deserves more credence.[115]
All these pieces of circumstantial evidence point to no other
inference than that Pinto and Buenaflor fired their
guns in defiance of their superior officer’s order only “to find the
whereabouts” of Bello[116]
and to desist from using their weapons “without clearance from the Chief
of Police”.[117]
Since there is more than one circumstance and the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven, the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[118]
The fact that the victims were different from the one the
appellants intended to injure cannot save them from conviction. Aberratio ictus
or mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the
accused zeroes in on his intended victim.
The main reason behind this conclusion is the fact that the accused had
acted with such a disregard for the life of the victim(s) — without checking
carefully the latter’s identity — as to place himself on the same legal plane
as one who kills another willfully, unlawfully and feloniously.[119]
Neither may the fact that the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead
of another be considered a mitigating circumstance.[120]
It is not even necessary to pinpoint who between Pinto and Buenaflor actually caused the death of Richard or the
wounding of Maria Theresa in the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt that
they acted in conspiracy with each other.[121]
Prior agreement between the appellants to kill their intended victim is not
essential to prove conspiracy as the same may be inferred from their own acts
showing joint purpose and design.[122]
In this case, such unity of purpose and design is shown by the fact that only
the two of them fired their guns when the Anduiza
jeep with the Tiongsons passed by. This they did in defiance of the order of
their superior not to shoot unless ordered to do so. Conspiracy having been proved, the guilt or
culpability is imposable on both appellants in equal degrees.[123]
The same conspiracy was evident in the killing of Bello and Andes. The
appellants’ concerted action was shown by the manner by which they killed the
two. In this incident, however, they
invoke self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Evidence at hand, however, do not favor their
claim.
Under Article 11 (1) of the Rules of Court, an accused must prove
the presence of all the following elements of said exempting circumstance: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[124]
The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-defense, complete or
incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself.[125]
In this case, Buenaflor insists that he
fired at Bello because, after calling out to him to
surrender, his shout was answered by a gunshot.
Pinto corroborates his story but the principal prosecution eyewitness in
this incident, Inocencia Malbas,
swears that she heard no such shout to surrender nor a gunshot from Bello’s direction before Bello
was fired upon by the appellants.
Physical evidence as well as the testimonies of Buenaflor
himself and Pinto show that Inocencia, and not the
appellants, was telling the truth.
Rafael Señora, the NBI agent who went
to Talahib and the road to Mariawa
to investigate as well as to take pictures, found no bullet marks at the crime
scene which would pertain to a .22 caliber “paltik”
firearm which Bello’s men allegedly used.[126]
As no other “paltik” firearms were
recovered from the crime scene other than the two which Buenaflor
confiscated from Mostoles and Francisco Andes, the
possibility of said firearms or one of its kind having been used by Bello’s men against the appellant particularly the one who
escaped is nil.
Buenaflor claimed that the shot after
his call to Bello belonged to a high-powered gun[127]
obviously referring to the firearms recovered from Bello
himself. According to Buenaflor, however, when he found the rifle, its magazine
was “intact” and he did not manipulate the rifle to know how many of
its bullets had been used.[128]
Moreover, if Bello indeed fired a gun, it must be the
firearm in his holster and not the garand which was
found a couple of meters from where Bello had
fallen. That Bello
did not fire any of his two firearms is buttressed by Pinto’s own testimony that
Bello was smoking with his back towards them when he
was shot at and that at that moment, he did not see Bello
holding a gun.[129]
We cannot help, therefore, but conclude that the defense claim that Buenaflor’s call to Bello was
answered by a gunshot is but a figment of their imagination designed for their
own exoneration.
Appellants’ claim of unlawful aggression on the part of Bello or his men would have been clarified had any of Bello’s men whom they had captured been presented in
court. These men, Leoncio
Mostoles, Franciso Andes,
Domingo Bantigue and Ananias
Andes had executed statements before the Legazpi City
police to the effect that they heard Buenaflor’s call
for Bello to surrender and that Bello
fired his gun at the appellants.
However, all four of them later executed statements before the NBI
retracting said earlier statements in view of the fact that the police had
threatened them to make the statements favorable to the appellants.[130]
As regards the unlawful aggression of Rosalio
Andes against Pinto, we find that if we are to believe Pinto, we have to stamp
full credibility on his statement alone.
Even Buenaflor admitted that he did not see Rosalio Andes attack Pinto.[131]
Inocencia swore that she did not see any weapon near
the fallen Rosalio.
Indeed, if the aggression did occur, Pinto would not have lost time in
presenting in court the bolo which Andes threatened to use on him. But granting that Rosalio
had a bolo, Pinto was not justified in inflicting the wounds sustained by Rosalio because a mere threatening attitude of the victim
will not constitute unlawful aggression.[132]
Moreover, Pinto’s testimony that Rosalio menacingly
approached him with a bolo after Buenaflor had
released a gunburst directed at the house where Bello was, is contrary to human behavior if not totally
ridiculous. On the contrary, by his own
admission, Pinto continued firing until he saw Rosalio
fell.
An accused who admits inflicting fatal injury on his victim and
invokes self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not only
on the weakness of that of the prosecution for, even if weak, the prosecution
evidence gains more credibility.[133]
Unfortunately, in this case, inspite of the fact that
the prosecution had only one eyewitness to the killing of Bello
and Andes, the appellants had not presented sufficiently strong evidence to
shore up their claim of self-defense.
We agree with the trial court that treachery attended the
commission of all four crimes in this case.
The killing of Richard Tiongson, Francisco Bello and Rosalio Andes as well
as the wounding of Maria Theresa Tiongson were all so
sudden that all of them were left defenseless.
This is shown not only by the testimonial evidence of the commission of
the crimes but also by the nature and location of the wounds of all the
victims.[134]
The presence of treachery qualifies the killings to murder and the wounding of
Maria Theresa to frustrated murder.
Nighttime, however, may not be appreciated as there is no proof that it
was specifically sought in the commission of the crime and therefore we deem it
absorbed by treachery.
Evident premeditation has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
in this case but we find that the appellants indeed took advantage of their
public position in perpetrating the crime.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. There being no mitigating circumstance to
temper the penalty and there being only the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of their public office under Article 14 (1) of the said Code, the
proper penalty is death.[135]
However, in view of the constitutional abolition of the death penalty, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed on the
appellants for each of the three murders they committed.
For the wounding of Maria Theresa, the penalty imposable,
applying Article 50 of the Revised Penal Code, is prision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium.
There being no reason to further lower the penalty by one degree
pursuant to the provision of Article 250, and there being one aggravating
circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty should be within the
range of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal
medium. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law,[136]
the proper penalty for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa is six (6) years
of prision correccional
maximum as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor maximum as maximum. The indemnity
of eight thousand pesos imposed by the lower court should be respected
considering that while there is evidence as to the actual amount she spent
while confined at the Sacred Heart Hospital in Legazpi
City, there is no proof as to the expenses she incurred after she was
transferred to the Camp Crame Hospital in Quezon City.
As in all cases wherein peace officers are accused, this case
creates a feeling of frustration in everyone.
The crimes committed here ought to have no place in this democratic and
civilized society. True it is that a
police officer is sometimes left in a quandary when faced with a situation
where a decisive but legal action is needed.
But, as this Court said in Calderon vs. People and
Court of Appeals (96 Phil. 216, 225 [1954]), “(t)he
judgment and discretion of public officers, in the performance of their duties,
must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable
limits. In the absence of a clear and
legal provision to the contrary, they must act in conformity with the dictates
of a sound discretion, and with the spirit and purpose of the law.” Police
officers must always bear in mind that although they are dealing with criminal
elements against whom society must be protected, these criminals are also human
beings with human rights. In the words
of then Justice Moran in the Oanis case (Supra):
“It is, however, suggested that a notorious criminal ‘must be
taken by storm’ without regard to his right to life which he has by such
notoriety already forfeited. We may
approve of this standard of official conduct where the criminal offers
resistance or does something which places his captors in danger of imminent
attack. Otherwise, we cannot see how, as
in the present case, the mere fact of notoriety can make the life of a criminal
a mere trifle in the hands of officers of the law. Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for
redoubled official alertness and vigilance; it never can justify precipitate
action at the cost of human life. Where,
as here, the precipitate action of the appellants has cost an innocent life and
there exist no circumstances whatsoever to warrant action of such character in
the mind of a reasonably prudent man, condemnation – not condonation
– should be the rule; otherwise we would offer a premium to crime in the
shelter of official actuation.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby
affirmed subject to the modifications that appellants shall solidarily
be liable for the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000) for each of the three
murders they committed and, for the frustrated murder of Maria Theresa Tiongson, each of them shall suffer the indeterminate
penalty of from six (6) years of prision correcional maximum as minimum to ten (10) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor maximum as maximum.
Inasmuch as appellant Daniel Pinto, Jr. had been a police officer
for only five months[137]
when the crimes were committed, let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Office of the President for whatever action may be proper to temper his
penalty.[138]
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., concur but
agree with J. Bidin in the result.
Bidin, J., in the result.
[1]
Penned by Judge Ricardo Payumo.
[2] Exh. Q.
[3]
TSN, March 15, 1972, p. 4.
[4]
He was surprisingly presented as a prosecution witness.
[5] Ibid.,
pp. 6-10.
[6] Ibid.,
pp. 14-15.
[7]
TSN, March 13, 1972.
[8] Ibid.,
p. 61.
[9] Ibid.,
pp. 62-66.
[10]
TSN, March 14, 1972, p. 22.
[11]
TSN, March 13, 1972, pp.
67-70.
[12] Ibid.,
p. 71; Exh. O.
[13] Ibid.,
p. 72.
[14]
TSN, February 9, 1972, p. 6.
[15] Ibid.,
Exh. B.
[16]
TSN, January 27, 1972, p.
7.
[17]
TSN, March 13, 1972, p. 42.
[18]
TSN, January 27, 1972.
[19]
TSN, February 9, 1972, p. 8.
[20]
TSN, January 27, 1972, p.
7.
[21] Ibid.,
p. 8.
[22]
TSN, February 9, 1972, p. 9.
[23] Ibid.,
p. 10; TSN, January 27, 1972, p. 8; TSN, March 13, 1972, p. 42.
[24]
TSN, March 13, 1972, pp.
49-50.
[25] Ibid.,
p. 52.
[26] Ibid.,
pp. 42-43.
[27]
TSN, January 27, 1972, pp.
8-10.
[28]
TSN, February 9, 1972, pp.
11-13.
[29]
TSN, January 27, 1972, pp.
8-10.
[30]
According to Fr. Capellan, Mayor Imperial was in a
car parked in the vicinity and he asked Fr. Capellan
why he went to Mariawa when there was a
“raid” that night. Fr. Capellan replied that he said Mass and did not know that
there would be a raid. After pointing
out to the mayor that he had lost his right shoe, the mayor jokingly retorted
that he owed Fr. Capellan a shoe. The mayor then sent back Fr. Capellan to his parish in Bangkerohan
in the former’s car (TSN, January 27, 1972, pp.
13-14).
[31] Ibid.,
pp. 23-25.
[32] Exh. V.
[33] Exh. U-2.
[34]
TSN, October 4, 1973, p.
16.
[35] Exh. E.
[36]
TSN, February 9, 1972, pp.
40-41.
[37] Exh. K.
[38] Exh. C.
[39] Exh. M or J (Annex FF).
[40] Exh. F.
[41]
TSN, February 9, 1972, pp.
35-37.
[42]
TSN, March 15, 1972, pp.
17-20.
[43] Ibid.,
pp. 22-23.
[44] Ibid.,
p. 25.
[45] Ibid.,
pp. 26-27.
[46] Ibid.,
p. 42.
[47] Exh. O or R or M, p. 2.
[48]
TSN, February 11, 1972, p.
17.
[49]
TSN, February 10, 1972, pp.
4-5.
[50] Ibid.,
pp. 6-10.
[51] Ibid.,
pp. 11-14.
[52]
TSN, February 11, 1972, p.
11.
[53]
TSN, February 10, 1972, pp.
23-28.
[54] Ibid.,
p. 28; TSN, February 11, 1972,
p. 27.
[55]
TSN, February 10, 1972, p.
31.
[56]
TSN, February 11, 1972, pp.
19-20.
[57]
TSN, February 10, 1972, pp.
29-30.
[58] Exh. F (Annex TT).
[59] Exh. H (Annex RR).
[60] Exh. M of J (Annex FF).
[61] Exh. I (Annex SS).
[62] Exh. M or J (Annex FF).
[63]
TSN, January 28, 1972, pp.
22-23.
[64]
RT-1, RT-2, RT-3 & RT-4, Exh. D; TSN, March 13, 1975, pp. 36-37.
[65] TSN,
April 5, 1972, pp. 28 &
39.
[66] Exh. E or I.
[67]
TSN, January 16, 1974, p. 13; February 12, 1974, p. 6.
[68]
TSN, January 16, 1974, p. 12.
[69] Ibid.,
pp. 11-12.
[70] Ibid.,
p. 15.
[71] Ibid.,
pp. 18-19.
[72] Ibid.,
pp. 19-22.
[73] Ibid.,
pp. 22-25.
[74] Ibid.,
pp. 26-29.
[75] Ibid.,
pp. 30-33.
[76] Ibid.,
pp. 45-47.
[77]
TSN, January 16, 1974 (p.m.), pp. 3-4.
[78] Ibid.,
pp. 5-8.
[79] Ibid.,
pp. 13-14.
[80] Ibid.,
p. 36.
[81] Ibid.,
pp. 37-40.
[82]
TSN, February 12, 1974, pp. 5-6.
[83] Ibid.,
p. 12.
[84] Ibid.,
pp. 13-15.
[85] Ibid.,
pp. 17-19.
[86] Ibid.,
pp. 19-220.
[87] Ibid.,
p. 27.
[88] Ibid.,
pp. 31-32.
[89] Ibid.,
p. 35.
[90] Ibid.,
p. 46.
[91] Ibid.,
p. 45.
[92] Ibid.,
pp. 59-60.
[93] Ibid.,
pp. 61 & 65.
[94] Ibid.,
p. 64.
[95]
TSN, February 12, 1974 (p.m.), pp. 22-23.
[96]
TSN, February 12, 1974, pp. 48-49.
[97] TSN,
February 12, 1974 (p.m.), pp. 27-29.
[98] Ibid.,
p. 35.
[99] Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed., p. 200.
[100]
TSN, December 12, 1973, p. 15.
[101]
See: People v. Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990; 189 SCRA 700,
711.
[102]
TSN, October 5, 1973, pp. 33-37; 42; 44-46; 70.
[103]
TSN, August 23, 1973, p. 29.
[104]
TSN, September 6, 1973, pp. 22-26.
[105]
Ibid., pp. 27, 42-43.
[106]
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257, 261 (1943).
[107]
TSN, April 5, 1972, pp. 16-17, 37.
[108]
TSN, January 17, 1974, pp. 41-42.
[109]
Supplementary Ballistics Report No. B-219-171, Exh.
E-1 or I-1.
[110]
Ballistic Report No. B-219-171, Exh. E or 1.
[111]
People v. Aldana, G.R. No. 81817, July 27,
1989; 175 SCRA 635.
[112]
People v. Jutie, G.R. No. 72975, March 31,
1989, 171 SCRA 586.
[113]
People v. Gallo, G.R. Nos. 70193-96, January 11, 1988, 157 SCRA 17.
[114]
According to the trial court, Urbina was one of the
two policemen accused of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. CCC-X-165 & X-225 before the said
court but both cases were dismissed as to Urbina who
died from multiple gunshot wounds sustained in an encounter with elements of
the PC in Legazpi City (Decision, p. 57).
[115]
People v. Juanga, G.R. No. 83903, August 30,
1990, 189 SCRA 226.
[116]
TSN, March 15, 1972, p. 26.
[117]
TSN, December 13, 1973, pp. 8-9.
[118]
People v. Madriaga IV, G.R. No. 73057, March
8, 1989, 171 SCRA 103 citing Sec. 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
[119]
Calderon v. People and Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 216 (1954) citing
People v. Canis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943).
[120]
People v. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 (1930).
[121]
People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 80406, November
20, 1990, 191 SCRA 503; People v. Sazon, supra
at pp. 713 and 714; People v. Salcedo, G.R.
No. 78774, April 12, 1989, 172 SCRA 78; People v. Basilan,
G.R. No. 66257, June 20, 1989, 174 SCRA 115.
[122]
People v. Tachado, 170 SCRA 611.
[123]
People v. Macalino, G.R. No. 79387, August 31,
1989, 177 SCRA 155.
[124]
People v. Batas, G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989, 176 SCRA 46.
[125]
People v. Sazon, supra at p. 704
citing People v. Batas, supra.
[126]
TSN, January 28, 1972, pp. 22-23.
[127]
TSN, February 12, 1974, p. 45.
[128]
Ibid., p. 64.
[129]
TSN, January 16, 1970 (p.m.), p. 13.
[130]
Exhs. S, T, U & V.
[131]
TSN, February 12, 1974, p. 25.
[132]
Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
43537, July 3, 1990, 187 SCRA 123, 130; People v. Bayocot,
G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 285.
[133]
Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, supra
at p. 130, People v. Sazon, supra;
People v. Lamosa, G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23,
1989, 173 SCRA 518.
[134]
People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 71142, September
19, 1988, 165 SCRA 425 citing People v. Abubakar,
G.R. No. 32102, February 10, 1986, 141 SCRA 286.
[135]
Article 64(3), Revised Penal Code.
[136]
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March 18, 1991 citing People v.
Manalang, G.R. No. 67623, February 9, 1989, 170 SCRA 149.
[137]
He entered the police force on July 22, 1970 (Exh.
B).
[138]
Calderon v. People and Court of Appeals, supra.