THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE ATIENZA, CEFERINO DAGOHOY, HILARION BIRADOR AND FRANCISCO OYANDO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appellants are accused of having murdered Lucio Balmes on April 28, 1948, in
Caguray, municipality of Bulalakaw, Mindoro. Finding them guilty, the lower
court sentenced Jose Atienza and Ceferino Dagohoy to reclusión perpetua
and Hilarion Birador and Francisco Oyando, after crediting them with the
mitigating circumstance of lack of education, to an indeterminate penalty of
from 10 years and 1 day of prisión mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1
day of reclusión temporal, all appellants to jointly and severally
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000.

According to the theory of the prosecution, at atout 10 o’clock in the
morning of April 28, 1946, Lucio Balmes and Antonio Contreras, accompanied by
Mangyans Simon and Ontoy, went to the pasture land of Filemon Atienza. Upon
reaching the barbed wire fence surrounding it, near the Caguray river, they
found the gate closed. Antonio ordered Simon to open it. As soon as it was
opened, Antonio, followed by Lucio Balmes, vent inside. At that moment they saw
at a distance of about 30 brazas, seven persons, including the four appellants.
Antonio shouted “Pepe.” Thereupon, Jose Atienza fired. Antonio immediately
dropped to the ground, face downward. He saw Balmes also lying flat on the
ground. Jose Atienza and companions continued firing at them for forty minutes.
When the firing stopped, Antonio crawled towards Balmes and found him bathed in
blood. Antonio continued crawling until he reached a creek and then proceeded to
the town of Bulalakaw, where he arrived at about 10 o’clock in the evening of
the same day and went to the Chief of Police to report the matter.

The theory of the defense is to the effect that none of the accused was
present at the time and place where the crime was committed and could not have
participated in the commission thereof; that none of the accused had known
Balmes in life nor had any dealings with him; that when Balmes came to Bulalakaw
for the purpose of purchasing cattle, he must have brought with him a
considerable sum of money, a fact known only to Antonio Contreras and other
members of his family; that on April 27, 1946, Balmes was induced by Antonio
Contreras and others to go with them to the pasture land of the Contreras family
at Curanga where they will show Lucio the cattle they were selling him; that
upon arriving there in the afternoon, Balmes found out that there was not a
single cattle in the pen and, on his disappointment might have said strong
words; that at about that time, he was murdered by Antonio Contreras and
companions, one of them shooting him from a short distance at his left breast
and another giving him a hard blow in the right lower jaw, and that, to avoid
responsibility therefor, they brought the corpse inside the barbed wire fence of
Filemon Atienza to make it appear that he was shot by Filemon Atienza and
companions.

Before the arraignment, the lower court, granting the fiscal’s motion,
dismissed the information with regard to Filemon and Aniceto Atienza.

Both briefs, the one filed by counsel for the defense and that filed by the
Solicitor General, join in the prayer that appellants be acquitted, although
defense counsel also prays that the provincial fiscal of Mindoro be ordered to
prosecute Antonio Contreras and others for the murder of Lucio Balmes. After a
careful consideration of the evidence on record,we are of the opinion that the
joint prayer for acquittal is well taken.

Put under analysis, the prosecution’s theory appears to be wanting. It cannot
stand the test of logic and appears to be unnatural upon the standard of common
experience.

The sanitary inspector, upon post-mortem examination, found in the body of
Balmes two wounds, one at the left breast, affecting the heart, caused by a
bullet, and another at the right of the lower jaw, fracturing the bone, caused
by a heavy blow, not by a bullet. This heavy blow suggests a blunt
instrument.

This heavy blow inflicted on the lower jaw of the deceased, to the extent of
breaking the bone, suggests an action that does not tally with the prosecution’s
theory. It is an element incompatible with the whole story, according to which
the whole aggression of the accused consisted in firing bullets continuously for
forty minutes, after which they left. Antonio Contreras also left crawling,
while the two Mangyans had escaped beforehand. Balmes was left in the scene,
dead. There is no one who could have broken the jaw of Balmes. No one would
suppose that a third person who happened to come to the place, after the
shooting affray, had been so crazy as to engage in the ghastly task of breaking
the jaw of a cadaver. That broken jaw of Balmes offers an eloquent and
conclusive evidence that he was killed under different circumstances than those
described by Antonio Contreras and Simon, the Mangyan, the two witnesses who
gave the story for the prosecution.

Another hitch to the story is the fact that, notwithstanding the fact that
the accused had been firing incessantly at the group of Antonio Contreras and
Balmes, only one bullet hit its mark, not Antonio Contreras, an alleged enemy of
the Atienza family, but Balmes, a neutral and unknown to the Atienza family. If
the accused were bent on killing Antonio Contreras, as the latter would want us
to believe, it is incomprehensible why they have wasted so much time, noise and
ammunition, by sending volley after volley to the object of their aggression,
instead of approaching the place where Antonio Contreras was lying face
downward, absolutely defenseless and in such a position as to be killed by one
bullet. The accused could have even pursued the two Mangyans and killed them on
the spot, and thus eliminate all witnesses of the murder, besides saving much
powder and metal and forty minutes of detonations which could have attracted the
attention of possible neighbors or passers-by. The conduct attributed to the
accused by the story of the prosecution is not that of murderers but of
pranksters toying with firearms.

If the accused murdered Balmes, according to the story of Antonio Contreras,
it is ununderstandable why they Just abandoned the body in the place, where it
could have been easily found by the authorities when they had plenty of time to
bury it in some hidden place, thus concealing an evidence of the crime. That
they had plenty of time to make the burial is shown by the fact that, according
to Antonio Contreras, it took him twelve hours from Caguray, the alleged place
of the killing, to the town of Bulalakaw. The way the body of Balmes was
abandoned in the grazing land of the Atienza family, instead of supporting the
theory of the prosecution, seems rather to be a planted evidence, intended to
incriminate members of the Atienza family.

The appealed decision is reversed and appellants are acquitted. They shall be
immediately released upon promulgation of this decision.

The petition of appellant’s counsel for an order addressed to the provincial
fiscal of Mindoro to prosecute Antonio Contreras and others is denied, as it is
up to said counsel, with the evidence he may present, to convince said officer
to take action and, at any rate, administrative remedies should be exhausted
before resort to tribunals is had.

Parás, Actg. C.J., Feria, and
Tuason, JJ., concur.