THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BRUNO ANTONIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, BRUNO ANTONIO AND ALFONSO DASALLA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Appeal taken by defendants Bruno Antonio and Alfonso Dasalla from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija convicting them of
the crime of murder, with which they are charged, and sentencing them to life
imprisonment, and to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of Benjamin Semana in the sum of P6, 000, as well as to pay the costs.

In the morning of December
5, 1962, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m., Eugenio Angellano, chief of the barrio police of Tibag, municipality
of Talugtog,
Nueva Ecija, learned about
a hogtied man west of said barrio, who was wounded.  Together with Ponciano
Antonio, Ignacio Antonio and Simplicio Tolentino, he, thereupon, repaired to the indicated place,
where, between 9:00 and 10:00 a. m., they found a man seated at the
foot of a tree and reclining thereon, with his hands tied behind.  His face was swollen and his clothes were
soaked with blood.  He had several wounds
in the head, the neck and the buttocks. 
Upon inquiry from Angellano,the injured man
said that he was Benjamin Semana; that, while he was
in the house of one Felix Dalit, with a woman, early
the previous night, several men suddenly entered the premises, in view of which
he got panicky and tried to escape by jumping out through the window; that, as
he hit the ground, a gunshot rang and he was wounded in the buttocks; that
unable to run away, several men, who presumably accompanied those who entered
the house, held him and, together with the latter, tied him and brought him to
the hut of one Endring Enrico,
in the barrio of Baloy, municipality of Cuyapo, where he was maltreated; that, thereafter, they
placed him on a sledge, stating that he would be brought to a hospital in Cuyapo; that, noticing, later, that they were going in the
opposite direction, he rolled out of the sledge and then moved away, soon
thereafter, as he noticed his former captors walking about, nearby, with
flashlights switched on, evidently look­ing for him; and that he recognized
only two (2) of the six or seven persons who had beaten him up, and they were
Bruno Antonio and Pon­yong (or Alfonso) Dasalla, both from the barrio of Baloy.

While Angellano was causing this
statement of Semana to be written on a sheet of
paper, they noticed a group of seven persons approaching the place.  Led by appellant Bruno Antonio, the barrio
captain of Baloy, municipality
of Cuyapo,
Nueva Ecija, they were
drinking wine.  His companions were
Alberto Agpalo, Tomas de la Cruz, Marcos Anselmo, Gregorio Ronquillo and Idong or Pedro Dasalla, a brother
of appellant Alfonso Dasalla.  Upon seeing Angellano,
Bruno asked him, in a commanding voice, what he (Angellano)
was doing there.  Angellano
answered that he intended to bring Semana to Talugtog for treatment, whereupon Bruno said that he and
his men would take Semana, inasmuch as he (Bruno) had
jurisdiction over the place where Semana was.  Angellano replied
that the same formed part of the barrio of Tibag,
municipality of Talugtog, but Bruno angrily insisted
that the place was subject to his authority. 
After a brief exchange of words, with a tone of animosity, Bruno
forcibly took Semana, had him placed on a sledge, and
then departed with him and the other members of his group.  It was then about 11:00 a.m.

At about 3:00 p.m.,
that same day, Semana’s mother, Juanita Madronio, was informed that her son had died.  She found his body at the junction of the
roads from Paitan and Baloy,
where she saw Bruno Antonio, together with Cornelio Sumangil,
Alberto Agpalo, “Gondo“(?)
Dasalla and others whom she did not know.  Soon later, Dr. Pio
Alberto, the health officer of Cuyapo, came and
performed an autopsy.  He found the
following:

“1. A well developed body measuring about 5 feet 4
inches brown with rigor mortis and blood serum oozing from the nose and
mouth.  The clothes are soaked in dried
blood.  The pants have holes
corresponding to upper left buttock and thorn on both knees.

“2. An irregular circular wound about 1 inch in
diameter on the left fronto-parietal region exposing
the skull.

“3. An irregular almost circular lacerated wound
about 1 inch in diameter behind the lower third of the right sterno-cleido mastoid muscle going inwards to about 2
inches deep.

“4. Echimoses of upper
and lower conjunctiva of the left eye.

“5. Skin abrasions denuding almost half the
thickness of the skin on the base of the head and back of the neck and is about
2 inches long by 1 inch wide.

“6. Gunshot wounds five small ones and five bigger
ones on the upper and middle portion of the left buttock, the wounds
penetrating the skin and muscles from back forwards and downwards.

“7. Skin abrasions on the left knee.”

and concluded that Semana’s
death had been due to hemorrhage and shock.

Appellant Bruno Antonio maintains that, when the members of his
group decided to rest under the shade of a tree, in the barrio of Baloy, about two kilometers from the place where Semana had been, in effect, wrested from Angellano’s custody, they noticed that Semana
was dead already; that, thereupon, Bruno and his companions took their lunch;
that, thereafter, they brought the body of Semana to
the aforementioned junction, for the purpose of going to Cuyapo,
14 to 16 kilometers away; that, upon reaching the junction, Bruno Antonio and
Cornelio Sumangil boarded a jeep and proceeded to Cuyapo in order to report to the authori­ties and find a
truck that could pick up the body of Semana; that
about two hours later, Bruno and Sumangil came back,
together with some policemen and Dr. Alberto, who performed the autopsy; and
that Semana must have died merely of shock in
consequence of the loss of blood due to the injuries he had when they forcibly
took him at the place above referred to.

Upon the other hand, Alfonso Dasalla
would have the Court believe that he was in his house, in the barrio of Baloy, up to about 3:00 o’clock p.m. of December 5, 1962,
when Sumangil allegedly went to his (Alfonso Dasalla’s) place and asked him to help carry the body of Semana; that, accordingly, he joined, in Baloy, the group headed by Bruno Antonio, and assisted its
members in bringing said body to the aforementioned junction; and that he had
had no participation whatsoever in the infliction of Semana’s
injuries or in his death.

The lower court, presided over by Honorable Judge Placido Ramos, accepted, however, the version of the
prosecution, as well as gave no credence to the evidence for the defense, and,
accord­ingly, rendered judgment, not only convicting and sentencing appel­lants
herein, as pointed out at the beginning of this decision, but, likewise,
directing the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija to conduct an investigation of the participation of
Alberto Agpalo, Tomas de la Cruz, Cornelio Sumangil, Marcos Anselmo and
Pedro Dasalla, and to file the corresponding
information against them, for the death of Benjamin Semana,
should the evidence so warrant.

The first question raised by appellants herein refers to the
admissibility in evidence of the statement made by Semana
to Eugenio Angellano
concerning the circumstances under which the former had been injured.  Appellants maintain that the trial court has
erred in considering said statement as a dying declaration, for, upon being
asked how he felt, Semana answered that he would not
die if treated and was then still “strong”, according to some
witnesses.  Said answer of Semana indicated, however, an awareness of the danger of
death on his part, should he not be seasonably given the necessary medical
treatment.  Moreover, the records show
that he was so weak that several people had to help him, in order that he could
ride the sledge that brought him to Baloy.  Again, testifying for the defense, Cornelio Sumangil explained that Semana
was strong, because he was “still breathing” and could answer some
questions, apart from asking for, and drinking, some water.  Neither singly nor collectively do these
circumstances show that Semana was “strong”
at the time.  Said factors may indicate
that he was then neither dead nor unconscious. 
Upon the other hand, Bruno’s failure to ask Semana
about the cause of his injuries suggests that the former did not feel he (Semana) was strong enough to undergo an interrogation.  Indeed, Bruno stated that Semana’s
injuries were “serious”.  In
fact, he had been bleeding profusely, from at least midnight of December 4, or for over 8 hours.  One can imagine, therefore, the considerable
amount of blood lost and the weakness resulting therefrom.  This explains, also, why Semana
was unable to take the food given to him and had been groaning – perhaps in a
state of coma, coupled by stertorous breathing, which
may have been mis­taken for groans – since the group of appellant Bruno Antonio
had taken him.  The fact that he expired
one hour later strongly indicates the seriousness of his condition when Angellano took his statement.

The defense cites the testimony of Dr. Alberto to the effect that
none of the wounds of Semana was fatal.  No matter how true this may have been when
the injuries were inflicted, it is not necessarily so over 8 hours later,
during his interrogation by Angellano.  In fact, Dr. Alberto qualified his
aforementioned testimony by adding that said injuries could cause
bleeding and produce a shock.  Hence, the
cir­cumstances pointed out by the defense do not sufficiently show that the
lower court had no reasonable ground to conclude that Semana’s
state­ment was made under the belief that he was in imminent danger of death in
consequence of said injuries – as he died soon thereafter -unless the same were
treated soon enough.

In any event, that statement was made in the course of the
unfor­tunate odyssey of Semana that started on December 4, 1962 at about 7:00 p.m., and ended with his death on December
5, around noon time.  The aforesaid statement formed part,
therefore, of the res gestae
and is competent evidence in this case.^[1]

The next and most important question for determination is the
sufficiency of the proof of appellants’ guilt. 
In this connection, the following circumstances deserve special
attention:

1.  The witnesses for the
prosecution testified that, in answer to questions propounded by Eugenio Angellano, Semana said that he had recognized only two of his
assailants, namely, appellants Bruno Antonio and Ponyong
or Alfonso Dasalla; and that, when Bruno’s party
showed up soon thereafter, Semana asked Angellano not to deliver him to them, because they might
kill him.  These facts were established
by the testimony of Ignacio Antonio and Simplicio Tolentino, who were corroborated substantially by Eugenio Angellano, although the
latter affirmed that Semana had merely named Bruno
and Ponyong – the nick­name of Alfonso Dasalla – without mentioning their respective sur­names.  Such affirmation was, however, contradicted
by Angellano’s statement, Exhibit “C” –
subscribed and sworn to by him, on Decem­ber 7, 1962, or two (2) days after the
occurrence, before the Justice of the Peace of Guimba,
Nueva Ecija – in which he
said that Semana had named, among his aggressors,
appellants herein, not only with their respective surnames, but, also, adding
that Bruno Antonio is the barrio captain of Baloy,
and that Ponyong Dasalla,
likewise, hails from the same barrio.

The defense would have Us believe that, upon reaching the place
where Semana was found by Angellano,
Bruno Antonio inquired from the latter whether or not he had investigated Semana, and that Angellano
answered in the affirmative and allegedly revealed that Semana
had not recognized any of his assailants. 
Suffice it to say that his Honor, the trial Judge, found the testimony
thereon of the witnesses for the defense unworthy of credence, and that the
records before Us do not justify our disturbing such finding.

2.  It is not disputed that Angellano was unwilling to yield the person of Semana to Bruno Antonio, who insisted on being entitled to
take Semana, alleging that he was in a territory
subject to his (Bruno’s) jurisdiction as Barrio Captain of Baloy.  Said reluctance of Angellano
and this insistence of Bruno are, to be sure, quite significant.  Indeed, Bruno had announced his intention to
take Semana to a hospital in Cuyapo,
and both Bruno and Angellano must have known that the
most urgent matter at the moment was to provide medical treatment for Semana.  Moreover, in
order to bring Semana to the clinic in Talugtog, as Angellano wanted to,
he and his men would have had to carry him afoot 5 or 6 kilometers away, using therefor a footpath, since there was no road to Talugtog from the place where Semana
had been found by Angellano.  One would, therefore, expect him to welcome
the opportunity to avoid the trouble and the responsibility that went with
it.  Angellano’s
willingness to take said trouble and to assume this responsibility bear out his
tes­timony, and that of Ignacio Antonio and Simplicio
Tolentino, to the effect that Semana
had previously mentioned Bruno Antonio as one of his assailants and had pleaded
to Angellano not to let Bruno Antonio and his men
take him (Semana), because they may kill him.

This version of the witnesses for the prosecution is further
borne out by Bruno’s attitude on that occasion. 
As a private citizen, and in the official capacity in which he claimed
to act, Bruno had no reason either to be angry at Angellano
for trying to take Semana to the health clinic in Talugtog or to engage in an altercation with.  Angellano and
forcibly take possession of the person of Semana.  He was, according to the very evidence for
the defense, 1-1/2 to 2 kilometers or one-hour walk from Baloy.  In other
words, the place was not part of Baby or within Bruno’s jurisdiction.  Appellants’ own witness, Cornelio Sumangil, confirmed Angellano’s
assertion to the effect that said place is within the barrio of Tibaq, which is part of the municipality
of Talugtog.  Why, then, was Bruno so anxious to take Semana, to the point of asserting falsely that he (Bruno)
had jurisdiction over the place where Semana was? And
why was Bruno Antonio so eager to undertake the inconvenient and difficult task
of carrying Semana along a footpath from said place
to Baloy, about 2 kilometers or one-hour walk away,
thence to the junc­tion, requiring another one-hour walk, and thereafter to Cuyapo, 14 to 16 kilometers away? Considering that Talugtog was less than half that distance from the scene of
the occurrence; and that – having reminded Angellano
of the responsibility that he would bear should Semana
remain and die in his (Angellano’s) custody – he
(Bruno) assumed that respon­sibility, in taking Semana
with him, why was the former so keen about having the latter under his custody,
as to resort not only to threats, but, also, to force, in order to attain his
purpose? In short, Bruno’s afore­mentioned behavior dovetails with the theory
of .the prosecution and reveals the artificiality of the theory of the defense.

3.  It appears from the
testimony of Ignacio Antonio that, when Bruno forcibly took Semana,
he had the following injuries:  two
wounds at the left rear portion of the neck, two at the left front portion of
the neck, and one on the upper left portion of the buttocks.  Simplicio Tolentino testified that Semana
had a wound about one (1) centimeter below the left ear, another on the left
side of the neck, near the left jaw, two wounds at the lower left portion of
the neck, and still another on the upper part of the left thigh.  Dr. Alberto, however, found in the body of Semana an additional wound, namely, an irregular
circular wound, about 1 inch in diameter, on the left fronto-parietal
region, exposing the skull, probably caused with a semi-bladed
instrument.  Evidently Semana sustained this injury after he had been
forcibly taken by Bruno and when the former was under the latter’s control.  Considering that it was midway between the
forehead and the temple, and, hence, more visible than the injuries in the
neck, said witnesses for the prosecution could not have failed to notice said fronto-parietal wound, were the theory of the defense true.

4.  We have not overlooked
that Semana had, according to Angellano,
a wound on the left portion of the head two inches above the left ear.  This witness had, however, turned hostile to
the prose­cution, thereby compelling the latter to produce his aforementioned
affidavit, Exhibit “C”, and make him admit that he had informed the
Provincial Fiscal that he (Angellano) had transferred
his residence from the barrio of Tibag to the town of
Talugtog, “because I was afraid of the threats
of (to) my life,” were he to give evidence for the prosecution; and that
many people – including Ignacio (Antonio) and Simplicio
(Tolen­tino) – had informed him about said
threats.  It is, likewise, interesting to
note that said reference to the alleged wound above the left ear was made, on
cross-examination by counsel for the defense, upon the latter’s request
that the injuries of Semana be described, a
request made without anything to suggest its relevance to the questions
preceding the same.  In other words,
the surrounding circumstances suggest that the one making the request knew
beforehand what Angellano would do or say in
connection therewith.  At any rate, Semana did not have the injury des­cribed by Angellano, two inches above the ear.  This goes to show that he never saw
either such injury or the one found by Dr. Alberto at the fronto-parietal
region; that Semana had neither, when Angellano con­ferred with him; and that, having heard
later about said additional injury found by Dr. Alberto in the body of the
deceased, Angellano merely imagined the one – the
first – he described on the witness stand, apparently to help the
defense.  Indeed, in the affidavit
(Exhibit “C”) made before the justice of the peace of Guimba on December
7, 1962, he claimed to have seen no such injury.

In an evident effort to offset the implications of the foregoing
circumstances, appellants intimated that there had been, between Angellano and Bruno, a previous misunderstanding concerning
a parcel of land – as if to imply that the testimony of the former, insofar as
unfavorable to the latter, had been prompted by ill-feeling or bad blood
between them.  Of all the testimonial
evidence for the prosecution, that of Angellano was,
however, the least adverse to Bruno. 
In fact, most of the incriminating testimony of Angellano
was given after the prosecution had exposed his change of heart and the
fear under which he was laboring In fact, Angellano’s
behavior on the witness stand was characterized by his reluctance to reveal
details or answer questions pregnant with implications against him or the
accused, and by his frequent lapses of memory as regards the facts pertinent
thereto.

Lastly, Angellano’s testimony about the
information given to him by several persons, including Ignacio Antonio and Simplicio Tolentino, concerning
the threat to the, life of those who may testify against appel­lants herein,
was, in a way, corroborated by the circumstance that Eugenio
Angellano, Ignacio Antonio, Ponciano
Antonio and Simplicio Tolentino
refused to sign the subpoena requiring them to appear before the lower court,
to testify in the case at bar, in November, 1964, and that they had to be
arrested to insure their presence at the trial.

Despite the absence of proof of motive – although Semana’s panic upon the sudden entry of two (2) men in the
house of Felix Dalit, where he was with a woman,
followed by his immediate, but unsuccessful, attempt to escape and, later (when
he was found by Angellano), his fear of falling into
the hands of the people from Baloy, suggest that he
and the woman were probably doing, in said house, something wrong, which was
offensive to someone in Baloy, and that the beating
he got thereafter was due thereto – We are satisfied that the guilt of
appellant Bruno Antonio has been established beyond reasonable doubt, and that
the crime committed by him is that of murder, qualified by treachery, Semana having been maltreated while his hands were tied.1
The penalty of life imprisonment meted out to Bruno Antonio is, therefore, in
accordance with law, but the amount of the indemnity due to the heirs of the
deceased should be increased from P6,000 to P12,000.2

We, however, entertain doubts on the sufficiency of the proof
against appellant Alfonso Dasalla.  The very evidence for the prose­cution shows
that he was not among those who accompanied Bruno, when he forcibly took
Semana in Tibag.  Moreover, there is uncontradicted
testimony for the defense to the effect that Alfonso Dasalla
did not join the group headed by Bruno until after the death of Semana, when Cornelio Sumangil
asked him (Alfonso Dasalla), in Baloy,
to help them bring the deceased to the junction, where they expected to find a
vehicle to take his body to Cuyapo.  The only evidence against Alfonso Dasalla is, therefore, the statement made by Semana about the former’s
participation in the beating administered to him.  In the absence of any corroboration of said
statement, We do not believe that his guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.  Hence, the judgment of
conviction against him should be reversed, and the case dismissed, insofar as he
is concerned, with the proportional part of the costs de oficio.

So modified, with respect to the civil liability of Bruno
Antonio, and the absolution of Alfonso Dasalla, as
well as the dismissal of the case against him, the decision appealed from is,
accordingly, affirmed in all other respects, with one-half of the costs de
oficio.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor,
and Makasiar,
JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

^[1]
People v. Palamos, 49 Phil. 601, 603 – 604;
People v. Reyes, 52 Phil. 538, 540-542; People v. Nartea, 74 Phil. 8, 10; People v. Talledo, 85 Phil. 533, 538-539; People v. Tamiana, 90 Phil. 150, 153-154; People v. Avila, 92
Phil. 805; People v. De Gracia, L-21419,
September 29, 1966; People v. Diva, L-22946, April 29, 1968.

1
U.S. v. Cabe, 1 Phil. 265; U.S.
v. Colombro, 8 Phil. 391; U.S.
v. Indanan, 24 Phil. 203.

2
People v. Pantoja, L-18793, Oct. 11, 1968;
People v. Sangaran, L-21757, Nov. 26,
1968; People v. Gutierrez, L-25372, Nov. 29, 1968; People v.
Buenbrazo, L-27852, Nov. 29, 1968; People v.
Bakang, L-20908, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Labutin, L-23513, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Acabado, L-26104, Jan. 31, 1969; People v. Vacal, L-20913, Feb. 27, 1969; People v. Gonzales,
L-23303-04, May 20, 1969; People v. Tapec,
L-26491, May 20, 1969; People v. Empeño,L-27610, May 29, 1970.