G.R. No. L-30069. September 30, 1969
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANASTACIO BULAWIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANCHEZ, J.:
The charge is murder.
Defendant Anastacio Bulawin
was found guilty thereof by the trial court and sentenced to an indeterÂminate
prison term ranging from ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased, Ciriaco Jimenez, in the amount of
P6, 000 and to pay the costs.[1]
Appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals.[2]
The appellate court was of the view that the crime committed by defendant was
murder, qualified by treachery – without any circumstance, aggraÂvating or
mitigating which would call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua. Accordingly, the case was certified
to this Court upon the provisions of Sections 17 and 31 of the Judiciary Act of
1948 and Section 3, Rule 50, of the Revised Rules of Court.
September 23, 1963
was the barrio fiesta of Barrio Mabatao, Salvador,
Lanao del Norte.
A political meeting was, on the night of September 22, being held at the
fair grounds of the barrio. About 12:30 o’clock in the early morning of September 23, 1963, Ciriaco Jimenez was leisurely walking towards the meeting
place. Just as he was about twenty
meters therefrom, he was shot. The bullet found its mark “at the back
of his buttocks, two inches below the waistline,” About 6:00 o’clock p.m. on the same day, September
23, Ciriaco Jimenez died at the Aurora
Provincial Hospital.
The errors assigned in the brief of counsel de oficio funnel down to one single proposition: Has the People disÂcharged its heavy burden
of proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt? To this question, we addressed
ourselves. For the purpose, we explored
the entire record.
1. The People’s case was built mainly on the testimony of three
witnesses: Candido Autor,
Sergeant Roberto Laurie of the Philippine Constabulary and Aniceto
Dacalos.
Candido Autor.
He is the People’s mainstay. He is supposedly the only eyewitness to the
crime. Because of this, his testimony
must have to be scrutinized with a sharp judicial eye. The People’s proof should be beyond
reasonable doubt. But as we read the
transcript, that testimony appears to be sufficiently infected with grave
doubts which prevent us from accepting his word without reservation. Autor said that he
was a farmer, although the record shows that his occupation “is to extract
tooth”, for which reason he played hide-and-seek with the police.[3]
According to Autor, at about 12:30 o’clock in the morning of September 23, 1963, he was passing water beside a
small road about twenty meters from the place where the political meeting was
being held. He claimed to be just about
one fathom from and to the left of appellant Anastacio
Bulawin when the latter with a pistol shot Ciriaco Jimenez. The
victim at that time was about two fathoms from and with his back to his
aggressor. The three formed a sort of a
triangle.[4] The
gist of Autor’s direct examination was that he saw
the actual shooting and yet, there appears to be a contradiction of this
alleged fact when he was cross-examined.
On this point, his direct examination yields the following:
“Q While you were there on this occasion, was
there any unusual incident that happened?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Will you please tell the Court what was that
all about?
A Ciriaco Jimenez
was shot.
x x x
Q How do you know that the accused AnasÂtacio Bulawin shot Jimenez?
A Because I was there at that time.
Q Where?
A In the place.
Q How far were you from Anastacio
Bulawin?
A More or less one fathom.
x x x
Q You said, in answer to the question of the
Court you saw Ciriaco Jimenez shot by AnasÂtacio Bulawin. What was the position of Ciriaco
Jimenez and Anastacio Bulawin
when Ciriaco Jimenez was shot?
A Ciriaco Jimenez
was walking to the meeting place with
his arms akimbo.
Q Will you please demonstrate?
A. As demonstrated by the witness, the arms of Ciriaco Jimenez were closed behind the
buttocks.
Q At your position as you demonstrated where
was Anastacio Bulawin when
he shot?
A Anastacio Bulawin was near the place where I was urinating.
x x x
Q What part of the body of Ciriaco. Jimenez was hit by the shot?
A Ciriaco Jimenez
was hit at his back.
COURT
Q What part of the back was he hit?
A At the back of his buttock, two inches
below the waist line.
PROSECUTION
Q When Ciriaco
Jimenez was hit at the back, what happened with Ciriaco
Jimenez?
A Ciriaco Jimenez
was able to turn his face to the back and fell to the ground.”[5]
But, then, on cross-examination, Autor
declared:
Q Did you not see him
before you heard the shot?
A I did not.
Q What was Anastacio Bulawin doing when you
first saw him for the first time?
A After the shot was fired, I saw Anastacio Bulawin.
Q Do you mean to tell us that you did not see Bulawin until after you heard the shot?
A Yes, sir.
Q How far was he from you at that time?
A In my estimate, one fathom, more or less.
Q Do you mean to say that you did not see him
despite the fact that he was only one fathom more or less from you before the
report of the shot?
A I did not.
x x x
Q You did not see either of them before you
urinated?
A No, sir.”[6]
The foregoing inconsistency, placed in proper focus, sets Autor’s testimony on infirm grounds.
Soon after the incident, people went to the place where Jimenez
fell. Amongst them were Governor Ali Dimaporo, Vice-Governor Arsenio Quibranza, Mayor Apolonio Yap and
many others. Witness Autor,
however, testified that he comÂmunicated to nobody, although “Mr. Qulbranza, Dimaporo and his
leaders were still there,”[7]
and left for home without even extending a helping hand to the victim. Autor said that he
did not mention the incident to the people in his own house. These circumstances suggest a substantial
amount of improÂbability.
Of interest is Autor’s declaration that
the only person to whom he ever mentioned what he saw was a brother of the
victim. And this, he did in the morning
following the incident. It would seem
odd then that the brother of the victim did not inform the authorities about
it. The record does not so
indicate. No one appeared to have ever
thought at that time of taking Autor’s statements,
certainly very important to this case.
For, he was, as already stated, allegedly the sole eyewitness to the
crime. Well it is to remember that an
investigation was then being conducted by the Constabulary. Appellant and a number of witnesses were in
the barracks located in the same town of Salvador.
Added dubieties there are.
We note in the criminal comÂplaint filed in the municipal court on October 3, 1963 – 10 days after the
crime – by Capt. Wilfredo C. Golez,
Commanding Officer of the PC, that the name of Candido
Autor was not mentioned as one of the witnesses. Even in the criminal inÂformation the
Provincial Fiscal filed in the Court of First Instance on October 9, 1964, the name of this witness, Candido Autor, was conspicuous in
its absence. And yet, the evidence is
that Autor – the only eyewitness to the crime – was
in his home in nearby Barrio Salong as early as June,
1964.
Sergeant Roberto Laurie, 73rd PC Company
stationed at Salvador, Lanao del Norte. The
gist of his testimony is that at about 2:00
o’clock in the morning of September
23, 1963, he was awakened by Lt. Mejia, Junior Officer of the unit,
who told him that there was shooting in Mabatao
during the rally and asked him to escort the victim to the hospital. He saw the victim, Ciriaco
Jimenez, at the gate of the guardhouse in a three-fourths truck. With Jimenez were Governor Dimaporo, Vice-Governor Qulbranza,
Rufo Jimenez, Jose Villarta
and some PC soldiers. He described in
court the dialogue between him and the victim, Ciriaco
Jimenez, as follows:
“Q You stated you met Ciriaco
Jimenez with these persons you have mentioned.
What else did you do when you met Ciriaco
Jimenez?
A When I get inside the truck I said, ‘What’s
happened?’ he said, ‘I was, shot.’ I further asked him, ‘Who shot you?’ he
said, ‘AnasÂtacio Bulawin. I further asked him, ‘Why did you see Anastacio Bulawin when it was
dark?’ he replied that ‘I clearly saw him.’ I inquired from him as to whether
he will live with the wound he sustained.
He replied that I will live. Just
bring me to the hospital.’”[8]
On cross examination,[9]
however, his attention was drawn to his affidavit dated October 3, 1963 appearing on page 7 of the record
below and to a specific question and answer therein, viz:
“Q On page 7 of the record of this case is an
affidavit wherein the affiant is Roberto A. Laurie. Will you please look at this signature above
these typewritten words [and tell us] whether that is yours or not?
A That is mine, sir.
Q This affidavit of yours was duly sworn to
before Justice of the Peace Panfilo Rama of Salvador,
Lanao del Norte?
A Yes, sir.
Q I am going to remind you sergeant about the
statement you made in this affidavit wherein the question was asked in this
wise:
‘Q. What question did you ask to
the victim?’ and your answer is this,
‘A. I asked him who shot him and
he answered me that it was Bulawin. Then I asked another question, why did you
recognize him when in fact it is dark?
Then the victim did not answer. I
further asked another question, do you think you will not die of your wound you
received? He did not answer any
more. So Lt. Mejia ordered the driver to
leave immediately for Aurora so
that the victim will be given immeÂdiate treatment of his wound.’ Is that
correct?
A That statement there is
correct.”[10]
And here is how he attempted to reconcile the two versions:
“COURT
Q Therefore what you testified now before this
Court is not correct because it did not tally with what you said
in that affidavit?
A I have not read that affidavit because it is
three years already. I even forget
there is affidavit being executed.
Q Which is now the truth that the victim told
you that he recognized Anastacio Bulawin
as his assailant or he did not answer you at all?
A In my affidavit that is right.
Q What is right?
A I don’t remember
because it is placed in the affidavit.”[11]
The value of Laurie’s testimony is, indeed, impaired. First, because he did not hesitate – in Court
– to overshoot his mark. One wonders
whether he did so to make a weak case look good. Then, it does not strike us as natural that
given that opportunity, Sgt, Laurie, or any other constabulary officer for that
matter, did not put that statement of the deceased Ciriaco
Jimenez into writing, the better to preserve its worth as evidence. Written words speak a uniform language. Oral recollection, in turn, could suffer from
the treachery of memory or from coloring.
The deceased’s statement, it should be remembered, at least forms part
of the res gestae.
Aniceto Dacalos. This witness claims that he was in the
dancing hall when a child came running and reported to the people there that
somebody was shot. With Governor Dimaporo, Vice-Governor Quibranza,
Mayor Yap and others, they went to the scene which was more or less twenty
meters away. There, they saw Ciriaco Jimenez.
Upon arrival, so his version goes, he inquired from Jimenez who shot
him. The following from the transcript
of Dacalos‘ testimony is quite revealing as to why
defendant was a suspect:
“Q What did he answer?
A He replied that there is no
other person who would shoot me except
Anastacio Bulawin
because we are enemies,”[12]
Witness Dacalos, the record discloses,
followed Roberto Laurie to the witness stand on December 9, 1965.
It is interesting to note that – as in the case of Laurie – his version
leaves traces of an effort to fortify the res gestae angle, by the following:
“Q What else did you do?
A I further asked him, ‘Are you certain that
it was really Anastacio Bulawin
who shot you?’ and he replied that I clearly saw him because the light reached
the place where he was then.”[13]
This last statement would contradict the
affidavit of Sgt. Laurie who asked a question along similar lines. “Why did you recogÂnize him when in fact
it is dark?” And, according to the affidavit of Sgt. Laurie heretofore
quoted, “the victim did not answer.” This witness, Aniceto Dacalos, a neighbor and
an old friend of Ciriaco Jimenez, like the alleged
eyewitness Candido Autor, did
not figure in the list of witnesses
for the prosecution, either in the criminal complaint filed by PC Capt. Golez or in the Fiscal’s
indictment. His name was not amongst
those who gave affidavits to back up the criminal charge. This gives the impression that Aniceto Dacalos, the neighbor of
the deceased, was but an eleventh-hour witness.
To take his testimony on its face value, we fear, is to rate truth so
lightly.
The foregoing evidence of the People leaves much to be
desired. It exhibits a gap between
doubtful evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt. That gap is not bridged. The evidence does not produce in an unprejudiced
mind that moral certainty so necessary to bring about conviction in a criminal
case. It is in this context that we find
ourselves unprepared to send appellant to jail for life, or, for that matter,
for a long term of imprisonÂment.
Because, we are not morally convinced.
2. But if more were needed, circumstances there are which cast a
heavy pall of doubt on the sufficiency of the People’s evidence. At about 4:00
o’clock that morning of September 23, appellant herein was placed
under arrest in his own home, He was brought to the PC barracks. And yet, at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of that day, he was released
by Capt. Golez who told him: “We cannot detain
you here because there was no comÂplaint filed.
However, you should report to this headquarters everyday.”[14]
If really this man were pinpointed by the deceased – at about 2:00 a.m. of
September 23 – as the author of the grave crime of murder – it must be borne in
mind that the affidavits were executed not on the 23rd of September but on
October 3, 1963 – it does not seem probable that the peace officers would
release him so soon. There is’ then
probability that the reason why he was arrested was because he was merely a
suspect. But without evidence against
him. And this could have sprung from the
fact that as barrio captain, the deceased Ciriaco
Jimenez lodged a complaint for theft of large cattle against a son of appellant
by the name of Bitoy, amongst others.[15]
And then, two of the defense witnesses’ namely, Lamberto Maghinay and Paciencio Bacaling were,
likewise, investigated by the Constabulary on that same morning of September 23, 1963. Nothing in the record suggests that the
testimony of these ‘two witnesses were taken in writing. The record below at least does not show any
such written statements. And these two
witnesses with another by the name of Melecio Lomolho supÂported the alibi offered as a defense by
appellant.
The foregoing facts are significant because, as aforesaid, the
affidavits of the People’s witnesses were only taken on October 3, 1963, even as the peace officers had
prompt knowÂledge of the crime and allegedly learned of facts which linked
appellant to the crime as early as about two hours after the perpetration
thereof. And, as aforesaid, the criminal
comÂplaint was lodged in the municipal court only on that day, October 3.
3. There is a dearth of autoptic or
demonstrative evidence which would positively connect appellant with the
crime. Nothing in the record shows that
the officers even made any effort to locate the alleged pistol used by
appellant. Much less was it
presented. Nor is there evidence that
appellant has had one. In the morning of
September 23, 1963, Sgt. Aniceto Dacalos, in the presence
of Sgt. Sarbida, pointed at appellant as the owner of
a big hat which was apparently left at the scene of the crime. Appellant denied this. Even that hat was not exhibited in
court. Or, its whereabouts accounted
for.
And, Autor testified that he (Autor) – who knew appellant very well – saw appellant at
the scene of the crime, recognized him because the light was bright and the
distance between the two was only about one fathom, asked him “What is
that?”, whereupon appellant “ran away”.[16]
If all these were true, it does not seem probable that appellant would make
himself a sitting duck, go to and stay in his home in Barrio Salong, ‘about one kilometer from the scene of the
crime. And there to be arrested at about
4:00 o’clock in the morning by Sgt. Sarbida and a provincial policeman by the name of Madid. What did he
run for?
4. We are not unmindful of
the fact that appellant left his barrio on the 29th of September, 1963, that is, five days after Ciriaco Jimenez was shot, and went to live with his parents
and sisters in Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental.[17]
But he did so because he was warned daily by his neighbors that there were Maranaos hired by the brothers of the deceased Ciriaco Jimenez to liquidate him. If he really intended to hide from the
authorities, he would have done so at the first opportunity. It would seem to us that his flight was
induced by his instinct of self-preservation.
5. The defense is alibi.
The version given is that at about 6:00
o’clock in the afternoon of September 22 after the cockÂfighting
was over, appellant conducted a game of “hantak”
in the cockpit of Dalama, which was about five
kilometers from the scene of the crime.
That game of “hantak” lasted till
about 3:00 o’clock the following
morning of September 23. After which,
appellant went over to the house of Lamberto Maghinay where they took a drink for a few minutes. Then, appellant went home where he was
arrested as aforesaid. His testimony in
this resÂpect was corroborated by Lamberto Maghinay, Paciencio Baca-ling and
Melecio Lomoiho. It is to be recalled at this point that
witnesses Maghinay and Bacaling
were investigated at the Constabulary headquarters on that morning of September 23, 1963.
Of course, alibi is known to be the weakest of all defenses. It is easy to concoct, difficult to disprove.[18]
Nonetheless, where the evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of
concreteness on the question of whether or not defendant is the author of the
crime charged, alibi as a defense assumes importance. Not very long ago, this Court, speaking
through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in People vs. Fraga, L-12005, August 31, 1960, pointed out that
“[t]he rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to
change the burden of proof in criminal cases; otherwise, we will see the
absurdity of an accused being put in a more difficult position where the
prosecution’s evidence is vague and weak than where it is strong.”[19]
In the end, we have but to bear in mind that, by ConstiÂtution
and law, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an acquittal, unless his
guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.[20]
We cannot downgrade this precept by accepting less than what it exacts. Else, the protection afforded may be more in
sound than in substance. The People’s
evidence does not measure up to this standard – in this, a grave crime of murder.
For the reason that guilt has not been established beyond
reasonable doubt, we vote to reverse the judgment under review, to acquit
defendant-appellant Anastacio Bulawin
of the crime charged, and to set him at liberty.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Fernando, Capistrano, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Ruiz Castro and Teehankee, JJ., took no part.
Reyes, JBL, J., on official leave.
[1]
Criminal Case 1042, Court of First Instance of Lanao
del Norte, entitled “The People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff, versus AnasÂtacio Bulawin, Accused.”
[2]
CA-G.R. No. 06902-Cr.
[3]
Tr., January 24, 1966, p.
14.
[4] See: Exhibit X, Record below, p. 129.
[5]
Tr., December 9, 1965, pp.
4-6; emphasis supplied.
[6] Id.,
pp. 9, 10-11; emphasis supplied.
[7] Id.,
p. 13.
[8]
Tr., December 9, 1965, p.
18
[9] Id.
p. 19; emphasis supplied.
[10]
This is also the gist of the statement given by Jose Villarta
– also on October 3, 1963 –
who was not called to the stand:
“Q What are the questions asked by Sgt. Laurie to Ciriaco
Jimenez?
A He asked Ciriaco Jimenez, who shot you? Ciriaco Jimenez answered ‘Bulawin‘. Then Sgt. Laurie asked another question. Why did you recognize him when in fact it is
dark? Ciriaco Jimenez did not answer. Then Sgt. Laurie further asked another
question, Do you think you will not die of your wound you received? Ciriaco Jimenez did not answer anymore.” Record below,
p. 4.
[11]
Tr., December 9, 1965, p.
19; emphasis supplied.
[12] Id.,
p. 22; emphasis supplied
[13] Id.
[14]
Tr., January 25, 1966, p.
12.
[15]
The case against Bitoy and his co-accused, according
to appellant, was dismissed after the elections of 1963. Tr, January 25, 1966, pp. 15-16.
[16]
Tr., December 9, 1965, pp.
6, 12.
[17]
Tr., January 25, 1986, p. 14.
[18]
People vs. Cunanan, L-17599, April 24, 1967, citing
U.S. vs. Olais, 36 Phil. 828, 829; People vs.
Pili, 51 Phil. 965, 966; People vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 265, 272; People vs. Bautista,
L-17772, October 31, 1962; People vs. Dayday,
L-20806, & L-20807, August 14, 1965.
[19] Cited
in People vs. Cunanan, supra.
[20]
Section 1(17), Article III, Constitution; Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court.