EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, QUERELLANTE Y APELADO, CONTRA MARIANO PATRICIO, ACUSADO Y APELANTE.

Mariano Patricio interpone esta apelacion de la sentencia del Juzgado de
Primera Instancia de Batangas en que se le condena por el delito de robo con
homicidio a sufrir la pena de reclusion perpetua mas las accesorias de ley, a
pagar a los herederos de la occisa, Bonifacia Petate, la suma de P2,000 en
concepto de indemnizacion, y las costas del juicio.

En la sentencia del Juzgado a quo danse por establecidos y probados
fuera de toda duda razonable los siguientes hechos. A eso de las 11 de la noche
del 16 de Mayo, 1945, Roman Petate, su esposa Maria Baybay y sus cuatro hijos
llamados Bonifacia, Arcadio, Pio y Reynaldo, ya estaban todos durmiendo en su
casita situada en el lugar de Campahoyan, Municipio de Talisay, provincia de
Batangas, cuando hubieron de despertarse al ruido producido por las detonaciones
de armas de fuego y los ladridos de los perros. Inmediatamente despues forzaron
su entrada en la choza dos hombres armados de rifles y con ademan amenazador
preguntaron donde estaba el toro de la familia. Aterrorizado Arcadio les indico
y guio al sitio donde estaba amarrado el animal, el cual fue desatado por los
ladrones llevandolo consigo. No contentos con esto los asaltantes, antes de
abandonar el lugar, hicieron varios disparos dirigidos hacia Arcadio y la casa.
Arcadio salio ileso, pero no asi su hermana Bonifacia quien, estando dentro de
la choza, recibio un tiro en la cadera derecha atravesando el proyectil los
intestinos, y muriendo dicha Bonifacia al dia siguiente de resultas de la
hemorragia interna producida por la herida, segun dictamen facultativo del
medico que le asistio.

Los asaltantes fueron positivamente identificados resultando ser el apelante
Mariano Patricio y su coacusado, Jorge Ortilla. Al dia siguiente, o sea el mismo
dia en que murio Bonifacia Petate, diose cuenta del hecho a las autoridades
municipales del pueblo, y efectivamente el alcalde y el jefe de policia
practicaron la correspondiente investigacion si bien no con la diligencia y el
empuje necesarios teniendo en cuenta lo anormales y peligrosas que eran las
circunstancias en aquel tiempo, inmediatamente despues de la liberacion, o aun
sin estar completa esta, por lo menos en algunas provincias—situacion de caos y
desorden en que los malhechores campaban por sus respetos, aterrorizando al
vecindario, sin excluir a los funcionarios y agentes de seguridad publica. Esto
explica el por que se presento algo tarde la querella contra los nombrados
Mariano Patricio y Jorge Ortilla. Ya presentada, y estando los acusados en
espera de la investigacion preliminar, el Ortilla logro escaparse tomando
ventaja de la escasa vigilancia que podia ofrecer la precaria fuerza policiaca y
el estado de inseguridad del calabozo municipal. Asi que la causa hubo de
seguirse contra el Mariano Patricio solamente, quien, despues del juicio, fue
hallado culpable por el Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Batangas y condenado
como queda dicho arriba.

La defensa del apelante es simple coartada, y la unica cuestion que tenemos
que determinar es si tal defensa puede prevalecer frente a las pruebas de
positiva e inequivoca identificacion establecidas de manera fidedigna por los
testigos de cargo. Tres testigos declaran haber reconocido inconfundiblemente a
los acusados y son, a saber: Roman Petate, el padre de familia, de 62 años de
edad; su hijo Arcadio, de 23 años; y un vecino, Zacarias Talatala, de 37
años.

Roman Petate dice que habia luz en la casa y reconocio a Jorge Ortilla porque
habia sido su vecino por largo tiempo en la montaña, y al apelante, Mariano
Patricio, porque este es hijo de un compadre suyo y tambien habia sido su vecino
antes de trasladar su domicilio al barrio de Sumil, municipio de Silang,
provincia de Cavite.

Arcadio Petate dice haber reconocido a los acusados, primero, por sus
voces porque habia luz en la casa, pues estaba enfermo un hijo de su hermana
Bonifacia; segundo, porque los conocia de antiguo siendo Ortilla
compoblano suyo y el padre de Mariano Patricio tambien del mismo pueblo de
Talisay, y cuando este ya vivia en Silang, Cavite ellos solian verse durante las
epocas de cosecha; y tercero, porque el, Arcadio, fue quien los acompaño
y guio hacia el sitio donde estaba amarrado el toro.

Zacarias Talatala declara que tambien el se desperto al ruido de los disparos
y ladridos de los perros; que entonces trato de ir a la casa de Roman Petate de
cuya direccion venia el ruido; que en el trayecto hubo de esconderse detras de
unas malezas al notar el movimiento de dos personas que se estaban aproximando;
que poco despues, a eso de un metro y medio de distancia de su escondite, vio al
Ortilla y al apelante conduciendo un toro; que pudo conocer y distinguir a los
acusados, pues era noche estrellada si bien no habia luna, y ademas porque los
conocia de antiguo por haber sido vecinos suyos.

Asi que no pudo haber habido error en la identificacion. Respecto de algun
motivo bastardo, nada se trasluce en autos: no se ha insinuado siquiera ninguna
causa o razon torticera por que los testigos arriba referidos, sobre todo el
vecino Zacarias Talatala, habian de formular cargos falsos contra el apelante y
su coacusado. Por lo que es forzoso dar a las conclusiones de hecho del tribunal
sentenciador todo el valor y credito que se merecen, teniendo en cuenta su
posicion ventajosa al ver y oir declarar a los testigos. Ciertas
contradicciones, defectos y lagunas que se señalan en los testimonios de cargo
no son de tal importancia para poder afectar seriamente a su credibilidad.

Se hace hincapie en la demora con que se presento la querella, insinuandose
que esa demora provoca la sospecha de que las pruebas de la acusacion se han
falseado. Sin embargo, la tardanza se ha explicado satisfactoriamente por el
alcalde en sus declaraciones prestadas en el juicio cuando fue llamado como
testigo de la defensa. Segun el alcalde, el y su jefe de policia, despues de
recibir la denuncia acerca del crimen el 17 de Mayo, procedieron a dar los pasos
para una acabada investigacion del caso, pero despues prefirieron suspender las
diligencias por razones de prudencia, temiendo por su seguridad personal, pues
los malhechores amenazaban al vecindario con toda clase de represalias, y tenian
medios y armas para hacer efectivas sus amenazas, mientras que los agentes del
orden publico eran pocos y mal armados. Pero una cosa es positiva, a saber: que
el padre y hermano de la occisa Bonifacia denunciaron inmediatamente el caso a
las autoridades del pueblo, lo que demuestra que la identificacion fue pronta,
espontanea, y no tardia ni artificiosamente amañada como se pretende
insinuar.

Tampoco tiene merito el argumento de que no se cometio robo, pues el animal
fue recuperado por el dueño al dia siguiente en los alrededores del sitio mismo
de autos. El delito quedo consumado cuando los acusados, mediante fuerza e
intimidacion, lo desataron en la noche anterior, sustrayendolo del lugar donde
estaba amarrado. La circunstancia de que despues lo hayan abandonado, quien sabe
si para no llevar impedimento en su fuga al advertir que habian herido a una
persona con sus disparos, no pudo borrar la responsabilidad criminal resultante
de la consumacion del delito, extinguiendose solo la responsabilidad civil.

Se arguye tambien que no cabe declarar al apelante como responsable del
delito complejo de robo con homicidio penado en el art. 294, par. 1, de nuestro
Codigo Penal Revisado, por la razon de que no hay en autos prueba directa de que
el disparo fatal que causo la muerte de la Bonifacia habia sido hecho por el
apelante. Es verdad que no hay tal prueba directa, pero consta establecido fuera
de toda duda, por el testimonio de Arcadio, que inmediatamente despues de
desatar el toro y antes de dejar el lugar ambos acusados dispararon
simultaneamente contra Arcadio y hacia la casa—unos 12 disparos, segun el
testigo—y acto seguido se oyeron los gemidos de Bonifacia quejandose de estar
herida. De esto resulta indudable que fue uno de tales disparos el que ocasiono
la herida y muerte de que se trata. No importa que no se pueda determinar si fue
del apelante, o de su coacusado fugitivo, el disparo homicida. Habiendose
confederado ambos para cometer el delito complejo de que se les
acusa—conspiracion que ha quedado concluyentemente establecida—los actos de uno
deben considerarse como actos del otro, siendo ambos mutuamente corresponsables.
“Cuando se ha probado la comision del delito de robo con homicidio, todos
aquellos que tienen participacion como autores directos en la comision del robo,
son culpables del delito complejo de robo con homicidio, a menos que aparezca
que procuraron impedir la comision del homicidio (E. U. contra
Macalalad, 9 Jur. Fil., 1). No solo no aparece que el apelante tratara de
impedir el homicidio, sino que, por el contrario, consta probado que el y su
coacusado Ortilla hicieron conjuntamente los 12 disparos, uno de los cuales
resulto ser fatal.

De lo dicho se infiere que tampoco tiene merito la alegacion de que la muerte
en el presente caso fue puramente accidental, causada por una bala
perdida. Los disparos fueron deliberadamente dirigidos contra Arcadio y
hacia la casa en la cual sabian los acusados que habia moradores, entre ellos la
occisa. No cabe duda de que los disparos en cuestion eran actos de violencia e
intimidacion contra las personas ejecutados por los acusados en la perpetracion
del robo; y el art. 294, par. 1, del Codigo Penal Revisado provee que cuando por
tales actos y con ocasion de ellos se comete homicidio, se engendra el delito
complejo de robo con homicidio y se castiga con la pena de reclusion perpetua a
muerte. El Tribunal Supremo de España tiene declarado que “una relacion directa,
enlace intimo entre el robo y la muerte, ya preceda esta a aquel, o ya le
subsiga, o ya se verifiquen ambos a un mismo tiempo, es indudable que
constituyen el delito complejo especial, previsto y penado en el art. 503, No.
1, del Codigo Penal.” (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de España de 26 de mayo de
1877; E.U. contra Landasan, 35 Jur. Fil., 366; E.U. contra
Antonio, 31 Jur. Fil., 216; Pueblo contra Hernandez, 46 Jur. Fil.,
50.)

El Procurador General sostiene en su alegato que en esta causa se ha
cometido, ademas, el delito de aborto no intencional enlazado con el de robo con
homicidio y complejo con el mismo, puesto que, segun el dictamen facultativo, la
occisa estaba embarazada con preñez de 4 meses, y cita a este efecto la causa de
Pueblo contra Genoves (61 Phil., 382). Sin embargo, es incuestionable que
no cabe imputar este cargo contra el reo por no haberse alegado en la
querella.

No se debe apreciar la nocturnidad como circunstancia agravante, como pide el
Procurador General, pues no hay prueba de que la noche se busco de proposito
para cometer el delito (E. U. contra Ascue, 4 Jur. Fil., 138; E. U.
contra Balagtas, 19 Jur. Fil., 175).

Es acertada la recomendacion del Procurador de que debe apreciarse como
agravante el haberse cometido el delito en la morada de la ofendida (E. U.
contra Leyba, 8 Jur. Fil., 682), pero esta agravante queda compensada por
la falta de instruccion del apelante.

En meritos de lo expuesto, se confirma la sentencia apelada, con las costas a
cargo del apelante.

Asi se ordena.

Moran, Pres., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla,
y Tuason, MM., estan conformes.

---

PERFECTO, J.:

Appellant is accused of robbery with homicide and was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties of the law, to pay an
indemnity of P2,000 to the heirs of Bonifacia Petate and the costs. Four
witnesses testified for the prosecution and five for the defense.

Rizalino Atienza, 35, practicing physician, testified that on May 17, 1945,
he attended Bonifacia Petate for gunshot wounds which she sustained on her thigh
and which subsequently caused her death. The victim was about four months
pregnant. The deceased was brought to witness’s house on May 16, and died on May
17. After the woman died, the witness found that the bullet passed through the
large intestines, but the bullet could not be found.

Arcadio Petate, 23, single, farmer, resident of Talisay, Batangas, testified
that on the night of May 16, 1945, he was in their hut in the sitio of
Campahoyan, Talisay. He was with his sister Bonifacia and their parents Roman
Petate and Maria Baybay. Bonifacia and the witness were sleeping when they were
suddenly awakened by successive shots which came from the outside of the hut.
Later on, two men named Jorge Ortilla and Mariano Patricio went up the hut. They
asked for the cow of the witness who pointed the place where the cow was tied.
The accused were pointing their guns at the witness. They were carrying American
rifles bigger than a carbine. The accused untied the cow and pulled it away and
afterwards they fired at the witness with the Garand rifle. The witness ducked.
The accused ran away, but before that, they fired at the hut and the witness
heard the moaning of his sister Bonifacia. They fired about twelve shots. The
witness found Bonifacia wounded in the thigh and near the stomach. He shouted
for help and Zacarias Talatala, a neighbor, arrived. Talatala’s hut is about
thirty meters away from the witness’s hut. They attended to Bonifacia and
brought her to the poblacion of Talisay for treatment by Dr. Rizalino Atienza in
his drug store. Dr. Atienza could not control the hemorrhage, so he called for
some American soldiers in order to take Bonifacia to Lipa. According to
information, she died upon arrival in Lipa. The witness was not with her when
she died. The cow was valued at P540 and the witness recovered it. The accused
abandoned it in a certain place north of the house of the witness. The witness
recovered the cow the following morning, in a place forty-five meters away from
his house. The witness recognized the two accused by their voices and besides
they had been his companions for a long time. At the time they were pointing
their rifles at the witness, Mariano Patricio was at his left at about half a
meter’s distance, while Ortilla was at his back, about three meters away. Both
were carrying Garand rifles. Witness’s mother was also in the hut. The witness
recognized the accused because the hut was lighted. The witness recognized them
not only by their voices but also by their faces. He recognized them at the very
moment when he left them in the place where the cow was tied. He brought his
sister to the drug store of Dr. Atienza, the following morning, May 17. She was
brought by the witness, his cousin Eliseo Baybay and his parents. They arrived
at about one o’clock in the morning. It took less than an hour’s trip. Bonifacia
was taken to the drug store an hour and a half after the incident. Bonifacia was
brought to Lipa at about ten o’clock in the morning. The witness was in Talisay
when Bonifacia was taken to Lipa. Upon being reminded that Dr. Atienza stated
that Bonifacia was not brought to Lipa, the witness stated that the truth is
that what Dr. Atienza said was that the intention was to take Bonifacia to Lipa,
but she was not really brought there. Asked why he testified that his sister was
taken to Lipa, the witness answered that he was mistaken. He saw Bonifacia being
taken to Lipa, but she was immediately returned. She was taken at about ten
o’clock and returned at about four o’clock in the afternoon. The witness found
his cow at about nine o’clock the following morning. The cow is the same which
the witness and his father sold to Benedicto de Leon, brother-in-law of Dr.
Atienza, at P540. The sale took place several days after the shooting, about one
week from the date the witness heard the shots which took about ten minutes
before the accused went up the hut. They forced the door open. The witness heard
several shots. Bonifacia was taken by the witness and others from the hut at
about ten o’clock on the night of the shooting to be brought to Dr. Atienza at
Lipa and the witness did not return until before ten o’clock the next morning.
He remained in Talisay from one o’clock in the morning to four o’clock in the
afternoon of May 17. He happened to learn about the recovery of the cow through
information received from his brother. The latter went immediately to Talisay to
inform the witness that the cow was recovered. On that same night, Pedro Holgado
was sleeping in his hut located about thirty meters from witness’s hut. He was
watching his own cow. Witness did not see Pedro Holgado on that night. Holgado’s
cow did not disappear that night. Witness signed his affidavit only on September
1, 1945. He reported the incident to Mayor Artemio Atienza, father of Dr.
Atienza. The mayor conducted an investigation. The witness told the mayor that
the accused were the ones who shot and killed his sister. Zacarias Talatala
arrived at witness’s house at about 11.30, but the witness did not talk with
him. The witness cannot tell whether any conversation took place among the
witness’s companions in the hut, because witness was away south of the hut. The
witness took their palay from that place. When Talatala arrived, the accused
were already gone. They went towards the mountains. There was no moonlight. The
witness was able to recognize the accused by their voices only. At the time the
accused entered the hut, the father and mother of the witness were present. When
the accused were outside pulling the bull away, Bonifacia had already been
wounded. The witness saw her after the two accused had left.

Roman Petate, 62, married, farmer, resident of Campahoyan, Batangas,
testified that on the night of May 16, 1945 he was in their hut in Campahoyan.
All the members of his family were present, Arcadio, Maria Baybay, his wife,
Pio, Bonifacia, Reynaldo, and Bonifacia’s daughter. They were sleeping when they
were awakened by the barking of the dogs. Later on, they heard shots. Then two
men went up their hut. They were Jorge Ortilla and Mariano Patricio. They took
Arcadio Petate and asked him where his cow was. The accused were carrying
rifles. They went to one side of the hut and took the bull. The bull was tied at
about thirteen meters away from the hut. When the two men returned with Arcadio
they fired at the hut. Bonifacia complained that she was hit on the right side
and in the stomach. Bonifacia was taken to Dr. Atienza, who treated her. She
died in the house of Dr. Atienza at about ten o’clock in the morning.
Immediately after the incident, Zacarias Talatala went to witness’s hut.
Talatala asked the witness if he recognized the two men. The witness answered
“Yes.” He recognized them as Jorge Ortilla and Mariano Patricio. The light
inside the hut was quite bright. The witness is the owner of the bull taken by
the accused. The witness bought it for P18,000 in Japanese money, equivalent to
P550 in Philippine currency. The witness found the bull the following morning.
He was in the town of Talisay to conduct Bonifacia the day after the incident.
He left the town of Talisay at dawn. He found the cow after an hour’s search.
There was nobody in the place. It was in the mountains, the place where the
witness was living. When the witness returned from town to his hut, he went
directly north of his house and found the bull. He found it at about 8 or 8.30
in the morning. When he left the poblacion of Talisay his daughter was already
dead. Upon cross-examination, he denied having stated that his daughter died at
ten o’clock. Bonifacia died early in the morning, at dawn. The witness was the
only one who brought Bonifacia to Talisay. Eliseo Baybay did not accompany them.
Bonifacia had never been sent to Lipa for treatment and was only treated in
Talisay. Nobody attempted to take her to Lipa. What Arcadio testified that
Bonifacia was sent to the hospital in Lipa at about ten o’clock in the morning
is not true. Bonifacia was buried at about two o’clock in the afternoon. As
there were other persons attending to his daughter, the witness decided to
return to his hut in order to look for the bull. His wife took care of their
daughter’s burial. After finding the bull, the witness returned to Talisay.
Witness’s wife accompanied him to Talisay. The witness did not report the
incident personally either to the mayor or the chief of police of Talisay.
Witness’s son was investigated after the incident. The investigation took place
before he signed the affidavit on September 12, 1945. Talatala’s house was not
yet burned when the incident took place. It was burned by the Japanese after the
incident took place.

Zacarias Talatala, 37, married, farmer, resident of Campahoyan, testified
that on the night of May 16, 1945, he was sleeping in his hut in Campahoyan,
Talisay when he was awakened by gunshots. The shots came from the house of
Bonifacia Petate. Upon hearing the shots, the witness went to Petate’s hut which
was about sixty meters distant. The witness heard loud voices of crying persons.
Because of the shots and the cries, the witness suspected that something serious
was happening, so he took cover in a hidden place. Then he saw Jorge Ortilla and
Mariano Patricio passing by the place where he was hiding and dragging a bull.
Ortilla was in front and Patricio, behind, both of them armed. After they had
passed, the witness went to Bonifacia’s house. He saw Bonifacia and her mother
embracing each other. Bonifacia complained that she had been shot. The witness
did not see the wounds but he heard that she was wounded in the thigh and in the
stomach. Roman Petate said that his daughter was wounded by Jorge Ortilla and
Mariano Patricio and the witness told him that they must have done it because he
saw the two men on his way towards the hut. The witness recognized the bull as
belonging to Roman Petate. The accused were going towards the mountain or
towards the north. There was no moon but the night was not so dark. At the place
where the witness hid, there was no light and the accused were not carrying any
light. They were about one and a half meters away from the witness. The way was
a natural trail although there was shrubbery. The houses in Talisay were burned
by the Japanese in the month of September. The house of the witness was burned
before the town fiesta. The town fiesta takes place on the tenth of September of
each year. The incident took place on the night of May 16, 1945. When it took
place on May 16, the witness had not yet built his new house near the place
where his former house was burned. The witness was investigated by a policeman
the day after the occurrence of the incident. After investigation he signed a
statement, which was sworn to before the mayor. He identified the statement
shown to him. The statement is dated September 1. He was first investigated on
May 17, and again at a later date, and then he affixed his thumb mark on the
affidavit on September 1.

The inherent improbabilities in the facts that the prosecution attempted to
prove and the contradictions of its witnesses concur in militating against our
finding appellant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

If the motive behind the serious complex crime imputed to appellant was the
robbery of the cow of the Petate family, as can be gleaned from the
prosecution’s theory, why is it that the next morning, after the alleged
robbery, the cow was found a few meters away from the very place where it was
allegedly taken by the malefactors? We cannot believe that they, with the
perversity attributed to them by the prosecution, could have suddenly repented
for the evil done, and decided to restore what they have taken by force. The
presence of the cow near the hut of the Petate family in the morning of May 17,
1945, under the facts in this case, can only be explained to the effect that it
is not true that it was robbed the previous night, as pretended by the witnesses
for the prosecution, by bandits who went away in the direction of the
“mountains.”

According to said witnesses, after the malefactors had taken the cow, they
fired several shots in the direction of the Petate’s hut, thus wounding
Bonifacia. After succeeding in taking the cow, what motive could they have had
for firing the shots? The record does not disclose any. The witnesses for the
prosecution do not offer us any help in solving the mystery. Were not the
belated shots imagined so as to explain how Bonifacia was wounded?

The self-contradictions of Arcadio Petate, his admission of having committed
mistake in telling what is not true, and the contradictions between him, his
father and Dr. Atienza, as to the hour when Bonifacia died, as to whether
Bonifacia was taken or not to Lipa, as to who were the persons who brought
Bonifacia to Dr. Atienza’s clinic, and as to who found the cow in the morning of
May 17, 1945, only add more reasons why we have to put in doubt the narration of
said witnesses.

We vote for appellant’s acquittal.

---

HILADO, J.:

To my mind decisive question in this case is that of identification. Is there
evidence identifying the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt as one of the
perpetrators of the crime charged in the information? I would answer this
question negatively.

The prosecution witnesses who attempted to identify the appellant as one of
the authors of that crime were Arcadio Petate, Roman Petate, and Zacarias
Talatala. The first, on direct examination, stated that he recognized the
appellant and Jorge Ortilla by their voices (t.s.n., p. 6). Upon being
questioned by the court, he tried to make it appear that he recognized them
by their faces as the hut was lighted (t.s.n., p. 7). But when the
court asked him to explain his conflicting answers, he stuck to his original
answer that he recognized them by their voices (t.s.n., p. 7). And
ultimately, when the court addressed to him what clearly amounts to a leading
question, he replied that he recognized them by their faces (t.s.n., p.
7). Again, upon cross-examination, in answer to a question made by counsel for
the defense, he declared that he recognized the appellant and Ortilla by
their voices only (t.s.n., p. 10). But when the court asked whether he
recognized them by their faces, (a leading question, it would seem) he
replied affirmatively (t.s.n., p. 10). It is instantly apparent that this
witness could not be telling the truth in each of these contradictory and
rapidly changing statements of his. In the space of perhaps one single minute he
changed his version no less than six times. Who knows but that he was not
telling the truth in any of them?

Roman Petate stated that he recognized the two men by their faces “because of
the light in our hut that was quite bright” (t.s.n., p. 13). In this
connection, it will be noted that this witness did not testify on the same day
as his son Arcadio. This fact appears from the statement on page 11 of the
transcript saying: “Continuation of hearing at 9 o’clock, same appearances June
4, 1946.” Whether or not a conversation took place in the interregnum between
father and son with particular reference to the identification of the accused,
one guess is as good as another. In fine, I do not find any appreciable
contribution from this witness to our search for the truth.

Zacarias Talatala also tried to identify the appellant. He declared that,
upon hearing the shots, which he thought came from the house of the Petates, he
went down to go thereto (t. s. n., p. 18). He admitted that there was no
moonlight and that the two men did not carry any light, but asserted that he was
able to recognize them because the night was not so dark (t. s. n., p. 19). To
say the least, it is exceedingly strange that this witness, notwithstanding the
abnormal peace and order conditions then prevailing, as appears from the
evidence of record and of which the trial court took judicial notice, should
have gone down his house on hearing the shots in the dead of that moonless
night. Under said circumstances, a man of ordinary care and prudence over his
life and safety would not, in the ordinary course of events, risk them by going
down his house, and approaching the place where the shots had been fired. Such a
man would be presumed to fear that those shots might, if not must, have been
fired by malefactors bent on committing crimes against life itself. This witness
was not a peace officer whose duty it would have been to face the danger and
perform the official functions of his office.

It is also most remarkable that the deceased’s husband, Norberto Ortilla,
although subpoenaed, failed to appear (t. s. n., p. 40). If he knew, or even
only thought, that the appellant was one of the criminals, why did he not
appear? This has not been explained.

Upon evidence so shaky, unstable and weak, to identify the appellant as one
of the authors of the crime, I am not prepared to deprive him of his personal
liberty through a judgment of conviction.

For the foregoing considerations, I
vote for the acquittal of the appellant.