THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BORROMEO PAGULAYAN AND SANTIAGO MATAMMU, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance
of Isabela, Hon. Manuel Arranz presiding, finding Borromeo Pagulayan and Santiago Matammu guilty of murder
in Criminal Cases Nos. 2544 and 2571, respectively.

The evidence of record shows that on June 29, 1959, at
about six o’clock in the morning, accused-appellant Santiago Matammu appeared before Mayor Calixto Cauan of
San Pablo, Isabela and reported that he shot Richard Mesa
in the barrio of Simanu. He was, therefore, taken to
the municipal building where his statement was taken down
by Sgt. Augusto Venturina of the Philippine Constabulary.
In the meantime a patrolman, upon orders of the Mayor,
brought the body of the deceased victim Richard Mesa to
the municipal building. As certified to by the municipal
health officer, the left side of the face and the cranium of

the victim, Richard Mesa, were removed and only about
one-fifth of the brain was left in the cranium (Exhibit “C”).

In his statement before Sgt. Venturina, Matammu declared that about 7
o’clock in the evening of January 27, 1959, while he was at home at
Simanu Norte, San Pablo, Isabela, Richard Mesa and two companions
approached him demanding the sum of P50.00 and directing him to collect
another P100.00 from the people of the barrio. The following evening
the same persons came back to him to ask about the progress of the
collection. Appellant informed them that it was hard to produce the
amount demanded. This made the three mad and thereupon he heard one of
them saying, “Mas mabuti cong walang cuarta patayammu na,” meaning, “It
is better, if there be no money, kill him.” Upon hearing this Matammu
went upstairs and instead of producing money he took a shot gun
belonging to one Gabino Padron, aimed at the three persons, shouted for
help, then upon hearing a gunshot, fired at the three persons. After
this he ran away and when he came back he found one of them dead,
namely Richard Mesa. He thereupon went to town and delivered himself to
the authorities.

He further declared in his statement that he had no
personal grudge against Richard Mesa; that the incident
took place in the yard of his house; and that during those
times there have been frequent visits of bandits in the
barrio.

The statement was introduced in court as Exhibit “D”
or Exhibit “1-Matammu”.

Upon further investigation it was found out that the
gun used by the accused-appellant was a shotgun licensed
in the name of Gabino Padron.

The National Bureau of Investigation began to investigate the matter, upon petition of the sister of the deceased,
and so an NBI officer took Matammu into custody and
brought him to Cabagan, Isabela, where before the Assitant to the Director of the NBI, Mr. Mariano Almeda, he
made another statement introduced at the trial as Exhibit “A”.

In
this statement appellant declared that four days before the killing on
the occasion of the town fiesta of Cabagan, Isabela he had occasion to
talk with Mayor Calixto Cauan of San Pablo, Isabela about the notorious
character of his townmate Richard Mesa, whom the Mayor planned to
liquidate. The mayor instructed him to shoot Mesa on sight, so when
Matammu returned home, his co-accused Borromeo Pagulayan went to his
place, as per instruction of the mayor of San Pablo, also with
instruction to shoot Mesa on sight. He and Paguayan agreed that the
latter would bring Mesa to his house in barrio Simanu Norte, where they
would kill Mesa. Pagulayan arrived with Mesa at the house of Matammu at
about 8 o’clock at night and when Matammu heard the voice of Paguiayan
he got up from bed, took the shotgun of Gabino Padron and shot Richard
Mesa as per order of Mayor Calixto Cauan. After this he went to the
house of the mayor to report the execution of Mesa and made the
affidavit (Exhibit “D”) in which he explained that he killed Mesa
without notice.

Borromeo Pagulayan also made a statement before the
Assistant to the Director of the NBI, Mariano C. Almeda,
in which he corroborates the important details in the
sworn declaration of his co-accused Matammu. According to him four days before the shooting he reported to
the mayor the presence of Richard Mesa in a barrio in
San Pablo; so the mayor requested him to bring Mesa to
the house of Santiago Matammu, as requested by Mesa.
He also had a conversation with Santiago Matammu who
told him that mayor Cauan had talked with him about
the apprehension of Richard Mesa. So on January 28,
1959, as previously planned, Paguiayan went to fetch Mesa
from barrio Ballacayu at 7 o’clock in the evening, but it
so happened that he was not there. However he left instruction that Mesa wait for him in that place and Mesa
in fact arrived one hour later. Upon his arrival Pagulayan and Mesa proceeded to the house of Matammu and
there he was shot by Pagulayan as previously planned by
them. In the afternoon of January 28, 1959 Pagulayan
had sent an emissary to advice Santiago Matammu to be
ready in the evening of that day with his gun beoause he
was going to bring Mesa to his house as agreed upon.
This statement was introduced in court as Exhibit “B”.

The above declarations were properly identified in court
as Exhibits “A” and “B” and submitted as evidence against
appellants. The Court of First Instance of Isabela, after
trial, found both accused guilty of murder of the deceased
Richard Mesa and sentenced each of them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceassed in the amount of P4,000 and to
pay the costs. The court held that the confessions of the
accused-appellants Exhibits “A” and “B” were voluntarily given and the
facts stated therein do not appear to have been supplied by anybody but
by the accused-appellants themselves; that the narration of essential
facts in said affidavits are so natural as to disprove the claim of the
accused-appellants that the Assistant to the Director of the NBI had
concocted the facts stated therein. The court, therefore, on the basis
of said declarations found from the interlocking confession Exhibits
“A” and “B”, that the accused-appellants had previously planned to
liquidate Richard Mesa; that Borromeo Pagulayan invited Richard Mesa to
go to the house of Santiago Matammu and when they were near the house,
Santiago Matammu fired at Richard Mesa with the shotgun of Gabino
Padron and caused his immediate death.

The
accused-appellants have appealed the decision to this Court. Santiago
Matammu claims that the real facts that had happened were those
disclosed in his previous affidavit before Sgt. Venturing Exhibit “D”,
or Exhibit “1Matammu”, in accordance with which the shooting of the
deceased Richard Mesa was committed by him as an act of self-defense.
The contents of said affidavits are reiterated in his testimony before
the court. (pp. 94-95, t.s.n., Rapados)

As to appellant Matammu the issue is, which
of the two affidavits executed by him reflects the real circumstances
behind the killing of Richard Mesa, the one taken down by Sgt. Augusto
Venturina at the Philippine Constabulary detachment at Tumauini,
Isabela, presented as Exhibit “D” or Exhibit “1-Matammu,” wherein
Matammu owned the killing as an act of self-defense, or the statement
he made in the presence of Atty. Mariano Almeda, Assistant to the
Director, NBI, introduced at the trial as Exhibit “A in which he admits
having liquidated Richard Mesa in connivance and with the help of his
co-accused Borromeo Pagulayan, allegedly upon instigation of Mayor
Calixto Cauan of San Pablo, Isabela.

We agree with the finding of the lower court that Exhibit “A” contains
the true and correct version of the incidents that led to the death of
Richard Mesa. No evidence was presented to show that said confessions
were obtained as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise
of reward or leniency. No motivation on the part of the investigating
officer, Atty. Almeda, appears and none was in fact given, that could
have impelled him to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit.
Besides, Exhibit “A” is corroborated in almost all details by the
confession, Exhibit “B”, made by Matammu’s co-accused Borromeo
Pagulayan. Only the accused-appellants themselves know the facts
narrated in their confessions and they supplied the same freely and
voluntarily.

On the other hand, the first statement made by Santiago
Matammu, Exhibit “D” or Exhibit “1-Matammu”, wherein he claims self-defense, is not worthy of the slightest
credence. The narration of events is very unnatural. For
example, Matammu declared in court that while inside the
house he was fired at by the malefactors and he fired back

to scare them, then jumped out of the window, running
towards the direction of a nearby forest to hide himself;
that his assailants also run away; that when he came back
from his hiding place after four hours, he found the dead
body of Richard Mesa in the yard of his house. It is
hardly believable that Matammu would have committed the
indiscretion of attempting to engage three heavily armed
persons, one of them a reputedly notorious character, in
a shooting affray. The instinct of self-preservation would
have prompted any one in his position to jump out quietly
out of the window, without first firing a shot.

The
conduct of the three alleged malefactors, as depicted in Exhibit “D” is
also unbelievable. Why should they suddenly shoot at Matammu when he
was supposed to give some money to them, even before knowing whether
Matammu really had money to hand over or none at all? It is also highly
improbable that a single gun report coming from accused-appellant’s
direction, in answer to their fire, would have sent three heavily armed
men scampering away without as much as firing a single shot back at
accused-appellant. Hence, considering the inherent improbabilities
contained in his first statement, We find ourselves hard put to believe
that accused-appellant Matammu’s statement, Exhibit “D” or Exhibit
“1-Matammu” is the more credible confession.

Wherefore, the judgment of the court below finding the
accused-appellants Santiago Matammu and Borromeo Pagulayan guilty of conspiracy in the murder of Richard
Mesa should be, as it is hereby, affirmed.

Appellant Santiago Matammu claims that the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited
in his favor. There is no reason to deny him this right.
The penalty fixed by law for the crime committed should
be imposed upon him in the minimum degree.

Wherefore, the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed
by the lower court upon Borromeo Pagulayan is hereby
affirmed, but that imposed upon Santiago Matammu should

be, as it is hereby, reduced to 14 years, 8 months and 1
day to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal.
As thus modified the judgment in both cases are hereby
affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Conception, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal JJ., concur.