THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO ORDIZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS; EUGENIO ARAW AND PEDRO RICON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The defendants-appellants Eugenio Araw and Pedro Ricon were charged in
the Court of First Instance of Albay, jointly with several others, with
having murdered Escolastico Matias in the municipality of Oas, Province
of Albay, on October 11, 1944. Upon petition of the defendant Filomeno
Renegado, the case as against him was transferred to the Guerilla
Amnesty Commission which, on June 30, 1949, extended to him the
benefits of amnesty. Luis Renegado, another defendant, died during the
pendency of the trial and the case as against him was, therefore of the
trial and the case as against him was, therefore, dismissed on May 12,
1947. The defendant Jose Vega, who was tried separately, was acquitted
on August 1, 1947. The case as against Isagani Ribadavia was dismissed
upon motion of the fiscal for lack of sufficient evidence. The
defendants Vicente Rimando, Pablo Armillo, Rotulo Cilerio and Cecilio
Manchos were still at large at the time of the trial. After hearing the
case as against the defendants Teofilo Ordiz, Leonardo Rito, Pedro
Ricon and Eugenio Araw the Court of First Instance of Albay acquitted
the first two, but found Eugenio Araw and Pedro Ricon guilty as charged
and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with legal
accessories, to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of
Escolastico Matias in the sum of P2,000, plus the costs. From this
judgment Eugenio Araw and Pedro Ricon have appealed.

The
Solicitor General in his brief recommends, in view, of the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction as found by the trial court, that
the appellants be sentenced only to an indeterminate penalty the
minimum of which should not be less than 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor or more than 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, and the maximum not less than 17 years, 4 months and 1 day or more than 20 years of reclusion temporal.

The evidence for the prosecution tends to show that the appellant
Eugenio Araw mortgaged to Escolastico Matias a parcel of riceland. In
or around September and October, 1944, Eugenio wanted to redeem the
mortgage, but Escolastico did not accede thereto. On October 10, 1944,
Eugenio complained to Filomeno Renegado, a guerrilla lieutenant, about
the refusal of Escolastico; and this caused Filomeno to order some of
his soldiers, among whom were the two appellants, to arrest
Escolastico. The arrest was effected in the evening of that day in the
municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay, and Escolastico was
thereafter tortured by the arresting officers. Escolastico was then
taken by the soldiers to the headquarters of Lt. Filomeno Renegado in
Maguiron, municipality of Oas, where the party arrived in the evening
of October 11, 1944. Informed of the arrival of Escolastico, Filomeno
Renegado asked his soldiers why Escolastico had not yet been killed,
and thereupon ordered that Escolastico be taken behind the headquarters
and tied to a guava tree. After conversing with Eugenio Araw and Jose
Vega, Filomeno rushed to the place where Escolastico was tied and
stabbed the latter with a dagger. Filomeno then handed over his dagger
to Balbino Ranoco and ordered the latter to finish Escolastico, an
order which was carried out.

The appellant Pedro Ricon set
up a defense of alibi, while the appellant Eugenio Araw denied the
story about the mortgage, his alleged denunciation of Escolastico
Matias to Lt. Filomeno Renegado, and his alleged participation in
Escolastico’s arrest, torture and murder.

The trial court
found that appellant Eugenio Araw instigated the arrest of Escolastico
Matias by guerilla lieutenant Filomeno Renegado because of
Escolastico’s refusal to allow the redemption of the mortgage. There is
evidence, however, to the effect that Eugenio did not own the land
allegedly mortgaged to Escolastico; that said land was owned by
Eugenio’s wife and sister-in-law, and that such redemption was not
insisted upon and the matter was later even settled amicably. But
assuming that Eugenio might really have harbored some ill feeling
towards Escolastico as a result of the latter’s refusal to release the
mortgage, the fact remains that Filomeno Renegado, who ordered the
arrest and in fact personally killed Escolastico, in conjunction solely
with Balbino Ranoco, was exonerated and granted amnesty by the Guerilla
Amnesty Commission, on the ground that he caused the arrest of and
killed Escolastico in furtherance of the resistance movement. The two
appellants, who are admittedly members of the guerilla unit headed by
Lt. Filomeno Renegado, merely obeyed the latter’s order, and must,
therefore, for the sake of consistency, also be held exempted from any
criminal liability. The trial court denied the motion for new trial
filed by the appellants based on newly discovered evidence consisting
in the favorable testimony of Filomeno Renegado, and this denial is
assigned as an error. For the purpose of this decision it is not
necessary to make any ruling on the point since the admitted
exoneration of Filomeno by the Guerrilla Amnesty Commission must be
considered fatal to appellants’ conviction.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the appellants acquitted with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.