G.R. No. L-84. April 15, 1946
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LORETO PABELLA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DEMOCRITO JARA, APPELLANT.
PERFECTO, J.:
“The undersigned, Provincial Fiscal, accuses Loreto Pabella and
Democrito Jara of the crime of theft of large cattle, defined and
punished under article 309, paragraph 5, in connection with article 310
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Acts No. 273 and
417, committed as follows:“That on or about the 29th day of June, 1945, in the
municipality of Tayabas, province of Tayabas, P. I., and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to
gain but without violence against or intimidation of person nor force
upon things, conspiring and confederating together and helping each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and carry away without the consent of the owner thereof, one
female carabao and a calf valued at ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED PESOS
(P1,300) Philippine currency, belonging to Pablo Caban, to the damage
and prejudice of the said owner in the said amount of P1,300.00.
Contrary to law.”
Four witnesses testified for the prosecution.
1. Pablo
Caban, the offended party, testified that before June 29, 1945, he had
in his possession as owner a female carabao and her calf; that the
animals disappeared on June 10, although he does not know what day; that
he informed the authorities about the disappearance of the animals on
July 1; that he gave the information to the mayor and to the sergeant
of police Esquillo; that when he gave the information he was accompanied
by his mother Leona Abarsusa and by his wife Rosario Alvarez; that the
value of the animals is P1,300; that Democrito Jara is residing in the
barrio of Pandacaque, the same where witness is living; the witness does
not know whether Democrito Jara has carabaos of his own or not.
2. Leona Abarsusa declared that: she knows Democrito Jara because he
lives in the barrio of Pandacaque; she saw Democrito Jara on June 29,
1945, because he went to her house and asked for the whereabouts of her
husband, to which she answered that her husband was in the town;
Democrito asked for water and afterwards went out; afterwards she
remembered the instructions of her husband to watch the corral where the
female carabao and a calf were kept; she saw Democrito Jara tying the
fence through which the animals passed; the animals were already out of
the fence; when she saw Democrito Jara in the act of tying the fence she
was inside the corral; Democrito Jara was accompanied by an individual
unknown to the witness, and who was then in the woods; afterwards
Democrito pulled the animals, while the unknown individual was goading
them; she did not call their attention for taking the animals, because
she was afraid, she being alone and the two individuals were carrying
bolos; the animals belong to Pablo Caban and were kept in the corral
under her care; she notified the authorities of the taking away of the
animals on a Sunday; the corral is located very near her house,
approximately 60 meters; when Democrito Jara went to her house to ask
for a glass of water, she already suspected that he was going to take
the animals because he asked for her husband and for said reason she
followed him after she had closed the door of her house; when Democrito
went upstairs of her house and went down he was not carrying anything;
Democrito took the animals at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon; she knows
very well Democrito and his father, they being neighbours in the same
barrio of Pandacaque; she knows Democrito since his childhood; she did
not go the next morning to the house of Democrito to ask him why he took
the animals; she knows that Democrito and his father are owners of
carabaos; when Democrito Jara was pulling the carabaos outside the fence
the day was still bright; Democrito is not her relative.
3. Dominador Rodillas testified that: on June 29, 1945, he saw
the accused pulling carabaos in the coconut grove of Froilan Lopez; the
carabaos were carrying the brand of Rufino; the witness went home
later; the witness did not testify in the justice of the peace court,
although, later, he said that he did; he came to the court of first
instance on petition of Pablo Gaban; no one brought him to testify as a
witness.
4. Remigio Esquillo testified that Pablo Caban and Leona
Abarsusa went to his office, as police sergeant, to denounce that the
accused took away the carabaos, and he took the affidavit of Democrito
Jara who denied having taken the carabaos.
The two accused and two witnesses testified for the defense.
1. Ananias Abrasia testified that the offended party, Pablo Caban, told
him in a conversation that his carabaos disappeared on June 10, and
that Dominador Rodillas was residing in the house of Pablo Caban as a
servant.
2. Simplicia Abrigo declared that; she is the mother of
the accused Loreto Pabella, who is residing with her in Lucena since the
town of Tayabas has been bombed; on June 29, 1945, Loreto Pabella was
in her house in Lucena, and during said day he did not go to Tayabas.
3. Democrito Jara denies having taken the carabaos, and testified that;
if he had taken them, as declared by Leona Abarsusa, she would have
called his attention because she is his aunt; there are neighbors near
the house of Leona Abarsusa; the motive of accusing him is the fact that
the accusers went to a clairvoyant to ask who stole the carabaos, and
the clairvoyant answered that the person, who stole the carabaos is the
same person who had lost a carabao, and the Japanese had taken one of
the carabaos of the accused; accused is the owner of two carabaos; one
time he placed them near the corral of Pablo Caban; on June 15 he met
Pablo Caban who told him that he had lost his carabaos on June 10, and
asked him about said carabaos but the accused answered that he did not
know the whereabouts of said carabaos.
4. Loreto Pabella
testified that: It is not true that he had taken the carabaos in the
company of Democrito; he has not been in the barrio of Pandacaque; hence
the town of Tayabas was bombed he did not come back any more to said
town; he knows the motive for his being included in the prosecution,
because he was a member of the guerrilla and he maltreated offended
party Pablo Caban, because Pablo Caban refused to reveal the whereabouts
of his companions who were spies of the Japanese.
Pablo Caban,
testifying in rebuttal, admitted that the accused Loreto Pabella had
maltreated him, stating that Loreto Pabella was a member of the
guerrilla and as such he asked Pablo Caban for chicken and pig and as
Pablo Caban could not give them, Pabella maltreated him although Caban
himself was also a member of the guerrilla.
The evidence of this
case does not show the guilt of appellant Democrito Jara beyond all
reasonable doubt. To arrive at this conclusion we have taken into
consideration the following facts:
1. That Democrito Jara’s
testimony to the effect that his accusers have consulted a clairvoyant
to determine who is the author of the theft of the lost carabaos of
Pablo Caban has not been denied nor contradicted.
2. That it was
shown that Pablo Caban had a grudge against accused Loreto Pabella for
having maltreated him, as he himself admitted. Loreto Pabella has been
acquitted by the lower court.
3. That Pablo Caban testified
categorically that he lost the carabaos in question on June 10, and that
his testimony on this fact is supported by the testimony of Ananias
Abrasia and Democrito Jara.
4. That Leona Abarsusa, the only
witness who testified about the taking of the lost carabaos, testified
that the carabaos were taken by the accused on June 29, 1945.
5.
That witness Dominador Rodillas, who is supposed to apparently
corroborate Leona Abarsusa, has incurred several contradictions which
make his testimony unworthy of credit.
6. That accused Loreto
Pabella who, according to the prosecution, was in the company of
Democrito Jara in the act of stealing the carabaos in Pandacaque,
municipality of Tayabas, has not been in Tayabas on June 29, 1945, but
in Lucena, where he transferred and remained since Tayabas was bombed.
7. That in the testimony of Leona Abarsusa there are circumstances which make her testimony incredible such as follows:
(a) Before taking the carabaos, Democrito Jara had to pay her a visit in her house and request for a glass of water.
(b) She failed to impede or even to call the attention
of Democrito Jara when the carabaos were being taken away from the
corral, her reason for not daring to call the attention of Democrito
Jara, that is, of being afraid because Democrito was carrying a bolo,
being a flimsy one, because she is an acquaintance of Democrito whom she
knew since he was a child and the fact that he was carrying a bolo is
routinary, being one of the habits of men in the barrios.(c) Leona’s failure to go to the house of Democrito
Jara, alone or accompanied by her husband, the day after the taking of
the carabaos to ask Democrito or his father about the carabaos.(d) Leona’s failure to give alarm or to denounce the
theft immediately after the after the commission of the crime, she
having waited for two days before she went to see the mayor and the
sergeant of police.(e) The fact that the alleged taking away of the
carabaos took place in broad daylight, and that the alleged thieves did
not attempt to conceal themselves while committing the act; but, on the
contrary, committed it under circumstances open to and noticeable by the
whole world.
Loreto Pabella was acquitted by the lower court.
The present case shows an instance where wrong beliefs and prejudices of ignorant people may lead to a miscarriage of justice.
We cannot close our eyes to the fact that among the most ignorant
elements of our people there are still many who believe in the
infallibility of charlatans who are posing; as diviners or clairvoyants,
taking advantage of the weakness of the power of common people for
mental analysis, these dangerous individuals claim and boast of hidden
and mysterious ability for divination and ply their deceitful trade,
working on the credulity and stupidity of persons who, although
full-grown, in stature and ripe in years, remain by lack of education
possessing infantile mentality.
Unfortunately, faith in
clairvoyance is not a monopoly of ignorant elements of our people. In
all countries of the world there are clairvoyants who successfully
profit by and exploit the ignorant. More unfortunate even is the fact
that all over the world there are many persons who, notwithstanding
their great opportunities for culture in colleges and universities,
still rely on the nonsensical prophesies of Nostradamus, that genial
impostor who had the ability of attracting the attention of many persons
to his cabalistic predictions and of awakening the most unscientific
and unreasonable belief in them.
All the people of all countries
need to be emancipated from the bondage of ignorance that fertilizes the
propagation and perpetuation of the anti-culture lineage of
Nostradamus.
All lovers of culture agree that the practice of
clairvoyancy should be discouraged in such a way that it may not cause
further harm, like the one suffered by the two persons who were unjustly
prosecuted in this case, one of them, the herein appellant, having been
erroneously convicted by the lower court and imminent jeopardy of
serving unjustly a long and heavy term of imprisonment, with the
consequent criminal ignominy stigmatizing him for the remainder of his
life.
Among the things that the practice of clairvoyancy makes so
harmful is the force of suggestion which it creates. Such is the extent
of that force that persons influenced by it are liable to commit,
without much freedom in consciousness, outright falsehoods in order to
bring out facts or fabricate evidence to tally with and conform to the
belief suggested by the clairvoyant’s charlatanism.
We hope that
the crusaders of culture shall not lose time launching a drive against
such forms of pernicious ignorance as the practice of clairvoyance
depicts, and that in the future the repetition of such unjust
prosecutions similar to the one which commenced this case shall be
minimized until it is reduced to an absolute nil.
The decision of
the lower court finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
theft of large cattle and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of
from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional,
to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P1,300 as value of the
stolen carabaos, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay one-half the costs, is reversed and appellant is
acquitted of the crime charged in the information, with costs de oficio.
Ozaeta, De Joya, Hilado, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.