THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO POLUTAN AND RUPERTO DAPOGO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The appellants Ruperto Dapogo and Francisco Polutan were, together
with Cenon Pama, charged in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo with
the crime of murder for the killing of Manuel Francisco, which took
place in Barrio Tagubong in the municipality of Passi, Iloilo Province,
on August 6, 1949. Pama was acquitted, but Dapogo and Polutan were
found guilty as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P4,000, to suffer
the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay proportionate
costs. From this sentence, Dapogo and Polutan appealed.

The evidence shows that in the morning of August 6, 1949, the
appellant Dapogo fetched Manuel Francisco from his house in barrio
Losot, Dumarao, Capiz, telling him that he was being sent for by the
accused Cenon Pama who was in Barrio Tagubong, Passi, Iloilo. Francisco
told his wife Adelina Sialvo where he was going, but as he did not
return Adelina asked Beltran Detalban, who happened to pass by the
following day, whether he knew where her husband was, and Beltahan
informed her that her husband was in the uplands of Barrio Tagubong,
already dead. Taking her baby along, Adelina went to the place
indicated and was there informed by one Marta that the body of her
husband was in the house of Roman Polutan, father of the appellant
Francisco Polutan. Adelina proceeded to said house, but before she got
there she was met by the herein appellants who, on learning that she
wanted to see her husband’s body, warned her not to do so, telling her
that they had orders from the accused Cenon Pama to kill her if she
went near the cadaver. Adelina then looked for her father-in-law,
Eugenio Francisco, whom she found on the road to Barbaranan, Dumarao,
Capiz, talking with Cenon Pama, the latter having, it appears, sent for
Eugenio earlier that day. Pama was then informing Eugenio that the
deceased was killed by appellants “because of his foolishness’ and that
if Eugenio insisted in reporting the case to the authorities, he would
have appellants file charges against him and see to it that he was put
in jail. Pama even dissuaded Eugenio from viewing the remains of his
son with the threat that, should he go where the cadavar was, “instead
of one there would be more dead.” Then turning to Adelina, who was
introduced to him as the widow of the deceased, Pama told her not to
make a fuss, for he would take care of everything, and also warned her
not to tell anybody what had happened for otherwise she would also be
killed. Thus threatened by Pama, who boasted that he had “authority
both in the mountains and in the town,” being an “inspector and secret
detective of the whole island of Panay,” Adelina and Eugenio kept their
peace and did not complain to the authorities until they learned that
Pama did not have the power or authority he claimed he had. That was in
March, 1952.

Arrested and investigated by the police, the appellants Dapogo and
Polutan admitted having participated in the killing of the deceased and
each signed a sworn confession before the justice of the peace.
According to their confession, appellants, one afternoon in August,
1949, had a drinking spree with their co-accused Cenon Pama and the
deceased Manuel Francisco. As Pama became drunk they took him to the
house of the appellant Polutan where they all slept. At about midnight
Pama woke them up and told them to bind Francisco and hang him from the
truss. Once this was done Pama ordered the appellant Dapogo to stab
Francisco with a bolo. Unwilling to do so at first because of his
relationship with Francisco, Dapogo had to obey when Pama threatened to
shoot him and so he stabbed Francisco below the armpit. Thereafter, the
appellant, Polutan, who was ordered by Pama to take his turn, also
stabbed Francisco, first below the armpit and then in the middle of the
breast. Fatally wounded, Francisco died shortly thereafter.

At the trial appellants repudiated their confession, alleging that
they had been starved and intimidated into signing the same. The
appellant Dapogo denied having participated in the killing, while the
appellant Polutan admitted killing the deceased but alleged
self-defense.

According to the version of the defense what happened is that in the
evening of August 6, 1949, the appellant Polutan, after taking a walk
with his co-appellant Dapogo, invited the latter to pass the night with
him in the house of his father Roman Polutan. At around midnight Manuel
Francisco went up the house to rob and, after getting some money and
clothing, still threatened Roman with a bolo if he did not give more,
whereupon Roman grabbed his wife, made a dash for the kitchen door and
jumped with her, followed by his son Juan. While fleeing through the
kitchen, Roman happened to step on appellant Polutan when he awakened
and asked why he was trying to sleep when they were being robbed.
Aroused, the appellant Polutan grabbed a bolo from the wall and went to
the living room and there came face to face with Francisco who struck
at him with a bolo and hit him in the right forearm. Polutan stepped
back, but as he did so, he bumped against a post and caused a lamp
hanging thereon to fall, with the result that its light went out.
Polutan also fell, and while he was in a squatting position Francisco
struck him another blow which though aimed at his head landed on his
thigh because he leaned back. Retaliating, Polutan got up and stabbed
Francisco with his bolo. Mortally wounded, Francisco fell and shouted
to his brother Bernardo, who was downstairs, to inform him of his
plight. Appraised that Francisco had a companion, Polutan made for the
door and there saw Bernardo standing. But Bernardo fled on seeing him.
According to this version the appellant Dapogo did not take part in the
fight for he fled when the light went out.

The defense tried to prove that the incident was reported to Doroteo
Idombingo, barrio lieutenant of Tagubong, to Ramon Aguilar barrio
Lieutenant of Lamonan, and to Sergeant Serafin Palmes of the municipal
police of Passi, and that it was investigated and settled by Ramon
Aguilar and no prosecution resulted because the father, brother, and
widow of the deceased were satisfied that the latter was the one at
fault. This is, however, denied by Ramon Aguilar and Sergeant Serafin
Palmes, and indeed it is odd that a matter of such gravity should be
settled by a mere barrio lieutenant. In the circumstances we cannot say
that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant Polutan did
not report the killing to the authorities.

The version of the killing as given by the witnesses for the defense
is hard to believe. If it is true as claimed by the appellant Polutan
that he fell when he bumped against a post while the deceased was
attacking him with a bolo it is not likely that he would come out
winner in the fight. And, if the alleged robbery were true, appellants
would undoubtedly have reported what had happened to the authorities
instead of fleeing to a distant town where they were later arrested.
The fact is that appellants have both made a confession admitting their
participation in the killing without any mention of the alleged
robbery, and while they claim that they have been starved and
intimidated into signing the confession, the claim is denied by the
justice of the peace before whom the confession was sworn to and signed
as well as by the chief of police and the person who furnished them
food during their detention.

It is true that in their confession appellants claim that they were
compelled by their co-accused Cenon Pama to stab the deceased. But
exculpatory statements of this nature often found in confessions of
guilt, are not necessarily to be believed, more so when, as in the
present case, the conduct of the appellants after the commission of the
offense was inconsistent with their innocence.

Cenon Pama’s responsibility for the crime need not be discussed because, as already stated, he was acquitted by the trial court.

With the evidence on record, we think appellants’ guilt has been
established beyond reasonable doubt and, as the penalty imposed is in
accordance with law, the sentence appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against the appellants.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ.,concur.