THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE GUMAHIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On April 23, 1960,
close to midnight in Ampinican, Salay, Misamis Oriental, on an occasion that should have been
attended with joy and gaiety, a ball for the canvassing of votes to determine
who would be the barrio queen, tragedy struck unexpectedly and
unaccountably.  The president of the
local Parents-Teachers’ Association, Antonio Galamiton,
was shot dead.  Appellant, Felipe Gumahin, then a municipal policeman of Salay,
was indicted for murder, tried, and having been found guilty, sentenced to
death.  Under the law, the case was sent
up to us for automatic review.

The information for murder filed before the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Oriental charged appellant of
having “with impunity and with abuse of official position as a municipal policeman, and with
the qualifying circumstance of alevosia and the
generic aggravating circumstance of known premeditation,” wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaulted
and fired on the day and place above-mentioned “at Antonio Galamiton with a service
revolver inflicting upon him mortal wounds on the vital parts of his body, as a
result of which the said Antonio Galamiton
died.”

At the trial before the Hon. Abundio Z.
Arrieta, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, evidence was introduced by the
prosecution and defense.  Thereafter, the
accused, as above noted, was found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, qualified by treachery
and attended by the aggravating circumstances of impunity and abuse of official
position, as charged in the information, contrary to and in violation of Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.  He was
sentenced “to suffer the supreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs
of the deceased, Antonio Galamiton, in the sum of
P6,000.00 and to pay the costs.”

From the evidence introduced at the trial by both the prosecution
and defense, there was no dispute as to
the antecedents of the fatal occurrence, the protagonists therein, and the
gunshot wounds inflicted an the deceased, one of which was mortal.  There were different versions as to how the
deceased met his untimely end.

On the evening of April
23, 1960, a dance was held at the cemented tennis court beside the
old public school building in Ampinican, a barrio of Salay, Misamis Oriental.  The affair was attended by many people, among
them the late Antonio Galamiton.  At about midnight,
there was a lull to allow for the counting of the ballots cast in the beauty
contest for the approaching barrio fiesta. 
Before the canvass could begin, the accused Felipe Gumahin,
armed with a .38 cal. Smith
& Wesson service revolver, with another policeman, Eladio
Excelise, armed with a carbine, suspecting that a
certain Abraham Salarda, then standing outside the
tennis court by the gate, was carrying a firearm, went to and pointed their
weapons at him.  Appellant Gumahin confronted him with this accusation:  “Don’t move; you are a wise guy; where
is your arm.”

A conflict of evidence developed as to what transpired next, but
it was undeniable that the deceased, Antonio Galamiton,
did protest against the treatment to which Salarda
was subjected and that soon thereafter, he lay dead from a fatal gunshot wound coming from the
revolver of appellant Gumahin.

There was no dispute
either as to the number of wounds stained by the deceased disclosed by an
autopsy performed on his remains the next day by the municipal
health officer of Salay.  There
was a contused wound on the left ear as large as a twenty-centavo coin; a
bullet wound on the outer left arm about 3 or 4 inches below the shoulder,
traversing the muscle and coming out towards the back; and the fatal bullet
wound on the left chest at the level of the nipple penetrating the diaphragm
downward, the bullet coming out on the right flank at the region of the 12th
rib on the right side of his body.  It
was the view of the doctor that
this chest wound which pierced the heart and the liver caused internal
hemorrhage and instantaneous death.

As to what happened after appellant and the other policeman
confronted Salarda, there was a conflict of
evidence.  According to the witnesses for
the prosecution, Salarda himself, one Timoteo Sabud, and two
eyewitnesses who saw the whole unfortunate event, Fernando Ala-an and Bienvenido Galamiton, after Salarda was confronted with the accusation that he was “a wise
guy” and that he had a firearm with him, came the answer that he did not
have any.  This notwithstanding,
appellant ordered his companion to search him. 
This was done, but nothing was found on Salarda.  Appellant was not satisfied; he ordered the
latter to remove his clothes.  He was
obeyed, the latter starting to unbutton his shirt.

It was at this stage that the deceased, Antonio Galamiton, approached the group, requesting appellant and Excelise to refrain from compelling Salarda
to undress in public.  He pointed out
that even if he had committed a crime, he should be taken to the municipal
building, where the search could be continued in private.  Appellant was incensed by this action of the
deceased.  In an angry tone, he asked if Galamiton was siding with Salarda
and whether he wanted to fight.  At the
same time he struck him at the left ear with the barrel of his revolver,
causing his victim
to stagger from the blow.  Wishing to
avoid aggravating the incident, Galamiton walked away
towards the direction of the orchestra but
appellant, his ire, apparently uncontrolled, went after him.

The crowd because of what was happening perceptively
thinned.  Even Salarda
hurriedly left the place.  Ala-an
and Bienvenido Galamiton
remained and witnessed the unfortunate occurrence.  Locating the deceased near the orchestra,
appellant struck him with his revolver which simultaneously exploded.  The deceased staggered and fell to the
ground.  It was in that position that
appellant shot him on the left shoulder. 
Galamiton though feeling the effects of the wound
tried to rise up.  Before he could assume
a standing position, appellant
put his left hand on his right hand, pressed his revolver against his breast
and shot him on the left nipple at the same time pushing him aside.  The wound as above noted was fatal.  Antonio Galamiton
fell lifeless on the cement floor.

The Chief of Police of Salay, who was
at that time in the canvassing table a few meters away, then ordered the
appellant and the other policeman to bring the deceased to the municipal
building.  They dragged the corpse at the
road­side, appellant holding the shoulder and his companion the right
foot.  Upon reaching the highway, they
put it into a bus which took it
to the municipal building.

What was the
version of the defense?  When placed on
the stand, appellant narrated that while maintaining peace and order at the
dance held that evening of April 23,
1960, with Pat. Excelise, he was told by
the latter to be careful because a certain
woman had informed him that “somebody would make trouble in this dance.”
They did agree to stay in the corner to observe the people in the place.  Sometime later, they noticed a certain person
unknown to them leaning by a post who apparently “observed every person that used to
pass by.” The two getting suspicious agreed to approach that unknown
individual and searched his body to find out whether he had any weapon.  They did so and Excelise
was able to search him.  Before he could
finish the job, the deceased, Antonio Galamiton, came
and in a harsh voice shouted:  “You
are abusive policemen.”

Excelise approached Galamiton
and took him to the place where the orchestra was.  Appellant wanted to continue the search
but was unable to do so as he saw the deceased come towards him, at the same
time reprimanding him.  Appellant believed
that Galamiton “was going to rush at me because I saw
two persons trying to stop him.” The deceased was however able to
extricate himself from those two. 
Noticing that, appellant took out his “revolver and fired a warning
shot.” Then according to appellant, the deceased was able to reach him
holding his right hand with his two hands. 
He was un­able to free himself from such a hold, and both of them fell
down the cement pavement.

Then according to appellant, while in that position he
“heard a shot.” At that time his right hand was being held by the
right hand of Antonio Galamiton, who was on top of
him.  When he fell on the cement
pavement, with his head hitting it, and with Antonio Galamiton
on top of him he “noticed that his [Galamiton’s]
grasp was already weak.” So he pushed him aside.  He tried to get up but could not do so right
away as half of the body of Galamiton was also
“on top of [his] leg.” He was able to stand up finally and saw the
Chief of Police standing nearby.  When
asked what had happened, appellant answered that deceased was “trying to
grab my revolver.” It was then that the Chief of Police told them that Galamiton be brought to Salay for
treatment.

This he did, being helped in the process by the other policemen, Excelise.  They carried
him, appellant holding the upper portion of his body while the latter held his
feet.  They rode with him on a Mindanao
Bus, but upon their arrival at the municipal building, Galamiton
was “already dead.” It was only later on that he found out that the person
searched by them was Abraham Salarda.

The other policeman, Excelise,
corroborated in the main the above version. 
Three other defense witnesses testified to their having seen the
deceased rush towards the appellant and try to get hold of his revolver which
exploded twice during that incident.

The lower court in convicting the appellant chose to believe the
testimony for the prosecution. 
Thus:  “A judicious appraisal
of the testimonies of the witnesses persuades the court that the weight of the evidence supports the charge against the
accused.  The theory of accidental
shooting which the defense endeavored to weave through its array of witnesses
finds no substantial basis.  Aside from
the evident bias and untrustworthy behavior manifested by the witnesses for the
defense during their turn on the witness stand, their given version of the
incident appears strained because it cannot be reconciled with physical facts
and the natural course of events.  For
instance, the bullet wound at the rear of the upper left arm of the deceased
Antonio Galamiton and the rip across the back part of
his shirt which, according to the uncontradicted
testimony of Dr. Jovito Aguinaldo
must have been produced by the bullet after cutting through the flesh do not
fit into the theory of the defense.”^[1]

The second circumstance, according to the lower court, reflecting
on the probability of the version of the defense “is the location of the bullet wound on the chest of the
deceased Galamiton above his left nipple.” From
the testi­mony of the municipal health officer, “this wound, which carried
heavier powder, burns than the left arm wound took a downward course passing through the heart, the diaphragm and
the liver and came out on the right flank of the deceased at the level of the
last floating rib.” The trial court
correctly observed that no one of the witnesses for the defense could tell how
this particular wound was inflicted.  On
the other hand, the testimony of both the eyewitnesses, Ala-an and Bienvenido Galamiton, to the
effect that the deceased was in
a squatting position when
appellant held him by the left arm and shot him at close range would
satisfactorily explain its location.

There is this other circumstance which in the opinion of the
lower court cannot be reconciled with the contention of the accused.  It “is the
fact that his clothes were never smeared with the blood of his victim except
for a few spots on his left trouser’s pocket.  According to Dr. Aguinaldo,
the death of said victim was instantaneous due to the rupture of the heart
and other vital organs.  The human body
is of such a nature that blood spurts out immediately in
large quantity when the heart is pierced. 
Since the accused was lying on the pavement on his back as he claims when with the deceased stop him was wounded on
the left breast, it is inconceivably strange why the front of his uniform was
not spilled with his victim’s blood.  It
only goes to show that their bodies were not actually in contact when said
accused wounded his victim.”^[2]

On appeal, twelve errors were assigned by counsel for the
appellant.  The first dealt with the
alleged failure to conduct the first stage of the preliminary investigation
before the arrest of the accused notwithstanding his objection against being
held in custody without such a procedure being followed. 
Considering how fairly conducted was the trial of his case and how
carefully his rights were protected, this alleged irregularity merits no
further consideration.

The remaining errors dealt with the credibility accorded the
testimony of the municipal health officer and other witnesses for the
prosecution and the refusal to uphold the theory of the defense that it was the
deceased who attacked appellant; the lower court, so it was alleged,
consequently erred in not acquitting appellant. 
The above assignments of errors do not carry persuasion.  The findings of the lower court embodied in a
well-written decision cannot only stand the test of the most rigid scrutiny but
also has in its favor the well-settled principle that as far as credibility is
concerned, the findings of the lower court which had the opportunity to see,
hear and observe the witnesses testify and to weigh their testimonies will be
accorded the highest degree of respect by this Tribunal.

As this Court stated in People v. Tila-on:^[3]
“Finally, the rule is now firmly established to the point of becoming
elementary in this jurisdiction and elsewhere that where there is an
irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of witnesses, the appellate court will
not disturb the findings of the trial court when the evidence of the successful
party, considered by itself, is adequate to sustain the judgment appealed
from.” To the same effect: 
“Appellate courts as a rule desist from disturbing the findings of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, for the latter is in a better
position to appreciate the same, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their behavior and manner of testifying during the trial.  We find no reason to depart from this settled
practice, since it has not been shown that the trial court has overlooked
certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the
result of the case.”^[4]

The latest formulation of such a doctrine follows:  “Time after time, this Court has
declared that the matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness
stand is best and most competently performed or carried out by the trial judge
because the latter, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimonies in
the light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and
attitude at the trial.  * * * Of course,
this rule admits of exceptions as when patent inconsistencies in the
statements of witnesses are ignored by the lower court or when the conclusions
arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.  The appellants herein, however, have not
established the existence of any such exception in this case.”^[5]

That is all there is to this case then.  The vigorous effort on the part of counsel
for appellant to exculpate appellant while no doubt in keeping with the
principle that a lawyer should exert his utmost to serve his client’s cause,
does not warrant a reversal; it affords no legal basis for the acquittal of the
appellant.  The sad and dismal fate
suffered by the deceased calls for the corresponding penalty to be meted the
culprit.  It is all the more regrettable
that the deceased in trying to uphold human dignity and in striving to prevent the
abusive exercise of authority met a tragic death.  The least this Court can do under the circumstances
is to make clear to all and sundry, especially to members of police forces,
that the authority conferred on them to maintain peace and order should be
exercised with due regard to the constitutional rights, most especially so of
those who belong to the lower-income groups. 
If in a case like the
present, the full force of the penal statute is not felt by the perpetrator of
the misdeed, then the law itself stands condemned.  This we should not allow to happen.

The Court believes however
that while murder, qualified by treachery, was committed by the appellant, the
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, impunity and abuse of
official position, as charged in the information, were not duly proved.

WHEREFORE, the penalty imposed by the lower court is
hereby modified; the accused is condemned to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased, Antonio Galamiton in the sum of P6,000.00
and to pay the costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Decision, Brief for appellant, pp. XII-XIII.

^[2]
Decision, Brief for appellant, p. XVI.

^[3]
L-12406, June 30, 1961.

^[4]
People v. Agrecio Lumayag,
L-19142, March 31, 1965,
citing People v. Curiano, L-15256, October 31, 1963.

^[5]
The People of the Philippines
v. Secapuri, L-17518-19, February 28, 1966, citing People v. Refuerzo, (1949) 82 Phil. 576; People v. Aguipo, L-12123, July
31, 1958; and People v. Romawak, L-19644,
October 31, 1964.