THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN MAGALLANES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. PONTE ABINUMAN, DEFENDANT?APPELLANT.

Manuel Lagarde, Julian Bartido, Benjamin Magallanes,
Arnold Viterbo, Quirino Cornal and Ponte Abinuman were prosecuted in the Court of First
Instance of Masbate under separate Infor­mations for Murder (Criminal Case No. 4136), and
Frustrated Murder (Criminal Case No. 4138), which arose out of one and the same shooting incident near the wharf of Masbate, Masbate, at about 6:30
in the morning of May 21, 1962, resulting in the killing of Marcial
Tamares and the near-fatal shooting of Moises Espinosa. 
Upon arraignment on June 21,
1962, all the accused entered separate pleas of “not
guilty” to the two (2) Informations; but later,
on August 7, 1962, accused
Manuel Lagarde withdrew his previous plea and,
thereafter, pleaded “guilty” to both charges.  He was sentenced accordingly on the same date
in both cases.  The other accused stood
trial.

As the two cases arose out of the same inci­dent, a joint trial
was had for the reception of evidence for the prosecution; but a separate trial
for each of the accused insofar as their evidence was concerned, was allowed by
the trial court.  And in view of the
impending transfer to the National Peni­tentiary of Manuel Lagarde
who, as earlier explained, then stood convicted of both charges, his deposition
was taken, and later offered as part of the evidence for all the remaining five accused.

Upon the conclusion of the trial, the court a quo
rendered a single decision in both cases on March 7, 1963, acquitting accused Benjamin Magallanes, Ar­nold
Viterbo and Quirino Cornal upon grounds of reasonable doubt, but finding
accused Julian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman
guilty of the crimes charged in both cases. 
In Criminal Case No. 4136
(For Murder), Ju­lian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman were each sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Marcial Tamares in the sum of
P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
the costs.  In Criminal Case No. 4138
(For Frustrated Murder), the same accused were each, like­wise, sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, with all the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

Only accused Ponte Abinuman has
appealed from the decision.

From our own examination of the evidence, it appears that bad
blood had existed for some time
bet­ween accused Benjamin Magallanes and one of the
victims, Moises Espinosa.  Magallanes has been
mayor of Masbate, Masbate,
since 1945 up to the date of the incident on the wharf of the town on May 21,
1962, which brought about these cases; but on December 23, 1961, shortly after
the national election, Moises Espinosa made a public
announcement that he will run for the mayoralty of Masbate in the coming local election of 1963, and at the same time, made an accusation that Mayor
Benjamin Magallanes had pocketed the money given him
by the Espinosas during the Proceeding congressional
election in November 1961, intended for the campaign expenses of Moises’ elder brother, the incumbent Congressman, Emilio
Espinosa, Jr. From then on, Magallanes was not on
speaking terms with Moises Espi­nosa.  Their relationship became worse when at the
waterfront, on January 6, 1962, Magallanes
grabbed Moises Espinosa by the shirt as the latter
was coming down a gangplank, drew his gun, and fired it twice at Moises.  Fortunately,
the gun did not explode, and soon cooler heads intervened.  This precipitated the filing of an
administrative charge against the mayor by Moises
Espinosa. Magallanes, who was with accused Viterbo and Cornal along with Nemesio Heath at the time, warned Moises
Espinosa that “next time he would not be as lucky”.  The antagonism was aggravated when Nemesio Heath was shot dead barely two days after the
incident, for which Moises Espinosa was charged with
murder.  Moises
Espinosa felt that Mayor Magallanes was behind the
filing of that charge against him.  These
developments prompted Moises Espinosa to leave his
own house and live in the house of his father, former Congress­man Emilio
Espinosa, Sr., in the same municipality; and thereafter, always brought along
with him Marcial Tama­res
as a sort of bodyguard.

It was also shown that
accused Manuel Lagarde had a strong motive to kill Moises Espinosa. 
Although the latter claimed that they were childhood friends and, as a
matter of fact, were together in forming the Masbate
Free Workers Union, Manuel Lagarde believed that Moises Espinosa was responsible for his ouster from the union where, as representative, he derived a monthly income of about P200.00 representing 5% of
collections.  It appears that Lagarde’s suspicion was not unfounded, for shortly before the union Members elected their
officers, Moises Espinosa withdrew the bond he had
previously posted for Lagarde who was then accused in
another case for murder, resulting in Lagarde’s
re-arrest and his subsequent inability to work for his re-election as officer
of the union.  Besides, Lagarde is the brother-in-law of Mayor Magallanes,
the latter being married to Lagarde’s elder sister;
and the enmity between Magallanes and Espinosa was no
sec­ret to Lagarde. 
Accused Arnold Viterbo and Quirino
Cornal were policemen of the town of Masbate; while accused Julian Bartido
and Ponte Abinuman were the con­stant companions or
bodyguards of Manuel Lagarde who, aside from these
cases, had already a string of
convic­tions of various other crimes ranging from light threats to homicide.

The evidence further show that early in the morning of May 21, 1962, Moises Espinosa, along with Marcial
Tamares, left the house of his father on Zurbito Street at about 6:00 o’clock bound for the wharf.  As the jeep driven by Moises
Espinosa turned left on Port Road,
Moises saw Manuel Lagarde
with other persons sitting at a store (Kakoy’s
Place).  Farther down that road leading to the pier area, Moises allegedly saw Mayor Magallanes with policemen Cornal
and Viterbo in the store owned by Lagarde’s
mother (mother-in-law to Mayor Magallanes), as Espinosa and Tamares
proceeded to the wharf.  They stopped
beside the Escano bodega facing the sea, after
turning left from the Port Road
to the “riprap”.

At about this time, according to Harry Cortes, he was taking
coffee at the store of Lagarde’s mother when Mayor Magallenes, Cornal and Viterbo entered the said store.  Lagarde arrived
later.  The Mayor opened the door of the
police pick-up truck parked on the side
of the road near the house of Lagarde, out of
which truck Lagarde got a long-barrelled
gun for himself, and two short
ones which he gave to accused Bar­tido and Abinuman.  Then they
all left towards the coi­ner of the Escano bodega,
and from that direction, the same witness declared, he heard about twenty gun
shots of different detonations fired in succession.  After­wards, the said witness allegedly saw
Mayor Magallanes, Cornal and
Viterbo run back to the pick-up which they boarded
and then drove fast along the Port
Road to the upper portion of the town.

It appears that when the successive burst of gunfire broke out, Moises Espinosa was still in his parked jeep beside the Ecano bodega.  He was
seated be­hind the steering wheel of the vehicle with Marcial
Tamares at his right. 
No sooner did Moises Espinosa realize that he and his companion were the objects of
the gun shots which came from behind them, for suddenly, he found himself and Marcial Tamares wounded and bleed­ing
profusely.  He immediately looked back by
peering at the left side of his
jeep and saw all the accused some 7 or 8 meters behind them, with their guns
pointed towards him and Marcial Tamares.  Manuel Lagarde was
holding a grease gun, while the rest were pointing their short guns.  Inspite of his wounds, Moises Espinosa was able to
drive his jeep forward in a zig-zag
manner to the corner of the road ahead, at the same time looking back at
his assailants.  He turned left upon
reaching the corner, and with increased accelera­tion, headed for his father’s
house about 150 meters away from the scene of the shooting.  In a
minute or so, Moises Espinosa reached the
house and shouted to his father, “Papa, Papa, I was shot by Magallanes and his companions.”  The father was apparently shocked at the sight
of his wounded son and his companion, Marcial Ta­mares, whose head was then slumped on the lap of Moises Espinosa. 
Although the father, Emilio Espinosa, Sr., was a doctor by profession,
he failed or forgot to give the victims any emergency or first aid treatment; all he could do under the
circumstances was to order a re­lative, Jose Zurbito,
to drive the same jeep and take the wounded Noises Espinosa and Marcial Tamares to the Provincial
Hospital of Masbate where they were given emergency
treatment at about 6:45 that same morning. 
Marcial Tamares was
found to have sustained ten (10) bullet wounds in different parts of his body,
all through and through, which snuffed out his life at about 9:30 a.m. of that day. 
Moises Espinosa sustained two bullet wounds,
one piercing the left side of his back and com­ing out of his chest, while the
other went through his right arm.  He was
airlifted to Manila in the
afternoon of that day and taken to the Manila
Doctors Hospital
where he was successfully
treated.

It appears that soon after the shooting at the wharf, Manuel Lagarde surrendered to the authorities and admitted and
confessed his sole authorship of the offenses. 
Julian Bartido also surrendered and pointed to the authorities the place where the
guns used were hidden.  The other accused
were taken into custody later.

Evidence for the defense tends to show that accused Benjamin Magallanes, Arnold Viterbo and Quirino Cornal were in their
respective houses when the shooting at the wharf took place.  Magallanes sought
to prove that he was suffering
from arthritis at the time, a rheuma of the joints of
the feet, and that he did not leave the house in the morning of May 21, 1962, for then he could
hardly walk.  A host of witnesses also
swore to the fact that Magallanes, Viterbo and Cornal were not seen
in the pier area on that day, and that the police pick-up they supposedly rode
in on the day of the killing
was then out of order.  In a word, they
all denied any par­ticipation in the commission of the crimes charged.  Accused Julian Bartido
and Ponte Abinuman admitted that they were in the
pier area that morning, but Abinuman claimed that he had left the place when the
shooting took place, while Bartido declared that he
did not par­ticipate in the shooting.  He
admitted tho that Lagarde
handed to him a 45-caliber pistol when they were still in the house of Lagarde; and that Lagarde
returned to the house and grabbed it back from him after emptying the
grease gun of its bullets, firing once again at the fleeing jeep of Moises Espinosa with the said pistol.

The foregoing evidence, briefly stated, was the basis of the
decision of the lower court now under consideration; and as previously set
forth also, re­sulted in the acquittal of accused Benjamin Magallanes,
Arnold Viterbo and Quirino Cornal, and the conviction of accused Julian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman.

Appellant Ponte Abinuman claims that
the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
murder of Marcial Tamares
(Criminal Case No. 4136) and of frustrated murder of Moises
Espinosa (Criminal Case No. 4138).  It is
contended that there is no clear
evidence of record that would tend to show that appellant had directly
participated in the commis­sion of the crime, or that be ever conspired with any of the accused to
commit the same.  We have carefully
examined the evidence pertinent to the above-assigned errors which We shall now set forth.

To be sure, the only inculpatory facts
establish­ed by the prosecution insofar as herein appellant is concerned, were
those testified to by one of the victims, Moises
Espinosa, and one Harry Cortes, an alleged by-stander near the scene of the
crimes charged in the morning of May 21, 1962. 
On this point, Moises Espinosa testified that
on his way to the pier, he saw Manuel Lagarde with a
group of men in a store at the corner of Zurbito
Street and Port Road, some 45 meters from the Escano
bodega where he later parked his jeep with Marcial Tamares; that at another place farther down the Port Road,
he saw Mayor Magallanes with ac­cused Arnold Viterbo and Quirino Carnal inside
the store owned by Lagarde’s mother (mother-in-law to Ma­yor Magallanes), about 15 meters from the scene of the
shooting; that as
he sat there in his jeep with Mar­cial Tamares beside him, just beside the Escano
bodega, he
kept the engine of his jeep running; that upon hear­ing the successive outburst
of gunfire behind his jeep, he readily realized that he and Tamares
were wounded and bleeding; that he immediately looked back by peer­ing at the left
side of his jeep and saw Manuel Lagar­de about 7
meters away holding
the grease-gun similar to Exhibit “F”, with accused Benjamin Magallanes on the right side of Lagarde holding the pistol (Exh. G); that Viterbo
was a little behind Magallanes with Cornal at his right, both holding short arms aimed at him;
that he also saw Ponte Abinuman some meters away from
Lagarde, with Bartido about
one meter away from Ponte, both also holding short guns aimed at hint; that at
about the same time, he moved his jeep slowly forward in a zigzag manner as he
looked back at his assail­ants; that he could not drive fast then because the
corner of the road was near and he wanted to turn left; that after turning left
at the corner, he drove faster towards the house of his father; that before
reaching the house, Marcial Tamares
who was vomiting blood, slumped his head on his lap, but he continued driving;
that upon reaching the house, he shouted to his father, “Papa, Papa, binadil aco ni
Magallenes cag san iya caoropod”
( Papa, Papa, I was shot by Magallanes and his
companions) ; that in the emergency room of the Mas­bate
Provincial Hospital, his statement was taken by their family lawyer upon whose
question, “Who shot you?”, he gave the answer, “Liling, Mayor, Veterbo, Cornal and other policemen”; that at the time that statement (Exh. U) was taken at about 7:00 o’clock that same morning,
he was already weak and getting dizzy, that is why he wanted to cut short or
abbreviate the answers he gave at the time; that lining referred to in that
statement is Manuel Lagarde; Mayor is Benjamin Magallanes;
the two others are Viterbo and Cornal,
while the “other policemen” spoken of in the statement are really Julian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman; and
that as to herein appel­lant, he could not have been mistaken, for he had known
him for about three(3) years already as a member of his union.  He admitted, however, that he knows that
appellant Ponte Abinuman is not a member of the
police de­partment of Masbate.

Harry Cortes, on the other hand, declared that he was inside the store of Manuel Lagarde’s
mother on Port Road at about 6:20 in the morning of May 21, 1962, tak­ing his
coffee; that he was already there when Mayor Magallanes,
Arnold Viterbo and Qurino Cornal (police­men) entered the store and occupied another
table in the store; that a short
while after, Manuel Lagarde also entered the said
store and whispered something to Maga­llanes, after which they got out of the place; that he
saw Mayor Magallanes open the door of the police pick-up
which was parked on the side of the road about four(4) meters from the store;
that he saw Manuel Lagarde get from inside the
vehicle a long-barrelled gun and then give other guns to Julian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman; that
thereafter, he saw the group proceed towards the Escano
bodega; that from the direction of the said
bodega, he later heard about twenty (20) gun shots of varied detonations
in succession; that he did not leave the
place and watched, and he saw Mayor Magallanes with
policemen Cornal and Viterbo
run from the corner of the Escano bodega, back to the
pick-up, which they boarded and drove fast towards the upper portion of the
town along Port Road in the direction of the Post Office; that he left the
store only after the Mayor’s group had gone; and that in the afternoon of May
22, 1962, the day following the shooting, his statement was taken down in
writing at the Fiscal’s Office.  (This statement was not presented in
evidence).  The witness admitted that he
is a member of the union headed by the victim, Moises
Espinosa.

For his defense,
appellant Ponte Abinuman testi­fied during the trial
that at about 6:00 a.m., May 21, 1962, he went to the pier area to move his
vowels under the Wharf; that he use to do so because there is no public toilet
in the vicinity where he lives; that on his way down the road, he saw at the
store on the cor­ner of Zurbito Street and Port Road
a group of men; that he recognized among those people there Manuel Lagarde; that he did not join the group nor talk or con­verse
with any one there but proceeded to the wharf to answer the call of nature;
that on his way back to his house, he met the jeep of Moises
Espinosa, who was at the wheel, with Marcial Tamares sitting at his right side; that Tamares
addressed him, “Ponte, where is Leling?”;
that he
informed Tamares
that he saw Manuel Lagarde (Leling)
with other persons at the store on corner Zurbito
Street and Port Road (Kakoy’s Place); that when he
passed by the store of Manuel Lagarde’s mother, he
saw Lagarde there with his sister; that he was asked
by Lagarde, “What did Marcial
ask you?”; that he informed Lagarde that Marcial Tamares inquired from him
where he (Leling) is; that after that he pro­ceeded
towards his house, but on the way, Remedios Danao requested him to help carry up her house a table
which he and Celedonio Desuyo
lifted up the new apart­ment; that when they were already inside the house,
that was the time he heard successive shots, which he did not mind because he
did not know then whether they were gunshots or firecrackers; that at about
6:45 that same morning, he was fetched from his place by a cer­tain Poldo who informed him that the Chief of Police of Masbate and the PC wanted to see him at the wharf; that
upon reaching the wharf, he was informed that they called for him because a boy
had said that one of those who fired at Moises Espinosa and Marcial Tamares has a mustache, and since he has a mustache, it
would be better for him to stay in the meantime at the PC barracks to avoid
being suspected; that he consented and was taken to the PC Compound at about
7:00 o’clock that same morning;
and that from that time up to about 4:00 o‘clock in the afternoon of the following day when he was transferred to the Provincial Jail, nobody ever questioned or
investigated him about the shooting incident, but he was never released after that.

Antonio Aum confirmed the fact that he
saw Ponte Abinuman in the house of Remedios Danao in the morning of May 21, 1962; that he happened to be
in the vicinity because he had gone out that morning on a bike for re­creation
and to go shopping.  Asked by the court
why he would go shopping so early in the morning, Aum
ex­plained that shopping and going out for fresh air are just the same to him.

It appears that during the taking of the deposi­tion of Manuel Lagarde, the latter declared that he saw Moises Espinosa and Marcial Tamares that morning of May 21, 1962, as they passed by him at the corner
of Zurbito Street and Port Road; that as soon as they
were gone after turning left at the corner of the Es­cano
bodega, he went to the house of his mother; that at that precise time, Ponte Abinuman passed by and told him not to go out because Moises Espinosa and Marcial Tamares were looking for him; that he felt grateful to
Ponte because he gave him that warning; that he saw Ponte Abinuman
went up the road to his house after giving him the warning; and that Ponte Abinuman was not present when he shot at Moises Espinosa and Marcial Tamares.

It appears further that as
soon as all the ac­cused in this case were picked up and confined in
jail, the PC at Masbate
requested the NBI Office in Manila to send a representative to Masbate to examine the suspects in the Provincial
Jail.  On May 23, 1962, a che­mist from the NBI Office in Manila arrived in Masbate and a paraffin test was conducted of the
suspects.  The hands of Manuel Lagarde, Julian Bartido and Ponte
Abi­numan were examined, and from the results of the
exa­mination it was proven that Manuel Lagarde and
Julian Bartido were positive of gunpowder or nitrates.  Ponte Abinuman‘s hands, however, were found negative of pow­der burns, while accused
Benjamin Magallanes, Arnold Viterbo
and Quirino Cornal were not
given the paraffin tests notwithstanding the fact that at the time they were
all confined in the same jail.

After a careful examination of the evidence above set forth and the conclusions reached
by the lower court on the basis thereof, We are more inclined to sustain the claim of herein appellant that the trial court fell into error in convicting him.  Apparently, the court below did not give much
credence to the testimonies of accused Ponte Abinuman
and Antonio Aum, but it would seem that it gave no
weight also to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Moises Espinosa and Harry Cortes,
for notwithstanding the statements in Court of Espinosa and Cortes to the
effect that they saw all the accused together near the scene of the shooting,
accused Benjamin Magallanes, Arnold Viterbo and Quirino Cornal were acquitted. 
The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or car­ried
out by a trial judge who, unlike
appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial;
and as far as credibility and veracity of witnesses are concerned, the conclusions of lower courts command,
great weight and respect, for their
proximate contact with those who take to the witness stand places them
in a more competent position to discrimi­nate
between the true and the false (See, People vs. Catalino,
L-25403, March 15, 1968, and cases
therein cited); And We find no compelling reasons, after examining the declarations of the principal witnesses, both
for the prosecution and for herein appellant, to question the relative
weight the trial court assigned on
their testimonies.  But it is quite
illogical that on the strength of the same testimonies which appear to have been discredited by the
court insofar as some of herein
appellant’s co-accused in the same case
is concerned, would be given much weight in pinning lia­bility as against said appellant
(See People vs. Aquino, et al., L-13789, June 30,
1960; and People vs. Chaw Yaw
Shun @ George Chua, et al., L-19590,
April 25, 1968).  Of course, such fact
alone, even if in­dulged in by the
trial court, cannot be the basis of acquittal, if apart from the
testimonies of witnesses discredited
by the court there are other inculpatory facts testified to by other credible witnesses upon which a verdict of
conviction may be reached.  But the
situation is not such in this case
either where, independent of the testimonies of prosecution witness­es Moises Espinosa
and Harry Cortes, nothing appears in the record upon which we may deduce that
Ponte Abi­numan directly participated in the commission of the crimes charged in these cases. 
The lower court had referred to herein appellant as an
“informer”, intimating
that Ponte Abinuman had conspired with the other
accused Julian Bartido and the confessed gun­man, Manuel
Lagarde, in the commission of said crimes; but this conclusion is not even supported by the evidence,
because if we were to give any credence at all to the testimony of Ponte Abinuman, the situation would be worse, for according to
him, all that be did was to relay the information to Manuel Lagarde
that early morning of May 21, 1962, that Moises
Espinosa and Marcial Tamares
were looking for him.  And this is
confirmed by the declaration of Manuel Lagarde that
herein appellant had warned him not to go out that morning because Moises Es­pinosa and Marcial Tamares were looking for him; and that after giving the
said warning, Ponte Abinuman pro­ceeded up the port
road to his house.  Such fact alone does
not show that herein appellant had conspired with Lagarde
in the commission of the crimes charged, even if it were true that upon receipt
of such information, Lagarde decided to kill Moises Espinosa and Marcial Tamares under the fear that if he did not get them first,
they will kill him.  We agree with the observation
of the court below, that the testimony of Manuel Lagarde,
com­ing as it does from a co-accused with a string of con­victions of various
other offenses, deserves scant consideration; and perhaps it may be said that
the testi­monies of herein appellant and Antonio Aum
are also not very reliable.  But the
weakness of a defense alone can­not be the basis of conviction.  The guilt of the accused must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, and this, the prosecution failed to establish.  It appears that the name of herein appellant
was mentioned for the first time by the surviving victim, Moises
Espinosa, only when he testified in court. 
When he came home immediately after the shooting, Moises
appears to have reported to his fa­ther that they were shot by “Magallanes and his companions”.  In his statement taken during his confinement
at the Masbate Provincial Hospital where he was taken a few minutes thereafter,
Espinosa declared that his assailants were “Lagarde,
Magallanes, Viterbo, Cornal and other policemen“.  He explained later in court that he failed to
mention the names of Julian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman (herein appellant) on that occasion because then
he was already feeling weak and dizzy as a result of the serious wounds he
sustained; and that when he mentioned other policemen, he was really
referring to Julian Bartido and Ponte Abinuman.  However,
we cannot overlook the fact that such failure on his part to make mention of
the name of herein appellant at the time would create doubt in a reasonable
mind as to the truth of his reference to Bartido and Abinuman as the persons he was referring to by saying “other
policemen”, in the light of his admission in court that he knew accused
Julian Bartido and herein appellant very well long
before the shooting; and that he was aware of the fact that they were not
policemen at the time.  Added to this is
the circumstance that Ponte Abinuman appears to have
been taken into the cus­tody of the authorities shortly after, at 6:45 a.m. of
the same day, of the shooting, and remained in confine­ment thereafter, and
wonderfully enough, his hands were found negative of gunpowder when he was
examined by the NBI with Lagarde and Bartido who, on the other hand, proved to be positive of
gun powder.  Such circumstances, coupled
with the fact, already mentioned, that the trial court appears to have doubted
the veracity of the testimonies of Moises Espinosa
and Harry Cortes to the effect that herein appellant was one of the men seen at
the scene of the crime by said
witnesses, give support to the inevitable conclusion that the guilt of herein
appel­lant was not proved beyond per adventure of doubt.  Consequently, the decisions in this case, as
to him, should be reversed.

WHEREFORE, herein appellant Ponte Abinuman
is acquitted, and his immediate release is hereby ordered.  Costs de officio.

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