G.R. No. L-31694. December 14, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO D. ROSALES, ALIAS “NARDING DE ROSALES”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CONCEPCION JR., J.:
We agree with the Solicitor General that appellant is entitled to
an acquittal.
At about 6:00 p.m. on January 29, 1966, at the Home Economics
Building of the Cabay Elementary School, located at Barrio Cabay, Municipality
of Tiaong, Quezon Province, a shooting incident occurred during a drinking
spree that resulted in the instantaneous death of Miguel Hernandez, a resident
of Barrio Cabay.[1]
An information dated December 15, 1966 was filed in Criminal Case
No. 15986 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, as follows:
“The undersigned, Provincial Fiscal, accuses Leonardo D.
Rosales alias “Narding de Rosales”, Genaro Lardizabal, Renato
de Rosales and Cesar Razon, of the crime of murder, defined and punished under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 29th day of January, 1966, in the Barrio
of Cabay, Municipality of Tiaong, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, Leonardo D. Rosales
alias “Narding de Rosales” and Genaro Lardizabal, together
with Renato de Rosales and Cesar Razon, who are both still at large, armed with
pistols and carbine, calibers .45 and .30, respectively, with intent to kill
and with evident premeditation and treachery, and taking advantage of their
superior strength in arms and in person, conspiring and confederating together
and mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shoot at one Miguel Hernandez while the latter was sitting in a
drinking spree, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal gunshot wounds in the
different parts of his body which caused his death.
“Contrary to law.”[2]
After arraignment, plea of not guilty,[3]
and trial, the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, in its Decision,
dated September 23, 1969, acquitted the three accused Genaro Lardizabal, Cesar
Razon and Renato de Rosales, and convicted accused appellant Leonardo D.
Rosales alias “Narding de Rosales”, with dispositive portion,
as follows:
“VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CON SIDERATIONS, the
court finds the accused Leonardo D. Rosales alias “Narding de
Rosales” guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, defined
and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
the court hereby sentences the accused Leonardo D. Rosales alias
“Narding de Rosales” to life imprisonment; with the accessories of
the law; to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in view of the nature of
the penalty imposed; and to pay the costs of the proceedings.
“With respect to the accused Genaro Lardizabal, Cesar Razon
and Renato de Rosales, the court finds them not guilty of the crime charged and
therefore, hereby acquits them, with the corresponding proportionate costs de
oficio.
“SO ORDERED.”[4]
It is not controverted that at about 6:00 p.m. on January 29,
1966, at Barrio Cabay, Municipality of Tiaong, Quezon Province, a shooting
incident occured during a drinking spree at the Home Economics Building of the
Cabay Elementary School, wherein Miguel Hernandez, a resident of Barrio Cabay,
was shot several times, resulting in his instantenous death.[5]
The Deputy Chief of Police of Tiaong, as authorized by the Chief
of Police, went to the scene of the shooting the following day, January 30,
1966, to investigate the incident. He
recovered from the scene of the shooting the following:
“Two (2) copper
cal. .45 slugs, said to have been found lodged in the wooden parts of the eskaparate
inside the sala of the Building wherein the victim was shot;
“One (1) lead
cal. .38 slug, deformed, said to have been taken by a post inside the building;
and
“One (1)
Revolver, Cal. .38, Smith & Wesson bearing Serial Number 117621, with two
(2) live ammos and four (4) empty shells, all within the cylinder thereof, said
to have been found with the body of the victim.”[6]
On that same date, January 30, 1966, the Chief of Police of
Tiaong, forwarded a “progress report” on the case to the Commanding
Officer of the P.C. Command at Camp
Wilhelm, Lucena City, mentioning the recovery of the aforementioned evidence
from the scene of the crime and stating that his office “has not yet found
sufficient evidence to warrant filing the necessary criminal action against
anyone or any persons who perpetrated the incident.”[7]
Dr. Ernesto Brion, medico legal officer of the NBI, was summoned
to Batangas, Batangas on January 31, 1966, to perform an autopsy on the
embalmed cadaver of Miguel Hernandez. Dr. Brion made the following findings based on the autopsy: The deceased
sustained four wounds. Two on the left
chest, one on the left upper arm, and a fourth on the upper right part of the
back.[8]
Dr. Brion also found lodged in the first chest wound of the
deceased, a metal jacketed slug from a .45 caliber firearm.[9]
The second chest wound of the deceased had its exit at the right, upper back of
the deceased; the wound in the left arm likewise came out at the left scapular
region of the back. The back wound made
its exit just 1.5 cms. away super-laterally from the entrance wound.[10]
From the position of the slug recovered from the first chest wound, and from
the nature of all four wounds, Dr. Brion made the conclusion that the first
three wounds must have been caused by a .45 caliber firearm, while the fourth
wound at the back must have been caused by a .30 caliber bullet.[11]
Dr. Brion opined that any of the two chest wounds sustained by
the deceased could have been fatal.[12]
The wound in the forearm was “dangerous to life”, that at the back
was “superficial.”[13]
Dr. Brion observed that most of the gun wounds sustained by the deceased must
have been inflicted at a distance of from 2 feet to 25 yards from the points of
entry.[14]
The assailant, in firing at the victim, must have been on the left side of the
victim, slightly in front of and on a higher level than the latter.[15]
In the meantime, the Chief of Police of Tiaong started questioning
those who were supposed to be present at the drinking spree when the victim was
shot. On February 1, 1966, statements
were taken from Emilio Robles, officer-in-charge of the Cabay Elementary
School;[16]
from Virgilio Matuto, helper of Robles;[17]
and from Ireneo Guerra, a guest at the drinking spree. Said statements were sworn to before
Municipal Judge Juan D. Montecillo of Tiaong. All of the declarants uniformly stated that there were only five
persons present during that drinking spree.[18]
They were the three affiants (Emilio Robles, Virgilio Matuto and Ireneo
Guerra), the victim Miguel Hernandez and the accused appellant Leonardo D.
Rosales. The five were all drinking at
that time “lambanog, when they suddenly heard shots coming from
outside. When the shooting stopped,
they saw Miguel Hernandez lying dead on the floor. The survivors could not say who shot Hernandez.[19]
A further inspection of the scene of the shooting yielded additional
evidence, consisting of six more .45 caliber slugs; twelve .45 caliber empty
shells; and one caliber .30 carbine shell. These slugs and shells, together with those previously found in the same
premises, and the slug recovered from the body of the deceased, were all sent
to the NBI in Manila for ballistics examination.[20]
The results are:
“(a) Nine .45 cal. empty shells were fired from
the same .45 cal. firearm, while three other .45 cal. shells were fired from
another firearm of the same caliber;
“(b) One .30 cal. shell was fired from a .30 cal.
carbine;
“(c) Three .45 cal. slugs were fired from the one
and the sane firearm;
“(d) One deformed .38 cal. slug was fired from a
.38 cal. Smith & Wesson revolver,
and the firearm probably used in firing the same is the .38 cal. Smith &
Wesson revolver recovered from the scene of the crime.[21]
“(e) Two .45 cal. shells and five .45 cal. slugs
did not have sufficient individual characteristics for determining whether or
not they were fired from the same firearm.”[22]
The Chief of Police of Tiaong, under the belief that sufficient
evidence existed against those responsible for the shooting of the victim,
filed on February 11, 1966, Criminal Case No. 1185, with the Municipal Court of
Tiaong, charging Leonardo D. Rosales, Ireneo Guerra, Virgilio Matuto, and
Emilio Robles with the crime of homicide in a tumultous affray.[23]
After the first phase of the preliminary investigation, and satisfaction of the
existence of a prima facie case against the four accused, the
Municipal Judge issued warrants of arrest against them on February 22, 1966.[24]
On February 14, 1966, Natividad Magadia, widow of the deceased
Miguel Hernandez, and Armando Castillo, supposed to be an eyewitness to the
crime, went to the P.C. Headquarters in Lucena City and executed statements
regarding the shooting of victim Hernandez on January 29, 1966.[25]
Said statements were subscribed and sworn to before the Municipal Judge of
Tiaong on February 16, 1966. On that
same day, P.C. Sgt. Filemon Atienza filed Criminal Case No. 1203, for murder,
before the Municipal Court of Tiaong,
against Leonardo D. Rosales, Genaro Lardizabal, Renato de Rosales, and Cesar
Razon for the shooting and killing of victim Miguel Hernandez on January 29,
1966.[26]
The Municipal Judge of Tiaong conducted investigation
simultaneously on the two different criminal cases.[27]
The Municipal Judge dismissed Criminal Case No. 1185, for homicide in a
tumultous affray, and forwarded Criminal Case No. 1203 to the CFI for filing
by the Provincial Fiscal of the proper information. On December 16, 1966, the Provincial Fiscal filed the information
for murder against Leonardo D. Rosales, Genaro Lardizabal, Renato de Rosales
and Cesar Razon.[28]
Appellant was convicted on the testimony of Armando Castillo, the
only supposed eyewitness to the shooting of Miguel Hernandez. Castillo testified that he was present
during the drinking spree, together with Miguel Hernandez (victim), accused
Leonardo D. Rosales, and six others whom he did not know because they were
simple visitors in the place.[29] Earlier that day, there was a conference or
meeting of barrio teachers at the school premises, and some of the visitors
stayed for the drinking party.[30]
When witness Castillo arrived at the drinking spree at about 6:00 p.m. of
January 29, 1966, victim Miguel Hernandez offered him two drinks. Immediately after Hernandez offered him the
second drink, witness Castillo heard accused appellant Narding Rosales ask in
an angry manner why Hernandez disturbed his gambling game. Hernandez replied: “Do not mind that
incident as we are friends.” At that time appellant Rosales was standing
by the window on the east side of the room, while victim Hernandez was sitting
on a chair near the northern wall about 1-1/2 meters from Rosales. Immediately after the exchange of words,
Rosales suddenly fired his .45 cal. pistol at Hernandez.[31]
Witness Castillo did not know how many times Rosales fired at
Hernandez, but Castillo knew that Hernandez was hit as he saw the left arm of
Hernandez bleeding.[32]
Immediately after Rosales fired at Hernandez, the three other
accused Renato de Rosales, Genaro Lardizabal, and Cesar Razon (whom witness
Castillo claimed he already saw behind the building, all of them armed, on
Castillo’s way to the party) entered the room. Each one was with a firearm. Renato Rosales and Cesar Razon were each armed with a .45 cal.
pistol. Genaro Lardizabal was armed
with a carbine. The three
simultaneously fired at the already wounded Hernandez.[33]
Witness Castillo was about to leave the room after Rosales shot
Hernandez, but became afraid when the three other accused entered the room with
their firearms, so Castillo took cover behind the door.[34]
Up to the time the three others went up the building, and fired
at the victim, the room was still lighted by a kerosene lamp, but when witness
left the room, there was no more light.[35]
After the shooting, Castillo left the place and ran home.[36]
Witness Castillo never told the members of his family what he saw. Even after he learned of the death of Miguel
Hernandez the next day, Castillo did not tell anybody of what he knew of the
incident. It was only on February 15,
1966, at the P.C. Headquarters, when
Castillo revealed for the first time what he knew of the incident. He did so because the widow of the victim requested
him to tell the truth.[37]
The three accused Genaro Lardizabal, Cesar Razon and Renato de
Rosales interposed the defense of alibi and were all acquitted by the trial
court.[38]
The Chief of Police and Municipal Judge of Tiaong testified on their official
participation in the investigation and filing of the proper charges in this case.[39]
Virgilio Matuto and Ireneo Guerra, the two who were formerly charged by the
Chief of Police with homicide in a tumultous affray, affirmed the statements in
their affidavits[40]
that there were only five persons present during the drinking spree. They were Virgilio Matuto, Ireneo Guerra,
Emilio Robles, victim Miguel Hernandez and accused appellant Leonardo D.
Rosales.[41]
While the five were drinking, they suddenly heard shots, but did
not see or know where the shots came from.[42]
After the shooting, they saw Miguel Hernandez dead. They did not know who killed him.[43]
No other person entered the room before the shooting.[44]
Both Matuto and Guerra ducked, laid on the floor face down during the shooting.[45]
When they got up, they did not see the accused appellant Rosales anymore.[46]
Ireneo Guerra declared that only the victim Miguel Hernandez came to the
drinking spree armed with a .38 cal. pistol tucked in his waist. Victim Hernandez fired once during the
shooting.[47]
Accused appellant Leonardo D. Rosales testified that the persons
present during the drinking spree in question were Emilio Robles, Ireneo
Guerra, Virgilio Matuto, the deceased Miguel Hernandez and himself. The prosecution’s supposed eyewitness
Armando Castillo was not there.[48]
Appellant Rosales and Ireneo Guerra were invited to the drinking party by the
victim Hernandez when the latter saw the former at the market place of Cabay
where Rosales was acting as banker in a game of monte. Hernandez stopped the game and invited
Rosales and Guerra to the drinking party.[49]
Rosales was unarmed when he went to said party. Hernandez had with him a revolver tucked at his left waistline.[50]
As they were drinking, a shot sounded from downstairs. Hernandez put out the gasoline lamp and
fired his revolver. Mr. Robles lighted
the lamp again, and Hernandez put out the light for the second time.[51]
Rosales did not know what direction Hernandez fired his gun. Shots came from downstairs. Rosales lay down during the shooting. When it was over, Rosales jumped out of the
balcony and he went home.[52]
Rosales does not know how to fire gun, as he was never a policeman, a trainee,
or a guerilla.[53]
During the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court at the
scene of the shooting, the Court and the parties agreed on the following observations
and findings:
(a) That there were at least ten bullet holes on
the eastern, northern, and southern walls of the room where the deceased Miguel
Hernandez was shot, indicating that not less than ten shots were fired that
night;
(b) That there is a bullet hole about 5 ft. from
the floor on the northern wall, and another hole more than 5 ft. from the floor
near the door of the cabinet, on the northeastern corner of the northern wall[54]
showing that the shots that caused these holes were fired upwards, or from a lower
to a higher elevation;
(c) That there are at least six bullet holes on
the glass cabinet aforementioned, the highest of which is more than 5 ft. high,[55]
showing at least six shots were fired towards the direction of that cabinet,
and with various trajectories;
(d) That at least two bullet holes, one on the
southern wall and another on the eastern wall, were caused by bullets fired
from inside the room,[56]
showing that at least two shots were fired from the inside, one directed
towards the south and the other towards the east.[57]
Witness Armando Castillo claimed that he and the deceased Miguel
Hernandez were the only residents of Barrio Cabay who were present during that
drinking spree on January 29, 1966, and that six other persons were visitors
from other places.[58]
The impartial investigations of the Tiaong Police Department the very day after
that drinking spree, clearly revealed that five persons, all residents of
Cabay, were present on that occasion. They were Emilio Robles, Matuto, Irmo Guerra, victim Miguel Hernandez
and appellant Leonardo D. Regales. Statements were taken from Robles, Matuto, and Guerra.[59]
On the basis of those statements, the Chief of Police filed a case of homicide
in a tumultous affray. The testimony of
Armando Castillo on that point falls against the very clear evidence that in
the drinking spree of January 29, 1966, only five persons were present and
Armando Castillo was not one of the five.
The falsehood uttered by Castillo on the aforementioned point
destroys his credibility completely as his presence at the scene of the
incident during the drinking spree and the shooting is overwhelmingly negated
by the evidence for the defense.
The prosecution itself asserts that even the manner by which said
witness Castillo came to be the star prosecution witness in this case and his
conduct after the incident appear altogether “strange, suspicious,
contrary to the natural course of things, and inconsistent with ordinary human
conduct.”[60]
Although witness Castillo claimed that he was an eyewitness to a
shocking occurrence (the sudden and treacherous shooting of Miguel Hernandez, a
barrio mate known to witness for fifteen years), Castillo did not even stop in
the house of Hernandez after the incident to tell Mrs. Hernandez what happened. Castillo did not report to any barrio or
police authority what he allegedly saw. He calmly went home. He did not
reveal anything even to the members of his family what he allegedly saw.[61]
The following day, January 30, 1966, his cousin informed Castillo of the death
of Hernandez, yet Castillo continued to keep silent.[62]
On that day, and on succeeding days, the police investigated the case and even
filed a criminal case against those believed to be culprits on February 11,
1966, after the statements of other persons have been taken, yet Castillo
remained silent.
Castillo admitted he never revealed to anyone what he allegedly
saw on January 29, 1966, not even to the widow of victim Hernandez, from said
date until he gave his statement at the P.C. Headquarters on February 15, 1966.[63]
According to the prosecution, that conduct of witness Castillo “is too
strange, unnatural, and inconsistent with the instincts and promptings of human
nature, to be taken at face value.”[64]
The prosecution believes that witness Armando Castillo’s belated
and suspicious entrance into this case more than two weeks after the commission
of the crime charged, claiming that he alone knew the true facts of the same
and accusing for the first time appellant Rosales and the three other accused
of its commission, “cannot but create the impression that his testimony is
a mere afterthought.”[65]
Another supposed eyewitness Pablo Solomon,[66]
who claimed he saw the shooting incident was never mentioned by witness
Castillo and never presented as a witness by the prosecution.[67]
The trial court, itself, doubted the credibility of supposed
eyewitness Armando Castillo, by stating that this witness was not able to
identify the accused Genaro Lardizabal, Cesar Razon and Renato a Rosales as the
persons who fired at the victim Hernandez on that night.[68]
The trial court also stated that no conspiracy was proven among the accused.[69]
The Solicitor General in the belief that the accused is entitled
to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt and that while
it is the duty of the fiscal to prosecute the guilty, it is also his duty to
protect the innocent, recommends the acquittal of accused-appellant Leonardo de
Rosales in this case.[70]
WHEREFORE, and upon recommendation by the Solicitor
General the decision dated September 23, 1969, in Criminal Case No. 15986, convicting
appellant Leonardo D. Rosales for murder is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
entering a new one ACQUITTING him of the crime charged, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., in the result.
[1]
p. 435, Original Record; Exhs. “D” and “M”.
[2]
pp. 98-99, Original Record, Criminal Case No. 15986.
[3]
p. 190, Original Record.
[4]
p. 440, Original Record.
[5]
Exhs. “D” and “M”; p. 435, Original Record.
[6]
Exh. “Q”; Exhs. 6, 8, 9, p. 3, Appellee’s Brief.
[7]
Exh. “Q”.
[8]
Exhs. “C”, “C-1”, “D”, “D-1”,
“E”, “E-1”, “E-2”; pp. 44-48, t.s.n., December 4,
1967.
[9]
Exh. “D”; p. 44, t.s.n., December 4, 1967.
[10]
Exh. “D”.
[11]
pp. 35, 48, 53, t.s.n., December 4, 1967.
[12]
p. 46, t.s.n., December 4, 1967.
[13]
p. 46, Id.
[14]
p. 51, Id.
[15]
p. 51, Id.
[16]
Exh. 12.
[17]
Exh. 11.
[18]
Exh. 13.
[19]
p. 6, Appellee’s Brief.
[20]
Exhs. “J” and “9”.
[21]
Exh. “7”.
[22]
Exh. “J”; p. 6, Appellee’s Brief.
[23]
Exh. “6”.
[24]
p. 7, Appellee’s Brief.
[25]
Exhs. “2” and “3”.
[26]
p. 7, Appellee’s Brief.
[27]
Crim. Cases 1185 and 1203.
[28]
p. 8, Appellee’s Brief.
[29]
pp. 3-4, 34-35, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[30]
pp. 33-34, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[31]
pp. 33-44, 4-5, 5-6, 6, 10, 13, 14, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[32]
p. 33, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[33]
pp. 6-10, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[34]
pp. 6-7, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[35]
pp. 18-19, 21, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[36]
p. 7, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[37]
pp. 36, 38, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[38]
p. 440, Original Record.
[39]
p. 11, Appellee’s Brief
[40]
Exhs. “11” and “13”.
[41]
pp. 115, 124, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[42]
pp. 117, 124-125, 128, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[43]
pp. 117, 122, 123, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[44]
pp. 116, 119, 126, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[45]
pp. 117, 127, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[46]
pp. 122, 136, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[47]
p. 127, 140, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[48]
p. 30, t.s.n., Eclavea.
[49]
p. 31, t.s.n., Id.
[50]
p. 34, t.s.n., Id.
[51]
pp. 34-35, t.s.n., Id.
[52]
pp. 33-35, t.s.n., Id.
[53]
p. 36, t.s.n., Id.
[54]
p. 3, t.s.n. Ocular Inspection.
[55]
p. 3-5, t.s.n. Id.
[56]
pp. 5 & 6 t.s.n., Id.
[57]
pp. 13-14, Appellee’s Brief.
[58]
pp. 3-4, t.s.n., Ignacio
[59]
Exhs, “11”, “12”, “13”.
[60]
p. 19, Appellee’s Brief.
[61]
pp. 35, 36, 38, 39, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[62]
p. 38, t.s.n., Id.
[63]
p. 36, 38, 39, 40, t.s.n., Ignacio.
[64]
p. 20, Appellee’s Brief.
[65]
p. 21, Appellee’s Brief.
[66]
Exh. “R”.
[67]
pp. 21-22, Appellee’s Brief.
[68]
pp. 436, 437, Original Record.
[69]
p. 438, Id.
[70]
pp. 14-15, Appellee’s Brief.