THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. T0MAS BAQUINO ET AL., DEFENDANTS, EMILIANO BELTRAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PERFECTO, J.:

Emiliano Beltran is accused with Tomas (Tomansing), Venancio and Pedro, all
surnamed Baquino, of the murder of Feliciano Lopez, committed in the afternoon
of August 9, 1945, in the barrio of Bahay-Toro, Quezon City. His co-defendants
being still at large, trial proceeded only against Beltran. On January 21, 1946,
Judge Fernando Jiago of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to
suffer the penalty of reclucion perpetua , to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P2,000.00, and to pay the costs. From this judgment,
Beltran appealed.

Victor Lopez, 71 years old, widower, farmer, testified that his son Feliciano
Lopez died in a field in the barrio of Bahay-Toro on August 9, 1945. He was
attacked by four persons, “although I do not know who actually shot him. They
were Emiliano Beltran, Venancio Baquino, Tomansing Baquino, and Pedro Baquino.
We lost a carabao and somebody tipped my deceased son that it was Tomansing, who
carried away our carabao.” Felioiano went to see Tomansing and asked him about
the carabao. Tomansing denied knowledge of the, lost carabao. Feliciano hit him.
“As I saw Feliciano hitting Tomansing, I went to them and stopped them, telling
my son: ‘That’s enough! Come let us go and look for the carabao instead; the
carabao might go away and we may not be able to find it.’ After that we left and
it was Tomansing’s turn to look for us, but he only saw my deceased son and did
not see me. Upon seeing my son he and his companions helped each other in
attacking him. While I was at a distance-some distance-from them I heard my son
shouting, saying that he was being maltreated. So we approached and as we were
approaching the four persons fired shots. I don’t know whether or not my son was
killed because I ducked. I was at a distance of about 200 meters.” Witness was
with his son, named Jose. “Emiliano Beltran was carrying with him a Garand rifle
and his three companions were carrying carbines. After the shots had been fired
I saw the aggressors leaving and then I got up and went to Feliciano. He was
already dead. I saw that he was hit in the forehead and about the left ear. I
removed his body from the water and took him to a rice paddy (pilapil). As some
people came to me I asked their favor to help me carry the body of my son to the
house. Jose went to an American camp for help. The Americans sent M.Ps.” They
“took the corpse to the San Lazaro Hospital.” The shooting took place “about
three or a little past three o’clock in the afternoon. At the beginning I was at
a distance of 200 meters from the scene of the incident, but as I have already
told you, when I heard the shots I was then going to approach them to give help
to my son, and I was at that distance of 20 meters when the firing was over.
What I heard at the start was only a soream and it was while we were approaching
that I heard shots.” The missing carabao was finally found, after some
arrangements. “The arrangement was that we both should excuse each other-on the
part of Tomansing for taking the carabao, and my son for beating Tomansing after
accusing him for taking the carabao.” The carabao was recovered from “the forest
where it was tied.” At the time the arrangements were being made Tomansing was
not present. Only his father was there. The arrangements were made at about 2:30
o’clock in the afternoon at a place about 100 meters away from the scene of the
shooting. After the arrangements nwe got a rig and started for home. When we
were already at Gulod I heard shots.” The witness recognized the four attackers
“because I have known those boys since their childhood.” (T.s.n., pp. 2-13.)

Jose Lopez, 23 years old, married, farmer, son of Victor lopez, testified
that in the afternoon of August 9, 1945, he was looking for a carabao. His
brother Feliciano told him that somebody tipped him that it was Tomansing who
got the carabao, “thereupon, we went to see Tomansing in the field. My brother
struck Tomansing and asked him: ‘Where is our carabao? Somebody told me that you
got it.’ He beat him with a piece of wood. As Tomansing refused to tell us where
the carabao was we left him and proceeded to look for the carabao. In the
meantime Tomansing ran away. Feliciano went to one part of the field and I went
to another part to look for the carabao. Later I found the carabao and led it
home. Then I started back for the field to let Feliciano know that I had already
found the carabao. When I saw Feliciano he was being attacked by the four
men-Emiliano Beltran, Tomansing, Venancio and Pedro, some of them hitting him
with fist blows, some pulling him and others striking him with their guns.
Emiliano Beltran was holding a Garand.” The three others “were holding carbines.
Emiliano was saying; ‘Let us finish him; let us kill him; here comes his
brother.’ Then they started firing at him and at the same time firing at me and
my father. I saw my father ducking first, and then I ran away to the American
camp to inform the soldiers there of what was happening. Emiliano was the first
to shoot my brother and when my brother fell Tomansing fired another shot.” The
witness heard what Beltran said because “there was quiet in that place.” The
witness knows Beltran and the three Baquino’s since childhood. “As I was running
toward the camp shots were being fired at me and upon reaching the camp I told
the Americans there that some laborers were killing my brother and if possible
to send some help. Then I went back to the field. On my way I met my father and
several people carrying the body of my brother on a bamboo bed” already dead.
The witness was able to identify the four attackers “because I have a good
eye-sight. Moreover, I have known them since our childhood. As a matter of fact
Emiliano Beltran used to out my hair.” (T.s.n., pp. 18-29.)

Agripino Dumlao, 33 years old, married, detective, Manila Police Department,
testified that Bahay-Toro, where the shooting took place, is located in Quezon
City, under the jurisdiction of Precinct No. 3, San Juan. He was able to recover
3 clips of Japanese ammunition in a barrel where pa lay was in the house of
accused Beltran, who told him that he found them on the way during the Japanese
occupation and kept them. She clips contained 15 rounds of ammunition used for
Japanese rifles. (T.s.n., pp. 34-37.)

Leonard W. Jarcho, 29 years old, single, Captain, Medical Corps, Manila
Police Department, identified Exhibit A as a copy of the official autopsy report
in the case of Feliciano Lopez performed by Captain Fuller under his direction.
The wounds of the deceased were ttthe result of two gunshot wounds on the head,
with considerable extrusion of the brain. The cause of the death of the victim
was shook, secondary to multiple fractures of the skull and extrusion of a large
portion of the brain.” In photograph Exhibit B appears the picture of Feliciano
Lopez and Captain Fuller, the officer who performed the autopsy. (T.s.n., pp.
39-44.)

Simon Galfiera, 35 years old, married, farmer, as defense witness, testified
that on August 9, 1945, he was in his farm. “I was raking the farmland. We were
three.” His companions were Emiliano Beltran and Juan Cadaing, “We started to
work at eight o’clock on the morning of that day.” Beltran arrived at about
eight thirty o’clock in the morning. The witness remained in the farm until five
thirty in the afternoon. The farm belonged to Apolonio Baitiong from Balintawak.
Beltran “was also raking the farmland with me.” He left the place at nabout five
thirty o’clock in that afternoon.” From eight thirty in the morning to five
thirty in the afternoon of that day, whe was with -us.” On the follow-ing day,
the witness, Cadaing and Beltran raked the farmland of Cadaing. Beltran’s
behavior was natural as on previous days.” (T.s.n., pp. 51-55.)

On being asked on cross-examination when he came to learn about to arrest of
Beltran, witness answered: “I don’t remember the date. I think that was last
month-October. I came to know about it only when I received a letter from the
police authorities.” He received the letter from the police authorities about
the first week of October. Questioned as to the last time he met Beltran before
the letter’s arrest, he answered: “We did not meet anymore after the work was
over, as each of us had to work for himself.” But immediately after he declared
that after August 9, 1945, he used to meet Beltran at stores and “as we know
each other, we greet one another whenever we meet. Most of our meetings were on
Sundays.” But on being asked when was the last time that he mat Beltran on a
Sunday, he answered? “That was long ago and I cannot now recall the days.” Asked
to give the approximate days when he met Beltran for the last time, he replied:
“Maybe in September. I cannot remember the date.” (T.s.n., pp. 63-65.)

Juan Cadaing, 32 years old, married, farmer, testified that on August 9,
1945, he was working in the land of Simon at Salipapa. He was plowing the land
with Simon and Emiliano Beltran. They began working between eight and eight
thirty in the morning and ended at between five and five thirty in the
afternoon. On August 10, 1945, he plowed his own land with Simon and Beltran
beginning from eight to eight thirty in the morning and ending at five to five
thirty in the afternoon. (T.s.n., pp. 69-75.)

While Galfiera testified that he has been working the farm land owned by
Baitiong for the last ten years, and that in the work Beltran has been helping
him for the last two years now” (t.s.n., p. 56), Cadaing declared on the other
hand that Beltran had worked in said land and in his only on August 9 and 10,
1945 (t.s.n., p. 76.) Furthermore, in Cadaing’s testimony, we read:

“Q. Had you the opportunity of seeing accused Emiliano Beltran in the month
of October of this year?-A. No, sir.

“Q. When was the last time you saw Emiliano Beltran?-A. The last time I saw
Emiliano Beltran was on October 31.

“Q. Of this year?-A. Yes, sir.” (T.s.n., p. 79.)

Emiliano Beltran, 33 years old, married, farmer and barber, denied having
assassinated Feliciano Lopez on August 9, 1945, and declared that on said date
he was in the land of Simon, plowing in the company of Juan and Simon. He
arrived at the place it eight thirty in the morning. Simon was already there,
and he and Juan arrived at the same time. He remained until five thirty in the
afternoon. The next day he worked on the land of Juan upon invitation of the
latter. He knows Victor Lopez;, and Jose and Feliciano Lopez, the latter two
since their childhood. He did not meet them on August 9. He was arrested on the
24th of September. His wife, Filomena Deigo, is a cousin of Tomas Baquino. He
knows Tomas, Venancio, and Pedro Baquino. Recognizing exhibit C as his
statement, where he appears to have declared that he retired to his house at 7
o’clock p. m. on August 9, 1945, and not at 5:30 o’clock as he had testified in
court, he said that he made the declaration “because I was afraid, as it was the
first time I have appeared before the authorities, and on that occasion, that
Pepe (pointing to Jose Lopez) and others gave me fist blows.” (T.s.n., pp.
81-90.)

Agripino Dumlao, the detective who took the statement of the accused marked
Exhibit C, belied the accused’s declaration to the effect that he was maltreated
when the statement was taken. (T.s.n., p. 93.)

Upon the evidence presented by both parties in this case, we are convinced
that Beltran was among the four assailants who attacked and killed Feliciano
lopez, the motive for whose killing being his having beaten with a piece of wood
Tomas Baquino, also known by the name of Tomansing. Tomansing had strong reasons
for taking revenge, he having been twice offended by Feliciano Lopez, first by
imputing upon him the theft of the carabao, and second by beating him with a
piece of wood, without any chance on his part of immediate retaliation due to
the fact that he was alone while Feliciano was accompanied by his brother Jose.
Smarting under such a strong resentment, it is but natural for him to summon the
help of Venancio and Pedro Baquino, with whom he must be related-although the
records do not disclose the grade of relation-and Bmiliauo Beltran, the husband
of his cousin. And Tomansing was able to summon the immediate help of his
relatives because of the well-known clannish solidarity prevailing among kins.
Beltran, since his childhood, is an acquaintance of Victor Lopez and his son
Jose. As a barber, he used to out the hair of Jose. No reason or motive was
shown why Victor and Jose Lopez should falsely implicate Beltran in the heinous
crime of murder under our consideration. Their testimonies bear the earmarks of
truthfulness: natural, logical, straightforward, given with all candor. The fact
that for some moment they were at about 200 meters from the scene of the
shooting can not affect their assurance of having identified Beltran among the
killers. The distance of 200 meters ia Just a mere estimate. They were
approaching the scene. Farmers usually have good eyesight for great distances,
much better than city dwellers. Although Victoria 71 years old, it is a
well-known fact that nearsightedness generally afflicts persons leading a
sedentary life, not those living in the farm.

The defense of alibi interposed by the accused is not convincing,
The testimonies of the two witnesses presented by the defense to the effect that
from 8;0O a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 9, 1945, the accused was working the
farmland of Simon Galfiera belong to the class of evidence that some
well-intentioned people are wont to offer because, while helping a friend, they
do not assume much responsibility, it being difficult to contradict or belie
them. Although they categorically testified that on August 9 they had Beltran in
their company, both witnesses appeared on cross-examination not so sure as to
their recollection about dates. Simon Galfiera, as an instance, could not
mention the date of his last meeting with Beltran, and there is no convincing
special reason why he should recollect August

The penalty imposed by the lower court being in accordance with the
provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing the crime of
murder committed by the appellant, is affirmed, with costs against said
appellant.

Moran, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ.,
concur.

DISSENTING

FERIA, J.:

I dissent from the majority and vote for the reversal of the sentence and
acquittal of the appellant for the following reasons, besides those set forth in
the other dissenting opinions.

The guilt of the appellant in the present case depends entirely upon whether
it was possible for the witnesses for the prosecution Victor and Jose Lopez,
father and brother, respectively, of the deceased, to have properly identified
the appellant at the time and place of the commission of the offense

The judgment of conviction of the lower court is based on the conclusion
that, “at a distance of 20 meters, Victor heard other shots and saw four men
beating his son Feliciano. He recognized them, as he was very familiar with
their faces.” But there is nothing in the record to warrant such a conclusion.
What the two witnesses testified was that they heard shots and recognized the
assailant of the deceased at a distance of 200 meters. For that reason, the
majority, in discussing this cardinal point on which the sentence of conviction
rests, does not rely on said unwarranted conclusion of the oourt a quo. It says
the following: “No reason or motive was shown why Victor and Jose Lopez should
falsely implicate Beltran in the heinous crime of murder under our
consideration. Their testimonies bear the earmarks of truthfulness: natural,
logical, straightforward, given with all candor. The fact that for some moment
they were at about 200 meters from the scene of the shooting can not affect
their assurance of having identified Beltran among the killers. The distance of
200 meters is just a mere estimate. They were approaching the scene. Farmers
usually have good eyesight for great distances, much better than city dwellers.
Although Victor is 71 years old, it is a well-known fact that near Sight edness
generally afflicts persons leading a sedentary life, not those living in the
farm.”

But a cursory analisis of the above grounds or reasons set forth in the
majority decision will clearly show that they fall by their own weight.

(a) Lack of motive to testify falsely.—The fact that “the record
does not show any motive why Victor and Jose Lopez should falsely implicate
Beltran (the appellant), in the heinous crime of murder under consideration,”
can not be adduced as an argument or reason that the testimony of these two
witnesses for the prosecution should be given more credence. It is true that
where the evidence shows that there is reason or motive for a witness to testify
falsely against an accused, such showing affects adversely the witness
testimony; but it is also true that, aside from psychological circumstances
which may hamper a correct perception of an event and motivate a person to
perceive or believe to be true a thing which is not true, the mere absence of s
uch evidence or motive does not add a iota to or enhance the credibility of a
witness, for a person is presumed to tell the truth; unless the contrary is
shown, or the impossibility or improbability for a witness to have been able to
correctly perceive the fact to which he is testifying necessarily makes his
testimony unbelievable.

(b) Physical impossibility, of identifying, a person and hearing what he
says at a distance of 200 meters.—It is of common experience, and therefore
of judicial notice, that it is physically impossible to recognize or identify a
person, or hear and understand what he is saying even in a loud voice, at a
distance of 200 meters. The witness Jose Lopez has repeatedly stated in the
course of his testimony (pages 23, 27, 29, 32 and 33), that at a distance of
about 200 meters he recognized the appellant in sleeveless undershirt,
salmon color holding a garrand, and his companions carrying a carbine each, and
heard him say in a loud voice “Let us finish him, let us kill him;” and added
that at that distance, “they started firing at him referring to his brother, the
deceased and at the same time started firing at me and my father, I saw my
father ducking; first and then I ran away to the American camp to inform the
soldiers there of what was happening” (pp. 22, 23, t. s. n.; italics
ours).

The other witness, Victor Lopez testified also that he recognized the
appellant Emiliano Beltran at a distance of 200 meters, on pages 5, 9, 13, and
15; and declared “I was at a distance of 200 meters from the scene of the
shooting when I ducked because shots were fired at me” (p. 13); that “while the
shots were being fired I was ducking and I could not have seen who actually shot
him,” his son Feliciano (page 14); and that “after the shots had been fired
saw the aggressors leaving and then I got up and “went Feliciano.” (P. 6,
t.s.; italics ours.)

This witness has mentioned the distance of 20 meters only twice in the course
of his testimony, but did not say that he recognized the appellant at that
distance. The first time, in answering the query: “My question is were you at
that distance of 200 meters when you saw your son being shot?”; but it is
apparent that he meant to say 200 meters, otherwise his very answer would be
contradictory with itself; for his answer is as follows “I said that I was
at that distance when I heard shots, and after hearing the shots we
hesitated to approach my son, and as we were approaching and at a distance
of 20 meters from them I heard shots” (p. 13, t.s.n.; italics
ours).

And the second time, when in his answer to the question: “Why did you state
before that you saw the shooting when you were at a distance of 200 meters, and
not 20 meters as you have just stated now?” he said: “At the beginning I was at
a distance of 200 meters from the scene of the incident, but as I have already
told you, when I heard the shots I was then going to approach them to give help
to my son, and I was at that distance of 20 meters (page 9). But this is an
explanation which does not explain, for he testified a short while before (page
6) that when they were firing at him and his son Jose, he ducked, and “after the
shots had been fired I saw the aggressors leaving and then I got up and went to
Feliciano” (the victim). If he got up and went to where Feliciano was shot after
the firing had ceased and the aggressors or assailants had left the place, he
could hot have been nearer to the appellant and companions than the original
distance of 200 meters. Besides, it would have been highly incredible if the
witness had testified that he had approached the scene while they were firing at
him.

(c) Witness did not approach, and, reorganized appellant at less than 200
meters distance.—None of the two witnesses, Jose and Victor Lopez,
testified that they recognized the assailant, at a distance less than 200
meters, while they “were approaching the scene.” They repeatedly asserted that
they recognized him at a distance of 200 meters, and according to their own
testimony just fluoted they did not and could not get nearer while the appellant
and his companions were at the scene of the crime

(d) In case of doubt, testimony, should be considered in favor of
accused.—The reasoning or argument of the majority that “the distance of
200 meters were a mere estimate,” and therefore, by implication, it may and must
have been less than said distance so as to enable the witness to recognize the
appellant, can not be legally adduced, because it runs counter to the
presumption of innocence in favor of an accused in a criminal case. As a
corrolary to the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, should there
be any doubt as to the correctness of the testimony of a witness, it should be
resolved in favor of, and not against, the defendant. Therefore, if there is any
doubt as to whether the distance was more or less than 200 meters, it must be
decided in favor of the appellant, that is, that it was not less than 200
meters.

(e) No ground for taking judicial notice that farmers have good
eyesight.—There is absolutely no ground for taking judicial notice that
“farmers usually have good eyesight for great distances, much better than city
dwellers.” Although Victor is 71 years old, it is a well-known fact that
near-sightedness generally afflicts persons leading a sedentary life, not those
living in the farm.” As we have already stated, it is a physical impossibility
for a human being to be able to identify or recognize a person or hear and
understand whet he says in; a loud voice from a distanoe of 200’meters. Besides
when Victor was asked during the trial by the fiscal Where the accused was, he
answered “He is there (pointing out Emiliano Beltran), I have a poor eyesight.”
(p. 4, t.s.n.)

>When Victor Lopez was asked: “I remember you having stated
a while ago that you were complaining about your sight when you were asked to
identify the accused Emiliano Beltran. Can you tell us positively that you could
distinguish a garrand from a distance of 200 meters?” He answered: “Because the
sun-light in this room is in front of me and my sight is glared by the light.”
And lastly, upon being asked again “If you are now placed at a distance of 200
meters from an object, or, let us say, a man, are you sure you can identify the
man?” Victor Lopez testified. “Yes, especially when I know the person to be
identified, because although at times my eyesight is poor and I find some
difficulty, yet at other times my eight is alright.” (page 5 t.s.n). It is
evident that these explanations of Victor Lopez admission that he had a poor
eyesight does not explain away at all said admission, beoause a poor eyesight
has nothing to do with the glare of the sun light; and although it may be
relatively better sometimes, it can never be as good as a natural one.

DISIDENTE

PABLO, M.:

Disiento. Una decision que condena al acusado, a una pena tan grave como la
de reclusion perpetua debe fundarse en el testimonio de testigos que no sean de
dudosa veracidad.

Victor Lopez de mas de 71 años de edad, que se quejaba de tener mala vista
cuando se le mandaba identificar al acusado Emiliano Beltran durante la vista,
aseguro que estaba a 200 metros de distancia cuando vio a su hijo Feliciano
gritar diciendo que le estaban maltratando; que conocio a los que maltrataban a
su hijo a la distancia de 200 metros, especificando sus nombres y las armas que
llevaban; que estaba a 200 metros cuando oyo el primer disparo; que se acerco a
su hijo corriendo para ayudarle y estaba ya a la distancia de 20 metros cuando
terminaron los disparos. Este mismo testigo aseguro que los cuatro acusados
disparaban tiros contra el yu hijo Jose, y por eso el escondio como un pato.
¿Como podia llegar el testigo a 20 metros de distancia del lugar en
que cayo muerto su hijo, si el se escondio? Como el terreno era palayal, no
habia nada que podia escudarle fuera de los diquos (pilapiles). Para esconderse
tenia que zambullirse: no podia correr. Pero desmintio a si mismo cuando, a una
pregunta, contesto: “while we were running toward them I saw Emiliano Beltran
getting hold of Feliciano and his three other companions were attacking my son
Feliciano.”

Jose Lopez, hermano del occiso, declaro:

“Q. How far were you from the place where your brother Feliciano was being
dragged by the four men named by you, including Emiliano Beltran?-A. About 200
meters.

“Q. How were you able to hear those words ‘Utasin na, utasin na,’ uttered by
Emiliano Beltran, at that distance of 200 meters?-A. Because he was saying those
words in a loud voice and there was quiet in that place, so I could hear
distinctly the words ‘Let us finish him; let us kill him.”

Si el acusado estaba sujetando a Feliciano mientras sus compañeros atacaban a
este, ¿que necesidad tenian de decir en voz alta, pregonando su deseo
de matar, si cada uno estaban al lado de los demas? ¿Sera porque
querian seroidos por los testigos para que puedan declarar contra ellos ante el
Juzgado?

La distancia de 200 metros ha sido declarada muchas y repetidas veces por
ambos testigos, padre e hijo. Su repeticion insistente da lugar a graves
dudas.

Si los testigos, padre e hijo dijeron ya a las autoridades policiacas quienes
fueron los autores del crimen, ¿quenecesidad tenia el policia Dumlao
de hacer investigaciones? Lo mas probable fue que los policias no estaban
satisfechos de los informes dados por ellos.

Si los testigos presenciales del crimen, padre e hijo estaban ya a
disposicion de las autoridades desde la tarde del 9 de agosto, en que
presenciaron el asesinato, por que solo se presento la querella en 27?

En mi
opinion, las pruebas presentadas no establecen, fuera de toda duda, la
culpabilidad del acusado apelante. La querella debe ser sobresefia.

DISSENTING

HILADO, J.:

For the same reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice
Briones, with the sole qualification presently to be stated, I dissent.
Although, as I construe the evidence, Victor Lopez, father of the deceased,
seems to have merely ducked instead of actually hiding when the supposed
assailants of his son, Feliciano, were firing shots at him and his son Jose,
when they were at a distance of two hundred meters from the scene of the
shooting (t.s.n., pp. 5, 6), I concur in all other respects in the reasons upon
which the said dissenting opinion is based. I, therefore, vote for the reversal
of the judgment appealed from and the complete acquittal of the appellant, with
costs de oficio.

BRIONES, M., disidente:

A nuestro juicio, la culpabilidad del acusado no se ha probado fuera de toda
duda razonable; asI que procede su absolucion.

a) Los principales testigos de la acusacion son Victor Lopez y Jose Lopez,
padre y hermano del occiso respectivamente. Frente a sus testimonios algun tanto
obscurecidos por el interes natural del parentesco, tenemos las declaraciones de
dos personas desinteresadas, Simomn Galfiera y Juan Cadaing, quienes aseguran
positivamente que a la hora en que tenia lugar el crimen el acusado estaba con
ellos arando en el campo. Las declaraciones de Galfiera y Cadaing aparecen en
autos llenas de candor y naturalidad, como de testigos bien avenidos con la
verdad. Creemos que la coartada ha quedado bien establecida.

b) Resulta de las pruebas de la acusacion que poco tiempo antes del incidente
Victor y Jose Lopez babian tenido una especie de conferencia con los parientes
del acusado Tomas Baquino (aliasTomansing), al parecer para dar
explicaciones y satisfaccion por el maltrato que este sufrio en manos del
occiso. Pues bien; el acusado y apelante, Emiliano Beltran, no estaba en aquella
conferencia; Victor y Jose no mencionan, al menos, su nombre como uno de los
presentes. Asl que nos parece extraña, y hasta inverosimil, la asercion de que
Beltran participo subitamente an el asalto, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que
este hombre vivia-en esto no hay discusion-a 5 kilometros de distancia del sitio
de autos.

c) Nos parece inverosimil que Victor, un hombre de 71 años de edad, que
admite tener una pobre vista, haya podido distinguir bien las facciones del
apelante, maxime si se considera cue psicologicamente no existia un dato
antecedente inmediato, pues ya sabemos que Beltran no estaba en la citada
conferencia. Nos parece igualmente inverosimil lo declarado por Jose Lopez de
que a 200 metros de distancia el vio a Beltran hacer el primer disparo
acertandole al occiso, teniendo en cuenta la excitacion del momento y la
probable oonfusion tumultuaria (segun la acusacion, habia cuatro asaltantes,
todos armados), y considerando, ademas, que, segun el testigo, la inaleza en el
lugar era bastante crecida, tanto que el no pudo distinguir la clase de
pantalones que llevaba el apelante.

d) Nos parece mas inverosimil lo declarado por Jose Lopez de que a dicha
distancia de 200 metros el oyo a Beltran hostigar en voz alta a sus compañeros
para finiquitar al occiso. E1 que trata de probar demasiado, a lo mejor no
prueba nada. Por que Beltran habia de dar voces de mando, gritando con toda la
fuersa de sus pulmones? No se ha demostrado en autos que Beltran tuviese algun
motivo particular para ensañarse contra el occiso: El no es mas que un pariente
por afinidad de los Baquinos, casado con una prima de estos, y no sabemos que el
tuviese algun agravio personal que vengar contra los Lopez.

(e) Otra circunstancia que nos inclina a dudar de la culpabilidad del
apelante es que mientras sus coacusados los tres Baquinos se pusieron a la fuga
y parece que no han sido aprehendidos hasta ahora, Beltran se quedo
tranquilamente en su casa, como un hombre a quien no le remordia la conciencia y
no temia enfrentarse con la justicia. Esta conducta riñe con el papel de
cabecilla del grupo que las pruebas de cargo le atribuyen.

Se revoca la sentencia apelada.