THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO APOSAGA AND CONSTANCIO MONTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Automatic review of the decision dated April 28, 1969 of the Court of First Instance of
South Cotabato, Branch I, in Criminal Case No. 1625
for murder, imposing the death penalty on accused-appellants Francisco Aposaga and Constancio Monte for
the murder of Atty. Jose Barranda.

The victim, who was popularly called “Attorney”, was a
law practitioner in Cotabato and Agusan.  At the time of his death, he lived in his
36-hectare farm at Palkan, Polomolok,
South Cotabato, with his common-law wife Gloria Salongcong and their four children namely, Ruth, Samuel,
Ester and Jose, Jr. Gloria had four other children by a previous liaison,
namely, Fe, Noe, Felomena
and Fely, all surnamed Cabrera, who were likewise
staying with the couple at their house on the said farm.  In the same barrio live the two
accused-appellants as well as Sotera Salongcong Resaba, a sister of
Gloria, whose house near the highway is about 1/2 kilometers away from the Barrandas‘; Jesus Francisco, an ousted ex-tenant of
“Attorney” and a nephew of Gloria and Sotera,
whose house is also along the highway; and Doroteo Estorque, father of the common-law wife of
accused-appellant Aposaga.

Monte was recruited by the deceased from his former employment as
security guard of Lianga Industries, Inc. in Tumbis, Barobo, Surigao del Sur,
to be the administrator of his farm.  He
arrived in Polomolok with his family in July, 1965
and stayed in a house owned by the Barrandas near
their own.

From the house of the Barrandas there
were three then as now possible routes to the provincial highway, one passing
through the house of Sotera and Jesus on the General
Santos side, another through the house of Aposaga and
Estorque on the Marbel
side, and the third was a short cut through a small road, to the highway.

The deceased was last seen alive in the morning of December 13, 1965.  He had summoned Monte to their house at about
six o’clock that morning, and they
conferred about the farm.  Afterwards,
Monte had breakfast with “Attorney’s” family before leaving the
house.  “Attorney” also left
shortly thereafter to go to Dadiangas, taking the
second route (Marbel side) described above.  Gloria Salongcong
also left the house one minute later for Dadiangas,
taking the first route on the General Santos side, to pass by the house of her
sister Sotera to fetch her daughter Fe, who was then
staying with Sotera, to bring her to Dadiangas for her medical examination.

While walking on the trail to the highway, Atty. Barranda was chased by 3 men armed with bolos or knives,
who acted concertedly in hacking or stabbing the victim to death.  His lifeless body was later buried inside a
dry well, while his portfolio and personal papers were buried around 300 meters
away from the body.

Nothing was mentioned or heard about the death of Atty. Barranda until on January
20, 1966, Pio Francisco came to Barrio Palkan to barter fish and visit his son Jesus.  The latter told his father that he could
hardly sleep at night because he was being “abused” or
“raided” by Aposaga, Monte and alias Calbo, and that these three had killed the attorney.  Pio verified the
matter from Sotera Salongcong,
who confirmed the killing of the deceased. 
He decided to report to the authorities, but waited for the picture of
accused Aposaga in the possession of Gloria Salongcong before he made a report.

Pio first mentioned the matter to a
Sgt. Edoria of the Philippine Constabulary when he
saw him in front of their house on January
30, 1966 or 48 days thereafter. 
Sgt. Edoria immediately brought him, together
with Felomena Cabrera, to the office of Sgt. Ricardo
Vargas of the 101st PC Company.  They
showed Sgt. Vargas a newspaper clipping about a certain Francisco Lozada, who was wanted by the authorities with a prize of
P10,000.00 on his head for a series of robbery and
murder cases.  After being told that the
wanted man was in barrio Palkan, Sgt. Vargas lost no
time in going to the said barrio, together with other PC soldiers.  When they reached the said barrio, Felomena pointed to them the house of Aposaga.  But when he confronted Aposaga,
he found out that his name was Francisco Aposaga and
not Francisco Lozada, and that his physical features
did not tally with the description in the newspaper clipping.  He therefore returned to headquarters without
making an arrest.

At noon of the same
day, Felomena Cabrera came tosee
him again, this time with Jesus Francisco, informing him that Aposaga was the killer of Atty. Barranda.  It was only then that he learned of the
murder of Atty. Barranda.  He therefore returned to Palkan
with 2 other PC officers to conduct an investigation.  When they arrived there, Aposaga
was no longer in his house, having left for Norala to
harvest palay, according to his wife.  Nevertheless, he proceeded with his
investigation.

On February 1, 1966
he took the statements of Constancio Monte (Exh. “K”, pp. 19-20, Folder of Exh.,
Vol. I) and his wife, Bienvenida Ferrer Monte (Exh.
“M”, pp. 24-25, Folder of Exh., Vol. I), both pointing to Aposaga and Calbo as the killers,
and of Noe Cabrera (Exh.
“I”, p. 1, Folder of Exh.,
Vol. II), naming Aposaga, Monte and Calbo as the culprits.  Thereafter he filed a motion to exhume the
body of the deceased (Exh. “D”, p. 10,
Folder of Exh., Vol. I).

The examination was conducted on February 2, 1966 in the presence of Dr. Teodoro J. Reyes, municipal health officer of Polomolok, the PC provincial com­mander, the chief of
police, and members of the Rural Health Unit of Polomolok.  They found the already decomposing body of
Atty. Barranda, which was identified through the
identifying information furnished by his wife, like the dentures, the clothes
he was wearing, his height and built, as well as the I.D. and personal papers
in his wallet and other things found on his body.  After the exhumation, they also unearthed the
valise or portfolio of the deceased which was buried about 300 meters away from
the body and 15 meters from the house of Jesus Francisco.  The spot was pointed to them by Jesus
Francisco himself who admittedly buried the same.  The valise contained the raincoat and other
personal things of the deceased.  They
also recovered a cellophane bag containing some legal documents and land titles
purportedly removed from the bag of the deceased.  On the basis of the above, a criminal
complaint dated February 1, 1966
was filed against Francisco Aposaga, alias Calbo, alias Pedoy, Sotera Salongcong and Constancio Monte (p. 5, CFI rec.).

On February 14, 1966,
after more statements were taken, the complaint was amended (p. 4, CFI, rec.),
such that the name of alias Calbo was indicated as Alfredo
Villanueva, that of alias Pedoy
as Jesus Francisco, and Gloria Salongcong was
included among the accused.  Of the six
accused named in the amended complaint (Aposaga,
Monte, Villanueva, alias Calbo, Francisco, alias Pedoy, Sotera Salongcong
and Gloria Salongcong), Villanueva remained at large
and never faced trial; Gloria Salongcong was ordered
excluded from the complaint on June 10, 1966 for insufficiency of evidence (p.
29, CFI rec.); and Jesus Francisco alias Pedoy was
likewise dropped from the complaint on January 10, 1967 upon motion of his
counsel (pp. 45-48, CFI rec.) for the purpose of utilizing him as a state
witness (p. 54, CFI rec.); and Sotera Salongcong was also excluded from the complaint upon her
own motion (pp. 50-51, CFI rec.) on January 27, 1967.  The warrant issued for Gloria Salongcong was therefore recalled, while Francisco and Sotera, who had been under detention, were ordered
released.  On August 4, 1967, Jesus Francisco was ordered
re-included in the complaint and a new warrant issued for his arrest (p. 76,
CFI rec.).  Yet, despite his appearance
in court as a witness for the prosecution, he was never re-arrested.  Thus, only Aposaga
and Monte faced trial after they waived their right to the second stage of the
preliminary investigation (p. 79, CFI rec.), and an
information was filed against them on April 24, 1968 (p. 81, CFI rec.).

After trial, the trial court in its decision (pp. 136-179, CFI
rec.) dated April 28, 1969, found the two accused guilty of murder and
sentenced them to the supreme penalty of death and to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased in the amount of P12,000.00 as well as to pay the costs.

The trial court noted that the evidence for the prosecution
suffered from many flaws and some incon­sistencies (p. 31, rec.).  Nevertheless, it gave credence to the
testimonies of two alleged eyewitnesses and other corroborative witnesses for
the state.

Noe Cabrera, 13 years
old, student, and a resident of Pag-asa, General
Santos City,
testified that at about six o’clock
in the morning of December 13, 1965,
while he was riding his carabao, he saw his
stepfather, Atty. Barranda, walking towards the
highway.  Paran
(Francisco Aposaga) and Calbo
(Alfredo or Jessie Villanueva) ran after him. 
All at once Paran hacked him in the neck while
Calbo thrust his knife at the victim.  The deceased (“Attorney”) was
trying to parry their blows with the sweater he was carrying.  Then Constancio
Monte arrived and also hacked the victim. 
When the victim stumbled and fell, Monte rode on him and thrust his
knife through the victim’s stomach.  He
was just about 25 meters away from them. 
Later, the two dragged the victim’s body to the cogonal
area, after which they approached the witness (Noe),
and Paran threatened him that if he should squeal, he
and his mother, sisters and brothers were going to be killed.  Monte got the bag carried by the deceased and
they left towards the direction of the highway. 
The witness went home to eat.  His
mother was not in the house yet, having left earlier for Dadiangas.

When his mother arrived home in the afternoon, she asked him if
he had seen his stepfather, to which he answered no.  She therefore asked him to accompany her in
looking around for the victim.  They went
to the house of Dorot (Doroteo
Estorque) where they saw Dorot,
Monte, Paran and Calbo, the
wife of Monte, and others, drinking.  His
mother made several inquiries about his stepfather.

The wife of Dorot said that Attorney
rode a yellow bus going to Marbel.  Dorot and his son
Vicente also gave the same information. 
She asked other persons, who gave negative information.  When they went home, Monte and his wife came
also.  His mother told them that she was
going to San Francisco (Agusan) to look for Attorney.  But Monte advised her not to go any more
because there were three persons who came to fetch him to go to Davao.  Noe went
downstairs.  Monte followed him to borrow
his sledge, which he lent to him. 
Afterwards, he brought his horse to Crossing Palkan
to drink.  When he was returning home, he
saw Vicente, Calbo and Paran.  Vicente was riding the carabao
while Calbo and Paran were
following the sledge, where the body of their stepfather was loaded.  They were going towards barrio Palkan.  He lot his horse run and headed for home.  He did not tell his mother or his brothers
and sisters about the attack on his stepfather because he was afraid.  It was only when he was brought to the PC
headquarters in Dadiangas that he talked of the
incident for there he was no longer afraid (pp. 5-63, TSN).

Felomena Cabrera, 16
years old, student and residing at Pag-asa, Lagao, General Santos
City, testified that she was living
with her mother, step­father (the victim brothers and sisters at their house in
crossing Palkan on December 13, 1965. 
In the morning of the said date, her stepfather summoned Monte to their
house, and the two talked for sometime. 
Thereafter, Monte ate breakfast with them before returning to his
house.  When he had gone, Attorney
prepared to leave for Dadiangas.  He left via their kitchen towards the west to
the national highway.  One
minute later, her mother also left, leaving her to care for her younger
brother.  She cooked soup
rice.  While cooking, she went to the
balcony to get her younger brother.  From
there she saw Monte running towards the direction of Attorney.  She followed him with her eyes, and saw him
hacking her stepfather with two others, namely, Aposaga
and alias Calbo. 
She went to the house of Monte and asked Monte’s wife, Bienvenida, why they killed Attorney.  Bienvenida answered
“because the Attorney is a bad man”. 
The two of them went down towards the road.  They met Monte who warned them not to reveal,
otherwise they will kill first Felomena’s
mother.  She just went home and fed her
younger brother.

When her mother arrived home that afternoon, she (mother) asked
if the Attorney had returned home, to which she answered in the negative.  Her mother then asked Noe
to accompany her in looking for the Attorney. 
The two went out and were away for more than an hour, while she stayed
in the house to take care of her younger brother.

Drawing a sketch, the witness explained the relative position of
their house with those of Dorot (D. Estorque), Sotera and Monte, and
the national highway, as well as the three (3) possible routes from their house
to the highway (pp. 65-84, TSN).

On cross-examination, the witness indicated on the sketch
prepared by her, the specific spot where she saw her stepfather being hacked,
and where she first saw Monte running. 
She also described the attacks on her stepfather – how Aposaga hacked him first while he was walking, followed by
the thrusting by Monte.  She averred that
when she later talked with her brother Noe, they
agreed not to tell anyone about what they saw; otherwise they will all be
killed starting with their mother (pp. 85-135, TSN).

Dr. Teodoro Reyes, 51 years old,
Municipal Health Officer of Polomolok, South
Cotabato, testified that he has been the
Municipal Health Officer of Polomolok for more than
10 years.  On February 2, 1966, he was fetched by a policeman of
Polomolok to exhume the body of Atty. Jose Barranda.  He went to
a field about 500 meters north of the residence of Atty. Barranda,
together with a few policemen and PC soldiers. 
They found the already decomposing body buried in a well 5 feet deep and
about 3 meters in diameter, covered with blood-stained newspapers, a jacket and
soil about one foot deep.  He established
the identity of the cadaver as that of Atty. Barranda
from the description furnished by Mrs. Barranda
(Gloria Salongcong). 
Besides, he knew Atty. Barranda when he was
still alive as he had been handling cases in Polomolok.  When he examined the body, he found 4 fatal
wounds, 3 of which were caused by sharp-bladed instruments and one by
mauling.  His findings are embodied in
his medico-legal post-mortem certificate (pp. 2-4, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. I),
as follows:

“DIRECT CAUSES OF DEATH OF THE DECEASED:

“Under this, are other pertinent findings on this cadaver and its
clothings which have bearings on the injuries
sustained or direct causes of death: 
Premise or statement of the General Condition of the Cadaver during time
of examination:  The cadaver although in
a state of much decay, there are still some or big portions of the skin left
specially on the chest, back and abdomen; big portions of muscles much softened
and some parts melting; big portions of abdominal viscerae
are inside and soft; and semi-melted.  So
also is the condition in the chest.

“(a)    One stab wound of
the right chest, entering into the interspace between
the 5th and 6th costal cartilage.  This
stab wound coincides with the cut through the polo shirt of the cadaver and
that of his camiseta T-shirt he was wearing.  The cut is about four (4) cm. wide, going
inside the chest to a depth of at least five (5) inches.  The direction is towards the back.  The medial edge of the wound is 2-1/2 cm.
lateral to the right lateral border of the xyphoid.  The width of the cut is parallel to the
direction of the rib.  Wide area of old
blood stain can be seen on the clothing over the chest, also some part of the
upper abdomen.  This is a fatal wound.

“(b)    A big cross-wise cut of the left upper
abdomen, with a length of about five (5) inches, as can be seen on the intact
part of skin of the cadaver, and cut portions of loops of intestine
inside.  The medial edge of this cut or
wound starts from about the middle portion of the front part of the abdomen
going lateralwards to the left to a length of about
five (5) inches.  This is a fatal wound.

Remarks:   There is no evidence of cut on the clothing,
for we found that all the clothings on the left side
of the body were lifted or raised that might have escaped the cutting.

“(c)    Fracture
of the left part of the skull:

Description is divided into the upper portion of the skull and that
of the lower mandible or jaw.  Upper
portion of the skull:

There is a rounded
depressed fracture of the bone beneath the left upper gum, about a ten centavo
coin size.  Its medial border is about
1-1/2 inches distant from the center of the upper gum.  Also, the zygomatic
process of the left temporal bone is broken (fractured) and detached.  That completely broken piece is still
attached only by a ligament.

Lower portion of the
skull or lower jaw:  The neck of the head
(the posterior elevation for articulation) of the left mandible or left side of
the lower jaw is completely fractured, and the head por­tion is missing.  The fractured head is missing.

The picture taken
for this is herewith attached.  The back
part of this picture is marked ‘C’.

Remarks:  I honestly believe the deceased was mauled on
the left face so hard that caused the fatal fracture.  The rounded depressed fracture is most
probably due to the elevated portion or the nail of the hard object used for
mauling.  This is fatal.  The brain cannot escape big injury.

“(d)    A big cut on the apple green jacket the
cadaver is covered (with) [picture taken of said jacket herewith attached.  The back part of the picture is marked ‘D’].

Description:

There is about 6-1/2
inch cut of the right shoulder of this jacket going medial-ward and more on its
back portion.  The inner shirts on this
part are stained with old blood stains. 
The jacket is somewhat loose for the cadaver.

Remarks:

I strongly and sincerely
believe that this cut involved the lower part and the base of the right side of
the neck.  It is a big cut.  This is a fatal wound.

With the big cut on
the jacket the cadaver is covered on its right shoulder area and reaching up to
the base of the right side of the collar, with the corresponding cuts on the
inner shirts the cadaver is wearing, but no evidence of cut could be found on
the bones – as scapula and right clavicle, simply means that the big cut
involved only the muscles, big blood vessels and vital nerves of the right side
of the lower part of the neck and shoulder area near that side of the neck —
in short, the soft tissues were cut, without cutting the bones (called the hard
tissue).

“Conclusion:  (a)  With
all honesty and sincerity, it is very definite that the cadaver now exhumed is
Atty. JOSE BARRANDA’S.

(b)  The causes of death are mentioned under the
item DIRECT CAUSES OF DEATH OF THE DECEASED.

(c)  The causes of death are purely foul play or
murder.  All the cuts are due to sharp-bladed
instruments; the fracture on the face due to blunt hard object with hard
projection on it.

“xx                        xx                     xx.”

According to the doctor, the wound
described in para­graph (a) was a thrust wound inflicted while the victim was
standing in front of the assailant (p. 219, TSN); the
one under paragraph (b) could have been inflicted while the victim was lying
down; the other one under paragraph (c) could have been caused by mauling while
the victim was lying down; and the wound in paragraph (d) was inflicted while
the victim was standing, with the assailant at the back of the deceased,
probably ahead of the other wounds (p. 222, TSN).

Sgt. Ricardo Vargas of the Philippine Constabulary assigned
to the 27th Traffic Team, 45 years old, and residing at Cotabato
City, declared (pp. 262-320, TSN) that in 1966 he was
assigned to the 101st PC Company at General Santos, Cotabato,
having been transferred thereto since December 1, 1965.  He did not know the accused before, and he
met them only on January 30, 1966.  He first met Francisco Aposaga
on said date when Felomena Cabrera came to his office
with Pio Francisco and Sgt. Edoria
to report the presence in their barrio of a certain Francisco Lozada who was wanted by the police with a prize of P10,000.00 on his head for a series of robbery and murder
cases.  After being shown a newspaper
clipping with a picture and description of Lozada, he
went to Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato with 2
other PC soldiers to verify the report. 
The house of Aposaga was pointed to them by Felomena when they were about 300 meters therefrom. 
Proceeding to said house, they called for Francisco Lozada,
but it was Francisco Aposaga who came and identified
himself as Aposaga, not Lozada.  When Sgt. Vargas compared the photo and
description of Lozada from the newspaper clipping to
the person of Aposaga, the description did not tally,
as there was no mole, scar or tattoos at the back of his body.  As a result, they returned to the PC
headquarters without making an arrest.

After lunch on the same day, Felomena
Cabrera showed up again at the PC headquarters with Jesus Francisco, the son of
Pio.  Jesus was
asking him why he released Aposaga when he was the
killer of Atty. Barranda.  That was the only time he learned of the
death of Atty. Barranda.  He lost no time in returning to Palkan.  But when he
arrived there, Aposaga was no longer in his
house.  His wife informed him that Aposaga went to Norala to harvest
palay.  He
(Sgt. Vargas) proceeded to the house of Monte, who informed him that Aposaga killed Attorney in the morning of December 13
(1965). Sgt. Vargas invited Monte and his wife to the headquarters for
investigation.  While there, they gave
corroborative statements to the effect that Aposaga
and a companion known as Calbo hacked and killed
Atty. Barranda upon inducement by Sotera
Salongcong who paid them P200.00 (Exhs.
“K” and “L”, pp. 19-21, Folder of Exh. Vol. I).  He also took the statements of Noe and Felomena Cabrera, then
filed a motion to exhume the body, which was actually done by the municipal health
officer in his presence as well as in the presence of their commanding officer,
Capt. Adriano Bulatao, the Polomolok
chief of police and some other persons.

Jesus Francisco, 36 years old, farmer and resident of Marbel Crossing, Tampacan, Tupi, South Cotabato,
declared that on December 13, 1965
he was in his house near Crossing Awas in Polomolok, South Cotabato.  Constancio Monte
passed by his house that morning, then left in the direction going to Sulit.  At about 6:30 a.m., he went to his sanguta
(where tuba is extracted).  He met Sotera Salongcong, who was going
to Dadiangas. 
She gave him P200.00 from Francisco Mendez, telling him to deliver it to
Aposaga, which he did at the latter’s house at about 8:00 or 9:00
o’clock.  Aposaga
was then with Constancio Monte and Wilfredo Villanueva, alias Calbo.  After that he saw these three again at about 11:00 a.m. near their house which was near his sanguta.  The three
told him that Atty. Barranda was already dead, and
gave him the bag of the Attorney with instructions to bury it.  In the bag was a cellophane folder containing
papers and documents.  He buried the bag
in the land of Cestua, and kept the papers
in the cellophane under a banana tree. 
These he did because the trio told him he will be killed if he didn’t,
which made him afraid.  When he asked
them why they killed the Attorney, their answer was “Don’t
talk”.  He did not report the matter
to the authorities because they had been threatening him with death if he did
so (pp. 322-350, TSN).

The statement of accused-appellant Monte (Exh. “K”, pp. 17-18,
Folder of Exhibits, Vol. I) on February 1, 1966, may be summarized as
follows:  that he has been a tenant of
Atty. Barranda since July 1965; that sometime in the
morning of December 13, 1965, Atty. Barranda was
hacked and killed by Francisco Aposaga and a
companion known to him only as Calbo; that Aposaga told him they were given P200 by “Suterania” (Sotera) Salongcong; that the latter hired them to kill Barranda because he had raped Fe Cabrera; that Fe Cabrera
confirmed this raping to him; that the cadaver of Atty. Barranda
was thrown into a deep Japanese dug-out somewhere in the farmlot
of Alfredo Acejo; that Aposaga
used a bolo while Calbo used a knife (flamingo); that
at the time of the killing, Barranda was carrying a
leather bag (portfolio) containing land titles and records of cases he was
handling; that the said bag was given to “Pedoy“,
a nephew of Suterania (Sotera)
Salongcong; and that the said bag was buried while
the contents were wrapped in cellophane and covered by banana leaves among
banana plants near the house of Pedoy.

These allegations were mostly reiterated by Monte in Exhibit
“L” (pp. 21-23, Folder of Exh., Vol. I).  In addition, he
stated that the killing was plotted by his family, as he accidentally learned
when he overheard a conversation between Gloria and Suterania
(Sotera) Salongcong where
the latter was saying “If in case somebody went up the house Gloria and
the children will just go upstairs and they will not be disturbed because the
purpose is just Atty. Barranda” (sic).

The other prosecution witnesses were:

(1)     Gloria Salongcong,
the common-law wife of the deceased who narrated that the latter failed to
appear at their appointed meeting in Dadiangas on
December 13, 1965, and that she and her son Noe went
out to look for him upon her return to Palkan in the
afternoon of the same day (pp. 137-173, TSN).

(2)     PIO
FRANCISCO, who learned of the slaying of the deceased from his son Jesus on
January 20, 1966, and who first brought it to the attention of the
authorities on January 30, 1966
(pp. 187-205, TSN).

(3)     Epifanio
Doria, the PC sergeant who was first told by Pio Francisco about the killing, and who brought him to the
PC headquarters for the actual reporting (pp. 178-187, TSN).

(4)     Sotera Salongcong, who narrated that a certain Francisco
Mendez gave her P200 for delivery to accused Aposaga
without explaining what the money was for, and who delivered it to Aposaga through Jesus Francisco without her asking for what
purpose it was (pp. 230-260, TSN).

The theory of the defense is that the charge is a frame-up on the
part of the victim’s family, whose members plotted his murder, with Jesus
Francisco as the mastermind and alias Calbo the lone hatchetman. 
Testifying on their own behalf, both accused?appellants
denied knowledge of and participation in the commission of the crime, and
maintained that they never knew of the death of the deceased until
investigations were already under way some two to four months thereafter.

The testimony of accused-appellant Aposaga,
27 years old, farmer and resident of Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato,
dealt mainly in explaining about his sudden departure from Palkan
on January 30, 1966, the
date the PC went to his house.  He
narrated that when Sgt. Vargas came to his house (the date of which he could
not remember), he was looking for Francisco Lozada.  He informed
Vargas that his name was Francisco Aposaga and not Lozada.  Vargas
examined his body and was convinced that he was a different person.  So Vargas left, but not before he told him
that he was going to Iloilo for a
vacation.  He proceeded to Norala (South Cotabato)
that same afternoon.  When he reached Norala, his aunt told him that his mother was sick so he
should proceed to Iloilo.  Because of such information, he left Norala hurriedly, taking MV Legaspi
at Cotabato
City and disembarking in Iloilo.  He learned of the murder of Barranda 3 or 4 months later when his wife wrote him
informing that he was wanted for the murder. 
He then went to the PC in Iloilo,
request­ing for an escort to Mindanao as he was afraid
he might be killed.  But the PC in Iloilo
could not provide him with any escort, so he stayed in Iloilo.  He visited the PC in Iloilo
for about 5 times, until the PC from Polomolok came
to get him.  He admitted having been a
tenant of the deceased, but denied participation in his killing.  He also denied having received P200.00 from
Jesus Francisco.  He did not know the
person of alias Calbo.

On cross-examination, he stated that he threw away the letter of
his wife when he went to the PC because he did not think it was important.  He did not know what was the company or
organizational unit of the PC he visited in Iloilo,
nor the name of its commanding officer. 
He stayed in Iloilo for 8 to
10 months.

His cousin, a certain Jose, who is married to his first cousin Clomia Viana, fetched him at Palkan because his mother was ill.  He had to go to Norala,
however, to inquire from his aunt, Paz Aposaga, how
serious his mother was.  His aunt told
him in tears to go home to Iloilo
because his mother was serious, per information of the same Jose.  He never received any letter from his
parents, brother or sister or any relative from Iloilo
asking him to go home (pp. 440-462, TSN).

Defense witness Doroteo Estorque, father of the common-law wife of Aposaga, 58 years old, farmer, and resident of Crossing Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato, declared that on December 13, 1965, he and Aposaga were plowing in the farm lot of the deceased from
6:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., stopping only for breakfast and lunch.  There was no unusual incident that transpired
on said date, except that in the morning he heard someone call “wait,
wait” and saw Gloria Salongcong coming down
their house.  At that time Aposaga was 30 meters behind him, also plowing.  The place where they were plowing was about
150 meters from the house of Barranda.  He did not see Atty. Barranda
that morning.  He only learned about his
death through the PC.  He knows that
Atty. Barranda and Gloria Salongcong
usually quarrelled about Gloria’s children because
the place he is working is near their house. 
On cross-examination, he admitted having subscribed to an affidavit (Exh. “J”, p. 16, Folder of
Exhibits, Vol. I) wherein he had stated that he could not see Aposaga because of the tall talahibs,
but he explained that such answer was wrong and his real answer was, “I
cannot see him when he was covered by talahibs but if
we will be out from the talahibs I can see him”
(p. 386, TSN).

Vicente Estorque, 20, married, son of Doroteo and brother-in-law of Aposaga
and likewise residing at Crossing Palkan, Polomolok, South Cotabato,
corro­borated his father’s testimony about the whereabouts of Aposaga on December
13, 1965.  He testified that
on that day, he had been plowing from 10:00 A.M.
with his father and brother-in-law Aposaga.  In the afternoon he plowed from 2:00 to 5:00
P.M.  Afterwards he met
Vicente or Jesus Francisco (Pedoy) on his way
home.  Francisco borrowed his sledge, so
he had to carry his plow on his shoulder because he lent his sledge to
Francisco.  The sledge was returned two
hours later with bloodstains and with its bamboo breast missing.  He could not, however, recover the missing
part because Francisco had been avoiding him. 
On questioning by the court, he stated that they did not go back to plow
in that field any more (p. 407, TSN); in fact, that
land was never planted because Aposaga left for Panay (p. 409, TSN).

Accused-appellant Constancio
Monte, 38 years old, farmer and resident of Crossing Palkan,
Polomolok, South Cotabato,
testified (pp. 463-525, TSN), that he met Atty. Barranda when the latter was a lawyer of Lianga Industry in San Francisco, Agusan,
where he used to work as guard of its bulldozer department.  In July of 1965, Atty. Barranda
convinced him to go with him to Palkan, South
Cotabato, to be the overseer of his
36-hectare farm, as a condition of which he need not give any share of the
harvest to Barranda as landowner but only to his
wife, Gloria Salongcong.  In addition, he (Monte) will get 25% of the
proceeds of the 18-hectare land in Matatum which was
planted to potatoes and cabbage, plus P5.00 monthly per head of the carabaos, horses and cattle he was supposed to care
for.  When he arrived with his family in Palkan in the same month, Atty. Barranda
called for Sotera Salongcong
and Jesus Francisco, his erstwhile tenants, and told them that it was their
last day as Monte was taking over. Atty. Barranda
instructed him (Monte) to get the carabao and plow
from Jesus Francisco.

In the month of December, Fe Cabrera informed him that she was
raped by Atty. Barranda.  Sometime later, while he was under the Barrandas‘ house to fetch the cow, he overheard a
conversation among Jesus Francisco, Sotera Salongcong and Gloria Salongcong,
wherein Sotera was saying, “We better have
Attorney killed x x x so
that we can revenge of what he has done to your child who was being raped”
(sic).

Early one morning, about the second week of December, 1965 (he
could not exactly remember the date), Barranda called
for him to instruct him to take care of the carabaos
and cows because he was leaving for Agusan to become
a judge.  After their talk, he took
breakfast with the Barranda family.  Thereafter, he brought the children Ruth, Fely, Samuel and Noe to his house
upon instruction of Atty. Barranda.  He went to the toril
with Noe to tie the carabao.  While there, Noe
told him that Atty. Barranda was leaving. At the same
instance he heard someone shouting, “wait for me”, and saw Jesus
Francisco running, followed by Calbo.  He did not know who Calbo
was, but Noe told him that he is from Polo­molok.  However,
he did not know what transpired afterwards as he did not look anymore.  From the toril,
he could see Aposaga plowing with Doroteo
Estorque.  He
stayed in the toril for about 30 minutes.

Monte admitted having gone to the PC headquarters for
investigation and having executed an affidavit (Exh. “K”, p. 19, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. I); but when
he appeared before Judge Mirabueno (municipal court
of Polomolok), he was made
to sign by Sgt. Vargas although he told the judge that there was an error.  The error was that when he mentioned the name
“Francisco” as the person who hacked and killed the deceased, he
meant Jesus Francisco and not Francisco Aposaga.  However, since he had no lawyer then, he did
not know how to go about the correction. 
It was only when Francisco Aposaga, who is his
friend, contacted his lawyer that he was accommodated in his defense by Atty. Velarde, as he had no money.  As for the second affidavit which he executed
one week after (Exh. “L”,
p. 21, Folder of Exhibits, Vol. I), he was made to sign the same without
appearing before Judge Mirabueno.

On cross-examination, he maintained that he did not know who is Pedoy whose name is mentioned in
his affidavit as the nephew of Sotera Salongcong to whom the killers gave the bag of Atty. Barranda.  He
denied having been asked the question and having given the answers found in his
affidavits referring to Aposaga.  He did not know what he was signing as he
does not know how to read.

Against this background, the trial court promulgated its
aforementioned decision on April 28,
1969 and denied the defense’s motion for reconsideration and new
trial on May 31, 1969 (p.
200, CFI rec.).

Hence, this appeal.

Appellants now raise only one issue — that
the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  They try to discredit the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly those of the two eyewitnesses which, they
claim, are “corrupt, bias, unreliable and incompetent because of their
inherent improbabilities” (p. 86, rec.), as shown by the following
circumstances:

A.  As to Noe Cabrera

1.   If Noe really
witnessed the murder of his stepfather, why did he not shout for help (pp.
32-33, TSN)? 
Why did he not tell his mother about it when the latter arrived home
from Dadiangas and was asking about the victim (p.
35, TSN)?  Why
did he have to go with his mother around the barrio to look for his stepfather
if he knew — after having witnessed the killing — that
his stepfather was dead (pp. 15-18, TSN)?

2.   If he were really threatened by the culprits
(p. 10, TSN) so as to produce fear in him, why did he
have to go riding his horse by himself that evening of the incident.  (p. 20, TSN)?  Why did he consent to sleep in the house of
Monte after the PC arrived to conduct the investigation (p. 23, TSN)?  Why did he
continue to visit the houses of Monte and Aposaga
after December 13, 1965
(pp. 163-­164, TSN)?

B. As to Felomena Cabrera

1.   How could Felomena
have witnessed the murder of her stepfather from the kitchen of their house
when, according to the PC investigator, Sgt. Vargas, the place of the incident
was not visible from the kitchen or balcony of the Barranda
house because it was covered by banana hills, talahibs
and calamansi trees (pp. 301-302, TSN)?

2.   Why did she not secretly tell her mother
about the incident (p. 72, TSN)?

3.   Why was her first report to the PC not about
the murder of her stepfather but about the presence of a certain wanted man in
their barrio (p. 264, TSN)?  Why did it take her 48 days to make such
report?

WE find the above observations insufficient to warrant the
exculpation of the appellants.  While it
is true that the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses may have suffered flaws
and inconsistencies, the same refer only to minor details which are not
sufficient to destroy their credibility. 
Their actuations after witnessing the commission of the crime (i.e., not
shouting or running for help, not reporting earlier, etc.), do not indicate
that they were not present when the killing of their stepfather took
place.  Likewise, the testimony of the PC
investigator that the place of the incident is not visible from the kitchen of
the victim’s house, because of the presence of banana hills, talahibs and calamansi trees,
cannot overcome the positive assertion of Felomena
that she saw her stepfather killed, especially so since the investigation took
place about 50 days after the incident and conditions obtaining them may be
different from those at the time of the offense.

A closer scrutiny of their testimonies shows convincingly that
they had indeed witnessed the com­mission of the crime.  The only doubtful portion is their allegation
that they were threatened with death — with their mother the first to be
killed — against revealing it.  Because,
even if there were such a threat, they could have secretly revealed it to their
mother who would certainly take steps to protect them.  Besides, if the danger of the threat was real
to them, they should have stopped going to the houses, of the accused, instead
of maintaining normal relations with them after the incident; Felomena should not have gone to the PC headquarters twice
on January 30, 1966; and Noe should not have slept in
the house of Monte after his family had gone to Dadiangas
to make the report.

These actuations are inconsistent with the reality of the
threat.  It is easier to believe that
they discussed the incident with their mother but had to deny it to protect
her.  The maxim “blood is thicker
than water” must have prompted these two (2) eyewitnesses to insist that
their mother did not know anything about it. 
Otherwise, the involvement of their mother and other close relatives
will be an undeniable conclusion.

Besides, the trial court, while noting the same flaws and
inconsistencies, gave credence to the testimonies of the said eyewitnesses who,
despite their minority, the excitement generated by the court proceedings and
the long and searching cross-examinations, firmly stuck to their testimonies
which pointed to the appellants and a companion known as Calbo
as the killers of their stepfather.

Time and time again WE have ruled that where the issue is
credibility of the witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findings of the trial judge, who heard the witnesses themselves and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying, unless he has plainly overlooked
certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the result
of the case.  This exception does not
obtain here (People vs. Laguisma, 98 SCRA 69 [1980]; People vs. de la Cruz, 97 SCRA 386 [1980]; People vs. Bautista y Aquino,
92 SCRA 465, 472 [1979]).

Furthermore, no motive was shown why the two eyewitnesses should
testify against them falsely; hence, they must be telling the truth (People vs.
Arevalo, 92 SCRA 207
[1979]; People vs. Lim, 71 SCRA 249 [1976]).

The appellants likewise theorize that the prosecution witnesses Sotera Salongcong, Jesus
Francisco and probably Gloria Salongcong must have
plotted against the life of the deceased. 
Sotera and Jesus harbor resentment against the
victim for having ousted them from their tenancy in favor of Monte.  Besides, Sotera
wanted to revenge the raping of her niece by the deceased.  These are strong motives to do away with the
victim, whereas the appellants have no motive to kill him.

In the case of People vs. Veloso (92 SCRA 515, 524 [1979]), WE held that motive, as
distinguished from criminal intent, is not an essential element of a crime and
hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction.  Motive is essential to conviction in murder
cases only when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit, something
which does not obtain in this case (also People vs. Verzo,
21 SCRA 1403 [1967]; People vs. Caggauan,
94 Phil. 118 [1953]).

The defense vainly tried to utilize the apparent involvement of
the prosecution witnesses Gloria and Sotera Salongcong and Jesus Francisco in claiming a frame-up and a
scheme to lay the blame on the two (2) accused-appellants.  While WE agree with the observation that
these 3 witnesses are probably involved in various ways and degrees, and their
exclusion from the charge is questionable, WE cannot find any reason to believe
that the appellants are innocent as they pretend to be.  As aptly held by the trial
court, “that there were principals by induction in the commission of a
crime who were not prosecuted is no legal impediment to a finding of guilt of
the principals by direct participation for the same crime. x x x  [T]he
non-prosecution of Gloria and Sotera Salongcong in the case at bar did not make the indictees before us less guilty, much more, innocent as to
be blessed with a judgment of acquittal” (pp. 52-53, rec.).

On the contrary, the guilt of both appellants appear
to be a moral certainty, even without the testimonies of Gloria, Sotera and Jesus. 
Aside from the positive identification of the two eyewitnesses, the
evidence even of the defense tend to establish the
guilt of the appellants.

The tale woven by Aposaga about his
sudden departure from Polomolok as soon as the
authorities started the investigation, was not only uncorroborated but was also
too improbable to believe.  First, he
said he told Vargas that he was going to Norala for a
vacation.  When Vargas returned after he
had gone, his wife told Vargas that Aposaga went to Norala to harvest palay.  When he reached Norala,
his aunt told him to proceed to Iloilo
because his mother was ill.  But the
source of his aunt’s information was the same cousin who allegedly fetched him
from Polomolok for the self-same reason — the
alleged illness of his mother.  He
allegedly stayed in Iloilo for
about 8 to 10 months although according to the records, he was there for more
than a year until the policemen from Polomolok came
to arrest him.  It should be pointed out
that his sudden departure must have left his wife and child in Polomolok without any means of support, as the land he was
plowing was never planted after he left (p. 409, TSN).  All these could lead to but one conclusion —
that he had to flee and hide with his guilty
conscience to avoid arrest.  Flight and
going into hiding indicate a guilty conscience (People vs. Guevarra,
94 SCRA 642 [1979]; People vs. Moreno, 85 SCRA 649 [1978]).

Defense witnesses Doroteo and Vicente Estorque, father and brother, respectively of Aposaga’s common-law wife, tried to establish an alibi for Aposaga.  Their
testimonies, however, are inherently weak and doubtful in many substantial
aspects, and appear to be nothing more than vain attempts to save a
“family member” from conviction. 
For instance, they testified that Aposaga was
plowing with them at the time of the incident. 
Doroteo, however, stated that when he heard
the shout “wait, wait”, Aposaga was 30 meters
behind him although he could not see him as he was hidden by talahibs (p. 385, TSN; Exh. J-1).  Vicente, on the other hand, plowed with Aposaga and his father only from 10:00 to 10:30
that morning (p. 404, TSN), whereas the incident
occurred between 6:00 and 7:00 A.M. Doroteo
further declared that there was nothing unusual that happened on December 13, 1965, and he does not
remember what day it was. Yet, he could recall at the witness stand four (4)
years later that he saw Gloria Salongcong running at five
o’clock that morning; what dress Gloria was wearing; what time they started
plowing (6:00 A.M.); what time they left the farm; what time they took their
meals; what they ate for breakfast and lunch and other minor details of daily
life.  Doroteo
claimed that he does not know Calbo but he admitted
seeing him in the house of Monte that fateful morning of December 13th (p. 394,
TSN).  He never
tried to find out who uttered the words “wait, wait” (p. 394, TSN).  He was
surprised to learn of the death of the victim whom he had believed to be in Bislig (p. 386, TSN); but he
never visited the remains after exhumation when he already knew he was dead (p.
379, TSN).  Is
this the natural reaction to a surprising death of a barrio-mate who owned the
land he was plowing?  Vicente’s testimony
likewise suffered from similar inconsistencies and improbabilities as to
command little, if any, probative value. 
The testimonies of these defense witnesses are mere concoctions that
cannot neutralize the positive identification of the appellants by the two
prosecution witnesses.

Moreover, it is a well-settled doctrine that for alibi to be
acceptable, it must be shown that the place where the accused was alleged to be
must be located at such a distance that it is well-nigh impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime when it was committed (People vs. Tirol, L-30538, January 31, 1981; People vs. de la Cruz, 97
SCRA 387 [1980]; People vs. Mercado 97 SCRA 232 [1980]; People vs. Angeles, 92 SCRA
432 [1979]).  Such was not the situation
in this case; for the place where Aposaga was
allegedly plowing was only about 150 meters from the house of the victim (p.
368, TSN) and within hearing distance from the place
of the incident.  The place of the
incident in turn was only 60 to 70 meters from the victim’s house (p. 314, TSN).  It was there­fore
very convenient for Aposaga to slip away from his
plowing and participate in the murder of the deceased even if he actually
plowed the farm in the morning of December
13, 1965.

Furthermore, Aposaga was named as a
killer of the deceased in two sworn statements executed by his co-accused Monte
(Exhs. “K” and
“L”), which sworn statements were corroborated by his wife Bienvenida (Exh.
“M”).  Monte tried to retract
these statements on the witness stand by explaining that when he said
“Francisco” he meant Jesus Francisco, and not appellant Francisco Aposaga, and that the said affidavit was never read to him
by Municipal Judge Narciso Mirabueno,
before whom he signed and swore to it. 
The latter claim was belied by Judge Mirabueno
who testified that he read the contents of all affidavits to the affiants and
made sure they under­stood.  He also
asked searching questions to determine the truth of their statements (pp.
557-569, TSN). 
Since it has not been shown that the said judge has any interest in the
case, it is not difficult to determine which of the two (2) testimonies
deserves consideration.

As to the claim of mistaken identity of the person named
“Francisco”, it is obvious from the very substance of Monte’s sworn
statements that the “Francisco Aposaga” he
named therein as a killer of the deceased was different and distinct from the
“Jesus Francisco” (Pedoy) who buried the
leather bag of the deceased.  Besides, it
is understandable that Monte will try his best to save his co-accused who had
so gallantly provided him a defense counsel which he could not afford.

For his part, Monte tried to establish his innocence by pointing
out that it was unnatural for him to kill Atty. Barranda
after the latter had satisfactorily explained about the problems of his work
and after they had breakfast together (p. 82, rec.).  Besides, he had no motive to kill his
employer and benefactor who had given him better opportunities and sufficient
means to support his family by taking him as tenant and supervisor (pp. 89-90,
rec.).  Unfortunately, these allegations
cannot overcome the incriminating testimonies of the two (2) eyewitnesses.  Besides, even from his own testimony, the
following circumstantial evidence appear to be inconsistent
with his innocence:

1.  Monte testified that he
heard of a threat against the life of the deceased in a conversation among
Gloria Salongcong, Sotera Salongcong and Jesus Francisco (p. 471, TSN).  Yet, when he saw Jesus running after the
deceased carrying a bolo, he did not even look to see what Jesus intended to do
(pp. 485-486; 500-501, TSN).

2.  He did not do anything
about the disappearance of his employer for forty-eight (48) days, even though
the last time he saw him (deceased) was when somebody (Jesus Francisco) was
running after him (pp. 500-501, TSN).

3.  If it were true that the
deceased had told him he was going to Agusan to
become a judge (p. 475, TSN), why did he not remind
Gloria of such fact when Gloria came looking for her husband (p. 489, TSN)?

4.  Although he saw Jesus
running after the deceased that morning, he did not say so when Gloria asked
him about the deceased; and when Gloria expressed the possibility that the
deceased might have been waylaid, his answer was, “Nobody could do that
because it is daytime” (p. 490, TSN).

5.  Monte escaped from the
municipal jail on July 9, 1966,
allegedly because his wife was sick in San Francisco,
Agusan.  He
explained that when he wired his wife to inform her that their hearing will be
in May (1966), his father-in-law replied that she was sick (p. 524, TSN).  If that were
true and this allegation was never corroborated, his escape should have been
timed around May, 1966, and not July of that year.  The records do not disclose any hearing in
July, 1966.  Surely, it is more logical
to conclude that Monte’s flight, like that of his co-accused, indicated a
guilty conscience.

All the above could lead but to one conclusion, that the guilt of
the two (2) accused-appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

This case should, however, be further investigated to determine
the participation of Sotera Salongcong,
Jesus Francisco and Gloria Salongcong in the
perpetration of the crime.  Their own
respective statements implicate themselves. 
Moreover, as pointed out by the appellants, these prosecution witnesses
have strong motives to kill the deceased: 
Sotera and Jesus for their ouster from
tenancy, and Gloria for the rape of her daughter Fe.

However, for lack of necessary votes, the death penalty cannot be
imposed.

WHEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS HEREBY AFFIRMED,
WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT APPELLANTS ARE HEREBY SENTENCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA, WITH COSTS AGAINST THEM.

LET A COPY OF THIS DECISION BE FURNISHED THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE
FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION SO THAT OTHERS WHO APPEAR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRIME
MAY BE DULY PROSECUTED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.