G.R. No. L-29190. October 29, 1971
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELICIANO GUBA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, in its Criminal Case No. D-1795, finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. The dispositive
part of the decision follows:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Feliciano Guba guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby
imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to indemnify the heirs of the late Jose FerÂnandez in the sum of P6,000.00; and
to pay the costs.
The information originally charged FELICIANO GUBA, the herein
accused-appellant, with FEDERICO U. CRUZ of the crime of murder, and recites:
“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal after conducting
the preliminary investigation in acÂcordance with the provisions of Republic
Act 1799 hereby accuses FELICIANO GUBA and FEDERICO U. CRUZ of the crime of
MURDER, committed as follows:
That on or about the 4th day of March 1965 at early dawn, in Poblacion, Mapandan, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused FELICIANO GUBA and FEDERICO U.
CRUZ, the former a duly appointed policeÂman and the latter a duly appointed
Municipal Judge both of Mapandan, Pangasinan,
consÂpiring, confederating and mutually helping one another with evident
premeditation, with intent to kill and with the use of carbine, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot and
kill one JOSE FERNANDEZ, a detenÂtion prisoner of the municipal jail of Mapandan, Pangasinan and as a
consequence of which the victim suffered the following injuries to wit:
Abrasions: bulbar region, left, medial, 1.5 x 1.0 cm.;
chin, right, 2.5 x 1.0 cm.; base of neck, posterior, across midline, 6.0 x 0.6
cm.; elbow, right posterior, 0.6 x 0.2 cm. and left, 6.4 x 3.5 cm.; wrist, rig,
1.0 x 0.5 dorsum of left small finger, 2.0 x 1.0 cm.
Contusions, scapular
region, right, 5.7 x 2.8 cm.; knee, left, anterior, 2.0 x 1.0 greenÂish purple
color.
Contused-abrasions;
right shoulder, posterior 4.5 x 4.0 cm.; arm, right, posterior, middle 3rd, 1.3
x 1.1 cm. and left, 3.0 x 3.0 cm.
Gunshot wound:
Entrance wound-located
at the back, left, 9.0 cm. to the left of the posterior median line, level of
the 9th intercostal space, along the midscapular line, and 136,5 cm. from the left heel, size
0.8 x 0.7 cm. shape; oriented downwards and medially; with contusion collar-wides that the supero-lateral
border measuring 0.5 cm. and 0.1 cm. – at the rest of the border, and inverted
borders.
Direction and
involvement: directed from left to
right, downwards and anteriorly; penetrating the left
thoracic cavity, posterior thru the 9th intercostal
space, along the midscapular line, then perforating
pericardial sac and lacerating extenÂsively the heart, right side, thru the posÂterior
mediastinum, producing extensive hematoma,
then perforating the lower lobe of the right lung at its medial aspect,
producing extensive hematoma on the dome of the
liver, and then thru the thoÂracic wall, right, anterior, level of the 6th rib,
making an;
Exit wound —
located at the chest, right anterior, lower portion, 2.0 cm. to the right of
the anterior median line, level of the 6th rib, along the parasternal
line; size 1.7 x 0.9 cm., oval shape with everted
borders.
which injuries caused the instantaneous death
of the said JOSE FERNANDEZ.”
After a reinvestigation, and specifically on 23 February 1967, the
Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan moved that the case
against Federico U. Cruz be dropped for the reasons that only witness Domingo Alican appeared, and “for lack of interest” on
the part of the victim’s widow.[1]
On 28 February 1967, the
court dismissed before the plea the case against Federico U. Cruz[2],
thus leaving Guba as the lone accused.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on 3 March 1965 Domingo
Alican, one of prosecution witnesses herein, went to
the house of the deceased, Jose Fernandez, in barrio Torres, Mapandan, Pangasinan, for the
purpose of buying sugar (tagapolot). Alican followed
Fernandez to the poblacion when Fernandez’
wife informed him that her husband was there. Having found Fernandez, both
proceeded to the parking space of tricycles to board one in returning to the
house of Fernandez where Alican was going to see the
sugar. While Fernandez was talking to
the driver, Alican was hit at the left back part of
his head with a stone. Fernandez ran
because stones were also being thrown at him.
Alican then went to see the Chief of
Police of Mapandan to complain about the
incident. While there, Jose Fernandez
arrived accompanied by a corporal and a policeman. Then Municipal judge Federico U. Cruz, the
other accused in the information, arrived and remarked, “So, you are here
again, Jose. May be you are the one again who caused the trouble. Let me see how tough you are. I will put out your soul.” Corroborating
witness, Reynaldo Erfelo, quoted the judge as
specifically saying: “Jose
you are here now to pay for your faults.
Tonight, we will vanish your soul,” translated from the Pangasinan dialect, “Ibalang
ko tay camareruam.”
After this, the judge allegedly instructed the Chief of Police to file a
complaint for public scandal against the two and put them in jail.
Jose Fernandez and Domingo Alican were
thus detained in the municipal jail on 3
March 1965 at 5 in the afternoon.
Both were still in jail in the early dawn of the following day when Pat.
Feliciano Guba, identified in court as the accused,
came and awakened FerÂnandez. The
accused, calling Fernandez as “Bayao“(appellant
being a cousin of Fernandez’ wife), said that he was already off-duty and that
he was going to help Fernandez secure a bond for his release. Fernandez then asked how much bond was
necessary for him and Alican and the accused answered
that it was P1,000.00 for each.
After fetching water for Alican,
Fernandez and the accused went out again.
About 30 minutes after they left, the inmates heard one gun report,
which led them to nudge each other, and Alican to
remark, “I think they shot Jose.” The detainees numbered 8, including
Alican and Fernandez.
PC corporal Caasi, accompanied by Pat. Petrola, soon after arrived at the jail and inquired from
the inmates if they knew that Fernandez was already dead. He said further that any one who would tell
that Fernandez was brought out of jail to be killed would be the next to suffer
the same fate. Pat. Petrola then ordered the
prisoners to go to sleep and not to talk about the matter. At about 5 or 6 in the morning of the same
date, Judge Cruz also visited the inmates in jail and likewise ordered them not
to talk about what happened, otherwise what befell Fernandez would also happen
to them.
Alican’s testimony up to this point was
substantially corroborated by Reynaldo Erfelo, the
other prosecution witness.
On 3 May 1965, Alican was in a cockpit in barrio Licsi
when the accused-appellant saw and called him saying that if he (Alican) wanted to live, he should not be a witness
regarding the death of Jose FerÂnandez. Alican answered “how” when he already signed the
subpoena. The accused then tried to draw
his gun, but Alican was able to wrest the same from
the accused. This gun was surrendered by Alican to
policeman Macaraeg at the Municipal Hall of Manaoag, Pangasinan. Alican then filed a
criminal complaint[3]
against Pat. Guba with the municipal court of Manaoag as a result of this incident, while the latter
filed a countercharge. The case,
however, was settled upon the intervention of politicians.[4]
Rosario Guba, widow of the deceased
Fernandez, was also called to testify.
She learned about her husband’s death that same morning of 4 March 1965 in her house through her
father. She then went to the presidencia in
town. She saw many people at the back
thereof when she arrived, among them, Judge Cruz, the accused, and the
municipal health officer, Dr. Maximo Al. Parayno, Jr. Her husband’s body was being opened and
autopsied. She asked why they did not
wait for her, but Dr. Parayno answered that she
arrived very late and that they were looking for the bullet. She also asked the accused, who is her second
cousin, why he shot her husband and the accused answered that Fernandez was
running away. She then remarked that he
could have just shot him in the leg, to which he did not reply.
Mrs. Fernandez’ father went to Dagupan in
the meantime to seek the aid of the NBI (National Bureau of Investigation), but
it was only in the following day that the NBI came. The body of the husband was moved to their
house at already 6 in the afternoon because they waited for that help.
The Death Certificate dated 5
March 1965, signed by Dr. Parayno, Jr.,
shows that Fernandez died of shock due to profuse hemorrhage caused by a
gunshot wound.[5]
Death occurred at about 3:30 am. of 4 March 1965 at the public plaza. The probable distance between assailant and
the victim was placed at about 22 feet.[6]
The defense, on the other hand, does not contest the fact that the
victim died of gunshot wound and that it was the accused who shot him. In fact it admitted Exhibit “B”,
the Death Certificate, when the same was presented by the prosecution. However,
the reason given by the accused-appellant for the shooting was that the victim
was running away and would not stop despite warning shots. It is, therefore, claimed by the defense that
the accused did not incur criminal liability for the killing because it occurred
in the course of performing an official duty which was to prevent the escape of
a prisoner.
Accused-appellant himself recounted that he was on duty as guard of
the municipal building from 8 in the morning of 3 March 1965 to 8 in the morning of the following day, 4
March. At 3 in the morning of this
latter day, Jose Fernandez, one of the eight detainees, and the deceased
herein, asked permission from him to go out to attend to his personal
necessities. Accused-appellant opened
the door[7]
and Fernandez went out first, while the former locked the door by inserting a
chain through a hole therein, which took sometime to do. The accused-appellant did not see Fernandez
after he locked the door, so he looked for the said detainee in the toilet
which was about 10 meters from jail, but Fernandez was not there. When accused-appellant did not find Fernandez
in the municipal building, he looked around.
It was then that he saw Fernandez crossing the street. Accused-appellant called Fernandez to stop
twice but the latter did not do so; he then fired two shots in the air. When Fernandez did not heed the alleged
warning, accused-appellant fired towards Fernandez who fell, face downward.
Accused-appellant denied that the reason for his taking Fernandez
out of jail was to help him find a bond for his release. He reported the
shooting incident to the Chief of Police upon the latter’s arrival at the
municipal building from patrol duty, at 5
o’clock the same morning.
The court a quo convicted accused-appellant for
murder, which judgment of conviction is now before Us on appeal, with the
accused-appellant assigning the following errors: The trial court erred in –
1.
Giving credence to the testimony of the
witnesses for the prosecution, particularly Alican
and Erfelo;
2.
Holding the shooting of Fernandez to be
unjustified because he was only charged with a light felony;
3.
Finding the existence of treachery in view of
the fact that the accused was shot from behind; and
4.
Finding the accused guilty of the crime charged
and in sentencing him therefore.
It has been repeatedly held that as a rule, the finding of the
trial court as to the credibility of witnesses is not to be disturbed on appeal
to the Supreme Court.[8]
Witnesses Alican and Erfelo
were two of eight detainees in jail when the accused-appellant came to awaken
Jose Fernandez, stating that he was already off-duty and that he would help
Fernandez secure the bail for his release.
The said witnesses, specially Erfelo, had no
motive at all to testiÂfy falsely against the accused-appellant. The fact that the latter was actually on duty
from 8 in the morning of 3 March 1965 to 8 in the morning of the following day,
as shown in Exhibit “5-A”, a certification of entries on the police
blotter on those dates[9]
does not necessarily mean that what the witnesses heard was not true. On the contrary, as will be seen later, it
strengthens the prosecution’s stand that Fernandez was taken out of jail to be
killed. Witnesses Alican
and Erfelo likewise quoted PC corporal Caasi and Judge Cruz as warning the inmates not to talk
about what happened, otherwise what befell Fernandez would also happen to
them. Only truth could have motivated
these persons in testifying against accused-appellant, who is a policeman, against
Cpl. Caasi of the PC, Pat. Petrola,
another policeman, and even the municipal judge, Federico U. Cruz. Moreover,
neither Cpl. Caasi, Pat. Petrola,
nor the muniÂcipal Judge himself were presented to refute the aforesaid
testimony regarding the warning or threats, especially after witness Erfelo pointed in court to Judge Cruz during the latter’s
cross-examination of said witness, as one of those who made the threat. It will be further noted that the
accused-appellant himself later threatened Alican
with a gun in a try to stop the latter from testifying regarding the death of
Fernandez. As a result of this incident,
Alican filed a criminal complaint against the herein
accused-appellant with the municipal court of Manaoag,
Pangasinan.
The caution or warning made by the accused to the jailmates
of Fernandez (not to reveal what they had heard or seen shows the guilt of the
appellant of the crime with which he is charged.[10]
Even more important, there is no proof that the 3 shells allegedly found in the
plaza came from the carbine of this appellant, and the prisoners at the jail
heard only one shot.
It is also stressed that the accused had no motive for deliberately
doing away with Fernandez, pointing out the fact that the deceased’s wife and
accused-appellant are second cousins. It has been held that motive is
unessential to conviction in murder cases when there is no doubt as to the
identity of the culprit.[11]
In the absence, therefore, of showing that the trial court had
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance that would have affected the result of the case, this Court is not
inclined to disturb the factual finding of the court a quo as to the
credibility of said witnesses.[12]
Appellant’s claim that he shot Fernandez in the back because the
latter was running away and would not stop despite appellant’s warning shouts
and shots is further belied by the autopsy data. The necropsy report (Exhibit “6”)
states that the victim was shot from a distance of approximately twenty-two
feet, which tallies with appellant’s own report to the Chief of Police (shortly
after the shooting) that he fired at Fernandez from a distance of six or seven
meters. This distance is so short that
appellant could not have had time to shout to Fernandez an order to halt nor
fire two warning shots in the air before firing the fatal bullet, as he claims
to have done, and explains the testimony of prosecution witnesses Alican and Erfelo that they heard
only one shot fired. Under the
circumstances, therefore, the shooting of Fernandez can in no way be considered
justified as done in the performance of lawful duty.
Accused-appellant’s version being discredited, there is no
alternative but to concur with the trial court finding that it has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the killing of Fernandez by apÂpellant was
attended by alevosia, since the victim was
shot in the back. However, an
examination of the information reveals that alevosia
is not charged therein; hence the alevosia,
although proved, can only be considered as a generic (not qualifying)
circumstance aggravating the crime of homicide.[13]
Such aggravating circumstance, howÂever, is offset by the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, the appellant having voluntarily admitted
the killing to the Chief of Police of Mapandan
shortly after the crime was committed.
The proper penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal
(Revised Penal Code, Article 249), applicable in its medium degree in the
absence of other aggravating or mitigating circumstance (Article 64, No. 1,
Revised Penal Code). Giving appellant
the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence law (Act 4103, as amended by Act
4225), the proper imposable penalty is one with a minimum within the range of prision mayor which is the penalty
immediately below reclusion temporal, and a maximum within the medium
degree of the latter penalty.
WHEREFORE, the conviction of the appellant for the slaying
of the late Jose Fernandez is affirmed; but the sentence imposed is modified by
imposing upon said appellant a minimum of ten (10) years of prision
mayor and a maximum of seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal,
with the accessory penalties prescribed by law. The civil indemnity due to the
heirs of the victim is likewise increased to P12,000, as ruled in People vs. Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, 11 October 1968, 25 SCRA 468. Costs against the appellant.
Let a copy of this decision be referred to the Secretary of
Justice for an inquiry into the posÂsible responsibility of Municipal Judge
Federico U. Cruz, who was originally indicted jointly with accused Feliciano Guba, but subsequently excluded from the charge by the
Provincial Fiscal on the patently ins insufficient ground of “lack of
interest” on the part of the victim’s widow.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., did not take part.
[1]
Page 2, Brief for the Appellee; Record, pages 67-69.
[2] Id.,
Id.
[3]
Criminal Case No. 1189, See Affidavit, Exhibit “4”, page 9, Folder of
Exhibits.
[4]
Page 11, Brief for the Appellee, T.s.n.,
13 February 1968, pp 19-20
[5]
Exhibit “B” page 3, Folder of Exhibits.
[6]
See Exhibit “6”, Medico-Legal Necropsy Report, dated 4 March 1965, page 12, Folder of
Exhibits.
[7]
Exhibit “1-A”.
[8]
People vs. Dorado, G.R. No. L-23464, 31 October 1969, 30 SCRA 53, See also People vs. Ablaza, G.R. No. L-27352, 31 October 1969, 30 SCRA 173, and People vs. Brioso, G.R. No. L-28482, 30 January 1971, 37 SCRA 336.
[9]
Page 11, Folder of Exhibits.
[10]
People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. L-2335,
7 March 1950, 85 Phil. 731.
[11]
People vs. Villalba, G.R. No. L-17243, 23 August 1966, 17 SCRA 949, citing
cases.
[12]
See People vs. Ablaze, G.R. No. L-27352, 31 October 1969, supra
[13] U.
S. vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 368.