THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. DANIEL GALAPON, AND EULALIO GALAPON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

For the killing of Leonardo Bedeira, Daniel Galapon and Eulalio
Galapon were charged with murder and after trial were,, by the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija, found guilty of said crime qualified by
treachery and aggravated by evident premeditation and abuse of public
position and sentenced to the extreme penalty of death, to indemnify
jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P6,000
and to pay the costs. Because of the penalty imposed the record of the
case was forwarded to us for review.

From a careful study of the evidence we find the following facts to
have been established beyond reasonable doubt. On August 31, 1951,
Sisenando Gonzaga, a rig driver, was in his vehicle going toward the
railroad station at barrio San Roque, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, to pick up
passengers from the incoming train. Near the station he was hailed and
engaged by defendant Daniel Galapon who after boarding the rig,
informed Sisenando that he was going to pick up two companions who
proved to be his nephew defendant Eulalio Galapon and the deceased
Leonardo Bedeira. After picking up these two persons the vehicle
proceeded to the poblacion of Guimba and the three passengers alighted
at and went inside a Chinese store where the three proceeded to drink
Chinese wine named See Hoc Tong. Thereafter, the three
passengers boarded the rig and directed the driver to proceed to the
sitio of Pasong Intsik. On the way and while passing in front of the
cemetery, the driver Sisenando heard a pistol shot right just behind
him. He looked back started and saw blood gushing from the head of
Bedeira; and he also saw Eulalio holding a revolver. Sisenando
continued driving upon order of Eulalio and not long thereafter he
again heard a shot behind him but this time he dare not look back. When
the vehicle reached the Pasak bridge still within the municipality of
Guimba, Sisenando was ordered to stop by Eulalio and Daniel who
proceeded to lift the dead body of Bedeira from inside the vehicle and
then dump it into some tall grass called “talahib”, a few meters from
the road and bridge. Thereafter, Sisenando was ordered to return to
town and take Eulalio and Daniel to their respective homes, which he
did, with the warning and threat that if he revealed to any one what
had happened, he would be killed. It should be here stated that at the
time both Eulalio and Daniel were members of the police force of
Guimba; Daniel wore civilian clothes and Eulalio was in uniform.

That same evening at about eight, Lt. Carbonel of the police force
led a patrol composed of several policemen, including Eulalio, to the
sitio of Pasak near the bridge already mentioned, because the night
before he had received a report to the effect that some armed men had
attempted to kidnap some civilians there. As the patrol approached the
bridge, some firing was heard from the north and upon instructions of
Lt. Carbonel, the patrol returned the fire, and thereafter deployed and
advanced northward. Then Eulalio announced to his companions that he
had found a dead body in the “talahib,” the very spot where an hour or
two before the body of Bedeira was dumped. The dead body was taken to
town and Lt. Carbonel broadcast the news of the find, and requested
that the relatives of the dead man come to the residencia and identify
the body. Next morning the body was identified as that of Leonardo
Bedeira.

An autopsy made by Dr. Felipe Batangan showed that the deceased
sustained two gunshot wounds on the head; the entrance of the first was
at the mid-parietal region right, and the second at the lower region of
the occipital bone, and that there were signs of powder burns which
according to the doctor showed that the gun was fired at a distance of
not more than one foot.

The complaint for murder was not filed until January 1952. Eulalio
and Daniel seem to have left town of Guimba after they had resigned or
been separated from the police force. It was only in January 1952 that
Daniel was arrested, and Eulalio was arrested only on August 26, 1952,
although he claims that he surrendered to a lieutenant of the Army in
Fort McKinley.

At the preliminary investigation conducted by the Justice of the
Peace of Guimba, Daniel assisted by his counsel testified and said that
in the afternoon of August 31, 1951, he really rode in a rig with his
nephew Eulalio Galapon and the deceased Leonardo Badeira; that Eulalio
was then tipsy or groggy and was threatening everyone in the vehicle,
pointing his revolver at them; that as they approached the Pasak
bridge, Eulalio shot Bedeira and that he (Daniel) helped Eulalio dump
the dead body into the “talahib” near the bridge; and that he kept
silent and dared not reveal what had transpired because of the threat
of death made by Eulalio. The transcript of this testimony was
introduced in evidence at the trial as Exhibit “F” for the prosecution.

While Daniel and Eulalio were confined at the provincial jail of
Nueva Ecija they had a talk with one Urbano Gepilano, son-in-law of the
deceased Leonardo Bedeira in the presence of provincial guard Florencio
Viloria, resulting in the preparation of a promissory note, signed by
Eulalio and Daniel, witnessed by Florencio Viloria, and later
introduced in evidence as Exhibit “H” for the prosecution. We are
reproducing it below:

“PROMISSORY NOTE

Ten days after date we Eulalio Galapon and Daniel
Galapon promised to pay Mr. Urbano Gepilano the amount of Two Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (P2,500.00) only for our indemnity to the late
Leonardo Bedeira kidnap and murder by us last August 31, 1951.

Cabanatuan City, January 12, 1953

1. EULALIO GALAPON       

2. DANIEL GALAPON       

Witness:

1. FLORENCIO VILORIA”

We entertain no doubt as to the guilt of the two accused (Daniel and
Eulalio) whose acts previous to, during, and after the shooting of the
deceased showed unity of purpose and conspiracy to do away with
Bedeira. Although the actual shooting was done by Eulalio, the evidence
shows that his co-accused Daniel engaged the rig, picked up Eulalio and
the deceased and then the three engaged in what the trial court called
a “drinking spree” in a Chinese store after which the two accused took
the victim for a ride toward Pasong Intsik, said victim being made to
sit between them. The rig driver Sisenando, star witness for the
prosecution witnessed the shooting; he does not seem to have heard or
witnessed any discussion, quarrel or struggle between Bedeira and
Eulalio or any attempt on the part of Daniel to prevent the shooting.
On the contrary, Daniel readily helped in disposing of the dead body
and joined in enjoining Sisenando not to reveal what he had seen, under
penalty of death. The flight of the two accused from Guimba is another
indication of their guilt. Added to this, is the document (Exh. “H”)
wherein both accused promised to pay P2,500 as an indemnity to the
person whom they had kidnapped and killed.

At the trial, the two accused said that the original promissory note
they signed called only for P250.00 and did not contain the clause
about the kidnapping and killing of the deceased. However, as correctly
contended by the Solicitor General, there is nothing in the document
itself to show that this clause was added later; and that if the clause
in question had not been in the document at the time it was signed,
then the signatures would have been at the middle of the page instead
of at the bottom.

Daniel claims that the testimony given by him at the preliminary
investigation (Exhibit “F”) was not voluntary but was the result of
intimidation. Considering that said testimony was given before the
justice of the peace and in the presence of, and with the assistance of
his own counsel, there is no reason to doubt its voluntariness. His
claim that he was intimidated and forced by Eulalio to help him commit
the crime does not merit serious consideration bearing in mind that the
two defendants were members of the police force of Guimba and Daniel
was an uncle of Eulalio, so that it was not likely that the nephew
would and could exert undue influence on his uncle. And, as to Eulalio,
the fact that he readily found the dead body of Bedeira, in the thick
“talahib” below the road and when according to Lt. Carbonel it was then
very dark, shows that he knew that there was a dead body in that place,
the very same one that he and his uncle had previously dumped there and
which he wanted the authorities, particularly Lt. Carbonel who led the
patrol, to believe that he (Bedeira) was a victim of the armed
dissidents which had been terrorizing the area.

We are in accord with the Solicitor General that the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation has not been clearly proven; and
as to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of official position, we
also agree to the contention of Government counsel that there is no
evidence that the accused took advantage of their being policemen. The
record shows that the deceased evidently rode with his two assailants
voluntarily, perhaps induced and assured by their friendliness, with
the exhilarating effect of the liquor taken during their “drinking
spree.” With the elimination of these two aggravating circumstances,
the penalty for the crime of murder should be imposed in its medium
degree, namely, reclusion perpetua.

It may not be entirely out of place here to quote one of the last
paragraphs of the decision of the learned trial court. Said his Honor
Judge M. M. Mejia:

“As already stated, the two defendants were members
of the police force of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. They were appointed as such
to enforce the law and to protect the inhabitants of the municipality.
But untrue to their sworn duty, they instead became the executioners of
a poor and innocent citizen. They were assassins in policemen’s
clothing. The Court feels that civilized society has no use for the
lives of police officers like these, except perhaps to serve as a
deterrent for others criminally inclined like them. For ruthless,
cold-blooded and merciless killers like them, the death penalty was
intended and for them must be enforced.”

We are in full agreement with the court below that considering the
defendant’s position as policemen and peace officers, their act was
atrocious and utterly reprehensible. Although under the law, we may not
impose the extreme penalty, still we believe that they are not
deserving of any compassion or of Executive Clemency, particularly
Eulalio Galapon who appears to be the mastermind and the more guilty of
the two.

With the modification above stated, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.