G.R. No. L-39447. August 08, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VALENTIN SALANGOSTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BIDIN, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 27, 1974 Decision of the then
Court of First Instance of Northern Samar, 13th
Judicial District, Branch X,* finding
accused-appellant Valentin Salangoste
guilty of the crime of Parricide, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of victim
Victoria Adato the sum of P12,000.00, and to pay the
costs.
The factual background of this case as found by the trial court
is as follows:
“The childless couple of Valentin Salangoste and Victoria Adato
were living in a house in their farm outside the barrio proper of Bongliw in the municipality
of Laoang,
Northern Samar. Near their place was the abode of Primitivo Basarte and his wife. The Basarte
residence consisted of a main structure and a camalig attached thereto. They
were allegedly using the annex as their sleeping quarters because the other
portion was in a state of dilapidation.
“In the morning of August
27, 1973, Victoria Adato was found
lifeless in the main house of Primitivo Basarte sprawled in her own blood on the floor. She was definitely the victim of a foul play,
for it was established that she suffered 16 lesions in different parts of the
body. Dr. Benigno
Evardone, who performed the autopsy in the G.B.
Tan Memorial Hospital,
said that the wounds were caused by a sharp-edged instrument like a bolo. Ten (10) were chopping wounds while the rest
were incised. The doctor said that 3 of
these were fatal, 6 were serious and the others were more of less
superficial. Shown to be mortal
were: a) a chopping wound, 10 x 5 cm. at
the based of the neck, left side, cutting through a clavicle with the pleural
cavity grazing the upper border of the apex of the left lung; b) a chopping
wound, 26 x 10 cm. at the left chest, cutting through the lateral aspect of the
6th and 7th ribs into the pleural cavity; and c) a chopping wound, left chest,
28 x 10 cm., cutting the 6th and 7th ribs into the pleural cavity and incising
half-way the lower lobe of the left lung (Exhs. “A”
and “A-1”).
“Three days after the
discovery of her cadaver, Valentin Salangoste was charged before the Municipal Court of
Laoang.
Assisted by counsel, he waived his
right to present evidence in the second
stage of the preliminary investigation so the case was remanded to this
Court before which he was finally charged with Parricide in an amended
information dated November 28, 1973 for having killed his wife at about 3:00
o’clock in the morning of August 27, 1973 in barrio Bongliw,
municipality of Laoang. The fact that the accused and the deceased
were legally married is admitted.” (Decision, Criminal Case No. 386; Rollo, pp. 18-19).
The amended information dated November 28, 1973, charging the accused with Parricide
reads as follows:
“The undersigned 3rd Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Northern Samar, accuses VALENTIN SALANGOSTE of the crime of
PARRICIDE, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 27th
day of August 1973, at 3:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, in Barrio Bongliw, Municipality of Laoang,
Province of Northern Samar, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent
to kill and without any justifiable cause did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
slash several times one VICTORIA ADATO his lawful wife with the use of a bolo
locally called ‘sondang’ which the said accused had
provided himself for the purpose, thereby inflicting upon the person of
VICTORIA ADATO several chopping and incised wounds on the different parts of
her body which wounds caused the instantaneous death of the latter.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
The prosecution presented the following witnesses whose
testimonies, as culled from and summarized by the trial court in its decision,
are as follows:
(1) Primitivo (Tiboy) Basarte, a farmer residing in Barrio Bongliw,
Laoang, Northern Samar,
stated that he and his wife were awakened from their sleep in the camalig by the barking of their dog in the early
morning of August 27, 1973. He peeped through the nipa
wall and saw Valentin coming to his house with a bolo
in one hand and a torch in the other. Salangoste entered the camalig
and shouted: “Tiboy,
where are you now? Let’s fight. Let’s join our belts and intestine. I will kill both of you.” Standing on sawed
lumber in the camalig, the accused allegedly
continued swinging his bolo in the direction of the sleeping quarters and hit
the finger and wrist of Basarte. Basarte kicked the
accused but was in turn hit on the right foot.
To defend himself, Basarte got his bolo and
swung it against Salangoste who was hit on the
forehead. The accused put down the torch
enabling Basarte to jump down passing at the back,
and, with his wife who had escaped earlier, crossed the ricefield
to the direction of the house of the spouses Amado
and Luciana Baluyot.
Upon his call, the Baluyots let them in. They stayed there until morning when Basarte, accompanied by barrio councilman Narding Acedera, went to town to
have his wounds treated in the hospital.
Basarte also testified that Salangoste did not pursue them to the house of
Luciana. With his torch burning, the
accused returned and went around the dilapidated house several times before
placing the light in the yard. Later, Salangoste got the torch and moved to the direction of the
house of Emilio Irinco. (Decision, Criminal Case No. 388; Rollo, pp. 20-21; TSN, Hearing, Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 1-111).
(2) Luciana Baluyot, also a resident of Bongliw,
Northern Samar, declared that
at about 3:00 o’clock that morning, Primitivo Basarte and
his wife called at their house and requested to be taken in. She saw that Primitivo
was wounded in the right hand and in the foot.
She washed his wounds with alcohol.
While taking a piece of cloth to be used as bandage, Luciana narrated,
she heard Victoria Adato shrieking in the direction
of the house of Primitivo. She noted that Victoria’s
voice was alarming. Luciana became
apprehensive and after giving the cloth to Basarte
went up again and looked out of the window.
She noticed that there was a light under Primitivo’s
house. The torch went around the house
and then proceeded to the ricefield where it later
disappeared. The following morning, she
learned that Victoria was found
dead in the house of Primitivo Basarte. (Ibid; Rollo,
p. 21; TSN; Hearing, Jan. 30, 1974, pp. 114-153).
(3) Emilio Irineo, also known as Dicdic, and
a resident of the same place, about 100 meters from the house of the accused,
declared that somebody challenged him from the doorway that morning. He recognized the challenger to be Valentin Salangoste who told
him: “If you are really brave, come
down. I’ll kill you!” Surprised, Irineo did not move at once. Valentin broke the nipa shutter covering the door, put his head
inside and said: “Where are you
now? You will be the second.” Dicdic bundled his two children and with his wife ran out
passing through the kitchen. They went
to the residence of Tito Acedera. When he returned after lunch, Dicdic found a bolo beneath his kitchen. He noticed that the weapon was stained with
blood and that several strands of hair were attached to it, which he believed
to have come from the head of a woman considering the length. Irineo inserted the
bolo in a 4-year-old coconut palm in his yard where it laid until he gave it to
a police posse that called several days later.
(Ibid; Rollo, pp. 21-22; TSN; Hearing,
Jan. 31. 1974, pp. 248-249).
(4) Iluminada Ciray, residing by the
bank of the Catubig river, testified that Salangoste went up their house at about 3:00 o’clock that morning by pushing the door. When she went out of their room, Valentin allegedly boxed her. She shouted:
“Nanay, nanay,
help!” They held each other and she was stained with his blood. When Yoyo Adato,
her husband, got up from bed, he held Valentin and
they scuffled. After Salangoste
had been subdued, Yoyo inquired: “Papay, why are you doing this to us? We are still your nephews.” Valentin answered:
“You try to see your Mamay because she is
dead.” According to Iluminada, the “mamay” referred to was Victoria Adato,
the aunt of Yoyo. (Ibid; Rollo, p. 22; TSN; Hearing, Feb. 1, 1974, p. 277).
(5) Patrolman Fausto Cerbito of the Laoang Police Force, testified that he had gone to barrio Bongliw several times in connection with this case. At first, accompanied by two policemen, he
saw Valentin Salangoste in
the house of Iluminada Giray. The barrio captain of Bongliw,
Felimon Lapiad, who was
also there, informed him that a statement of the accused had been taken and
that Victoria Adato was lying dead in a house about
200 meters away. They went there and saw
her lifeless body on the floor. He drew
a sketch of the room before bringing the cadaver to town for autopsy. The next time, in company of the chief of police,
he drew a sketch of the camalig attached to
the house where Victoria was
found. The sketches were marked Exhs. “B”, “B-1” and “B-2”.
On that occasion, they also went to the house of Luciana Baluyot where Primitivo Basarte gave them the bolo he used against Salangoste, Exh. “E” the bolo
which Emilio Irineo found under his kitchen stairs, Exh. “D” was handed to Cerbito in
his third visit to the barrio. Cerbito declared that when delivered to him, Exh. “D” was still stained with blood. (Ibid., Rollo, pp.
22-23; TSN, pp. 328-342).
Aside from the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses, the
prosecution presented the following documentary and physical evidence:
Exh. “A” – Autopsy
Report, first page
Exh. “A-1” – Autopsy
Report, second page
“ “B” – Sketch
“ “B-1” – First figure in Exh.
“B”
“ “B-2” – Second
figure in Exh. “B”
“ “C” – Mat
“ “C-1” – Mosquito Net
“ “C-2” – Clothing with blood stains
“ “D” – Big
bolo
“ “D-1” – Scabbard of Exh.
“D”
“ “E” – Big
bolo
“ “E-1” – Scabbard of Exh.
“E”
(TSN Index Exhibits, p. 206)
“ “F”, “F-1”, “F-2”, “G-1”,
and “G-2” – Affidavit of the accused and translation.
On the other hand, the defense presented the following
witnesses:
(1) Dr. Benigno Evardone who also
testified for the defense, having examined the accused at the G.B.
Tan Hospital
on August 27, 1973, stated
that Salangoste was semi-conscious when brought to
the hospital with two incised wounds in the right side of the head. The first was a 10 x 1.5 cm. lesion directed antero-posteriorly involving the whole thicknesss
of the scalp and the other was a 4 x 1 cm. directed also antero-posteriorly
above the other one. Both were caused by
a sharp-bladed instrument. The doctor
opined that only moderate force was employed (Decision, Crim.
Case No. 388).
Among others, the doctor indicated in the sketch the exact
location of the wounds stated in the autopsy report and testified that more
wounds were sustained by the victim on the left side of her body from the left
arm going up to the base of the neck, left side, all slash or chopping wounds
involving the front and the back but more in front. The doctor further testified that it is
possible that the assailant was standing at the back of the victim if he was
right handed and if the victim was standing, it is also possible that the
assailant was in front if he is left handed.
Furthermore, he opined that Wound No. 8 located at the left forearm is a
defense wound with the assailant possibly in front and the victim parrying the
blow with her left forearm (TSN:
Hearing, Dec. 12, 1973, pp. 317-324).
The doctor further stated that about nine (9) wounds cut through some
hard bones and opined that to inflict these wounds, an ordinary person of
average health must have exerted much effort (Ibid.; TSN, pp. 326-327).
(2) Elena Tepace, a store keeper in the Laoang
public market, stated that while tending her tienda
on August 26, 1973, at 11:00 a.m. or a day before the incident, Primitivo Basarte whom she had known
for quite some time, purchased a gallon of tuba and “sumsuman.”
He drank the tuba alone at first but he left and returned later with a
companion. According to her, Primitivo stated that he is drinking because he has a sort
of resentment against his neighbor, referring to the Salangoste
spouses, Valentin and Victoria, who are trying to
encroach on their boundary. Primitivo said, “I will kill them.” The witness cautioned Primitivo to keep quiet because they were near the police
station. Primitivo
allegedly countered that he will be responsible and together with his
companion, he consumed the one gallon of tuba and left at sunset for the
farm (Hearing of March 18, 1974; TSN, pp. 366-389; Decision, Crim. Case No. 388, p. 90).
(3) Manuel Rosel, a tailor resident of Baybay,
Laoang, testified that he saw Primitivo
Basarte in the morning of August 27, 1973 at 6:00
o’clock holding something wrapped in his hand. When asked what happened, the latter told him
that he fought with the accused (Decision, Crim. Case
No. 388, Rollo, p. 90; Hearing of March 18, 1974;
TSN, pp. 396-401).
(4) Felipe Deguia, 63 years old, wood cutter, stated that in the
afternoon of August 26, 1973,
he went to the house of Valentin and Victoria who
contracted his services to cut lumber for P250.00 for the repair of their house
which was already dilapidated. He stayed
that night at the couple’s house because it was getting dark. At 3:00
o’clock the following morning, he got up because he heard the
lowing of the carabao. Valentin also got up
at the suggestion of his wife to see the carabao. Valentin lighted a
torch and went out with his bolo inside a scabbard. When Valentin
returned, he passed near the toilet and saw Primitivo
Basarte inside.
The witness (Deguia) was by the window and the
toilet was directly below. According to
him, he heard Valentin saying, “What are you doing
there ‘Tiboy’” and then he saw Primitivo
(Tiboy) slashed Valentin at
the head two times using the left hand.
After Valentin was slashed on the head, the
torch was put out and Valentin left the place. Primitivo Basarte returned to his house and challenged Valentin to come saying:
“Come here because I will finish you here.” Against the advice of Deguia, Victoria Adato went down,
after which the witness heard her shouting for help because she was being
killed by Tiboy.
Her voice was coming from the direction of the house of Tiboy which was twenty (20) meters away. After he heard the sound, he was frightened
and so he boarded his banca and proceeded to town
where he arrived at 5:00 o’clock a.m. When he arrived, he told Quiteria,
“You better find out in Bongliw, there may be
somebody dead. Valentin
was slashed by Tiboy.” Quiteria
immediately went to the farm (Hearing, March 18, 1974, TSN, pp. 409-417;
Decision, Crim. Case No. 388, Rollo,
p. 91).
(5) Tomasa Acuin, 58 years old,
farmer, alleged that Primitivo Basarte
is her nephew-in-law. According to her,
in the morning of August 27, 1973,
while waiting for a ride to her farm in Barrio Tarusan,
in front of Carpio Phua’s
house, Primitivo alighted from a motorboat and she
asked him, “Why is it that you are bloody?” Primitivo
allegedly answered that “We have a fight with Valentin
and his wife.” Later, he (Primitivo) added, “We
fought and they are there dead in the house.” Shortly thereafter, her husband
arrived with a banca, she boarded the banca and headed for Tarusan
where she was informed on arrival that the wife of Valentin
was dead (Hearing of March 19, 1974, TSN, pp. 438-441; Decision, Crim. Case No. 388, Rollo, pp.
91-92).
(6) Felimon Lapiad, a barrio captain
and a resident of barrio Bongliw, Laoang,
Northern Samar, testified that he was called by Concordio Adato to the latter’s
residence in the early morning of August 27, 1973 because the accused was there
and was wounded. He claimed that he took
the statement of the accused with the help of Mr. Adora,
a teacher, who took down the accused’s answers on
paper which was later thumbmarked by the latter
before the same was given to the Chief of Police Artemio
Sacaguing. The
witness observed that the accused had difficulty answering the questions
because he was wounded and was bleeding.
(TSN, pp. 178-185). He also
confirmed the fact that in the statement he took, the accused stated that it
was Primitivo Basarte who
slashed him when he went down to see his carabao and
that he gave said statement to the Chief of Police (Hearing of March 19, 1974;
TSN, pp. 434-436; Decision, Crim. Case No. 388, Rollo, p. 92).
(7) Mr. Telesforo Adora, public school
teacher, and a resident of Laoang, Northern
Samar, testified that it is true that he
was the one who wrote down the statement of the accused on a grade four
paper. He mentioned that the accused was
at the beginning unconscious but then he regained consciousness later, he
answered the questions in the dialect.
He was not forced, his answers were responsive to the questions and the
statement was first read to him before the accused aided by the barrio captain,
thumbmarked the same with blood. The witness further attested that the
statement was in his handwriting and without any insertions (Ibid., pp.
185-189). He stated that four (4)
questions were asked by the Barrio Captain from the accused: (1) Who are you and he answered that he is Valentin Salangoste; (2) Who
slashed you? and the accused answered
that it was Primitivo Basarte;
(3) Who was that Primitivo and he answered it is Primitivo Basarte; and (4) Where
were you slashed? and he said he went to
his carabao and when he was returning home, he was
slashed near the toilet (Hearing, March 20, 1974; TSN, pp. 210-245).
The defense also presented the following documents and physical
evidence:
Exh. “1” – Autonomical
Sketch
“ “2” – Big bolo
“ “3” – Another big
bolo
(TSN Index Exhibits, p. 206)
“ “5”, “F-1” and “F-2”, “5-A”
and “5-C” – Affidavit of Valentin Salangoste
and translation.
After hearing, the then Court of First Instance of Northern Samar found the accused-appellant guilty of
the crime charged. The decretal portion of the said decision, reads:
“Premises considered, the Court finds the accused Valentin Salangoste guilty of the crime of Parricide beyond
reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of Victoria Adato in the sum of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs.”
In this appeal, accused-appellant relies on a single assignment
of error, to wit:
THAT THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF WRONG AND
WEAK INFERENCES.
The instant appeal is impressed with merit.
There is no eyewitness to the crime of parricide supposed to have
been committed by the accused. No
positive and direct evidence was introduced to show who killed the victim who
sustained sixteen (16) chopping and incised wounds, inside the house of Primitivo Basarte. The prosecution rested its case against the
accused-appellant on the basis of merely circumstantial evidence (Brief for
Accused-Appelant, Rollo,
p. 73; Decision, Crim. Case No. 388; Rollo, p. 98).
Finding the version of the prosecution more credible, the trial
court convicted the accused of the crime charged.
It is axiomatic that conclusions and findings of fact by the
trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed
unless for strong and cogent reasons (Chase v. Buencamino
Sr., 136 SCRA 365 [1985]; People v. Cruz, Sr., 151 SCRA 609 [1987]; People v. Acelajado, 148 SCRA 142 [1987]).
But while it is the established rule that appellate courts will
not generally disturb the factual findings of the trial court, considering that
it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial, this does not apply where the lower court overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which if considered, would affect the result of the case
(People v. Royeras, 130 SCRA 259 [1984]; People v.
Martinez, 144 SCRA 303 [1986]).
The exceptions, therefore, to the rule on conclusiveness of trial
court findings, are, among others: that
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible and that the
judgment is based on misapprehension of facts (People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50
[1986]; People v. Canada, 144 SCRA 121 [1986]).
Thus, where a careful review of the records shows some
misapprehension of facts, findings actually grounded not on what transpired,
but conjectures about what transpired, and other discrepancies, this Court held
that the appeal must be granted and the accused-appellant acquitted (People v.
Ale, supra, p. 57).
In the case at bar, the following conjectures and misapprehension
of facts are noted:
I.
The prosecution would have this Court believe that the accused on
that fatal morning, went on a rampage, challenging his neighbors for no
apparent reason and failing to kill any of them, he vent his ire on his hapless
wife and brutally killed her.
It will be observed, however, that neither the prosecution nor
the defense made any serious attempt to show that the accused was suffering
from a mental ailment at the time
preceding the act or at the moment of its execution. In fact, the trial court made it of record
that it is not aware of the condition of the mind of the accused, so that for
all legal intents, the latter was considered sane and that he acted in his
ordinary state of mind (Decision, Crim. Case No.
388; Rollo, p. 103).
Neither was it shown that the accused had a quarrel with his wife
before or during the incident, nor was she included among those the accused
allegedly challenged in that incident.
On the contrary, the harmonious relationship between husband and wife
has never been put in question. As shown
by the records, the deceased exhibiting an intense wifely concern, went down
from their house and followed her husband whom she obviously knew was in
danger. The accused, on his part, was
shown by the testimony of Iluminada Giray, a prosecution witness, to have asked her to see her Mamay (his wife), before he collapsed in the house of the
witness due to his wounds. Thus, the
violent action which ended the life of the deceased cannot by any stretch of
the imagination be alluded to the accused who has not been shown to have any
complaint against his wife.
II.
On the other hand, from the testimony of the prosecution witness Primitivo Basarte, to the effect
that the accused barged in his camalig, demanding: “Tiboy, where are you now?
Let us fight…” can be reasonably implied that there was a previous
encounter between the accused and Basarte, followed
by a hot pursuit by the accused, giving credence to the version of the defense
that the accused went down at 3:00 o’clock that morning of the incident to
check on his carabao and while he was passing the
toilet of his house, he was slashed on the head by an assailant, said to be Basarte.
In fact, in the offer of the statement of the accused allegedly
taken by the Chief of Police in the investigation he conducted in his office,
as evidence both by the prosecution and by the defense, the prosecution
admitted that it is very clear that the accused was slashed by somebody in the toilet, although it was not prepared
to agree that it was Primitivo Basarte
who did it. Otherwise stated, it is
evident that the accused was already slashed and wounded before he proceeded to
the camalig of Basarte,
and not afterwards, supposedly in self-defense by the latter.
More specifically, the arguments of the prosecution and the
defense are as follows:
“FISCAL:
We
are presenting this as rebuttal evidence to the evidence of the defense Your
Honor.
ATTY. AGATON:
If
only for the purpose we do not object Your Honor.
COURT:
Exhibits
“F, F-1, F-2, G, G-1 and G-2” are admitted.
FISCAL:
With
the admission of our exhibits we close our case.
ATTY. AGATON:
May we formally offer in evidence Exhibit
“5” which is also Exhibit “F” for the prosecution, consisting of three pages;
also Exhibits “F-1 and F-2”, the translation Exhibits “5-A” and “5-C” is
question number twelve and the answer.
We offer this particularly to show that indeed Valentin
Salangoste the accused, was slashed already by Primitivo Basarte when the said
accused was still in the toilet.
FISCAL:
It is
an additional translation already Your Honor.
It is very clear that he was slashed by somebody in the toilet but he
did not say Primitivo Basarte.
ATTY. AGATON:
And
further to corroborate to the testimony of Felipe Giray
and also to the testimony of the barrio teacher, Mr. Adora
with respect to the ante mortem statement which is missing, that Valentin Salangoste was slashed.
COURT:
Slashed
where?
ATTY. AGATON:
In
the toilet.
Exhibits
“5-D” and “5-E” are presented particularly of showing that when the deceased
wife of Valentin Salangoste
went up the house of Teboy, Valentin
was already in the field looking for Teboy because
according to this statement of Valentin Salangoste his wife followed him and Teboy
at that time was in the ricefield. And Exhibit “5-G” is presented particularly to show that from the
time the accused Valentin Salangoste
saw his wife entered the house of Primitivo Basarte he has not seen his wife anymore.
COURT:
Any
objection?
FISCAL:
We
object Your Honor to the purpose for which it is presented because he cannot
just select a portion of the affidavit, we are presenting it in whole for clarifying
doubts.
COURT:
Exhibits
are admitted.
The
parties must submit their memorandum.”
(Hearing of March
27, 1974; TSN, pp. 245-247).
III.
It will be noted that while the trial court is not prepared to
admit the aforementioned statement of the accused as indicative of the latter’s
state of mind, yet it inconsistently considered the same to establish the
motive of the accused in the supposed
killing of his wife. Thus, the trial
court ruled, that the motive of Salangoste in killing
his wife, in challenging Basarte, Irineo
and Yoyo and in boxing Iluminada had been provided by
the accused himself in his statement that he was like a “juramentado”
looking for his enemy (Rollo, p. 103).
The records do not show that the accused was given the
opportunity to explain his statement before it was used against him, nor was it
shown that he was assisted by counsel when he made the same.
The accused, in the statement in question, candidly described the
circumstances which led him to describe himself as like a “juramentado.”
He declared:
“Q. 12. What
happened when you went down at around 3:00
o’clock, early morning of August
26, 1973?
A: When I went down, I saw a man in
our toilet. When I got near, he
immediately slashed me that is why I slashed him and maybe he was hit a little
because he run away. Due to my anger, I pursued
him up to the house of Tiboy – saying, ‘Tiboy, let us now join our intestines’, but I did not see
him, and I became more angry because I was already wounded.
x x
x x
x x x x x
Q: 15. Where
did you go after that?
A: I went to my house after which I
went directly to the house of Dikdik. Due to my intense hatred, I was like a ‘juramentado’, and I went to look for my enemy. When I was in front of the house of Dikdik, I immediately challenged him saying, ‘Dikdik, come down now because we will fight, you are the
one stealing my coconuts.’ Due to my anger because no one answered me, I
destroyed their door and went up, but I could not slash Dikdik,
because he jumped out. Then I went
direct to their kitchen and as I was going down, I fell and my bolo was lost
which I tried to search by touching the ground, but I could not find it because
it was dark. After that I went to the
house of Yoyo Adato and when I arrived there, I also
challenged him. Due to my anger and even
if he was the nephew of my wife, I pushed also their door and entered and boxed
Dading, wife of Yoyo, then I grappled with Yoyo. He said, ‘What is this, Papay,
I am your nephew, you are fighting me?’ But I said, ‘Because you are debtors,
you do not pay your debts.’ But I said, never mind that, you look after your Mamay, because she is there dead, I was slashed by Tiboy. After that I
lost my senses and I slumped inside the house of Yoyo.”
(Rollo,
pp. 94-96).
It will be observed that as shown above, the accused had a
standing grievance against the people he was supposed to have challenged in
that incident, such as: Basarte, for having slashed
him; Irineo, for stealing his coconuts; and Yoyo, for
not paying his debts. But at no instance
was it shown that the accused challenged his wife, berated her, or gave vent to
his anger on her after Basarte escaped. Without proof of these facts, there a number
of important missing links in the chain of circumstances which raise grave doubts as to the culpability of the
accused. More than that, the records
show that aside from the superficial wounds he allegedly inflicted on Basarte, as well as the fact that he boxed Iluminada, he did not harm anyone. Consequently, no logical reason could be
found to support the conclusion that he savagely attacked his wife who is not
even his enemy and of all places, in the house of Basarte.
IV.
Dr. Benigno Evardone,
a witness for the prosecution, opined that nine (9) wounds of the deceased cut
through some hard bones which would have required an ordinary person of average health to exert much force to
inflict them.
Thus, on re-cross examination, the doctor stated:
“ATTY. AGATON:
Q What
wounds in particular while (sic) inflicted which cut hard bones or injury?
A Wound
No. 1, wound No. 2, No. 3, Nos. 4,5, 6, 7,
No. 11 and No. 16.
Q If
that will be the case Doctor wherein about 9 wounds were inflicted in such a
way that hard bones according to you were hit, what amount of force do you
think in your honest opinion did an ordinary person of average health exert in
order to inflict these wounds?
A It exerted much force.”
(Hearing, Dec. 12, 1973, TSN, p. 327).
It will be recalled that the time pinpointed by the prosecution
as the probable time when the accused must have killed his wife, was after Basarte left his camalig and was
already in the house of prosecution witness Luciana Baluyot
which is also after the accused was already mortally wounded on the head and
bleeding profusely. In such condition,
it is beyond doubt that he would not have the strength required to inflict
those fatal wounds
on his wife, not to mention the effort to overcome the resistance that
ordinarily would have been offered by the victim.
V.
Witness Luciana Baluyot narrated that
while attending to the wounds of Primitivo Basarte, she heard the deceased shrieking from the
direction of
the house of Basarte and that when she looked
out of the window, she saw a light
under said house and then a torch going around the house and the camalig before it finally disappeared in the ricefield.
She testified as follows:
“FISCAL:
What did you do when you
saw that Primitivo was wounded?
A I
got the alcohol and asked Primitivo to place it on
the wound.
Q When
you were up to look for a piece of cloth what happened?
A I
heard the voice of Victoria Adato the sound was
almost bad. Then I was afraid I even
dropped the cloth I was holding.
Q
– Where did you hear that voice of Victoria
from what direction?
A
– From the house of Pimitivo Basarte.
Q
– Now after that, after you heard
the shout of Victoria Adato what did you do?
A
– I continued to look for a piece
of cloth and brought it down and went up again.
Q – When you went up your house again what did you do?
A
– I opened the window towards the
house of Primitivo Basarte
and looked to that direction.
Q – What
did you see?
A
– I saw under the house of Primitivo Basarte a light.
Q
– After that what happened?
A
– After that there was a torch.
Q
– What was that torch?
A
– The torch was in that house then
it goes around.
Q
– After going around the house what
happen?
A
– Then that torch went around the
house. I mean the camalig.
Q – My question
is after they went around what happen?
A
– The torch went towards the ricefield and went towards the place called Caloocan then disappeared.
Q
– Where did the torch disappear?
A – In
the ricefield.”
(Hearing, January 30, 1974, TSN, pp.
117-118).
It will be observed that apart from the fact that Luciana saw a
light going around the house and camalig of Basarte which was presumed to be a torch carried by the
accused, she did not state that she saw any sign of scuffle or struggle that must necessarily ensue if the accused,
assuming that he had the strength for such encounter, is to accomplish his
purpose. In any event, at the
cross-examination, the witness insisted that she only saw the torch going
around the house and such fact can hardly be a valid basis of the assumption
that at the same time the accused was assaulting his wife.
More specifically, the witness stated:
“Q – Did
Primitivo Basarte say that Valentin Salangoste was running
after them?
A – They
said that.
Q – But
you did not see Valentin Salangoste?
A
– We did not.
Q – And
even after you closed the door?
A
– We did not.
Q – During
the whole night you did not see Valentin Salangoste?
A – I
only saw that the torch was going around the house.
Q – Yes,
but you did not see Valentin Salangoste
the whole night?
A – No, sir.”
(Hearing, January 30, 1974, TSN, p. 125).
In the same instance, while her window was still closed, the
witness declared that she heard a shriek, which she identified as the voice of
the deceased coming from the house of Basarte. On ocular inspection, said house was
established to be 235 meters away from her house. Even assuming that because of the silence of
the place at 3:00 o’clock in the morning, the trial court is correct in finding
that the distressed cry could be distinctly heard, it is hardly persuasive that
at such distance it is possible to identify the voice that must have
considerably changed under the circumstances and which as testified by the
witness “the sound was almost bad.”
In addition, Luciana testified that there is no house at the back
of her house (Hearing, January 30, 1974, TSN, p. 120), when in fact during the
ocular inspection, it was clearly observed that “there is a house at the back
of her big house” (Hearing, Feb. 6, 1974, TSN, p. 3) which in fact obstructed
the view from her to the ricefield and across to the
far houses of Basarte and Salangoste.
Hence, it is equally probable that it was accused who uttered the
distress cry when he came upon the body of his dead wife.
At any rate, it is an established principle that “Every
circumstance favoring the innocence of an accused must be duly taken into
account. The proof against him must
survive the test of reason. Suspicion
should not be allowed to sway
judgment.” (People v. Roa, 62 SCRA 51 [1975]).
VI.
Emilio Irineo testified that when he
returned to his residence, he found a bolo beneath his kitchen with blood
stains and several strands of hair believed to have come from the head of a
woman. However, no effort was shown to have been exerted to surrender said
bolo immediately to the authorities or to preserve the evidence in order to
help the court arrive at the
truth. Instead, it was merely inserted in a coconut palm in witness’ yard
until retrieved by the police
several days later.
In any event, no such “long strands of hair” were ever presented
in court to constitute the best evidence on the matter, nor did it appear on
record that Irineo told the police about them.
That the trial court, therefore, should find a valid inference
from such testimony in establishing the guilt of the accused is but another
demonstration of the shaky foundation of the accused’s
conviction.
By and large, a careful study of the records shows that the
prosecution evidence in this case leaves much to be desired. Aside from the fact that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent on material points, they are based
on surmises and conjectures which have no basis on proven facts. More than that, there is an obvious attempt
to suppress evidence as shown by the loss of the statement of the accused taken
by the barrio captain with the assistance of a school teacher early that
morning which if available maybe considered as part of the res gestae. No less important is the
fact that the statement of the accused in his affidavit was interpreted out of
context by the trial court so that the sincerity of his declaration was lost in
giving way to a conjecture consistent with guilt. Relative thereto, this Court ruled: “If the inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which
is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction”(People v. Ale, supra, p. 64).
On the other hand, the testimonies of the witnesses for the
defense are more candid, direct, spontaneous and without any hint of
prevarication. Despite grilling
cross-examination, they never wavered in their declarations. In an uncontroverted
statement, Elena Tepace maintained that she
remembered the exact date when Primitivo Basarte bought tuba from her because that was the time
when Basarte declared that he will kill the Salangoste spouses and the following morning the wife was
indeed killed (Hearing, March 18, 1974; TSN, pp. 384-385).
The accused was consistent in his statement that he was slashed by Basarte in the toilet of his house, as appearing in his
affidavit and in his statement which was
confirmed by Felimon Lapiad,
a barrio captain who took said statement and Telesforo
Adora, a public school teacher who wrote them down.
The trial court discredited the testimony of Felipe Deguia, a 63-year-old woodcutter, for his failure to
identify Basarte in court. But Deguia’s
testimony was based on facts that actually happened such as: (a) that the accused went down at 3:00
o’clock in the morning of that fatal day; (b) that the accused was slashed on
the head by Basarte who admitted the slashing
although on a different place; (c) that Basarte
challenged the Salangoste spouses to come to his
house because he will finish them; (d) that the deceased cries for help because
she was being killed by Basarte came from the house
of the latter; and (e) that she was in fact found dead in said house of Basarte. While such
testimony cannot be used to convict Basarte, it nonetheless
threw light in an otherwise bemuddled situation. More than that, it cannot be denied that the
circumstances narrated are more consistent with simple logic and more in accord
with the ordinary course of human experience than those presented by the
prosecution. Otherwise stated, the
testimony of Deguia established as a fact that the
accused who was slashed and wounded by Basarte before
entering the camalig of the latter was behaving like any
normal person in search for the enemy who had wounded him and not one who ran
amuck, mad enough to kill his
own wife.
The rule is already well established that “the testimony of
witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the
corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the
case. The court may accept such of the
witness’ testimony as it may deem proper notwithstanding his false
statements. If parts of a witness’
testimony is found true, it cannot be disregarded entirely” (People v. Pacabes, 137 SCRA 159 [1985]).
Likewise, the trial court found the testimony of Elena Tepace and Tomasa Acuin as incredulous and untrustworthy, finding it hard to
believe that Basarte would broadcast his intention
to kill within the hearing distance of Tepace or that
upon slaying two of his neighbors should nonchalantly give the information he
would ordinarily withhold when not drunk.
On the other hand, Acuin is not just a
passing acquaintance. As established at
the hearing, Basarte is her nephew-in-law and there
is nothing wrong or unusual for the latter to confide to her whom he can reasonably
believe would not testify against him because of their relationship.
Finally on rebuttal, Basarte could not
show any motive why said witnesses would testify against him except again on
the basis of another conjecture that they have been paid (Hearing, March 26,
1974, TSN, pp. 474-480).
Apart from the fact that the financial condition of the accused
would not support such supposition, the fact that said witnesses have been
paid, have never been proven. Be that as
it may, the Supreme court is not necessarily bound by the credibility which
the trial court attaches to a particular witness (People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1
[1986]).
In addition, it is an established precept that “when the evidence
for the prosecution and the evidences for the accused are weighed, the scales
must be tipped in favor of the accused.” (People v. Pecardal,
145 SCRA 647 [1986]). “Circumstantial
evidence as a basis for conviction of crime should be acted on and weighed with
great caution, particularly when the crime is heinous x x
x.” (People v. Jara, 144
SCRA 516 [1986]), as “our jurisprudence is built around the concept that it is
preferable for the guilty to remain unpunished than for an innocent person to
suffer a long prison term unjustly.” (People v. Alcaraz,
136 SCRA 74 [1985]; People v. Ale, supra).
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
accused-appellant is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Feliciano, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
* Presided by Hon. Rafael B. Hilao