G.R. No. L-38042. June 30, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO ALCANTARA AND MANUEL GUINTO, ACCUSED. MANUEL GUINTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CRUZ, J.:
Before the horrified eyes of his two children, then aged sixteen
and ten, Felipe Avendaño was attacked from behind and
hacked twice with bolos, one in the head and another in the shoulder. Within minutes he was dead. However, we have yet to write finis to
this case, which began on June 29,
1963. The full accounting of
that tragic night is still to be made.
One of those accused of the offense has since been convicted and is now serving a life sentence.[1]
In this case, we deal with Manuel Guinto who, like Pedro
Alcantara, has been sentenced to reclusion perpetua as a co-conspirator in the murder of Avendaño.[2]
The third one, Enrique Cagsawa, is still at large.
As found by the trial court,*
the incident happened during a benefit dance in barrio Enriqueta,
Lavezares, Samar. Avendaño was
standing by the window and cooling himself,
having just enjoyed the exertions of the dance, when three men who were
standing by the bamboo grove behind him, suddenly pounced upon him.[3]
The first assailant was Guinto, who administered the
fatal blow in the head with a “kinogan”
bolo.[4]
Almost simultaneously, Alcantara made the second
slash on the shoulder with his “menasbad,”
another kind of bolo.[5]
The third man, Enrique Cagsawa, was about to strike
when he was deterred by the screams of Lydia Avendaño,
the victim’s daughter.[6]
Immediately thereafter, the three assailants escaped.[7]
The above findings were based mainly on the eyewitness accounts
of the victim’s two children, who were near their father when he was killed.[8]
Their mother, who was also presented by the prosecution, testified as to the events that transpired after the killing.[9] Two other witnesses, Antonio Martires and Dr. Arturo Dubongco,
described the wounds inflicted on the victim, the latter declaring that the
one in the head was fatal without medical treatment but the second was not,
barring complications.[10]
In his defense, the
accused-appellant denied any part in the slaying, insisting that he was in fact
one of those who stayed by the corpse after the stabbing and got the knife from
the victim’s hand on orders of the barrio captain. Lydia saw him as he was giving the weapon to
the said officer, which must have given her the impression that Guinto was one of the killers.[11] He was corroborated by Victorino
Escalderon and Lucas Puedan,
who both declared they saw Juan Alcantara slash the
victim twice.[12]
The accused-appellant lays much stress on the inconsistencies in
the testimony of Lydia Avendaño, who claims to have
witnessed her father’s slaying. The
flaw, it is argued, is that whereas she declared in her sworn statement dated
July 2, 1963,[13]
that Pedro Alcantara slashed her father twice, she
later testified that the victim was attacked first by Guinto,
who hacked him in the head, and then by Alcantara,
who dealt the second blow.[14]
We do not believe that this inconsistency should detract from the
veracity of Lydia’s testimony, which, standing by itself, appears to be a
truthful narration of Avendaño’s death. It is not unlikely that when she made the
sworn statement, this young girl had not yet recovered from the shock and
trauma of witnessing her father’s violent death only four days before. It is entirely possible she was still
confused and had not yet collected her thoughts at that time and so could not
make a completely accurate account of how her father was killed.
Moreover, as Moore correctly observes, “an affidavit being
taken ex parte, is almost always
incomplete and often inaccurate, sometimes from partial suggestion, and sometimes
from want of suggestion and inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may
be unable to recall the connected collateral circumstances necessary for the
correction of the first suggestion of his memory and for his accurate
recollection of all that belongs to the subject.”[15]
Significantly, Carlos Avendaño’s own
testimony tallied in all material points with that made by his elder sister,
as well it should.[16]
They were only a short distance from their father when he was killed and they
saw every detail of the brutal slaying by the light of the three gas lamps by
the doorway and in the dance hall.[17]
While time may have blurred the sharp
focus of their recollections, the memory of that fatal night – and especially
the killers of their father – can hardly be blotted out of their minds.
The accused-appellant’s insistence that he was the one who stayed
by Avendaño’s body was further belied by the victim’s wife, Felisa,
who testified that she saw Guinto and his companions
running away from the direction of the dance hall where, unknown to her then,
her husband had just been killed.[18]
The crime was committed in 1963 but it was only ten years later
that Guinto was arrested and prosecuted as in the
meantime he could not be located. Both
he and Cagsawa had disappeared, leaving Alcantara to face the music alone, as it were. Guinto now claims
he was in Enriqueta all the time until 1967, when he
transferred to barrio Maravilla, also in Lavezares. There he
stayed for one year before going to Manila, from where he returned to Enriqueta in 1970.[19]
Felisa denies this, arguing that if
that were so she would have demanded his arrest, as she immediately did when she learned of his return to Lavezares in 1973.[20]
In fact, a warrant of arrest had been issued against Guinto
as early as 1964 but it could
not be served because he could not be found.
In his return dated October 27, 1964, the municipal chief of police certified that “Manuel Guinto went to Manila after the commission of the
crime,”[21] and his successor, in another return dated
February 28, 1966, declared that “the whole municipality was almost combed
for the arrest of Enrique Cagsawa and Manuel Guinto and according to information said persons is (sic)
at Manila.”[22]
Caught in this obvious lie, the accused-appellant has to explain
now why he left so precipitately after the commission of the crime, of which he
claims to be innocent. Assuming that his
sudden departure, while suspicious, was innocent, he would have come back
earlier, having heard of the
charge against him – as he must have – to clear his name.
The defense cites the reliability of witnesses Puedan and Escalderon, aged
sixty-four and eighty-four, respectively, and both municipal officials who, it
is argued, would not slave perjured themselves just to save Guinto. Perhaps so.
On the other hand, no ill motive has been imputed to the Avendaño children in testifying against the accused-appellant,
with whom their family was apparently on good terms until the killing. At any rate, faced with the question of
credibility, the trial judge, who had the chance to observe the witnesses and
assess their demeanor on the stand, opted to believe the prosecution
witnesses. We shall abide by that
preference absent a showing of any abuse of discretion.
The accused is entitled to be presumed innocent, but only until the contrary is proved. In this case, we believe with the trial court
that the guilt of Manuel Guinto has been established
beyond reasonable doubt and so he is not entitled to a reversal. We sustain the finding that in conspiracy
with each other the accused-appellant and his two companions treacherously
attacked Felipe Avendaño, with Guinto
himself administering the fatal blow in the victim’s head. The crime is murder, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
for which the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity is, however, increased to
P30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED as above
modified, with costs against the accused-appellant. It is so ordered.
Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, Gancayco,
and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.
[1]
People vs. Alcantara, 33 SCRA 812, 820.
[2]
Rollo, p. 39.
*
Presided by Judge Juan Figueroa.
[3]
Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[4]
Id., p. 17.
[5]
id.
[6]
id.
[7]
TSN, August 6, 1973, p. 7.
[8]
Ibid., p. 5.
[9]
Id., pp. 18-20.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[11]
Ibid., pp. 23-24.
[12]
Id., p. 25.
[13]
Brief for the Appellee, pp. 11-12.
[14]
Rollo, p. 28.
[15]
Moore on Facts, p. 1098.
[16]
Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[17]
Ibid., p. 17.
[18]
Id., pp. 18-19.
[19]
id., pp. 24-25.
[20]
id., pp. 36-37.
[21]
Exh. “E-1”.
[22]
Exh. “D”.