THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NARCISO PIZARRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Automatic review of the decision of the then Court of First Instance of
Cagayan, in Criminal Case No. 124-S(71), sentencing herein appellant to
double death, to pay the heirs of the victims the sum of P24,000.00 as
indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.

In the evening of June 6, 1971, spouses Teodoro Taban and Maria Pescador
were killed inside their home at Kinalian, Allacapan, Cagayan. They
sustained gunshot and stab wounds. The gunshot wounds were caused by a
gun with bullets containing many pellets; on the other hand, the stab
wounds were caused by a sharp pointed instrument. This was the
post-mortem finding of Dr. Alfredo Berbano, the Municipal Health Officer
of Allacapan, who testified that the cause of death of spouses Teodoro
Taban and Maria Pescador was:

“Shock, Irreversible, Secondary to hemorrhage, Acute, Internal and
External, Secondary to Gunshot wound and stab wound, hypogastric and
flank.” (Exhibits “A” & “B”, pp. 10 & 12, Record)

The finger of suspicion pointed to accused-appel­lant Narciso
Pizarro, son-in-law of the victims, because among the relatives of the
deceased, he was the only one who objected to the wish of the victims’
family that they be buried face downward. This desire was due to the
folks’ belief that the ghost of the victims would not make the killer
sleep if they were to be interred face downward.

Later, Leonila Taban, a sister-in-law of appellant, told PC Sgt.
Francisco Vinagrera that the firearm of her deceased husband had been
taken by the appellant. This firearm was a bulldog, gauge 16, which
fires multiple pellet bullet, and this was exactly the type of gun used
by the murderer. Likewise, Filomeno de los Santos testified that in the
evening of June 6, 1971 he was in the house of one Librada Contapay,
situated near the road at Kinalian, Allacapan, Cagayan, when he heard
the barking of dogs. He peeped through the window and saw the accused
with a companion going to the direction of the house of the Tabans. He
even asked his nephew, Felipe Jose, who was also awakened by the barking
of the dogs and was then urinating at their batalan, whether
it was really the accused who was proceeding to the Taban’s residence.
Felipe Jose confirmed the identity of appellant and even informed him
that accused Pizarro had a property dispute with Teodoro Taban and even
threatened to kill the latter. The two, Filomeno de los Santos and
Felipe Jose, went down and followed appellant and his companion. They
observed their movements, hiding behind banana plants from a distance of
about fifty (50) meters. Suddenly, they heard gunshot followed by
another, coming from the house of the victims. They went nearer the
Tabans’ residence and saw two persons going out of the batalan, one carrying a gun and the other a knife. Pizarro was one of the two.

After Sgt. Vinagrera learned from Filomeno de los Santos what had
happened, he confronted the accused who denied his presence at the place
at that time, giving several excuses and alibis. Later, however, he
broke down and confessed in detail the double murder he had committed.
His statement was reduced in writing (Exhibits “C”, “C-1” and “C-2”)
after which he was brought to Municipal Judge Alejandro Pagayatan of
Allacapan, Cagayan. The judge read to appellant the contents of said
Exhibits “C”, “C-1” and “C-2” and then asked if he understood everything
stated therein. Answering in the affirmative, appellant then signed
the statement and the oath was administered to him. Judge Pagayatan
then signed the statement as the administering officer. A little later,
Pizarro also admitted having taken the gun of the deceased husband of
Leonila Taban and said it was the same gun he used in shooting the
victims. He even pointed to the place where he buried it after the
incident.

The gun (Exhibit “G”) was recovered by the police at the place
pointed to by appellant. Thereafter, appellant was brought again before
Judge Pagayatan regarding another statement (Exhibits “E” and “E-1”)
relative to the recovery of the death gun. The contents of this
statement (Exhibits “E” and “E-1”) were again read to the accused who
swore to its truthfulness. He then signed it.

Narciso Pizarro was charged with the crime of double murder.

In his defense, appellant Pizarro claims that he was in town in
the morning of June 6, 1971. He returned home about seven o’clock in
the evening. After supper, he went to bed between 8:00 and 9:00. He
never left the house that evening. The following day, Santiago
Bartolome informed him about the death of his parents-in-law, Teodoro
Taban and Maria Pescador. Immediately thereafter, he and his wife,
Josefina, repaired to Kinalian and made inquiries regarding the killers
of the victims. Zosimo Taban, a 9-year old nephew, told him that he did
not recognize the killer and could only describe him as a “bearded man,
taller than himself (accused).”

After several days, he was picked up by the police, informing him that
he was being suspected as the killer of his parents-in-law. He
professed innocence and completely denied the accusation. However, due
to the maltreatment received from the police, he finally gave way and
decided to execute the statements, Exhibits “C”, “C-1” and “C-2” and
Exhibits “E” and “E-1.”

Josefina Taban, daughter of the deceased Teodoro Taban and step-daughter
of the late Maria Pescador, testified that she and her husband, Narciso
Pizarro, on June 6, 1971 were residing at Maluyo, Allacapan, Cagayan;
whereas, her parents were living at Sitio Kinalian which is about 15
kilometers away. Narciso left the house at about 10:00 in the morning
of June 6, 1971 and returned at about 2:00 in the afternoon. From then
on, Narciso stayed at home and went to bed at about eight o’clock. The
following day, somebody informed them at their residence at Maluyo that
her father and step-mother were killed. They rushed to the place and
made inquiries as to who could be the assailant and a nephew, Zosimo
Taban, described the killer as a “bearded man, taller than her husband.”

The Court is inclined to give full faith and credit to the testimonies
of Filomeno de los Santos and Felipe Jose. De los Santos, a relative of
the appellant, clearly testified regarding the identity of appellant,
as follows:

“Q While you were by the window of the house of Librada Contapay, and you saw Narciso Pizarro, what did you do next if any?

A I observed his movements, sir, I even followed him because I
know that he should be in Maluyo. I supposed that he would be in
Maluyo, because he was getting a carabao for which to pull something
else, but I was surprised why he was there.

Q You said that we went to follow Narciso Pizarro was he alone when you followed him?

A He had a companion, sir.

Q To what direction did they proceed when you followed Narciso Pizarro and his companion?

A They proceeded to the direction of the house of Teodoro Taban, sir.

Q What did you do next after following Narciso Pizarro and his companion?

A I saw Felipe Jose and I asked him if that is Narsing (Narciso Pizarro) and he told me that it was Narciso Pizarro.

Q Where was Felipe Jose when you inquired from him if that was Narciso Pizarro?

A He was in their batalan urinating, sir.

x x x                          x x x                             x x x

Q Why did you ask Felipe Jose as to the identity of the person who passed by you?

A I only said, “Is that Narsing?”

Q What was your purpose in asking that question from Felipe Jose?

A I had a suspicion because I know that Narciso Pizarro is not
supposed to be around and he should be in Maluyo, so I asked Felipe Jose
if that is Narsing, and he answered, ‘Yes, Uncle.’

Q When Felipe Jose told you already that it was Narciso Pizarro
who passed by also by their house, what did you and Felipe do next if
any?

A Felipe Jose informed me because of the statement of Felipe
Jose which he heard from Narciso Pizarro that because of the
misunderstanding with his father-in-law, and if things go wrong he will
be going to kill him, we tried to follow them for the purpose of
observing what is going to happen.

Q You said a while ago that Narciso Pizarro and his companion
proceeded to the house of Teodoro Taban, what did you and Felipe Jose do
when you went to observe their movements?

A We hide at the banana plants.

Q How far is that place to the house of Teodoro Taban?

A About 50 meters, sir.

Q What happened next while you were hiding yourself and Felipe
Jose among the banana grooves when you saw Narciso Pizarro and his
companion proceeded to the house of Teodoro Taban?

A We heard a gun report, sir, and not long after, we heard again
another gun report, so we went nearer the house of Teodoro Taban?

Q Where did the two gun reports emanated?

A Inside the house, sir.

Q In whose house?

A The house of Teodoro Taban, sir.

Q After hearing the two gun reports, what else happened if any?

A The light went out and we saw two persons going out of the batalan, one carrying a gun and the other one, immuko, sir.

Q Were you able to recognize those persons who went down from the batalan?

A I saw two persons but I only recognized Narciso Pizarro,
sir, but when they went down, another person emerged from under the
batalan making the group, three.” (pp. 95, 96, 97 & 99, tsn., Nov.
15, 1972 hearing)

Likewise, Felipe Jose, pointed to appellant as one of those who passed
by their house going to the direction of the residence of the victims.
Thus:

“Q In the night of June 6, 1971, in what particular place in Sitio Kinalian were you?

A I was in our house, sir.

Q Do you remember anything unusual that happened during that night?

A Yes, sir I remember.

Q What was that incident about, will you please tell to this Honorable Court?

A That night, I heard the barking of dogs. As I went out to urinate, I saw Narciso Pizarro and a companion.

Q You said one of the persons you saw was Narciso Pizarro, is
that one Narciso Pizarro the person you have just pointed a while ago,
the accused in this case?

A Yes, sir.

Q How far were you from them, when you saw Narciso Pizarro and his companion passing by?

A About five meters, sir.

Q What was the condition of the night when this Narciso Pizarro and his companion passed by your house?

A That time it was showering but there was the moon.

Q It was bright?

A Yes, sir.

Q After the accused and his companion passed by your house, what happened next?

A Filomeno de los Santos came to me and inquired if these
persons who passed by Narciso Pizarro is one of them, and I answered
him, yes.

Q After telling Filomeno de los Santos that the person who passed
by your house and one of them is the accused in this case, what else
happened?

A I know that this Narciso Pizarro should be in barrio Maluyo
and I am surprised why he is here now, so I told him (Filomeno) that we
follow them.

Q After that, what did you do next?

A He said, let us go and follow him because according to this
Narciso Pizarro, it was only a week before, they told me that his
in-laws are liars and that he was going to kill them.

Q Where did you talk with Narciso Pizarro a week before when he
told you that his father-in-law is a liar and he is going to kill him?

A In our house, sir.

Q When you and this Filomeno de los Santos followed Narciso
Pizarro and his companion to what direction did the accused and his
companion go?

A They proceeded towards the east, sir.

Q Do you know in what place did they go when they proceeded east?

A I know, sir.

Q Where?

A They went to the house of Teodoro Taban because we followed them, sir.

Q Up to what place did you follow the accused and his companion when they proceeded to the house of Teodoro Taban?

A When we were nearing the house of Teodoro Taban, about 50 meters away, we heard two gun reports.

Q Where were these Narciso Pizarro and his companion when you heard the two gun reports?

A They were already inside the house of Teodoro Taban, sir.” (pp. 119-121, tsn., Nov. 19, 1972)

The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of
appellant. No jurisprudence in criminal cases is more settled than the
rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses and that the same should
be rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and
positively established by eye-witnesses to the crime. Alibi is easy to
concoct, and difficult to disprove. For alibi to prosper, it is not
enough to prove that defendant was somewhere else when the crime was
committed. He must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. (People vs.
Estrada, 22 SCRA 111). Otherwise stated, alibi is a defense with a bad
reputation.

Regarding the statements, Exhibits “C”, “C-1”, and “C-2″ and Exhibits
‘E” and “E-1”, wherein appellant confessed to have committed the crime
charged against him, the rule is clear that when such declaration
expressly admits guilt the same may be given in evidence against him
(Section 29, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court). Early decisions of the
Court state that if such statements are made freely and voluntarily, the
confession constitutes an evidence of a high order, since it is
supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind will
deliberately and knowingly confess himself to be the perpetrator of a
crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. (U.S.A. vs. de los
Santos, 24 Phil. 329) Hereunder are the pertinent facts narrated by
appellant in his statements, Exhibits “C”, and “C-1” –

“7. Q – Will you please narrate to me in brief how the incident happened?

A – In the morning of June 6, 1971, Orencio Ramos and I met in
the public market at Centro, Allacapan, Cagayan wherein said Orencio
told me that he wants to kill Teodoro Taban. I also agreed and made the
plan to kill Teodoro Taban on the night of June 6, 1971. After that,
we went to sitio Kinalian, Burot, Allacapan, Cagayan and again both of
us made the final plan to liquidate the old man. In the afternoon of
that day, I left for Maluyo inorder to deceive the people and on the
evening I left barrio Maluyo to execute our plan. Orencio met me in a
certain place and proceeded to the house of Teodoro Taban passing the
house of BRIGIDA CONTAPAY and DONATO DE LOS SANTOS at sitio Kinalian,
Burot, Allacapan, Cagayan. Upon nearing the house of Teodoro Taban,
Alfredo Ramos appeared and joined us. Upon reaching the house of
Teodoro Taban, we peeped inside the house and found the occupants
sleeping. I then shouted “TATA TATA” and after that Teodoro raised up
his body and at that juncture, Orencio fired his gun at the old man.
After that the old man laid down and then Orencio and I went up inside
the house. When we were up, the old man was still hovering between life
and death, so I stabbed him once below the left armpit. At that time,
the wife of Teodoro Taban identified Orencio and remarked, “WHY DO YOU
KILL US BROTHER-IN-LAW” and at that instant Orencio fired his gun at the
old woman. After that, Orencio said, “Let’s go” and because the old
woman was still alive and having recognized me, I again stabbed her
twice below the left armpit and at the body. After that, Orencio told
me to get the titles of the land owned by the old man so we forcibly
opened the locker with their bolo. Because we could not locate the
documents, we closed the locker and we went down from the house. After
that Orencio, Alfredo and I left proceeding westward and upon crossing a
creek, we separated and I went home to Maluyo.

8. Q – What participation did Alfredo do in the commission of the crime?

A – He was assigned to guard around the house when Orencio and I went up inside the house, sir.

9. Q – Was Alfredo present when the plan to liquidate Teodoro Taban was made?

A – None, but they might have made the arrangement with his brother Orencio, sir.

10. Q – What were your individual arms or weapons?

A – Orencio was armed with a home­made gun (Bulldog), Alfredo was
armed with a bolo and I was also armed with a pointed knife (Imuco).

11. Q – You stated in your narration that when you shouted
“Tata, Tata”, the old man raised his body and that was the time when
Orencio fired at him. Where was Orencio then at the time he fired gun
at the old man?

A – Orencio was still on the ground as the house is very low and some portion of the walling of the house is open.

12. Q – What prompted you to kill the old man when in fact, Teodoro is your father-in-law?

A – Because of the hardship of life I and my family are
sacrificing and my father in-law seems to ignore the will of his
daughter by giving what is due to them in connection with the land since
all his daughters are already married. Because of that attitude, that
prompted me to commit the crime.” (pp. 4-5, Record)

The above statements contained informations that could not have been
known to the police. His claim therefore that he was maltreated into
executing the same cannot be believed. Further, the finding by the
police officers of the gun used in the commission of the crime in the
place pointed to by said appellant is a strong proof of his
participation in the commission of the crime. Hereunder is his
statement, Exhibit “E” and “E-1”, pertinent to the death gun:

“6. Q – Presenting to you these homemade gun (Buldog), gauge
.16, serviceable. What relation has this to that of the firearm which
you buried and recovered at barrio Maluyo if there is any?

A – That is the very gun which I buried and recovered by us at Maluyo, sir.

7. Q – Is this the firearm used in killing the late Teodoro
Taban and his wife, Maria Pescador at sitio Kinalian, Burot, Allacapan
on the night of June 6, 1971?

A – Yes, sir.” (p. 21, Record)

Thus, assuming that his extra-judicial confessions were involuntary, they are admissible.

“x x x even assuming the involuntary character of said
confessions, the finding of the bones and hair above referred to
confirms the admissions of guilt and renders the confessions admissible
in evidence. In the case of Bery vs. U.S., 2 Col. 186, it was held that
‘if the involuntary confessions are confirmed on material points by
facts subsequently discovered in its consequence, the whole confession
should be received and admitted as evidence. * * * The finding of the
goods at the place indicated not only tends to corroborate the
declaration of the prisoner that they will be found there but also his
declaration that he stole them and concealed them at that place, if he
made this statement.'” (People vs. Garcia, et al., 99 Phil. 381, 386).

The above statements, Exhibits “C”, “C-1”, “C-2”, “E” and “E-1”,
were given in July 1971, or before the 1973 Constitution took effect.
While it is true that they were given without the aid of counsel, this
Court has ruled in Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4, 12 and in People vs.
Juliano, 95 SCRA 511 that “[t]his specific portion of this
constitutional mandate has and should be given a prospective and not a
retrospective effect. Consequently, a confession obtained from a person
under investigation for the commission of an offense, who has not been
informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in
evidence if the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the New
Constitution on January 17, 1973. Conversely, such confession is
admissible in evidence against the accused, if the same had been
obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution, even if
presented after January 17, 1973, and even if he had not been informed
of his right to counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be
so informed before that date.”

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. However, for lack of the
necessary votes, the penalty is reduced to double reclusion perpetua and
the indemnification to the heirs of Teodoro Taban and Maria Pescador is
increased to P30,000.00 for each.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Gutierrez, Jr., De La Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., and Makasiar, J., on leave.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., no part.