PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NICOMEDES CASTRO, ET AL., ACCUSED AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the death sentence imposed by the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Sur, in its Criminal Case No. 3714, upon the
accused Nicomedes Castro, Godofredo Basuel, and Rufino Cinco for the
double murder on 21 July 1959 of the then incumbent mayor of the
municipality of Cabugao, Lucio Zabala, and his wife, Petra Serna.

At or about 7:30 o’clock in the evening of 21 July 1959, the Zabala
family was taking supper at the flourescent-lighted dining room in the
ground floor of their house in the aforesaid municipality. Two armed
men, one in a transparent raincoat and a narrow-brim buri hat and the
other also with a buri hat, entered the house through the front door of
the sala, passed by the sala, which was similarly lighted, and
proceeded to the adjoining dining room.

“* * * . The mayor was at the head of the table with
his back to the north heartily making jokes as the gracious meal was
progressing. His wife Petra Serna was by his right Next to Petra Serna
was her 23 year old daughter Luzvimin. On the left side of the table
were seated the latter’s sisters Lupcza and Erlinda. Beside Erlinda was
their grandmother Lorenza Sosa (Exh. F). Libert, 10-year old son of
Mayor Zabala, had just finished hits supper and was then in the sala
playing marbles with other children, namely, Jovencio Cruz, 10-year
old, and Ricardo Somera 9-year old. Mayor Zabala had nine (9) children
but these named were the once in the house then.” (Decision, pp. 7-8)

Upon seeing the intruders, the mayor invited them to eat, but,
unexpectedly, he was answered by gunfire. He managed to stand; he
received two shots more. His wife made a feeble attempt to grab the gun
from one of the assailants, but she, too, was shot down. The rest who
partook of the supper screamed and scampered, while the malefactors ran
away, passing the same route where they entered.

An autopsy on the body of Mayor Lucio Zabala showed four (4) gunshot
wounds, including a fatal one through the heart (Exhibit “A”).
Gunpowder burns were found on the points of entry of two of these
wounds. The wife Petra Serna expired at the provincial hospital at
about eleven o’clock of the same night of two gunshot wounds, both with
l½ centimeters entrance, one lace-rating the apical portion of the left
lung and the other perforating the small intestines and lacerating- the
right external iliac vessel (Exh. “E”).

At the time of the shooting, the local chief of police, Cristeto
Serrano, was also at home taking supper. Upon hearing the burst of
gunshots, he dressed; and when he was about to leave his house, he was
informed by an approaching policeman that the mayor had been shot. They
proceeded to the mayor’s house and found the mayor dead. Serrano
inquired from Petra Serna, who was sprawled west of the dining table,
about the number of the assailants, but she could not speak; instead,
she made a sign by using her two fingers. He had her sent to a nearby
hospital. On his inquiry, Luzvimin Zabala told the chief of police that
she could identify the gunman if shown to her; she gave him a
description of one of the killers as a fellow of slender build, with
fair complexion, “slight chinito eyes”, thin lips, and about 5 ft. 4
inches tall. At that moment, the provincial commander and some enlisted
men arrived; policemen and PC soldiers were sent out to scour the town
for the assailants, but the night’s search yielded none. The following
morning, the police and enlisted men started picking up several
suspects from a list of police characters. The first group, consisting
of four (4), were brought to the municipal building of Cabugao, made to
wear raincoats and buri hats, and, through a hole, Luzvimin Zabala
peeped at them one by one, Luzvimin rejected all these suspects and
several others thereafter shown her, more or less fifteen (15) in all,
until on 1 August 1959, in the afternoon, at the puericulture center
near the municipal building, she identified one, now appellant
Nicomedes Castro.

That same afternoon of 1 August 1959, Nicomedes Castro was
investigated by the 131st PC Company in the office of the chief of
police of Cabugao. His statement was taken, signed and sworn to by him
before Justice of the Peace Santiago P. Corpus of Cabugao. In it he
disclaimed knowledge of, and participation in, the brutal slaughter of;
the spouses, but alleged that at the time of the killing he was at home
in Lapog, all prepared and packed for a long-planned trip to Cagayan
with his family; that the journey was intended to start at dawn on the
first Maura Transit bus on 22 July 1959 but had to be cancelled upon
his child’s getting sick (Exhs. “7”-“7-a”).

In another investigation held on 3 August 1959, this time at the
headquarters of the PC Task Force Zebra at Mindoro, Vigan, Ilocos Sur,
Nicomedes Castro signed a four-page confession, reciting and
recounting, among others: that he had previously been convicted of, and
has served sentence for, illegal possession of firearms; that on 17
July 1959, in the house of Rufino Cinco, he (Nicomedes Castro), Rufino
Cinco, Godofredo Basuel, and Marcelino Basuel planned to kill Mayor
Zabala on the promise of Santos Sabio to give them, through Simeon
Sutler, P5,000 each; that Dianong Formoso furnished a jeep and driver
and weapons; that he and Godofredo Basuel were the ones who entered the
house of the mayor and killed him and his wife, while Rufino Cinco and
Marcelino Basuel were left in front of the house as look-outs; that
after killing their victims, they proceeded to the store of Ignacio
Quitebis to wait for a bus to Cagayan; that they left a carbine wrapped
in a rice sack and a plastic material at the back of the Cabugao
Institute building; that he threw; his.45 caliber pistol to the other
side of the fence of Quitebis for fear of being searched by patrolman
Zabala, who dropped by at the store; that when no bus arrived after
waiting an hour they left the place; that on 23 July 1959, Santos Sabio
gave him P100, and requested him to talk things over after the burial
of the mayor; that he and his wife went to Vigan where he bought a
watch for her daughter, making his wife believe that he won the money
in a monte game, that he used the diary of his daughter, Adelaida, but
tore and threw away the page bearing the date of 21 July 1959 where he
had inscribed the following: “pinapapatay ni mayor”; that his previous
Incriminatory statement about Dianong Formoso was given out of
political spite and net true, but the rest of his statement are true,
and the real truth is that it was Santos Sabio who supplied the weapons
on 17 July 1959, at 8:00 o’clock in the morning, in the house of Rufino
Cinco (Exh. “B”, “B-1”, “B-2”, “B-3”).

The foregoing confession was sworn to on the same day before the
Justice of the Peace of Cabugao. Below the jurat is handwritten the
following:

“Questions by the Fiscal:

Q—Do you solemnly swear and affirm all what you have stated above hi this sworn .statement?

A—Yes, sir.

Q—Have you been forced, intimidated or threatened or promised anything in consideration of the statements given by you here?

A—No, I was not forced; I was not threatened and nobody promised me anything”.

followed by the signature of Nicomedes Castro (Exh. “B-3”) ; and at
the back of the last page is another jurat, dated the 4th of August
1959, by the provincial fiscal (Exh. “B-4”).

A diary was found in Castro’s possession, but the page pertaining to 21 July 1959 is missing (Exh. “G”).

On the same day and in the same headquarters, Rufino Cinco was also
investigated. Thereat, he signed a four-page confession, stating, among
others, his previous convictions for public scandal, physical injuries,
and illegal possession of firearms; that the plan to kill Mayor Zabala
was first confided to him; that Nicomedes Castro and Godofredo Basuel
were the ones who entered the house of the Zabalas while he stood guard
in front of the house on orders of Santos Sabio; that aside from those
named, Simeon Suller, Irineo Santillan, Mariano Ascueta and two others
were with them; that, after the job was accomplished, all the firearms
were pluced in the jeep of Suller; that he, Godofredo Basuel, Marcelino
Basuel, and Nicomedes Castro waited at the store of Ignacio Quitebis at
about midnight or one o’clock in the morning of 22 July 1959 for a bus
to Cagayan, and, while waiting, patrolman Zabala arrived; that Quitebis
came out to inquire who they were; that moments later, they went home;
that he received no money; that he was with Godofredo Cinco, Godofredo
Basuel, and Marcelino Basuel in the cigarette store of Maria Basuel in
Pugos, Cabugao, at five o’clock in the afternoon of 21 July 1959 (Exhs.
“C”, “C-1”, “C-2” & “C-3”).

Appellant Cinco’s oath to the foregoing confession was administered
by the provincial fiscal in Vigan on the 4th day of August 1959 (Exh.
“C-3”).

On 5 August 1959, the provincial fiscal filed an information in the
court a quo, charging Nicomedes Castro, Rufino Cinco and others, who
were unnamed, for the double murder of the deceased spouses. On the
same day, in the PC Task Force headquarters in Mindoro, Vigan,
Godofredo Basuel, in an investigation, admitted, in a signed
confession, participation, as the companion gun-man of Nicomedes
Castro. He stated therein that he had been convicted, in Camiling,
Tarlac, of robbery in band and illegal possession of firearms, had
agreed to the plan to kill Mayor Zabala on the promise of P1,500, and
had stayed in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, until his arrest. (Exh. “D”, “D-1”
,& “D-2”). The jurat was signed by the provincial fiscal on the 6th
day of August 1959, below which is a signed handwritten admission in
Ilocano by appellant Godofredo Basuel, that the fiscal translated to
him his statement.

Whereupon, on 6 August 1959, the fiscal filed an amended information to include Godofredo Basuel, recommending no bail.

The indictees moved, through counsel, on 18 August 1959, for their
transfer from the headquarters of the Zebra Task Force at Mindoro,
Vigan, to the provincial jail on the grounds of better accessibility to
counsel and the relatives of the accused. The court granted the motion.
On arraignment on 21 August 1959, the three accused entered a common
plea of “Not guilty”, and verbally moved for a physical and medical
examination, which was granted, likewise. The examination was
undertaken on the same day by the assistant provincial health officer.

Found on Nicomedes Castro were five (5) scars,

“evidently the results of abrasion which have healed
by primary or secondary intention. Such abrasions could have been
caused by friction of sliding or by a blow from rough or “blunt
instrument.” (Exb. “6”)

According to the doctor, the elongated scar at the forehead, right
side, and the elongated scars an the medical and lateral surfaces of
the first phalanx of the right middle finger could have been inflicted
in 2 to 4 weeks from the date of the examination, and that the
last-named scar could possibly have been inflicted by inserting a
bullet between the fingers and applying pressure thereat; but it is
also possible that all the scars of Castro could have been caused by
falling from a jeep, intensely, on hard ground and trying to stand in a
hurry.

On Rufino Cinco was found a “Scar, linear, slightly curved, 1 1/3
inches long, posterior chest, mid-scapular-line, right, level of last
intercostal space, which the doctor opines could not have been
inflicted 16 or 17 days prior to the examination because the color of
the scar is pale pink but could have been caused “much later than 2
weeks.”

Godofredo Basuel complained from pain on deep inspiration at the
left chest, but the doctors found no evidence or sign of external and
internal injury at the time of examination; and concluded that;

“Had there been a blow or a series of blows from a
round instrument such as clenced fist resulting in contusion would have
would have been evident if they were inflicted twelve to fourteen days
prior to the date of examination. * * * ” (Exh. “6”)

On all the accused, the doctor found no pain on deep pressure in their abdominal region.

The accused assign fourteen (14) errors in the appealed decision,
which, however, may be grouped as pertaining to the admissibilty of the
confessions, the conspiracy, the identification of the accused, and,
generally, on the appreciation, of evidence for both the prosecution
and the defense, including those on the respective alibi of the accused.

With respect to thu accused-appellant Nicomedes Castro, there is
direct evidence that he was one of the killers of Mayor Zabala and his
wife in the testimony of the mayor’s daughter, Luzvimin Zabala. She
narrated to the court how sho was seated ut her mother’s ri^rht near
the door of the dining: room whtui pIip saw I his appellant and another
man shoot her parents. Shf mojrnizod Castro, and, although «he did not
know his name, was able to describe his features to the mayor when the
latter questioned her shortly after the shooting. The speculation of
the defense that surprise and terror nt the sudden attack would have
prevented her recognition of Castro is set at at naught by the
description she gave of the gunman’s features; her assertion, right at
the start, that sht: could identify him, if she ever saw him at?ain and
did, in fact, later joint him out to the authorities, at the town
puericulture center, where she was confronted by the appellant Castro.
Her clear impressions and veracity are vouched for by her candid
admission to the police that she did not recognize Castro’s companion,
and by her refusal to identity as the assassin anyone of the fourteen
other police characters who were arrested on suspicion and previously
brought to her, until she finally was faced by Castro.

The defense also attempted to nullify Castro’s identification
through the testimony of the constabulary agent, Cardines, Jr., who
affirmed that, prior to the confrontation at the -puericulture center,
Castro was brought to Luzvimin at her father’s house; that the chief of
Police talked to her but she shook her head, and later told the agent
that he (or they) had better look for another witness. This testimony
of Cnrdines appears unworthy of belief, considering that the Chief of
Police denied that Castro was brought to Luzvimin at hrr father’s
house; before both met at the puericulture center, and the admission of
Cardines that he did not hear her talk with the Chief of Police nor
call the Chief’s attention to the alleged gestures and words of
Lu/vimin that gave njm (Cardines) the impression that she did not
recognize Castro. At any rate, the negative gestures of the girl, given
in response to a question that Cardines did hear, admit of other
explanation, while her identification of Castro at the puericulture
center and in court were straightforward and positive.

Luzvimin’s identification was supported by that of her brother,
Libert Zabala, a young boy of ten who pointed to appellants’ house on
the fatal night, passed by the sala, where the boy was playing, on the
way tu the dining room, and met him again in going out after the
shooting. The confession of Castro and Basuel, signed before the
justice of the peace and reaffirmed before Provincial Fiscal Juvenal
Guerrero, likewise confirm the testimony of the late mayor’s children.
Indeed, Castro, in his confession (Exhibit “B”), narrated how after
committing the crime he aimed his gun at the boy Libert, but was
prevented by his companion from adding a third victim to those killed
in the dining room.

The defense, to be sure, exerted mighty efforts to discredit the
confessions by attempting to prove that they were extorted by torture
and maltreatment of the appellants. After detailed consideration, the
trial judge rejected their claim and admitted the confessions; and our
own study of the record reveals that no error was committed in so
doing. As the trial court remarked in its decision, the confessions are
not only replete with details that the police, Constabulary and CIS
agents could not have known, and gave names of minor characters that
the investigators had no reason to include or be interested in; but the
confessions of Castro, Cinco, and Basuel are different in details, such
as who shouted the command, Icammo !” (give it to him) that preceded
the massacre, and the wanderings of the assassins before and after the
shooting. Even more there are features that reveal the spontaneity of
the declarations. Thus, in his own statement (Exhibit “B”) appellant
Castro declared that the weapons and jeep in which the assassins rode,
on August 21, the night of the crime, were furnished by one “Dianong
Formoso”; but later, in the same statement, he manifested that this
detail was not true, but that he named Formoso out of revenge (Exhibit
“B-2”). Just what interest could the agents have to include these
details in the statement is difficult to imagine. Again, the confession
of Castro is to the effect that the rifle used in the murder had been
left behind the schoolhouse; the agents had found one in the place
indicated and sent it to Manila, where the ballistic tests showed that
it was not the murder weapon. If the agents, as hinted by the defense,
had planted this weapon, they would have taken care not to have it
subjected to ballistic tests, knowing, as they must have, that it had
no possible connection wilh the murder. A third instance is the
revelation in the confession of Castro that the 45 caliber pistol with
which Mayor Zabata and his wife had been shot was thrown away by him in
the yard of Ignacio Quitebis the very night of the murder, leading the
CIS agents later to bring Castro to that yard in a vain search for the
pistol. Why should they make that search if the confession had been
manufactured by them? It is against common sense that the agents of the
law should chase their own imaginings.

The foregoing are adequate samples to establish beyond doubt that
the contents of the confessions were not concocted or dictated by the
police or the constabulary officers but are truthful revelations made
by these appellants.

On the question of the voluntariness of their confessions,
accused-appellants have supplied in their testimony a harrowing picture
of barbaric torture allegedly inflicted upon them by the constabulary
and CIS personnel because the accused would not sign the statements
prepared by the agents of the law; but close scrutiny thereof reveals
inconsistencies and improbabilities that render the story unworthy of
belief. Thus, appellant Castro testified that he was maltreated to make
him admit the authorship of the crime at the town puericulture center,
even before he was identified by Luzvimin Zabala, the only witness to
connect him to the foul deed. Castro further asserted that he was
successively maltreated, given electric shocks and the “water cure”,
and battered to insensibility in five different rooms (referred to as
Rooms number one to five) of the headquarters of Task Force Zebra in
Mindoro, Ilocos Sur, until he finally signed his confession. We find it
difficult to believe that Task Force should maintain as many as five
different rooms for torture purposes, when the tortures described by
the accused could certainly have been inflicted on them in one and the
same room. Accused Castro and Cinco both further attested that as a
result of the maltreatment blood spurted from their noses and mouths
and stained their clothes and handkerchiefs, and that this clothing was
later delivered by the agents in exchange for clean raiment to Castro’s
wife, Victoriana Cinco, who preserved and exhibited them at the trial.
Why should the police agents surrender blood-stained clothes without
first attempting to clean the stains, unless bent on convicting
themselves? Castro further asserted that as a result of the torture, he
suffered abrasions in different parts of his body, the scars of which
were examined by Dr. Jose Florendo, the assistant health officer, at
the request of the Provincial Fiscal, on 21 August 1964, about three
weeks after this appellant was taken into custody. The doctor, however,
was unable to certify whether these scars were due to maltreatment, and
admitted the possibility that they could have been self-inflicted or
else caused by Castro’s falling to the ground when lie admittedly
jumped from the agent’s running jeep in a vain effort to escape. What
is certain, however, is that at least the scar on the first phalanx of
the right; middle linger of Castro, can not be attributed to the
agents’ forcible squeezing of his light hand while cartridges or
bullets were inserted between the fingers, as claimed by him; because
the scar in found on the side of only one finger. The cartridges or
bullets inserted, as described by the accused, must have been hard on
one side and soft on the other in order not to cause abrasion on the
opposite finger.

These details, coupled with the evident firmness and speed with
which the signatures to the confessions were written, the failure of
all appellants to complain to the justice of the peace before whom the
confessions were sworn to, the written denials of force, intimidation
or promise appended thereto by the nreused and feigned in the presence
of the Provincial Fiscal, and the improbability that the details
appealing in the confessions were suggested or concocted by the police
(as has been previously discussed), impel this Court to reject the
claim that the confessions are involuntary. It may be added that some
of the persons mentioned in Castro’s confession (Exhibit “B”) and in
those of Cinco (Exhibit “C”) and Basuel (Exhibit “D”) were also
investigated, and no proof is on record that they were intimidated,
hurt, or coerced in any way.

As to appellants Basil el and Cinco, whose descriptions of the
torture they had undergone is plainly copied from that of Castro, it is
enough to note ihat neither showed any traces of maltreatment
detectable by the examining physician. Cinco, morever, stated under
oath in Exhibit “I” (executed only 2 days after the challenged
confession, Exhibit *’C”) that he was under Constabulary custody at his
own request; that he was repentant and willing to turn state’s witness.

Of course, we agree with the defense that, while from the purely
evidentiary standpoint, a confession may be truthful even if coerced;
yet it must not be overlooked that extraction of such a confession
infringes the constitutional guarantees of due process and the
inhibition against compulsory self-incrimination (Const., Art. Ill,
sec. I (1 and 18) that are among the touchstones dividing democratic
from totalitarian methods, and that the violation of these
Constitutional prescriptions suffices to render the coerced confession
objectionable. However, the burden of proof to clearly show
involuntariness is on the accused, and in the cast at bar it has not
been adequately met.

Nevertheless, we think that judges, justices of the peace and
fiscals, to whom persons accused are brought for swearing to the truth
of their statements, would do well to adopt the practice of having the
confessants physically and thoroughly examined by independent and
qualified doctors before administering the oath, even if it is not
requested by the accused. Or, if no doctor is immediately available,
the swearing officers should themselves examine the entire bodies of
the confessants for marks of violence, particularly the portions
covered by their clothing. Such examination, if regularly requited, and
the results officially noted, would not only deter attempts to secure
confessions through violence, but ultimately shorten and speed up
criminal trials (whore accused persons almost invariably repudiate
their confessions) by precluding future controversies on whether the
statements were obtained through torture or not. Common sense advises
that the swearing officers should not be content with affirmations by
the accused that their statements are voluntary, nor with denials that
they were improperly procured. Manifestations of this kind are to be
expected if the accused is to return to the custody of the agents who
obtained the confessions, since repudiation of the statement would only
result in the infliction of further punishment by those charged with
improperly extracting the challenged statements.

Likewise, the practice of bringing suspects or witnesses for
examination, away from their towns, their acquaintances and friends, is
to be deplored, as it usually engenders suspicion that the subjects
have been coerced in the course of their investigation, thereby
alienating the confidence and goodwill of inhabitants toward the law
enforcement agencies.

All the three accused interposed alibis that were discredited by the
evidence on record. Castro’s contention is that he stayed in his house
the whole night of 21 July, 1959, because although he had planned to go
to Cagayan with his family to look for cheap rice, and had so advised
his close friends, almost brothers, Nestor and Eugenio Fontilla, he was
unable to do so because his second youngest child developed a severe
cold and high fever, so that when the Fontillas passed by his house at
midnight, the accused and his wife advised them that “if the child
would recover, we would see each other in Cagayan”. Against this is the
testimony of Ignacio Quitebis that he saw both Castro and accused
Rufino Cinco (his brother-in-law), in front of his store in the early
morning of 22 July 1959, and so did Patrolman Fernando Zabala a short
while later. Mercedes Cinco, Castro’s wife, informed the court, in
turn, that the sick child was nearly two years old, and had to be taken
to the local dispensary for treatment. Yet the dispensary records
(Exhibit “8”), produced to support the atibi, refer to a one^month old
child named Romeo Castro.

As to Godofredo Basuel, who was a resident of Camiling, Tarlac, he
claimed to have gone to Cabugao, Ilocor Sur, on 20 July 1959 to look
for his father, and that he spent the whole night of 21 July, after
playing with the children of his cousin Pacita Cinco, at her house,
where he stayed until 25th July. That day he left for Laoajr to look
for one Arce, who promised him work, and was arrested at a restaurant
by CIS agents, from whom at first he tried to conceal his identity by
churning that he was named David. At the trial, Basiwl Rave the
ridiculous explanation that he used the name of David because he became
sick whenever he used Ilu; name Godofredo.

Rufino Cinco, for his part, alleged that he spent the night of 21
July with his witness, Gregorio Magrubang, celebrating the tatter’s
birthday, the prosecution established that Magrubang’s true birthday,
as shown by his birth certificate (Exhibit “K”), was 14 November, and
not 21st July. In addition, this accused, who had confessed to having
acted as lookout for the others, subsequently executed an affidavit
(Exhibit “I”) manifesting his repentance and his willingness to turn
state’s evidence, although he seems to have changed his mind later on,
and denied guilt. His explanation that he was tricked by the agents
into signing Exhibit “I” is plainly incredible, for the agents of the
law did not need Exhibit “1”, as they already held Cinco’s previous
confession, Exhibit “C”.

These alibis of the appellants, supported only by the
testimony of close friends and relatives, who could re-member
distinctly only the events of the night of 21 July (the night of the
murder), Tail to cast reasonable doubt on their culpability.

The defense likewise dispute the finding of conspiracy that renders
each one of the accused responsible for the acts of his companions in
the commission of the double murder. While no direct evidence was
produced that a previous agreement was had among them, their concerted
action in going armed and together to their victim’s house, and there,
while one stayed as a lookout, the other two entered and shot the mayor
and his wife, leaving again together afterwards, admits no other
rational explanation but conspiracy (People vs. Upao, L-6771, 28 May 1957, and cases cited).

We, therefore, find no error in the decision appealed from, and the
same is hereby affirmed. However, for lack of sufficient votes, the
death penalty imposed is reduced to reclusion perpetua, in accordance
with law.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, J.J., concur.