PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NAZARITO AQUINO, ROMEO CASIMINA AND PEDRO CASIMINA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Pedro Casimina, his son, Romeo Casimina and Nazarito Aquino were accused of murder alleged to have been
committed as follows:

“That on or about November 4, 1970, in the afternoon, in
Barrio Bangilan, Municipality of Kabacan,
Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a
gun, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another,
with treachery and evident premeditation, and with deliberate intent to take
the life of Benigno Pascua,
suddently, unexpectedly and treacherously, attack,
assault and shoot the latter with said gun, hitting him in the left abdomen,
thereby inflicting upon said Benigno Pascua mortal wound which immediately cause his
death.”

The Court of First Instance of Cotabato,
Branch III, found them guilty and sentenced them thus:

“WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby
finds, each of the accused, Pedro Casimina, Romeo Casimina and Nazarito Aquino, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals in
the crime of murder, and in accordance with Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, in relation to paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the same Penal Code, there
being neither mitigating nor aggravating cir­cumstance, the Court hereby
sentences each of the accused to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, with all the accessory
penalties provided by law.  They are
further sentenced to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the victim, Benigno Pascua, in the sum of
P12,000.00 Philippine Currency in concept of moral and exemplary damages,
without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the cost
proportionately; that is, each of them should pay one-third (1/3) of the
costs.”

All three have appealed their conviction but in a resolution of November 27, 1978, we allowed the
withdrawal of the appeal of Nazarito Aquino, upon his own motion.  Thus this decision concerns Pedro and Romeo Casimina only.

In the afternoon of November
4, 1970, Benigno Pascua,
the deceased, accompanied by his eight-year old son Benigno,
Jr. took part in a “pintakasi” at the farm
of Perfecto Regoyal in Barrio Bangilan,
Kabacan, Cotabato.  A “pintakasi”
is a customary farm undertaking whereby the barrio farm hands collectively plow
the farm of another in consideration for an agreed share in the harvest.

The farmers were plowing a clearing, bounded on the west and
south by cornstalks as tall as men of ordinary height.  On the southern edge of the clearing, but
before the cornfield were tall cogon grasses or talahib.  A depression filled with water was situated
at the western side of the clearing, about twenty meters from the cornfield to
the south.

At about 3:00 o’clock, Benigno Pascua took his carabao to the depression and started to bathe it.  Beside him was Martin Goleng,
barely three meters away.  Somewhere
behind Benigno Pascua were Pacifico Narvas who was about
forty meters away and Romulo Pascua,
some thirty meters away.  Meanwhile, Benigno, Jr. was busy cutting grasses inside the cornfield
at the western side of the clearing, upon instruction of his father.

Suddenly, successive gunshots shattered the quiet of the
countryside.  Benigno
Pascua was fired upon from the direction of the
cornfield in the south.  A bullet found
its mark on his left abdomen and the penetrating wound caused his almost
instantaneous death.

The police officers of Kabacan,
who went to the scene in the evening, recovered three empty cartridge shells,
said to have been fired from a .30 caliber Garand
rifle.  Based on their
investigation, the police arrested Nazarito Aquino and Romeo Casimina, the
following morning.  A charge for murder
was filed against them and a certain “John Doe” in the Municipal
Court of Kabacan. 
The murder charge was later amended upon the arrest of Pedro Casimina on November
15, 1970, including him as defendant.  All three accused waived their right to the
second stage of the preliminary investigation so the case was elevated to the
Court of First Instance.

At the trial, Martin Goleng who at the
time of the shooting was nearest to the victim, testified that he heard three
gunshots but he was not able to ascertain the direction from where they fired,
because he dropped to the ground upon hearing the first shot, and ran for his
safety after the last shot.

Benigno Pascua,
Jr. the eight-year old star witness of the prosecution testified in a different
tone.  It was his incriminating testimony
corroborated by those of Pacifico Narvas
and Romulo Pascua, younger
brother of the deceased, which resulted in the conviction by the trial court.

Benigno, Jr. testified that he went
with his father to the “pintakasi” that
fateful afternoon.  He was cutting
grasses in the cornfield, west of the clearing, when he heard six gun­shots.  He declared that “Manong
Itong” referring to Nazarito
Aquino and “Manong
Pat-ti” referring to Romeo Casimina
and a third person whom he did not recognize shot his father.  He said that a long gun was used in the
shooting.

The records include a sworn statement taken by Chief of Police
Arellano Banaynal on November 4, 1970, which purportedly signed by Benigno Pascua, Jr.  It stated in subs­tance that while Benigno, Jr. was gathering grasses inside the cornfield, he
saw three persons aiming a gun at his father. 
“Itong Aquino”
aimed and fired a gun at his father, once, and then fired at Boy Gadia and companions. 
“Itong Aquino”
was accompanied by “Pat-ti Casimina”
and third person whom he did not recognize.

Pacifico Narvas
who was about forty meters away from the deceased testified in the light of his
sworn statement of November 16, 1970.  He said that when he heard four gunshots, he
hid behind his carabao.  He was then facing the southern cornfield and
he ascertained that the gunshots were fired from that direction.  After the firing, he heard somebody shout
that three men were running away from the southern cornfield.  Thereupon he climbed a tree and saw the said
three men.  He recognized the two of them
as Nazarito Aquino and
Pedro Casimina, from a distance of some eighty meters
but he did not recognize the third person. 
He also saw a gun, as the three ran away.

Romulo Pascua
who was about thirty meters away from the deceased who was his older brother,
testified that he did not see the person or persons who shot his brother.  But he saw three persons in the direction
from where the shots were fired as they ran outside the adjacent cornfield to
the south.  Like Pacifico
Narvas, he recognized only two of them, namely:  Nazarito Aquino and Pedro Casimina, but
not the third one who turned out to be Romeo Casimina.  He executed a sworn statement on November 16, 1970, substantially
reciting the foregoing.

Pacifico Narvas
and Romulo Pascua further
testified that they had known the three accused for a long time because they
were from the same barrio.

The trial court found vendetta as the motive for the killing, on Pacifico Narvas‘ testimony that
there had been a misunderstanding between the deceased Benigno
Pascua on one hand, and the Casiminas
and Aquino on the other.  The misunderstanding, it is said, arose in
connection with two separate criminal cases involving a son of Pedro Casimina, Francisco Casimina and
a certain Federico Aquino.  In the first case, Francisco Casimina and Federico Aquino were
charged and convicted for theft of large cattle (carabao)
on a complaint brought by the deceased Benigno Pascua and Ricardo Pascua.  The second case was for the murder of Ricardo
Pascua, for which Francisco Casimina
and Federico Aquino were also convicted.  The carabao in the
theft case belonged to the deceased Benigno Pascua.  To the murder
case, Ricardo Pascua, the victim, was a brother of Benigno.

This review hinges on the credibility of the prosecution’s
witnesses.  The appellants impugn the
trial court’s reliance on’ the testimony of Benigno Pascua, Jr., particularly, on grounds of incompetency and unreliability; and, in giving credence to
the testimonies of Pacifico Narvas
and Romulo Pascua on ground
of improbability of their account.  They
likewise assail the trial court’s appreciation of motive against the
accused.  They maintain that the defense
witnesses are more credible.

We find the appellants’ exception to the competency and
reliability of Benigno, Jr., well taken.  Under the Rules of Court, the competency of a
child-witness to testify depends not only on age but also on intelligence, the
capacity to receive correct impression of facts respecting which he is
examined, or of relating them truly. 
[Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 19 (c)].

The determination of whether a child-witness has the re­quired
degree of intelligence, rests primarily with the trial
court.  The trial judge may resort to any
examination which will tend to disclose the child-witness’ capacity and
intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath under
which he tes­tifies.  As many of these
matters cannot be photographed in the record, the decision of the trial judge
will not be disturbed on review, unless from that which is preserved it is
clear that such decision was erroneous. 
(U.S.
vs. Buncad, 25 Phil. 530).

However, a close and careful examination of the testimony of Benigno, Jr., does not show that at the time he testified,
he could be deemed a child of average intelligence, i.e., capable of giving
responsive answers to the peripheral questions or capable of recollecting
occurrences and relating such recollections. 
He could not tell in what municipality, the barrio of Bangilan is, nor the name of his province.  He said that he was in Grade II, but he did
not know the name of his teacher.  It
turned out that he was out of school, as he later testified.  He could not tell when his father was
shot.  He said his father was still alive
on Christmas (of 1970), when in fact, his father was shot the preceeding November. 
He did not know what All Saints Day is, nor the
names of the months of the year.

When cross-examined in connection with his sworn state­ment which
apparently formed the basis of his testimony, he denied having signed the
same.  The sworn statement was in the
usual typewritten question-and-answer form bearing his alleged signature and
dated November 4, 1970.  He could not recall whether he was asked to
sign the statement.  According to him, he
was taken by Police Chief Arellano Banaynal to the
latter’s office.  But the police chief
did not talk to him at all.  He only saw Banaynal writing in longhand on a piece of paper, for about
an hour.  He slept at the house of the
police chief that evening and several more times.  He could not say how many more times, but he
said the police chief told him a lot of things during those times.  When asked what the police chief had told
him, he answered, he could not remember.

If there was anything elicited from the young Benigno
and which he gave out in an apparently straightforward manner, it was his
testimony that they (referring to Nazarito Aquino and Romeo Casimina and
Pedro Casimina whom he did not recognize at the time)
shot his father.  But the truthfulness of
this testimony had been placed in serious doubt in the cross examination so
ably propounded by the appellants’ counsel, thus:

“ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    Now,
you stated that you heard gunshots, is that correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    At
the time you first heard the gunshots, you were busy cutting grasses?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    In
what direction were you facing to when you heard the first shot?

A     I
was facing south.

Q    From
the place where you were cutting grasses, could you see your father bathing
your carabao?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Is
it not a fact that in the place where you were cutting grasses were tall corn
plants?

A     Yes,
there were high corn plants.

Q    And
it was inside that high corn plants where you were cutting grasses, is that
correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Before
you heard the first gunfire, you did not notice the presence of persons aside
from your father in the cornfield, is that correct?

A     None, sir.

Q    In
fact you only knew that there were persons inside the cornfield at the time you
first heard the gunshot, is that also correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And
because you heard the first gunshot, you sought cover on the ground?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    When
you sought cover on the ground, your face was toward the ground, is that
correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    You
remained in that position all the time during the firing up to the last time
you heard the gunfire, is that correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And
because you were lying flat on the ground you could not see from what direction
the firing came from, is that correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Much
less you could not identify the persons who made the firing because you were
facing the ground?

A     Yes, sir. ” (pp.
9-10, TSN, June 22, 1971)

The prosecution tried to salvage the testimony of Benigno, Jr., on the following re-direct examination:

“FISCAL COSTELO:

Q    You
stated in the direct examination that you recognized Itong,
Pat-ti and one companion who shot your father; in the
cross you stated that when the shooting took place you lay flat on the ground,
will you explain to the Court how you were able to identify these persons that
shot your father when you were then lying flat on the ground?

COURT:

Reform the
question.  He was not able to identify
all.  He identified only two.

FISCAL COSTELO:

Q    In
the direct-examination you stated that Pat-ti and Itong shot your father and that they had one companion with
them; in the cross-examination you said that you lay flat on the ground; now,
will you explain how you were able to identify Pat-ti
and Itong as the persons who shot your father and
that they had one companion?

A     When
there was already an explosion I already recognized them.

Q    How
were you able to recognize them?

A     When
they did not yet shoot and they were still standing I was able to recognize
them already.

Q    In
the cross-examination you also stated that Chief Banaynal
let you point to the accused, will you explain whether at that time you pointed
to the accused you already told the police about the persons who you said shot
your father?

A     They
are the ones, sir.

Q    What
do you mean when you say “they are the ones

(No answer yet)

FISCAL COSTELO:

I reform that.

Q    Who
are the persons referred to by you when you said “they are the ones”?

A     They
are the ones, sir.

Q    The
point is when you pointed to Itong and Pat-ti as two of the persons who shot your father, have you
told him before that they were the ones who shot your father?

ATTY. MASUKAT:

Vague, Your Honor.

COURT:

Sustained.”
(pp. 14-15, TSN, June 22, 1971)

But, still the prosecution failed to
explain how Benigno, Jr. was able to see and
recognize the assailants under the cir­cumstances.  He was cutting grasses inside the cornfield
at the western side of the clearing.  The
assailants were inside the cornfield at the southern side.  Thus, between them were clusters of
fruit-bearing cornstalks with wide leaves as could be expected in fully grown
cornstalks.  The young Benigno could not have seen through the maze of
cornstalks.  In fact, when he heard the
first shot, he said, he dropped to the ground, flat on his stomach and with his
face close to the ground.  Them is therefore no basis in his claim in the re-direct
examination that when there was an explosion he had already recognized the
assailants of his father.

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness but it must be credible in itself such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances.

The young Benigno appears to have been
coached on what to say by the chief of police. 
It does not appear that he had previously told the police chief that he
saw the three accused shoot his father. 
What transpired in the evening he was investigated in the office of the
chief of police, and when he slept at the latter’s house, is self revealing:

“ATTY. MASUKAT:  (Defense)

Q    Chief
Banaynal picked you up from your house in Bangilan and took you to Kabacan
in his office in the evening a day after the death of your father?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    You
proceeded to the same office in Kabacan that same
night?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And
on the same evening you were investigated by the chief of police of Kabacan?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Was
that investigation reduced to writing?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Did
you understand the contents of that statement you gave to Chief Banaynal when he investigated you that evening?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Aside
from you and Chief Banaynal, were there other persons
in his office when he was investigating you?

A     None, sir.

Q    You
were only 2 with Chief Banaynal?

A     Yes.

Q    Your
mother did not accompany you to the chief of police that evening?

A     No, sir.

Q    Even
your sister did not accompany you?

A     No.

Q    When
you reached the office of the chief of police that evening, what did the chief
of police do?

A     He
did not converse with me.

Q    Have
you seen Chief Banaynal writing or typing something
on a piece of paper?

A     He
was writing, sir.

Q    While
he was writing, was he asking questions to you or not?

A     No, sir.

Q    How
long had Chief Banaynal been writing?

A     Long, sir.

Q    Do
you know how long an hour is?

A     It
was perhaps an hour.

Q    During
all the time that Chief Banaynal was writing, he was
not asking you anything, is that correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Writing
with his hand or he was using typewriter?

A     In longhand, sir.

Q    After
writing for almost an hour, what else did he do?

A     No more, sir.

Q    Do
you know how a typewriter looks like?

A     I
know, sir.

Q    From
the place where you are, will you go outside and point to us how a typewriter
looks?

COURT:

It’s
all right.  Anyway he said he
knows.”

(pp.
10-11, TSN, June 22, 1971)

“x x x                                x x
x                             x x
x

Q    The
first night when you slept in his house in Kabacan,
did you have a talk with him in connection with the case of your father?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    What
did Chief Banaynal tell you?

A     I
forgot already.

Q    Is
it not a fact that what you have stated here is what Chief Banaynal
told you what to tell when you slept with him?

A     Another, sir.

Q    What
was that another?

A     What he told me were different ones.

Q    What
were those different ones you are referring to?

A     I forgot.”

(p.
14. TSN, June 22, 1971)

And yet, he admitted that he was told by the police chief to
point an accusing finger at Romeo Casimina and Nazarito Aquino during the
confrontation on November 5, at the police chief’s office:

“ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    Did
not Chief Banaynal tell you to point to Itong Aquino and Romeo Casimina alias Pat-ti?

A     He
told me.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

That is all for the
witness, Your Honor.” (p. 14, TSN, June 22, 1971)

The point is even made clearer by the prosecution in the
re-direct examination:

“FISCAL COSTELO:

Q    In
the cross-examination you also stated that Chief Banaynal
let you point to the accused, will you explain whether at that time you pointed
to the accused you already told the police about the persons who you said shot
your father?

A     They
are the ones, sir.

Q    What do you mean when you say “they are
the ones”?

(No
answer yet)

FISCAL COSTELO:

I reform that.

Q    Who
are the persons referred to by you when you said “they are,
the ones”?

A     They
are the ones sir. 

Q    The
point is when you pointed to Itong and Pat-ti as two of the persons who shot your father, have you
told him before that they were the ones who shot your father?

ATTY. MASUKAT:  Vague, Your Honor.

COURT:

Sustained.

FISCAL COSTELO:

Q    When
did the Chief of Police tell you to point to these persons?

A     It
has been a long time.

Q    Where
were they when you pointed to them?

COURT:

Reform the question.

FISCAL COSTELO:

Q    Where
were you told by the chief of police to point to the accused?

A     I
was at the door of the room, sir.

Q    What
room was it?

A     A room in the municipal building.

Q    Were
Pat-ti and Itong present
when the chief of police told you?

A     They
were present.

Q    How
far were Itong and Pat-ti from
you when the chief of police told you to point?

A     From here to the bench.  (Witness points to a distance of about 6
meters).

Q    Did
you point to Itong and Pat-ti,
as told by the chief of police?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    Before
pointing to Itong and Pat-ti,
were you asked before that by the chief of police as to who killed your father?

A     No, sir.

Q    You
said that you were investigated by Chief Banaynal, is
that correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    When
Chief Banaynal asked you questions, did he ask you
who killed your father?

A     No, sir.”

(pp.
15-16, TSN, June 22, 1971)

This coincides with the testimony of Nazarito
Aquino and Romeo Casimina
on the said confrontation.  Nazarito Aquino declared in his
direct examination:

“ATTY. MASUKAT:  (Defense)

x x x                                  x x
x                           x x x

Q    Now,
when you were already inside the office of the Chief of Police, what, if any,
did the Chief of Police do or ask you?

A     Nothing, sir.

Q    How
about the son of the deceased Benigno Pascua, Jr., what did you observe, if any?

A     I
observed something.

Q    What
did you observed something?

A     At
that time, Chief Banaynal was holding the shoulders
of Benigno Pascua, Jr., and
they together went out; as soon as they reached the door of the office, Chief Banaynal asked Benigno Pascua who among us shot his father but the boy remained
silent.  Then the Chief of Police told
the boy, “you talk”, and again the Chief said, “talk!“.

Q    How
many times did Chief of Police Banaynal tell Benigno Pascua, Jr. to talk?

A     Four times, sir.

Q    On
the fourth time, did Benigno Pascua
talk?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    What
did Benigno Pascua, Jr.
tell the Chief of Police?

A     After
Chief Banaynal inquired from Benigno
Pascua who killed his father, Benigno
Pascua, Jr. answered “Aquino
killed my father. “

COURT:

Make of record that when
the witness was answering the last question, he was pointing with his right
hand extended.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    Before
Benigno Pascua, Jr. uttered
any word, and pointed to you, did you hear the Chief of Police tell anything to
the son of the deceased Benigno Pascua,
Jr ?

FISCAL COSTELO:

Leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

Reform.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    Before
Benigno Pascua, Jr. utter
any word, do you know if the Chief of Police said anything to Benigno Pascua, Jr.?

FISCAL COSTELO:

Still leading, Your Honor.

COURT:

Same
resolution.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    What
did the Chief of Police tell Benigno Pascua, Jr. before he pointed to you?

COURT:

No basis, reform the
question.

Q    Did
the Chief of Police had any talk to Benigno Pascua, Jr. when they
went out of his office?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    What
did the Chief of Police tell Benigno Pascua, Jr. when they went out of your office?

A     Chief
Banaynal said: 
“the persons who killed your father are already here.”

Q    What
else did the Chief of Police tell Benigno Pascua, Jr. if any aside from that?

A     “Do
not be scared if you point to them.”

Q    Aside
from that, what else did the Chief of Police tell Benigno
Pascua, Jr.?

A     Those are the only statements.

Q    And
it was only after the Chief of Police made that assurance to Benigno Pascua, Jr., that Benigno Pascua, Jr. pointed to you,
is that what you mean?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    And
it was only after the third time asking Benigno Pascua, Jr. who killed your father that he pointed to you?

COURT:

There was nothing stated
about the third time.  Reform the
question.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    On
the fourth time that the Chief of Police asked Benigno
Pascua, Jr. who killed his father, that was the time
that Benigno Pascua pointed
to you, is that correct?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    In
what particular place in the office of the Chief of Police did Chief Banaynal bring Benigno Pascua, Jr.?

A     Inside his office, sir. “

(pp.
16-17, TSN, January 11, 1972)

Romeo Casimina testified that:

“ATTY. MASUKAT:  (Defense)

x x x                                  x x
x                             x x
x

Q    After
the boy was taken to your front by chief Banaynal,
what else happened?

A     Chief
Banaynal told the boy that we were the ones who shot
his father.

Q    In
what dialect did chief Banaynal told the boy that you
were the ones who shot his father?

A     Tagalog, sir.

Q    How
many times did chief Banaynal
told Benigno Pascua, Jr.
that you were the ones who killed his father?

A     Four consecutive times.

Q    After
chief Banaynal told Benigno
Pascua, Jr., that you were the ones who shot his
father, what did the boy do?

A     The boy was not saying
anything.  The boy was silent.

Q    When
the boy was silent, did you observe what chief Banaynal
did to the boy?

A     I
know, sir.

Q    Please
inform the Hon. Court what
Chief Banaynal asked the boy to do?

A     He
forced the boy to point at Nazarito Aquino as the person who shot his father.

Q    Did
not chief Banaynal also force the boy to point to you
as one of those who shot his father?

A     No, sir.  It was only Nazarito
Aquino.

Q    How
did chief Banaynal force Benigno
Pascua, Jr. to point to Nazarito
Aquino as the person who shot his father?

A     He
said:  “Come on.  You point to him as the one who shot your
father.”

Q    How
many times did chief Banaynal utter that word to Benigno Pascua, Jr. before he
finally pointed to Nazarito Aquino?

A     Four consecutive times.

Q    And
it was only after the 4th time that Benigno Pascua Jr. at the instance of the chief of police, pointed
to the accused Nazarito Aquino,
is that what you mean?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    You
were not included as one of those pointed to by Benigno
Pascua, Jr. as having shot his father?

A     No, sir.

Q    Now,
after Benigno Pascua, Jr.
was forced to point to Nazarito Aquino
by the chief of police as the one who shot his father, what else did the chief
of police told the boy?

A     Chief Banaynal
and the boy went back to his office.”

(pp.
6-7, TSN, March 22, 1972)

Benigno even denied having signed the
sworn statement wherein he stated that he saw the accused shoot his father:

“ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    Do
you remember if Chief Banaynal had made you sign
anything?

A     Yes, sir.

Q    That
something chief Banaynal asked you to sign, was it
typewritten or written in longhand?

A     It
was typewritten in . . . (withdrawn) In longhand, sir.

Q    You
are very sure of that?

A     I
know, sir.

Q    Aside
from that written in longhand which Chief Banaynal
made you sign, have you not signed a typewritten paper?

A     No, sir.

Q    Now,
you said you signed something written in longhand, were the contents of that
read to you?

A     No, sir.

Q    It
was not interpreted to you before you affixed your signature therein?

A     No, sir.

Q    It
was not interp. . . (withdrawn) There is here found in the records of this case a
sworn statement taken in the office of the chief of police on November 4, 1970 and above the words Benigno Pascua, Jr. is a
signature, do you recognize that signature?

A     No, sir.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

I request that this
sworn statement dated Nov. 4, 1970
be marked as Exhibit “1” for the defense, found on page 8 of the
records.

COURT:

Mark it.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

Q    When
you said you cannot recognize this sig­nature, you mean this is not your
signature?

A     Not my signature.

ATTY. MASUKAT:

I request that this
signature appearing above the typewritten words Benigno
Pascua, Jr. be marked as Exhibit “1-A”.

COURT:

Mark
it.”

(pp.
12-13, TSN, June 22, 1971)

Significantly, it is noted that while the sworn statement stated
that Benigno Jr. was ten years old, he however said
during the trial that he was eight years old. 
Likewise, Benigno purportedly stated therein,
that when presented to him he could recognize and identify the third person
whom he saw with Nazarito Aquino
and Romeo Casimina. 
But, he failed to identify Pedro Casimina when
the latter was presented to him in court.

Apparently, the prosecution tried to make up for the failure of
young Benigno to identify Pedro Casimina,
by presenting the other witnesses Pacifico Narvas and Romulo Pascua, who both testified that they recognized Nazarito Aquino and Pedro Casimina.  Thus, Pacifico Narvas and Romulo Pascua claimed that they
recognized Pedro Casimina and Nazarito
Aquino at a distance of some eighty meters while the
latter were running away from the southern cornfield, with only their backs
visible to them.  Under normal visibility
conditions, recognition at a distance of eighty or even one hundred meters is
probable, if the person whose back is towards the observer is sufficiently
familiar to the observer and where the latter’s line of sight towards such
person is unobstructed.

This is not however the case, it appearing that these witnesses
were on the clearing and the alleged assailants were running on the place
beyond the clusters of fully grown corn­stalks to the south of the
clearing.  The maze of tall and leafy
cornstalks must have impeded or obstructed the view of these witnesses
positioned on the clearing, so as to prevent them from seeing, much more from
recognizing the persons running beyond the cornstalks.

In fact, Pacifico Narvas
had to say during the trial that he had to climb a tree in order to see those
persons running beyond the southern cornfield. 
He testified that he did so, when he heard one of the farmers on the
clearing shout that the assailants were running outside the cornfield.  It, of course, taxes credulity how one of
those farmers came to know that the culprits were running outside the cornfield
when such farmer was himself on the same plane with the others on the clearing,
at the other side of the cornfield.  Suprisingly, the prosecution did not present that farmer
who shouted that the culprits were running outside the cornfield.  By itself, Narvas‘
act of climbing a tree after the last gun report, purposely to observe the
fleeing assailants runs counter to usual human conduct and normal reaction in
times of danger and stress.  A person who
is near another who has been shot will ordinarily scamper to safety and will
not expose himself to the assailants.

On his part, Romulo Pascua
testified on the unusual.  It will be
noted that he categorically stated that he did not see the person or persons
who shot his brother.  Yet he claimed
that the accused were running outside the southern cornfield.  Romulo betrayed
himself on cross-examination when he stated that while he saw them running, he
did not however see their entire backs. 
But, still he was able to recognize them, because, according to him, he
already knew their appearances.

If, indeed, these witnesses had recognized and identified the assailants,
they would have reported the shooting and revealed the identity of the
culprits, to the police authorities, at the earliest possible opportunity, as
could ordinarily be expected of witnesses to a fatal shooting.  But, not one of them did so.

The shooting was reported to the police by a certain Sulpicio Umiten, a public school
teacher in Kabacan. 
When the police authorities arrived at the scene, Pacifico
and Romulo claimed that they were among those
questioned by the police.  Yet none of
them singled out and named the accused. 
They attempted to explain their inability to disclose the identity of
assailants, by claiming that they were afraid because it was already getting
dark, which explanation is too crude to be con­vincing.  Romulo added a lame
excuse, that questions asked of him did not extend to the identity of the
culprits.  Pacifico
and Romulo testified that two days after the shooting
they were investigated, and that they separately executed sworn statements
wherein they named the accused.  But
surprisingly, their alleged sworn statements are both dated November. 16, 1970, or twelve days after the shooting.

In fact Romeo Casimina and Nazarito Aquino were arrested in
the morning of November 5, without any warrant of arrest.  The same is true with Pedro Casimina, who was arrested on November 15.  Apparently, they were arrested on mere
suspicion gathered by the police from the onlookers who could not name the
assailants and who merely theorized that because of a previous grudge between
the accused and the deceased, the former must have been the assailants.

On the main, all that the prosecution had proved was the fact of
death of Benigno Pascua,
but it failed to prove by outright, convincing and conclusive evidence that such
death was caused by the accused.  The
evidence for the prosecution does not even show that attempts were made to
recover the Garand rifle allegedly used in the
shooting, or that any of the accused was in possession of a rifle at the time
of the shooting.  It does not even appear
that formal and thorough investigation was made of the accused, more
particularly of Pedro Casimina who appears to have
been hastily included in the murder charge.

The imputation of motive on the part of the accused has not made
the case any stronger for the prosecution. 
The trial court’s conclusion thereon is not warranted by its
findings.  In the theft case, the carabao stolen, belonged to the Pascuas,
and in the murder case, the victim was a brother of Benigno
Pascua, the victim in this case.  Should there be an ax to grind, as between
the Pascuas and the accused,
the same would reasonably be found on the part of the Pascuas,
considering that in both cases they were the aggrieved parties.

Assuming arguendo that the accused had
a very strong motive to eliminate Benigno Pascua, such motive cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, sufficient to over­throw the presumption of innocence.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our accusatorial
system of criminal justice.  As
reiterated in People vs. Basuel, No. L-2815, October 31, 1972, 42 SCRA 207, only
by proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty a
“certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those
who are to act upon it” may the presumption of innocence be overcome.

By reasonable doubt is meant “doubt engendered by an
investigation of the whole proof and an inability after such investigation to
let the mind rest easy upon the cer­tainty of guilt.” (People
vs. Alipio, No. L-17214, June 12, 1965, 14 SCRA 297)

Our minds cannot rest easy upon the certainty of guilt of the
accused in the light of the evidence for the prosecution.

The accused offered the defense of alibi which by reason of the
proximity of the place where they were supposed to be to the place where the
shooting occurred is indeed a weak defense. 
But the weakness of the defense does not relieve the prosecution of the
required burden of proof.

The accused need not prove their innocence, because that is presumed.  In People vs. Fraga,
(109 Phil. 241, 250) this Court through Mr. Justice J. B. L. Reyes, spoke
thus:  “An accused cannot be
convicted on the basis of evidence which independently of his alibi is weak,
uncorroborated and inconclu­sive.  The
rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to change the
burden of proof in criminal cases; otherwise we will see the absurdity of the
accused being put in a more difficult position where the prosecution’s evidence
is vague and weak than where it is strong.”

WHEREFORE, we find that the guilt of Pedro and Romeo Casimina has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and
accordingly the sentence against them is hereby reversed, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and
Santos, JJ.,
concur.

Aquino, J., concur on a separate opinion.