THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MOISES PANGANIBAN, PEDRO BASIT, PEDRO SUAREZ, AND VICENTE SUAREZ, DEFENDANTS, MOISES PANGANIBAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic review of the joint decision of the Court of
First Instance of Cama­rines Sur
in Criminal Cases Nos. L-437, L-438 and L-439, finding defendant-appellant Moises Panganiban guilty of
Murder as charged in three (3) separate informations
against him and three (3) other accused, and sentencing him, as follows:

“1.    In Criminal Case No. L-437, finding
the accused Moises Panganiban
guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime charged and, therefore, sentences
him to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, with the accessories of the law, to in­demnify the heirs of
Generoso Panganiban in the
amount of P12,000.00, without any subsi­diary
liability.  He should, however, be
credited with the entire period of his temporary detention having manifested
formally his willingness to abide by the rules applicable to convicted
prisoners, and to pay the proportionate costs;

“2.    In Criminal Case No. L-438, finding
the accused Moises Panganiban
guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime charged and, therefore, sentences
him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH by electrocution as prescribed by
law, to indemnify the heirs of Victoria Panganiban in
the sum of P12,000.00, without any subsidiary liability, and to pay the propor­tionate
costs; and

“3.    In Criminal Case No. L-439, finding
the accused Moises Pangani­ban
guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime charged and, therefore, sentences
him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH by electrocution, as well as to in­demnify
the heirs of Anatalia Gunda
Panganiban in the sum of P12,000.00,
without any subsidiary liability, plus the proportionate costs.”

The three (3) informations for murder
were filed against the appellant Moises Panganiban and three other accused namely, Pedro Basit, Pedro Suarez and Vicente Suarez, the first one of
which, docketed as Criminal Case No. L-437, alleging as follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of May, 1965, in the sitio of Kabayagasan, barrio of
Port Junc­tion, municipality of Ragay, prov­ince of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, conspiring and confederat­ing
together and mutually help­ing one another, with evident premeditation and
treachery, taking advantage of nighttime to better accomplish their purpose and
their superior strength, after bringing one Generoso Panganiban to the coconut plantation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and
hack with a bolo the said Generoso Panganiban on the neck, which directly caused the death of
the said Generoso Panganiban.”

Under date of September
12, 1966, the prosecu­tion filed a motion to split the information
into three which the court a quo
granted in an order dated September
21, 1966.  Accordingly, for
the death of Victoria Gunda Panganiban
on the same day, a second information was filed and
docketed as Criminal Case No. L-438, charging the same accused Pedro Basit, Pedro Suarez, Vicente Suarez and Moises
Panganiban with murder, committed allegedly as
follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of May, 1965, in the sitio Kabaya­gasan, barrio of
Port Junction, municipality of Ragay, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, con­spiring together
and mutually help­ing one another, with evident pre­meditation and treachery,
taking advantage of nighttime to better accomplish their purpose and their
superior strength, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack with a bolo one Victoria Panganiban on the different parts of her body which directly caused  her death x x x.”

And for the death of Anatalia Panganiban, also on the same day, the third information was
filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. L-439, charging the same accused Pedro Basit, Pedro Suarez, Vicente Suarez and Moises
Panganiban with Murder, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of May, 1965, in the sitio Kabayagasan, barrio of Port
Junc­tion, municipality of Ragay, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent
to kill, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
with evident premeditation and treachery, taking advantage of nighttime to
better accomplish their purpose and their superior strength, did then and there
wil­fully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and hack with a bolo one Anatalia Panganiban
on the different parts of her neck which directly caused her death x x.”

After conducting the preliminary investigation on June 29, 1965 and on August 31, 1965, the Municipal Judge
of Ragay, Camarines Sur, issued the following Order, dated September 30, 1965:

“A preliminary investigation had been conducted in the above?entitled
case.  The court finds and so hold that a prima facie case exist
against accused, Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez.  There exists no prima facie case against accused, Vicente Suarez and Moises
Panganiban.

“WHEREFORE, it appearing that there exist no prima facie case against Moises Panganiban and
Vicente Suarez the case against them is, as hereby, it is ordered dismissed and they are hereby ordered released from
temporary detention.

“Considering that there exist a prima facie case against Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez, the said accused are hereby ordered
remanded to the Court of First Instance to­gether with the records for trial on the merit as the law directs x x”
(p. 70, Criminal Case Wrapper, Vol. I, Criminal Case No.
L-437).

Accordingly, the Municipal Court of Ragay,
Camarines Sur, forwarded
the case against Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez to the
Court of First In­stance.  Not content
with the dismissal of the case as against Vicente Suarez and Moises Panga­niban, the
Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur
con­ducted on December 17, 1965
another preliminary investigation against the said accused.  Finding the existence of a prima facie case against them, the Provincial Fiscal filed the
informations herein-above quoted.

During the pendency of these cases in
the Court a quo,
the accused Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez escaped from
detention and since then up to the present they are still at large.  The other accused Vicente Suarez allegedly
died on February 24, 1966
(p. 56, t.s.n., Sept. 2, 1970).

Defendant-appellant Moises Panganiban is the only accused who remains in the custody
of the law, and on his own motion, the trial court granted him a separate
trial.

The records show that the victims — Generoso Panganiban and Victoria Gunda Panganiban — were husband
and wife, while Anatalia Panganiban
was their 13-year-old daughter (p. 12,
t.s.n., Apr.
23, 1970; Exh. C, p.
65, rec., Vol. I).

The records likewise show that the prosecution utilized six (6)
witnesses, namely:

1.     
Ernesto Catapang,
husband of Lydia Panganiban, sister of the deceased Generoso Panganiban;

2.     
Miguel Gunda,
a brother of Vic­toria Gunda-Panganiban, wife of Generoso;

3.      Dr. Guillermo Abogado, Municipal Health
Officer, Ragay, Camarines Sur, who examined the cadavers of the three (3) victims;

4.     
Loreto Panganiban,
a son of Generoso Panganiban
and Victoria Gunda-Panganiban;

5.     
Eufracio
Panganiban, a brother of Generoso
Panganiban; and

6.     
Damaso Gunda, a brother of the deceased Victoria Gunda-Panganiban.

However, in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
the trial court almost wholly relied on the uncorroborated testimony of Ernesto
Catapang (hereinafter referred to as Cata­pang).  He is
supposedly the only eyewitness to the killing of Victoria Gunda
Panganiban and her, daughter, Anatalia
Panganiban.  Catapang’s testimony becomes, therefore, crucial and
decisive.  Upon it, the liberty and life
of Moises Panganiban, the
appel­lant herein, rest.  Hence, his entire
testimony should be scrutinized with a “sharp judicial eye.”

What is Catapang’s story?  Among other things, Catapang
testified that at about 7:40 o’clock
in the evening of May 5, 1965,
he went to Generoso Panganiban
(hereinafter referred to as Generoso), his neighbor
whose house was about 100 meters from his house, to borrow a guitar.  After he had borrowed the guitar, he went
home.  On his way, he met four (4)
persons, namely:  Pedro Basit, Pedro Suarez, Moises Panganiban (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), and
Vicente Suarez, who asked him to go back with them to the house of Generoso, to which he acceded.  While they were near­ing the house of Generoso, Vicente Suarez led the way and as they were about
five (5) meters from the stairs of Generoso’s house, Vicente Suarez told him to call Generoso, which he did by saying:  “Ka Oros,”
but Generoso did not answer.  So appellant called:  “Oros, Oros” (‘X’ in Exh. 3, p.
199, rec.; pp. 6-7, t.s.n., May 21, 1970). 
This time, Generoso answered and immediately
proceeded to go down from his house with his jacket (p. 2, Exh.
4, pp. 4, 5, Vol. I, rec.); and, as Generoso was
going down the stairs, appellant told him to leave, which he did, and then he
proceeded on his way to his house.  After
that, the five men, including Generoso — who did not
talk to him nor did he talk to them — left and went towards a coconut
plantation about 150 meters away from the house of Generoso
(pp. 33-35, t.s.n., May 20, 1970).

Because he became
suspicious when he was told to leave, instead of proceeding home, Catapang hid behind some banana plants (banana grove) about
20 to 30 meters from the house of Generoso.  From there he saw the five persons all
heading towards the coconut plantation (p. 35, t.s.n.,
May 20, 1970; ‘Banana Grove’ in Exh. 3, p. 199, Vol. I, rec.).

When he could no longer see them, he walked back to the house of Generoso to inform Victoria Gunda,
wife of Generoso, that Generoso was brought to the
coconut plantation (p. 10, t.s.n., April 22, 1970; p.
35, t.s.n., May 20, 1970).  He was not able to do so, however, because
while he was about 3 meters from the stairs of Generoso’s
house, he saw at a distance of about 10 meters appellant and the three other
accused — without Generoso — ­going back to Generoso’s house.  So
he hid under Generoso’s house (p. 11, t.s.n., April 22, 1970; pp. 36-38, t.s.n.,
May 20, 1970).

While he was thus hiding under Generoso’s
house, all the four accused, including appellant, went
up the house.  Thereafter, he heard
somebody shout — a voice of a woman — “Aroy”
(p. 12, t.s.n., April 22, 1970; pp. 38-39, t.s.n., May 20, 1970). 
Thereupon, he left his hiding place and peeped through a hole (word
“hole” in sketch Exh. 3-A, reverse side of
page 199, Vol. I, rec.) in the northeastern portion of
the wall of Generoso’s house, from where he saw the
accused Pedro Basit hacking Anastacia
Panganiban with a bolo, in the sala
of the house, hitting the latter on her right neck towards the left nipple, and
Pedro Suarez clubbing Victoria Gunda on her head and
thereafter hacking her on the neck with a bolo, also in the sala of the house; while the other two companions,  appellant and Vicente Suarez, each holding a
bolo, were standing near the door of the house acting as guards.  Appellant and Vicente Suarez did not,
however, take part in the hacking of the two women (p. 13, t.s.n.,
April 22, 1970; pp. 41-43, t.s.n., May 20, 1970;
letter ‘d’ in Exh. 3, p. 199, Vol. I, rec.; and
letters ‘e’, ‘f’, ‘g’, ‘h’, and ‘i’ in sketch Exh. 3-A, reverse side of p. 199, Vol. I,
rec.).

After seeing all these horrible events, Catapang
hurriedly left the place and proceeded to his home.  He went up his house and hung the guitar he
borrowed earlier from Generoso, and then went down
and hid in a pile of cogon grass, near his house, which was intended for
roofing (p. 13, t.s.n., April 22, 1970; p. 55, t.s.n., May 21, 1970). 
While he was hiding in the pile of cogon grass, he saw the four (4) accused,
including the appellant herein, approaching. 
Upon arriving in front of his house, they called for him, but he did not
respond.  Thereupon, with the aid of a
flashlight, they went up his house.  Not
finding him, they left.  He remained in
hiding in the pile of cogon grass until early the next morning of May 6, 1965.  As he went
out of his hiding place, he heard Loreto Panganiban,
son of Generoso, shouting.  He went to the place where Loreto was and
there he saw Generoso dead, with wounds in his body
and with his neck almost severed from the body (pp. 13-15, t.s.n.,
April 22, 1970).

To prove the motive behind the crime, the State presented Loreto Panganiban, son of Generoso and
Victoria, and brother of Anatalia Panganiban.  Among other things, this witness testified
that about a week before May 5, 1965, appellant came to their place at Port
Junction and asked his father to redeem a plow, which was earlier lost by his
father, for the sum of P50.00.  His
father refused, saying:  “Why should
I redeem, since the plow is mine,” and adding that he would bring the
matter to the attention of the PC. 
Appellant never­theless promised to produce the plow within one week but
he failed to make good his promise (pp. 3-4, t.s.n.,
June 9, 1970).  Then, in the afternoon of
May 5, 1965, while he and his father were plowing their land in barrio Luhung, Ragay, Camarines Sur, the accused Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez came and asked his father whether it
was true that he suspected both of them
of having stolen his plow.   His
father replied in the affirmative and, after that, Pedro Basit
and Pedro Suarez said:  “You (will) have your day” (pp. 4-6, t.s.n., June 9, 1970).

Loreto Panganiban further testified
that aside from the two incidents narrated above; there was a grudge between
the appellant, on one hand, and his parents, on the other; because David Panga­niban, a brother of appellant, raped his mother
Victoria Gunda sometime in 1965, although the act of
David was later forgiven and the case never reached the court (pp. 9-10, t.s.n., June 9, 1970).

In his defense, appellant denied participation in the crime imputed
to him and put up the defense of alibi.  Among
other things, the appellant testi­fied that he and Generoso
were first cousins, their fathers being brothers.  He declared that at about 7:00 o’clock in the
morning of May 5, 1965, he left his house at Port Junction, Ragay,
Camarines Sur, and
proceeded to the law office of Atty. Pedro Ser­vano
in Naga City to get from the latter certain documents
pertaining to the land of his parents and to bring the sum of P200.00 due to
Atty. Servano for legal services rendered to his
(appellant’s) father.  After delivering
the money to, and receiv­ing the land title from, Atty. Servano
at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, he strolled around the
city.  At about 8:00 o’clock in the
evening he went to the railroad station of Naga City,
and at about 10:00 o’clock in the evening, he boarded an express train for
Manila, stopping at Tagkawayan, Quezon,
from where he could take a rail-bus the following morning for Port
Junction.  He passed the night of May 5,
1965 in the Tagkawayan railroad station and when a railbus from Hondagua, Quezon, arrived at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning of May
6, 1965, he boarded it; but the railbus left Tagkawayan bound for Naga,
passing Port Junction, at about 5:30 o’clock already in the morning of the same
day.  Arriving at Port Junction an hour
later, he disembarked and proceeded to his home.  Arriving home, his wife told him that Generoso, his wife Victoria and their daughter Anatalia “were already dead” (pp. 17-22, 28, 29,
38, 40, 42, t.s.n., Sept. 2, 1970).  Being a close relative of Generoso,
he went to the place of the latter. 
Arriving there, he saw Generoso, Anatalia and Victoria dead. 
He remained in the house of the
dead couple and their daughter until they were buried on May 7, 1965, and
during that period he helped in preparing the food for the
visitors.  He further testified that in
the house of Generoso, he also saw his cousins, Marcial and Eufracio, both
brothers of Generoso, and his uncle Diego Panganiban, who is also an uncle of Generoso,
Deogracias Panga­niban and
Ernesto Catapang. 
He concluded his direct testimony by stating that his father Macario Panganiban, his wife and family were also in the
house of the victims on that day and that Ernesto Catapang
also helped them on that occasion (pp. 22-25, t.s.n.,
Sept. 2, 1970).

Appellant further testified that after the Municipal Court of Ragay, Camarines Sur, dismissed the case against him, he and his family
moved their residence, in January, 1966, from Port Junc­tion, Ragay, Camarines Sur, to Guinayangan, Quezon, where he was arrested by the PC on February 12,
1968 after residing there for about two years. 
He also testified that when he left Port Junction to reside in Guinayangan, Quezon, he told
Diego Panganiban, his uncle and also an uncle of Generoso, Eufracio, a brother of Generoso, and of course his father, Macario
Panganiban, about the transfer of his residence (pp.
43-44, 46, 47, t.s.n., Sept. 2, 1970).  Notwithstanding the transfer of his resi­dence in 1966, he returned to Port
Junction about two (2) times — the first in May, 1966 when he visited and
stayed with his father for two days and got some seedlings, and the second,
sometime in the year 1967.  He
categorically declared also that when he was still residing in Port Junction and even after he had transferred his
residence to Guinayangan, Quezon,
he never received any sub­poena,
whether through a policeman or from anyone else, from the Provincial
Fiscal of Camarines Sur.  Neither did his father, much less any other
person, tell him about the existence of a warrant for his arrest the second
time that he visited his father in the year 1967.  However, sometime before January, 1966, one Gavino Balmes told him that he
would have a trial, so he went to his lawyer, Atty. Pedro Ser­vano,
who accompanied him to Fiscal Bolaños of the Office
of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur (pp. 49,
50-51, 54, 57, 58-59, t.s.n., Sept. 2, 1970).

Appellant also testified that the other accused — Vicente Suarez,
Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez — were also in the
house of Generoso at about 2:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of May 6, 1965 (pp. 110-111, Sept. 3, 1970 t.s.n.).  He concluded his testimony by flatly denying
having received any subpoena issued by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur (Exhs. D, E and F, which were later on
withdrawn by the prose­cution), for him to appear before the investigating
fiscal on July 19 and 20, 1966. 
According to him, no policeman ever came to him to deliver such sub­poena;
besides at that time he was already residing in Guinayangan,
Quezon.  He
likewise denied having signed such subpoena or the return thereof (pp. 89­-93, t.s.n., Sept 3, 1970).

Appellant, thru counsel, assigned five (5) errors as having been
committed by the court a quo. 
These errors may, however, be boiled down to one single
proposition:  Has the prosecution proved
its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?  For this purpose, We
have meticulously scrutinized and examined the records with painstaking
care.  Indeed, We are unable to shake off nagging doubts on the veracity of Catapang’s testimony, more parti­cularly on the following:

1.   On direct examination, Catapang
declared:

“FISCAL:

Q   –   When you heard that shout, what did you do?

A    –   From under the house I went out and peeped
thru a hole in the wall of the
house, sir.

Q   –   And what did you see?

A    –   While I was peeping at (thru) the wall of the
house, I saw Pedro Basit hack with a bolo Anatalia Panganiban which (while)
Pedro Suarez was clubbing Victoria Gunda and the two
of them were at the door of the house acting as guard, sir.” (Pp.
11-12, t.s.n,, April 22, 1970).

On cross-examination, however, Catapang
declared:

“ATTY. SURTIDA:

Q   –   What were they doing when you peeped thru the
hole?

A    –   I
saw Pedro Basit hacking with a bolo Victoria Gunda.

Q   –   And who hacked Anatalia?

A    –   Pedro Suarez.”

(Pp. 41, 42, t.s.n., May 20, 1970).

The foregoing testimonies are clearly contra­dictory to each
other.  On direct examination, Cata­pang declared that it was Pedro Basit
who hacked Anatalia Panganiban,
while Pedro Suarez was the one who clubbed Victoria Gunda.  However, on cross-examination, he declared
that it was Pedro Basit who hacked Victoria Gunda and Pedro Suarez was the one who hacked Anatalia.

2.   Again, before Judge Huertas
of Ragay, Cama­rines Sur, Catapang declared:

“Q  –   What did you see when you were observing
Vicente Suarez, Pedro Suarez, Pedro Basit and Moises Panganiban from behind the
banana trees?

A    –   I saw these people,
Vicente Suarez, Pedro Suarez Pedro Basit and Moises Panganiban bring Generoso towards the coconut groves which is about 50
meters from the place where I was
hiding.  (P. 2, Declaration given by
Ernesto Catapang during the preliminary investigation
conducted by Judge Huertas on May 18, 1965; Exh. 4, p. 5, Vol. I, rec.).

However, before the trial court five (5) years later, Catapang testified:

“Q  –   This coconut plantation accord­ing to this
sketch (Exh. 3)
is 150 meters from the house of Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   It is more or less, sir.

xx             xx         xx

Q   –   So
in going to the house of Generoso Panganiban from your hiding
place (banana groves) you walked only a distance of about 20 meters?

A    –   Yes, sir” (Exh.
3, p. 199, Vol. I, rec., p. 35, t.s.n.,
May 20, 1970).

The aforequoted declarations — one before Judge Huertas and the other before the trial Judge — are not
only contradictory to, but also inconsistent with each other.  In 1965, Catapang
approximated the distance of the coconut plantation from the place where he hid
behind banana plants to be 50 meters. 
Five years later, Catapang approximated the
same coconut plantation to be 150 meters from the house of Generoso.  The place where he hid behind some banana
plants was about 20 meters from the house of Generoso which, according to the sketch marked Exhibit “3”, is
towards the northeastern part of Generoso’s house;
and the coconut plantation is towards the northwestern part of the same
house.  On the basis of Catapang’s testimony in 1965,
in relation to his testimony in 1970, it would seem then that the distance between the coconut
planta­tion and the house of Generoso is only 30
meters, not 150 meters as shown in the sketch (Exh. 3).

3. At the
preliminary investigation before Municipal Judge Huertas,
Catapang declared:

“Q  –   What did you see if any when you peeped through the wall of the
house of Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   When I peeped through the nipa
walling of the house, I saw Pedro Basit hack with a
bolo Anatalia Panganiban
and Pedro Suarez club Victoria Gunda, the wife of Generoso Pangani­ban, first then
hack her with a bolo.

Q   –   What did you do afterwards if any?

A    –   I ran away and returned home.

Q   –   What did you do if any when you returned
home?

A    –   When I returned home, I did not go up the house but hid myself behind the cogon near our house” (p. 3, Exh. 4; p.
6, Vol. I, rec.; underlining supplied).

However, at the trial, this witness testified:

“Q  –   After seeing all these things, what did you
do?

A    –   I went home, sir.

Q   –   What did you do upon arriving home?

A    –   After I went up our house went down again, sir.

Q   –   Where
did you go?

A    –   I hid myself in a cogon grass which was intended to be used as roofing,
sir.  (P. 13, ts.n., April 22, 1970; underscoring supplied).

xx    xx      xx         xx

ATTY SURTIDA:

Q   –   And I would please remind you that neither
did Mr. Bolaños ask you that question.  In the affidavit you made before Mr. Bolaños you were not asked whether you went up the house
but voluntarily you stated that you went down from your house.

A    –   Yes,
sir, because I hung the guitar” (p. 55, t.s.n.,
May 21, 1970).

If the contradiction in
the evidence for the prosecution consisted of discrepancies in the testi­mony of one witness and that of another, such contra­dictions
could possibly be ignored; because not all persons who witnessed an incident
are impressed in the same manner.  But in
the case at bar, We are dealing with glaring material self-contradictions of
one and the same
witness.  The foregoing contra­dictions,
placed in proper focus, certainly put Catapang’s testimony on very shaky grounds.

4.   Furthermore,
Catapang’s testimony is inherently
improbable.  The records bear this out —

“Q  –   Now, while you were going home, what
happened?

A    –   I met four persons, namely:  Pedro Basit, Pedro
Suarez, Moises Panganiban
and Vicente Suarez, sir.

xx    xx      xx

Q   –   Now, when you met them, what happened?

A    –   They asked me to go back with them to the
house of Generoso Panganiban,
sir.

Q   –   Did you go with them?

A    –   Yes, sir.

Q   –   Now, were you able to go back together with
the accused to the house of Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   Yes, sir, and that was the time when I met them.

Q   –   Now when you arrived again in the house of Generoso Panganiban, what happened?

A    –   While we were nearing the house of Generoso Panganiban, the three
accused remained near the house of Generoso Panga­niban and I
was told by Vicente Suarez to call for Generoso
Panganiban and Moises Panganiban accompanied me, sir.

Q   –   So, who were the three accused who remained near
the house of Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   Vicente
Suarez, Pedro Basit and Pedra
Suarez, sir.

Q   –   Now, according to you, Moises
Panganiban accompanied you, where did the two of you
go?

A    –   In front of the stairs of the house of Generoso Panganiban, sir.

Q   –   Upon arriving there, what did you and Moises Panganiban do?

A    –   He caused me to call Generoso
Panganiban and later he called him also, sir.

Q   –   Did you call for Generoso
Panganiban?

A    –   Yes, sir.

xx      xx         xx

Q   –   Now, was there any answer from Generoso Panganiban when you
called for him?

A    –   No, sir, he did not answer our calls.

Q   –   What happened after you called for Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   Moises Panganiban called him, sir.

Q   –   And after he was called by Moises Panganiban, what happened?

A    –   He answered the call and went outside the
house, sir.”

(Pp. 4, 5-7, t,s.n., April 22,
1970).

As already stated, the foregoing testimony is inherently
improbable especially if viewed in the light of ordinary human experience.  Appellant is a first cousin of the victim, Generoso.  The three
other accused Pedro Basit, Pedro Suarez and Vicente
Suarez knew where the house of Generoso was.  There is, therefore, no reason for the three
other accused, if appellant was already with them, to need the presence of Catapang whose only role apparently was to call for Generoso Panganiban.  Moreover, appellant would have objected to the presence of Catapang
who was personally close to him — appellant being a first cousin of Catapang’s wife.

It is hard to believe that the appellant and, for that matter,
all of the other accused who were all bent on killing their victims, would ask Cata­pang to go with them to the prospective scene of the
crime, witness its execution, thereby securing a wit­ness against all of them.

Human experience shows that persons who plan to commit a crime so
serious like murder, plan and execute it with utmost secrecy, avoiding any risk
that would lead to their recognition and subsequent apprehension.

5.   The
natural reaction of one who witnesses a crime and recognizes the offender is
to reveal it to the kins
of the victims or the authorities
at the earliest opportunity.  Did Catapang, who claims to have seen appellant in the company
of the three other accused on the night
of the gruesome murders, reveal what he saw and witnessed to the
authorities or to any of the relatives of the victims at the earliest
opportunity?  Let us examine the record.

“Q  –   All right, your answer is pot responsive, but
we will leave it at that.  We will now go
to other points.  In this sketch, Exhibit
3, there are several other houses around the house of Generoso
Panganiban.  Be­sides
the house you were occupying, you have
the house of Diego Panganiban.  How far is this house of Diego Panga­niban from the house of Generoso?

A    –   About one hundred meters, more or less.

Q   –   In
other words, the distance is about the same as the dis­tance from your house to
the house of Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   That is, possible.

COURT:

Q   –   Is there no house nearer the house of Generoso than your house and the house of Diego Panganiban?

A    –   There is, your honor, that house of Horacio Panganiban.

Q   –   What is the relation of Horacio
Panganiban to Generoso Panga­niban?

A    –   They are brothers, your honor.

ATTY. SURTIDA:

Q   –   And
the house of Horacio is how far from the house of Generoso?

A    –   About 80 meters, more or less.

Q   –   On the sketch
you have also indicated the house of Marcial Panganiban, what relation has Marcial
Panganiban, to Generoso Panganiban?

A    –   They are also brothers.

Q   –   And how far is Marcial’s
house from Generoso’s house?

A    –   About 100 meters, more or less.

Q   –   So it is clear then that there are houses
of the kins of Generoso Panganiban near his house.  Now my question is, you stated before that
you went back to your house because you were afraid, why did you
not go to seek protection and to denounce what you have seen either to the house of Marcial
or to the house of Horacio and why you preferred to go to your house
where you had no companion?

A    –   It did not occur to me, but what
occurred to me was to go to my house because I thought of my animals.

Q   –   On the following day, May 6, did you go to
the house of Marcial Panganiban?

A    –   No sir, I did not.

Q   –   And neither did you go to the house of
Horatio Panganiban?

A    –   What I remember is we took our lunch in
the house of Horacio on May 6.

Q   –   So on the following day, May 6, you did
not tell Marcial Panganiban
of the occurrence in the night
of May 5?

A    –   Yes, I did not.

Q   –   And neither have
you told Hora­cio Panganiban
of what you have seen in the night of May
5?

A    –   Yes, I did not also.

COURT:

Q   –   But why did you take your lunch in the house
of Horacio on the following day and that was May 6?

A    –   Because it was in that house where we ate our
lunch after we dressed the cadavers because it was in that house where the
cadavers were dressed.

Q   –   It is not a fact that in the dressing of the
cadavers Moises Panganiban
was present and in fact did help also and also his father, the father of Moises?

A    –   I cannot remember whether Moises
Panganiban was present when the cadavers were
dressed.

Q   –   Please make an effort.  Try to remember because that is
important.  That point is important.  I have the infor­mation that Moises helped in the
dressing of the cadavers of the victims including his father.  Now since according to you you also helped, can you not remember if Moises was there?

A    –   What I remember is that when we got bamboos
for the purpose of carrying the cadavers, Moises Panganiban was with me.

COURT:

Q   –   That was on May 6, 1965, was it not?

A    –   I do not know whether that was May 6 because
the cadavers were embalmed.

ATTY. SURTIDA:

Q   –   Then whom can you remember now, can you
mention some names of those persons present and helped in the dressing of the
cadavers?

A    –   They were Diego Panganiban, Damaso Gunda, Miguel Gunda, myself and Dr. Abogado, but I
cannot remember the others who helped that time also.

COURT:

Q   –   But did Moises Panganiban actually help in the carry­ing of the cadavers
because according to you he helped in getting bamboos?

A    –   Going where, your honor?

Q   –   To any place.

A    –   Yes, he did, your
honor.

Q   –   He helped in carrying the cada­vers to what
place?

A    –   In bringing
the cadavers inside the house of Victoria Gunda
because the cadavers were brought outside the house when the
same were autopsied by the doctor.

COURT:

Q   –   Whose cadaver did he help in bringing to the
house of Victoria Gunda?

A    –   I cannot remember who among the cadavers were
carried that he helped in going up the house of Victoria Gunda.

Q   –   Now from your testimony there is no question
that Moises Panganiban was
present when the cadavers of Victoria Gunda, Anatalia Panganiban and Generoso Panganiban were
autopsied by Dr. Abogado, is that correct?

A    –   He was
there, your honor”.  (pp. 57-60, t.s.n., May 21, 1970).

Continuing, Catapang further declared:

“Q  –   How did it happen that the authorities came
to know that you saw the occurrence when you have not told anybody?  You did not even tell the kins
of the deceased?

A    –   I was taken by the PC and brought to Catabangan.

COURT:

Q   –   Your answer did not answer the question at
all.  The Court directs that the question
be repeated and for the witness to answer.

A    –   What
happened was this, your honor:  On
May 6, the follow­ing day, I was being questioned by the PC but I did not
reveal that I saw the incident. 
The following day, I
was again investigated and later on
I was brought to Catabangan because according to the
PC I must have known what had happened in that incident because I was there in
that place when the incident took place. 
I only did not reveal
right away because I was afraid that I might be killed” (pp. 61-62, t.s.n.,
May 21, 1970; underlining supplied).

A searching analysis of the foregoing testimony of Catapang shows that, contrary to the usual pattern of human
behavior and the normal reaction of man in times of stress, this star witness
for the prosecution did not report the killing of his brother-in-law, the latter’s wife and daughter to the PC at the
earliest opportunity.  According to the
record, the PC finally came up with a complaint before the Municipal Court of Ragay, Camarines Sur, only on May 18, 1965, or thirteen (13) days after the
incident happened (p. 1, Vol. I, rec.).  Evidently, it was only on that day that Catapang revealed the identity of the
alleged killers.  It taxes credulity that
Catapang made no effort to expose the accused either
on May 6 or May 7, 1965 when, according to him, he saw the brothers of Generoso on those days in the house of the victims and that
Sgt. Gonzalez of the PC first questioned him on May 6 and 7, 1965 on what he
knew of the killing (p. 62, t.s.n., May 21,
1970).  Catapang’s
silence for about thirteen (13) days casts serious doubt on his subsequent
identification of the appellant and the three other accused.  Had he really recognized the appellant and
the three other accused as the per­petrators of the crime, he would have
spontaneously reported the crime and revealed the identity of the killers at
the earliest opportunity, as would be expected according to the natural
reaction of man under such circumstances, especially when the murdered victims
were his close relatives and neighbors.

Catapang’s claim that he was afraid that he might be killed is not supported by the evidence of
record.  He was not threatened by any of
the killers, If he were afraid of reprisal, he would have avoided going with
the appellant to a place about 150 to 200 meters away from the house of Generoso for the purpose of getting bamboos with which to
carry the remains of the victims.  Moreover, if he were afraid, he would
not have gone home after witnessing the gruesome murders; instead, he would
have instinctively dashed off to the barrio captain or any other authority, or
to one of the brothers of Generoso, like Horacio Panganiban, whose house was only 80 meters away from the place
where the incident happened, and there sought refuge and told everything he
witnessed.

Besides, would it not be more in consonance with common
experience for Catapang to have at least whispered to
Sgt. Gonzalez of the PC, or to any one of the brothers of Generoso,
like Mar­cial or Horacio,
when he saw them the day after the murder — on May 6, 1965 — in the house of
the victims, that the real culprits were the appellant and the three other
accused, especially considering that on that day, as the records show, all the
accused were present in the house of the victims?  (Pp. 110-111, t.s.n., Sept. 3, 1970).  In this way, the culprits could have been
easily and safely held in prison or detained in the con­stabulary barracks and
thus prevent them from frustrating justice by flight.  As it were, the accused were not ordered
arrested until May 18, 1965 (p. 11, Vol. I, rec.), when Sgt.
Gonzalez of the PC filed the corresponding criminal complaint before the
Municipal Court of Ragay, Camarines
Sur (p. 1, Vol. 1, rec.).

6.   Another fact of substance and value which was
not fully appreciated by the trial court in favor of the appellant is the
presence — on May 6 and 7, 1965 — of the appellant in the house of the
victims after the incident on May 5, 1965, which fact stands uncontradicted.  The
records show that appellant on those two days was in the house of the victims
and helped prepare the food for the visitors and in getting the bamboos with
which to carry the remains of the
victims.  If the appellant were one of
the authors of the heinous crime or that he had in some way participated
therein as a co-conspirator, as the State would want this Court to believe, it
strikes Us as rather highly improbable and contrary to the natural instinct of
man for self-preservation for the appellant too have the temerity and the bold­ness
to expose himself to the danger of being the object of vengeance from the
relatives of the victims, who were practically all present with Catapang during the autopsy, dressing and burying the
remains of the victims.  Apropos is that biblical passage which runs:  “The wicked fleeth
even when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold
as a lion.”

One reason why the trial court did not appreciate appellant’s presence in the house of the victims on
May 6 and 7, 1965, as compatible with his innocence, is appellant’s
disappearing act during the period of reinvestigation of the case by the Office
of the Provin­cial Fiscal of Camarines Sur until he was arrested in February, 1968.  The records show that the failure of the
appellant to appear before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur during the reinvestigation, following the
dismissal by the municipal judge who conducted the first preliminary
investigation of the case against him and Vicente Suarez, was because he
transferred his residence from Port Junction, Ragay, Camarines Sur
to Guina­yangan, Quezon.  He did not know of the second reinvestigation
conducted on December 17, 1965 by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Sur after the case was
dismissed, as to him, by the Municipal Court of Ragay,
Camarines Sur.  As a matter of fact, he did not receive any
subpoena from the said office, much less was he informed by his father, or by
any of the relatives of Generoso, who knew of the
transfer of his residence.  In short, he
did not attempt to elude justice when he transferred his residence because he
even visited Port Junction, his former residence, twice after he left Camarines Sur — once in May
1966, when he visited and stayed
with his father for two days, and then again sometime in the year 1967.  He learned of the reinvestigation and the
subsequent filing of the information against him only when he was arrested in
February, 1968 — about three years after — by the PC and since then he has
remained under the custody of the law.

WE find the explanation of the appellant credible.  Hence, the delay in the trial of this case
before the trial court cannot, and should not, be
attributed to him, as the court a quo insinuates in its decision.

7.   Catapang’s
testimony is not only contrary to common experience and observation of man, but
it is also inherently improbable.  This
witness testified on the location of the house of Generoso,
in relation to the other houses belonging to his relatives in the same
barrio.  Aided by Exhibit “3”,
he testified that Generoso’s house was located
along the barrio road leading to Port Junction. 
North of Generoso’s house, about 100 meters
away, was Catapang’s house; to the south was the
house of Horacio Panganiban,
a brother of Generoso;
somewhere on the east was the house of Diego Panganiban,
an uncle of Generoso; and somewhere on the west was the house of Marcial
Panganiban, another brother of Generoso.  The stairs of Generoso’s
house is represented by letter “b” of Exhibit “3”, facing the road to Port Junction.  Catapang claims that when the four accused came back from the
coconut plantation — without Generoso — he saw them
at point “c” in the sketch Exhibit “3”, which is a distance
of about 10 meters from where he was at point “b” in the same
exhibit.  He went under the house and hid
himself at point “d” from where he saw the accused Pedro Basit and Pedro Suarez hack Victoria Gunda
and Anatalia Panganiban,
through a hole in the wall of the house, represented by the word
“hole” in Exhibit “3-A”.

A careful examination and scrutiny of Exhibits
“3” and “3-A” (pp. 199, Vol. I, rec.), depicting the
location of the house of Generoso in relation to the
barrio road leading to Port Junction, shows that Catapang
represented the “Room” as facing the road and the “Sala” behind the room, evidently to justify his claim
that he saw the boloing and the hacking of the
victims Victoria Gunda and Anatalia
Panganiban at points marked “e”,
“f”, “g’, and “h” in Exhibit “3-A”, through
the hole on the rear wall of the house. 
According to him, it was also through the same “hole” that he
saw appellant and the other accused Vicente Suarez at point “i” standing as guards, each holding a bolo in his
hand.  However, it is common observation
and experience that in the provinces, especially in the barrios, people build
their houses in such a way that the sala, if there is
any, almost always faces the main door and the barrio road, and the room, if
there is one, is located behind the sala or towards
rear of the house away from the road. 
Hence, Exhibits “3” and “3-A” bear
earmarks of fabrication.

On the other hand, the sketch, marked
Exhibit “6” (p. 74-80, t.s.n., July 21,
1970), is more in consonance with common observation and experience.

8.   One last fact of significance which was not
considered by the court a quo.  WE
refer to the testimony of Loreto
Panganiban, a son of Gene­roso
and Victoria Gunda Panganiban
and brother of Anatalia Panganiban
at the preliminary investiga­tion conducted by Judge Huertas
of Ragay, Camarines Sur, he declared:

“Q  –   When did you learn for the first time that
your father, mother and sister are dead?

A    –   In the morning of May 6, 1965 at about 5:00
to 6:00 A.M..

Q   –   How did you happen to know they were dead?

A    –   When I went to see
our cows at the plowed field
under the coconut grove, at about 5:00 to 6:00 o’clock A.M. of May 6, 1965, I saw my father flat on his back with his neck almost cut.

Q   –   What about your mother and sister,
when did you know for the first time that they are dead?

A    –   When
I returned to the house at about 7:00
o’clock P.M. of May
6, 1965, I saw my mother and sister dead with wounds still lying on the hammock on the
floor.

xx    xx      xx

Q   –   Where were you at about 7:40 P.M. of May 5, 1965?

A    –   I
was at Port Junction witnessing the program at the school.

Q   –   When
did you return to your house that
night of May 5, 1965?

A    –   I
returned more or less at 12:00 o’clock P.M.

Q   –   When
you returned home, did you not know whether your parents
and your sister Anatalia Panganiban are dead already?

A    –   No, sir.

Q   –   Why?

A    –   When I returned home, there was no light
and I went to bed right away.

xx      xx         xx         x”

(Pp. 1, 2, Declaration of Loreto Panganiban,
given to Judge Huertas of Ragay,
Camarines Sur on May 18, 1965; Exh.
5, p. 8, Vol. I, rec.; underlining supplied).

However, when this witness testified at the trial court five (5)
years later, he stated:

“Q  –   On the night of May 5, 1965, do you know what happened to
your parents and your sister Anatalia Panganiban?

A    –   I saw my father and my mother and my
sister dead in the morning, sir.

COURT:

Q   –   Morning of what date?

A    –   May 6, 1965, your honor.” (P. 6, t.s.n., June 9, 1970; underscoring
supplied).

Analyzing the aforequoted declaration
of Loreto on May 18, 1965
as against his testimony before the trial court of June 9, 1970, We find that the two
sets of testimony suffer from the same vice as the testimony of Catapang, earlier discussed above, since they are
contradictory to, and inconsistent with, each other.  Before Judge Huertas
of Ragay, Camarines Sur, this witness declared that he knew for the first time
that his mother and sister were dead at about 7:00 o’clock P.M. of May 6,
1965, when he saw his mother and his sister dead with wounds still
“lying on the hammock on the floor”; while before the trial court
about five years later he declared that he saw his father, his mother and his
sister dead in the morning of May 6, 1965.  The two declarations, being contradictory to
each other, one or the other must be incorrect. 
Hence, a doubt is cast upon the credibility of this witness.  This is not to count the fact that he is a
son of the victims Generoso and Victoria Gunda and a brother of the third victim, Anatalia Panganiban.  Hence, the possibility of the existence of bias is not remote.

Besides, if it is true, as claimed by this witness, that he returned
home at 12:00 midnight of May 5, 1965, and woke up between 5:00 and 6:00
o’clock in the morning of May 6, 1965, to tend to his cows in the field, it is
almost unbelievable that he did not see his mother and his sister already dead
in the sala of their house with bolo wounds in their
necks measuring about six inches in length (Exhs. B and C, pp. 64-65, Vol. I, rec.).

Consequently, appellant’s defense of alibi becomes
significant since, as pointed out earlier, there is a total absence of positive
and clear identification of the appellant as one of those responsible for the death of the victims.  Of course, We have
time and again stressed that alibi is the weakest of all defenses.  It is easy to concoct, difficult to disprove
(People vs. Cunanan, L-17599, April 24, 1967, 19 SCRA
769, 783, citing U.S. vs. Olais, 36 Phil. 828, 829;
People vs. Pili, 51 Phil. 965, 966; People vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 265, 272; People vs. Bautista, L-17772,
Oct. 31, 1962, 6 SCRA 522, 529; People vs. Dayday,
L-20806 & L-20807, Aug. 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 935, 942).  Nonetheless, where, as in the case at bar,
the evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness on
the question of whether or not appellant is the author of the crime charged, alibi
as a defense assumes significance.  As
this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in People vs. Fraga, et al. (L-12005, Aug. 31, 1960, 109 Phil. 241, 250),
pointed out:  “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 an
accused being put in a more difficult position where the prosecution’s evidence
is vague and weak than where it is strong” (cited in People vs. Pampaluna, 96 SCRA 790, 815).

Criminal Case No. L-437 where
accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) by the trial court, should be deemed also
included in this automatic review of the death penalty imposed on him in the
other two cases, L-438 and L-439, although accused-appellant did not expressly
appeal his convic­tion in L-437.

Under the Judiciary Act, otherwise known as R.A. 296, as amended,
“the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all criminal cases
involving offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment;
and those involving other offenses which, although not so punished, arose out
of the same occurrence or which may have been committed by the accused on the
same occasion, as that giving rise to the more serious offense, regardless of
whether the accused are charged as principals, accomplices or accessories, or
whether they have been tried jointly or separately” (par. 1, Sec. 17).

It should be noted that under the aforequoted
provision, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over other offenses not
so punished by death or life imprisonment,
but arising “out of the same occurrence or committed by the accused on the same occasion, as that giving
rise to the more serious offense,” even if the accused is merely charged
as an accomplice, or accessory and even when the cases are tried separately.

It should be emphasized that the subject matter under automatic
review in these cases, G.R. Nos. L-33822-23, is the joint decision of the trial court in the three
criminal cases Nos. L-437, L-438 and L-439 against the same accused-appellant
for the murder of the spouses and their 13-year-old daughter on the same night of May 5, 1965, and not three
separate deci­sions.

It would be absurd to require accused-appellant, under the
peculiar circumstances, to file a separate appeal in L-437 because the three
criminal cases of which he was convicted by the trial court in a single
decision are so intertwined with each other, the three cases having arisen on
the same occasion.

It is therefore patent that criminal case No.
L-437 is deemed ipso facto appealed together with the two death
sentence cases (L-438 and L-439) notwithstanding the absence of an express
appeal by the accused-appellant in said criminal case No. L-437.  All the three criminal cases are necessarily
involved in and affected by the
discussion and the prayer (the Solicitor General prayed for the affirmance of the judgment of conviction by the trial court
in the three criminal cases) in the briefs filed by the State, by the defense and
Our review of the joint decision in these three cases which relate to the entire tragedy that resulted in three
murders.  The principal target was the
deceased Generoso Panganiban,
of whose murder appellant was sentenced by the trial court to only reclusion
perpetua.

Moreover, the accused-appellant who is a mere farmer, must have
assumed that when the clerk of court forwarded the cases to the Supreme Court
on automatic review, all three cases (L-437, L-438 and L-439) were so
forwarded, as in fact they were as shown by the endorsement or transmittal (pp.
80-83, rec.) of the transcript of the three cases by the branch clerk of court
of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court.

Furthermore, it would be a burden too heavy if, under the circumstances of these cases, the
accused-appellant had to file a separate petition for review in Criminal Case
No. L-437.

Finally, rules of procedure should not be given a strict or rigid
interpretation where, as in the case at bar, the life and liberty of an accused
are at stake.  The life and liberty of
the accused-appellant should not be sacrificed at “the sophisticated altar
of technicalities.”

WHEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
MOISES PANGANIBAN HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.  THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS, THEREFORE,
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, AND THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS HEREBY ACQUITTED OF THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM IN ALL THE THREE CASES — L-437, L-438 and L-439 — AND HIS
IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY, UNLESS HE IS HELD ON SOME OTHER VALID CHARGE,
IS HEREBY ORDERED.  NO COSTS.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J, Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., see dissent.

Abad Santos, Plana,
Relova, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., join
J. Aquino in his
dissenting opinion.