THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MELECIO AQUINO ALIAS DARNA AND EUGENIO CORTEZ ALIAS RAMON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Melecio Aquino and Eugenio Cortez were charged and found guilty of
murder by the Court of First Instance of Batangas and were sentenced
each to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000.00, and to pay the costs. In due time, they appealed.

It appears that in the afternoon of August 13, 1953, six armed men
dressed in army uniform appeared in barrio Pantay and inquired about
the whereabouts of Juan Mendoza, who was then the barrio lieutenant.
They first went to his house and inquired from his wife Rita Endaya
where they could find him. Rita told them that her husband had gone to
the west to attend to his animals. The group then proceeded to the
direction indicated until they reached the house of Primo Alvarez whom
they saw in his front yard. The armed men asked Alvarez to accompany
them to look for Mendoza, to which Alvarez agreed. When they reached
the house of Macario Manalo, two of them saw Maximo Endaya sitting on
the stairs of the house. The other two were left on the road while
still another two went to the house of Ceferino Manalo situated nearby.
Among those included in this group were Melecio Aquino and Eugenio
Cortez. They asked Endaya for the whereabouts of Juan Mendoza to which
he answered that he had not seen him. They asked him where he was
working and he replied that he was working west of the house of Macario
Manalo.

At about the same time, Ceferino Manalo was in the front yard of his
house talking with Juan Mendoza. While they were thus talking, two huks
arrived, one of them Melecio Aquino, who was in fatigue uniform. Aquino
greeted Mendoza and thereafter the two huks with Mendoza went towards
the east. The four huks who went to two separate houses converged at
the spot where Primo Alvarez and the two other huks were standing, but
the two who came from the house of Ceferino Manalo returned with Juan
Mendoza and from there they all proceeded northeast. When Alvarez
reached his house, he separated and went home. Maximo Endaya returned
to his house and from there saw the huks walking in single file toward
northeast with Juan Mendoza in front. Shortly thereafter, he heard a
number of gunshots. Maximo and Ceferino Manalo went down from their
respective houses and upon reaching the place of the shooting, they saw
sprawled on the ground the dead body of Juan Mendoza. The two went to
the house of the latter’s father to report the incident.

It also appears that at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the
day of the occurrence, certain huk elements in Calaca, Batangas,
separated into two groups. One group headed by Mangubat was composed of
Rudy, Rogelio, Marcelo, Filomeno Casal and others, while the other
headed by Silva was composed of Malaya, Kidlat, Eugenio Cortez, Melecio
Aquino and Danilo. The Mangubat group went to barrio Coral while the
Silva group went southwest towards the direction of barrio Pantay. The
Mangubat group asked food from the people of Coral for their supper and
while they were eating at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening they heard
several gunshots from barrio Pantay which made them entertain the fear
that some of their companions had an encounter with the authorities.
The Silva group later arrived in Coral thus joining the Mangubat group.

At about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, Filomeno Casal
heard Silva and Mangubat talk about the killing of Juan Mendoza. Silva
told Mangubat that he ordered Mendoza to lie down and when the latter
refused he shot him. He left a letter beside the body of Mendoza. Casal
also heard that Mendoza was killed because he reported the huks to the
authorities as a result of which the latter were able to surprise the
group of Silva.

An autopsy on the body of Juan Mendoza was made by Dr. Antonio E.
Platon, President of the 8th Sanitary Division, Lemery, Batangas, who
found several fatal wounds which caused his instant death.

Appellants’ defense is alibi. Melecio Aquino testified that
in the evening of July 25, 1953, he left barrio Payapa, Lemery,
Batangas, with Primo Matienzo and Modesto Mercado to bring money to a
certain old man in Mt. Banahaw. They arrived there on August 10, 1953.
After giving the money to the old man, he and his companions on August
16, 1953 left for Batangas.

Eugenio Cortez declared that the whole day of August 13, 1953 he was
in the farm owned by Pedro Palacio in barrio Dao, Balayan, Batangas;
that said farm is about one-third of a kilometer distant from his house
in the same barrio; that at about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the
same day, he returned to his home where he rested and conversed with
Mariano Besas and Carlito de Suyo until 9:00 o’clock at night; and that
he slept afterwards and woke up at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of the
following day.

We note that the information filed in this case accuses six men as
the ones who plotted the killing of the deceased Juan Mendoza, among
them, besides the two appellants, were Engracio Barquio and Nicanor
Miranda alias Danilo, but apparently separate trials were
held as to them. Barquio was acquitted in Criminal Case No. 182 in a
decision rendered on February 23, 1956, while Miranda was also
provisionally acquitted on the ground that the principal witnesses for
the prosecution were not able to identify the said accused. In reaching
a verdict of acquittal in the case against Barquio, the trial court
failed to give credence to the testimony of the widow, Rita Endaya, who
was the star witness, for the prosecution, making on this point the
following observation:

“The identification made before the Court by the
prosecution witnesses of the accused as one of the six armed men who
took and killed Juan Mendoza on August 81, 1953, is put into serious
doubt by certain established facts of record. It appears herein that on
August 15, 1953 or two days after the incident, Rita Endaya executed a
sworn statement before the Municipal Mayor of Calaca, Batangas (Exhibit
‘3’). In said affidavit Rita Endaya, in answer to a question whether
there was anyone among the persons who entered her house whom she knew,
declared, ‘Wala po’ (Nobody) (Exhibit ‘3-A’). When asked if before the
shooting she had noticed armed men in the vicinity of her house, she
again replied, ‘Wala po’ (Nobody) (Exhibit ‘3-B’). Further, she stated
that the two persons who went up her house were dressed in fatigue
uniforms’ (Exhibit ‘3-D’). All of these statements materially
contradict her subsequent narration that she recognized the accused to
be one of the persons who went up her house, and that she saw the six
armed men who approached her and asked for her husband before the
shooting, and that Engracio Barquio was then dressed in khaki. It
appears strange to the Court that Rita Endaya would so declare in her
affidavit executed two days after the incident that she did not know
anybody among the persons who entered her house, if it is true that,
according to her, she already knew Engracio Barquio long before the
incident because he had been going to her house to ask for food from
her husband and had in fact eaten in her house no less than thirty
times.”

Since in the instant case the widow appears also to be the star
witness of the prosecution whose testimony was given much weight in
pinning liability on appellants, we wonder whether this Court would be
consistent and would be true to logic and fairness if it would now hold
that on the strength of the same testimony which was discredited by the
court insofar as one of the appellants’ co-accused in the same case is
concerned, would reach a verdict of conviction against said appellants.
Of course, it may be said that when the widow executed her affidavit on
August 15, 1953 (Exhibit 3), two days after the occurrence, wherein she
said that she did not know the men who went to her house on August
13,1953, she was afraid that if she would disclose their names she
might be liquidated by them, as in fact she gave that explanation in
open court, but that is no reason for her not to tell the truth
because, apart from the fact that she could ask for protection from the
authorities, it was her duty to help in the apprehension and
prosecution of the killers. In fact, the suspects were only apprehended
more than two years after the occurrence.

But who are the other witnesses for the prosecution? One of them is
Primo Alvarez who declared that when he accompanied the six men in
looking for Juan Mendoza he recognized among them appellant Melecio
Aquino who was one of the two who went to the house of Ceferino Manalo
and appellant Eugenio Cortez who was one of those who went to the house
of Macario Manalo. Another witness is Ceferino Manalo who also pointed
to Melecio Aquino as one of those who went near his yard when he was
conversing with Juan Mendoza. Another witness is Maximo Endaya who
testified that he recognized the face of Eugenio Cortez as one of those
who approached him while he was sitting on the stairs of the house of
Macario Manalo. It is true that these witnesses testified that they saw
appellants as among those who belonged to the group of huks who on the
date in question inquired about the whereabouts of Juan Mendoza, but
there is nothing in their testimony that would in the least indicate
that appellants actually took part in killing or inflicting the fatal
wounds upon the deceased. They were merely positive that they heard
shots coming from the direction where Juan Mendoza was taken by the
huks.

On the other hand, from the very testimony of Filomeno Casal,
another witness for the prosecution, it can be gathered that the one
who killed or ordered the killing of Mendoza was Commander Silva who,
according to Casal, ordered Mendoza to lie down and when the latter
refused he shot him. If we are to believe the testimony of this witness
the only one responsible for Mendoza’s death is Commander Silva for
there is nothing to show that his companions who were under his command
knew that his design was to liquidate him. At any rate, since it
appears that the killing was committed not because of any personal
motive, on the part of the accused but merely in pursuance of the huk
movement to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, the proper
charge against them would be rebellion and not murder, as was properly
observed by the trial court:

“The above judgment is based on the evidence
presented in this case as applied to the information filed against the
two accused. It sufficiently appears, however, that the killing in
question was without personal motive on the part of the accused, and
that it was merely in pursuance of the movement participated in by them
to overthrow the duly constituted authorities of the Government.
Properly considered in the light of the rulings of the Supreme Court in
the case of ‘People vs. Amado Hernandez, et al.,’ 99 Phil.,
515; 52 Off. Gaz. 5506, as reiterated in subsequent cases, the crime
charged against the accused should have been that of rebellion. It is
felt, however, that the accused may not be convicted herein for the
said crime for obvious procedural and technical difficulties. In order
to effectuate the aforementioned doctrine of the Supreme Court and to
provide for uniformity in the application of the penalties for the
commission of crimes of the same nature as the one presently involved,
and in consonance with Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court
hereby orders that this matter he brought to the attention of His
Excellency, the President of the Philippines, through the Honorable the
Secretary of Justice, for such action as may be deemed proper with a
view to mitigating the penalty imposed upon the two accused giving due
consideration to the observations stated above.”

Considering the surrounding circumstances, we cannot bring our mind
to the conclusion that appellants are responsible for the death of the
deceased, there being no clear evidence linking them with his death.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. Appellants are acquitted with costs de oficio.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.