THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SEGUNDINO UTRELA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In the afternoon of March 28,
1971, Feliciana Areola and her 9-year old son, Conrado, were harvesting
bananas at their plantation in Nanabuan, Ballesteros, Cagayan. While thus engaged, Feliciana’s right thigh
was hit by a pellet from a home-made shotgun which was fired by Segundino Utrela. Upon being hit, Feliciana ran to the house
of Zitanga Barrio Captain Luciano Tumbaga, leaving Conrado behind. Tumbaga brought Feliciana to the clinic of
Dr. Estrella Fernandez where she was treated.

After Tumbaga had brought Feliciana to the clinic, he went to the
Police Department to report the incident. There he saw Segundino Utrela being investigated for he had earlier
surrendered to Mayor Juan Alonzo of Ballesteros. The following day the dead body of Conrado was found at the
banana plantation. According to Dr.
Gregorio Farin, the Municipal Health Officer, he had “1. Mul­tiple cut wound at the back of the neck
and left and right shoulder, almost cutting and separating the head from the
body; 2. Cut wound of the chin.”

On April 19, 1971, a complaint for murder with frustrated murder
was lodged in the Municipal Court of Ballesteros, Cagayan against Segundino
Utrela by the Chief of Police. At the
second stage of the preliminary investigation on June 23, 1971, the accused
failed to appear and the omission was construed as a waiver of that stage. Accordingly, the case was elevated to the
Court of First Instance of Cagayan at Sanchez Mira where an information was
filed on January 11, 1972, as follows:

“The undersigned, Asst. Provincial Fiscal, accuses Segundino
N. Utrela of the crime of Murder with Frustrated Murder, defined and penalized
under Article 248 in connection with Article 6, of the Revised Penal Code,
committed as follows:

“That on or about March 28, 1971, in the muni­cipality of
Ballesteros, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused Segundino N. Utrela, armed with a gun and a bolo, with
intent to kill, with treachery and with evident premedi­tation, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and fe­loniously assault, attack, shoot and hack one
Feliciana Manlong Areola and Conrado Areola, inflicting upon Conrado Areola
wounds on his body which caused his death and inflicting a wound on the body of
Feliciana Manlong Areola.

“That the accused had performed all the acts of execution,
which would have produced the crime of Murder, as a consequence on the person
of Feliciana Manlong Areola but which nevertheless, did not produce it by
reason of causes independent of his own will.

“That the crime was committed with the aggravating
circumstances of disregard of the age of the deceased Conrado Areola and the
sex of the other victim Feliciana Manlong Areola.”

After trial wherein Utrela entered a not guilty plea, the court
rendered judgment as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused SEGUNDINO UTRELA
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER for the killing of
Conrado Areola, a nine (9) year old, committed with the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of age and concealing the effects of the crime, one
of which has been offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
leaving still one aggravating circumstance to mandatorily require the
imposition of the maximum penalty provided for under the law; the Court hereby
sentences the accused SEGUNDINO UTRELA to the maximum penalty of DEATH.

“For shooting Feliciana Areola, the Court finds the accused
SEGUNDINO UTRELA guilty beyond reason­able doubt of the crime of Frustrated
Murder, committed with the aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex on the
offended party, which was offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender; and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby
imposes upon said accused SEGUNDINO UTRELA, to undergo a prison term ranging
from eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen
(14) years and eight (8) months, of reclusion temporal as maximum; to indemnify
the heirs of Conrado Areola the sum of P12,000.00 for his death; P20,000.00 for
moral damages and P500.00 for funeral expenses; to indemnify farther Feliciana
Areola the sum of P400.00 for medical expenses and P2,000.00 for moral damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency owing to the nature of the
principal penalty imposed, and to pay the costs.”

In convicting Utrela, the trial court rejected his claim that the
shooting of Feliciana was accidental and that he did not kill Conrado.

At the outset it should be stated that Feliciana and Utrela are
“magbilas” because Utrela is married to a sister of Feliciana’s
husband and that prior to the incident the relations between Feliciana and
Utrela had been normal for there was no enmity or unpleasant relations between
them. The trial court even stated that,
“By reason of this close relation, Feliciana knew of no reason why the
accused shot at her and killed her son.” Nonetheless the trial court was
quick to convict not only the accused but also to send his lone witness to
jail.

After Wenceslao Naval, a 57-year old farmer had been
cross-examined by the fiscal, the trial court took over and this is what
transpired:

“COURT:

q –  You said you only arrive last
night?

a –  Yes, sir.

q –  You
have not talked to Atty. Ruiz [defense counsel] before this morning as you took
the witness stand?

a –  It
was only there, sir. (witness referring
outside of the Courtroom).

q –  You
approached him, or Atty. Ruiz approached you?

a –  I
talked to him, sir.

q –  You
talked to him before you took the witness stand?

a –  Yes,
sir.

q –  And
you talked with him regarding this case?

a –  No,
sir.

q –  You
mean to say that you talked on some other cases?

a –  Yes,
sir.

q –  He
has never asked questions to you regarding this case?

a –  Not
yet, sir.

q –  And
so, Atty. Ruiz did not know what he is going to ask of you?

a –  No,
sir.

q –  And
Atty. Ruiz did not know what he is going to ask upon?

a –  Perhaps
he knows it, sir.

q –  How
will Atty. Ruiz know if you did not talk with him?

a –  Segundino
Utrela might have conversed to him, sir.

q –  You
did not also know what Atty. Ruiz will ask you?

a –  Perhaps
he knows, sir.

q –  What
the Court is asking you, is, if you know what Atty.
Ruiz is going to ask from you?

a –  Perhaps
he knows, sir.

q –  Notwithstanding
the fact that he does not know what fact you are going to tell the Court?

I
am warning you Mr. Witness, that if you continue telling a lie, you will go to
jail ahead than the accused. Do you
realize that telling a lie to the Court is contemptous and punishable by law?

a –  Yes, sir.

q –  And you still insist that you
never conferred with Atty. Ruiz?

a –  It was only when we conferred
outside, sir.

q –  And in that conference, he asked
questions to you?

a –  Yes, sir.

q –  And you told him the fact what
you are supposed to tell the Court now?

a –  Yes, sir.

q –  And Atty. Ruiz asked questions
from you?

a –  He asked if I saw Segundino
Utrela had a bolo, sir.

q –  So, it is now clear that Atty.
Ruiz investigated you before you were presented on the witness stand?

a –  Yes, sir.

q –  Why is it that when you were
asked if you had a talk with Atty. Ruiz, you said that you did not have when
you were asked by the Fiscal?

a –  Only this morning, sir.

q –  And when the Court was asking
you, if you had a talk with Atty. Ruiz before you took the witness stand, you
said “Yes”, do you realize that? I respect you Mr. Naval since you are older than me, but you should also
respect my position, and this Court will never allow any person to be telling
falsehood before it.

COURT:

Any other question?

FISCAL C. CONSIGNA:

None,
Your Honor.

COURT:

O
r d e r

Witness Wenceslao Naval
having found to have been telling falsehood before the Court and the
Prosecuting Fiscal, after he has made con­trary statements to what he
previously stated, he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of 10
days.” (TSN, Naval, Jan. 28, 1974, pp. 26-30.)

The impetuousness of the trial court is further manifested by the
following proceeding which took place after the fiscal had recommended the
maximum penalty for both cases:

“ATTY. C. RUIZ:

Without
prejudice, your Honor, may we reserve our right to file a written memorandum
until tomorrow?

COURT:

Alright,
promulgation of decision at 9:00 o’clock tomorrow morning.” (TSN, Jan. 28,
1974, p. 30.)

The decision dated January 30, 1974, was in fact promulgated on
that day.

The shooting of Feliciana by Utrela is admitted by the latter
albeit he claims it was accidental. Nobody witnessed the shooting except for Feliciana, Utrela and possibly
the deceased Conrado.

Feliciana testified that while she and Conrado were harvesting
bananas they saw a person hiding behind the stump of a tree at a distance of
about 5 meters; that she recognized the man as Segundino Utrela and told her
son accordingly; that as she uttered Utrela’s name, the latter came out and
shot her; that she was hit in her two thighs; that after she was hit she ran to
the house of Barrio Captain Tumbaga who took her to Dr. Estrella Fernandez for
treatment.

Dr. Estrella Fernandez, a private physician, identified the
medical certificate (Exh. A) which she issued and which reads:

“April 12, 1971

To whom this may concern:

This is to certify that Mrs. Feliciana Manlong Areola 28 years old
from Nanabuan is presently under my medical care for a wound at the anterior portion
of the right thigh surrounded at the opening by a blackish discoloration. Said wound is one cm. in diameter and 4
inches in depth.

Barring unforseen circumstances said lesion will heal within two
months duration.

(Sgd) E.S. Fernandez M.D.”

(Expediente, p. 3.)

It is to be noted that according to the medical certificate
Feliciana sustained only one wound in one of her thighs – contrary to her claim
that she was wounded in both thighs.

Upon the other hand, Utrela testified that in the afternoon of
March 28, 1971, he pastured his carabao; that afterwards he went hunting for
wild pigs in a place that was thick with banana plants; that he had a home-made
shotgun (escopeta); that upon hearing something within the banana plantation he
fired immediately; that the sound came from a distance of about 15 meters; that
after he had fired he heard a scream and he ran away, going home at first and
later reporting the incident to the mayor.

Wenceslao Naval testified that in the afternoon of March 28,
1971, he met the accused who was holding a gun.

Utrela claims that the shooting of Feliciana was accidental and
offered testimony to that effect, namely: The incident happened while he was hunting wild pigs. He had no reason to believe that the thing
he heard in the banana plantation where he had been hunting wild pigs, was a
human being. The plantation was thick
with bananas and he could not readily verify what was moving within the banana
plantation. It was his practice to
shoot whenever he noticed something moving in the grass while hunting in that
area.

“Q:  And
these pigs that you have shot prior to March 28, 1971, you have always seen to
it that you have that target of a pig?

A:  Sometimes, whenever we notice the movements of the grass we readily shot,
sir.” (TSN, Utrela, p. 11.)

He was not engaged in an unlawful
act. If at all, what was unlawful only
was the fact that he was carrying an unlicensed firearm.

When the accused, under a plea
of accidental killing, offers testimony
tending to prove the substance of his plea, the burden is upon the State to
show beyond a reasonable doubt that
the killing was intentional. (U.S. vs.
Tañedo, 15 Phil. 196 [1910].)

The prosecution has not shown that Utrela intended to kill or
harm Feliciana. Indeed, if he had a
criminal intent he would not have fled after the shooting; he would have made
sure that what he intended to do was truly accomplished. At this juncture it is important to note
that despite the opinion of Dr. Fernandez that Feliciana’s “lesion will
heal within two months duration,” her wound appeared to be slight only for
she was able to run for a distance of about one and a half kilometers from
Nanabuan to the house of Barrio Captain Luciano Tumbaga in Zitanga. And Feliciana must have been more than 5
meters away from Utrela when she was hit by a single pellet for if she was only
5 meters from him she would have
been hit by several pellets. At a short
distance there would be a cluster of shotgun wounds, and the shots may pass out
thru the body individually opposite the site of entrance or in groups of two or
more. (See Anzures, Medical
Jurisprudence, Rev. Ed., p. 113.)

And then there was lack of motive. To be sure, evidence of motive is not always indispensable. This is so where proof of the commission of
a crime is clear and convincing. But it
is not so in this case. The only
adverse testimony is that of Feliciana who could not explain why her
“bilas” would want to kill her for their relations were normal and
friendly.

In one case this Court
said:

“The records of criminal cases submitted to this court so frequently disclose a
lack of all effort to develop the motive for the commission of the crime
charged, that we take advantage of this opportunity to direct the attention of
all prosecuting officers, and especially of pro­vincial fiscals, to the
importance of definitely ascertain­ing and proving when possible the motives
which actuated the commission of a crime under judicial investigation. It is true that it is not indispensable to
conviction for murder that the particular motive for taking the life of a human
being shall be established at the trial, and that in general when the
commission of a crime is clearly proven conviction may and should follow even
where the reason for its commission is unknown (151 U.S., 396); but in many
criminal cases one of the most important aids in completing the proof of the
commission of the crime by the accused is the introduction of evidence dis­closing
the motive which tempted the mind to indulge the criminal act; and in nearly
every case wherein the law places the penalty to be imposed in the discretion
of the courts within certain limits, it will be found that a knowledge of the
motive which actuated the guilty person is the greatest service in the exercise
of this discretion.” (U.S. vs. Carlos, 15 Phil. 47, 51, [1910].)

In the light of the foregoing, we hold that the State has not
shown beyond reasonable doubt that the shooting of Feliciana by Utrela was
intentional.

We consider it
unnecessary to ascertain whether Utrela has satisfied the elements of the
exempting circumstance of accident, namely: (1) performance of a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) producing an
injury by mere accident; and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. (Art. 12, par. 4, Rev. Penal Code.) For if
Utrela can be faulted, and we do not say that he can be, the most that can be
said is that he did not exercise due care when he fired at something before he
saw what it was. But then his liability
would only be for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injury which
carries a penalty much less than the preventive imprisonment he has undergone.

There is no direct evidence to show that the appellant killed
Conrado Areola. The only material
witnesses to the murder were Luciano Tumbaga and Sgt. Macario Uberita of the
Ballesteros Police Department.

Tumbaga testified that when he reported the shooting incident to
the police he saw Sgt. Uberita and another policeman, Cosme Fernandez,
investigating the accused, Segundino Utrela; that during the investigation,
Utrela admitted to Uberita and Fernandez that he killed Conrado and covered his
body with grasses under a fallen tree; that in the evening of that day he went
with Sgt. Uberita to the plantation; that they first passed by his house (at
Bo. Zitanga) to get a Coleman lamp; that they searched the plantation until
midnight, and found no corpse; that at
sunrise the next morning they continued their search, accompanied by Segundino
Utrela himself who was fetched by Sgt. Uberita from Ballesteros; that Utrela pointed
at the place where they found the corpse of the victim (whose name this witness
could not remember), covered with grasses; that the corpse was almost beheaded
and they brought it to the house of Isabelo Areola.

Sgt. Uberita’s testimony is to the effect that when he was at the
municipal hall in the afternoon of March 28, 1971, Cosme Fernandez (another
policeman) reported to him that Segundino Utrela had surrendered to Mayor Juan
Alonzo; that Cosme Fernandez related to him the shooting and told him that
Segundino Utrela surrendered to the
mayor a 2 foot-long bolo in a scabbard (Exhibit B), which he (Utrela) used in
killing Conrado Areola; that because of the information given by Cosme, he went
to the mayor’s house; that the mayor told him to go and see the person who had been killed by Utrela; that they asked Utrela where he killed the victim, and in
response Utrela gave him a sketch of the place and of the body; that in the
same eve­ning, he went to the banana plantation with a certain Ric Alvarez
Enriquez; that they first passed by the house of Bo. Captain Luciano Tumbaga at
Zitanga and got a Coleman lamp; that they brought Tumbaga along with them to
the plantation; that they searched the thick banana plantation until midnight
for the corpse but could not
find it; that they returned to Ballesteros, and early the next morning they
went back to the plantation, bringing with them Utrela himself; that Utrela led
them to the exact place where he killed the child; that they found the corpse
of Conrado with the head almost severed from the body; that they took the
corpse to the house of Isabelo Areola, and brought back Utrela to the police
headquarters at Ballesteros; and that Cosme Fernandez wanted to take an
affidavit from Segundino Utrela but the latter said that he would give his
statement in court.

Upon the other hand,
Utrela materially contradicted the testimony of Tumbaga and Sgt. Uberita. Utrela
vehemently denied that he killed Conrado; he denied having told Mayor Juan Alonzo that he killed Conrado
when he surrendered on account of the shooting of Feliciana; he denied owning and surrendering the bolo (Exh. B)
to the mayor; he denied having
met Sgt. Uberita in the afternoon of March 28, 1971; he said it was Chief of Police Timoteo Bayani who went to the mayor’s house and took him in
custody; he denied having made a sketch of the place where he supposedly killed
Conrado; he admitted that in the
morning of March 29, 1971, he was asked by Sgt. Uberita to go to the banana plantation where the
shooting took place but he did not point the place where the cadaver was found
because on the way to Nanabuan
they met Isabelo Areola, Nonito Areola, Guadalupe
Mariano and others carrying the cadaver and so he was returned to the
municipal jail.

Two witnesses who could
have clinched the case for the
prosecution were not presented, namely Mayor Juan Alonzo and police­man Cosme Fernandez. For this reason the testimony of Uberita that
appellant had confessed to the mayor
that he killed Conrado and surrendered the bolo (Exh. B) must be discarded for being hearsay for he did not
witness the alleged confession and surrender. The testimony of Tumbaga that Utrela admitted to Uberita and Fernandez that he killed
Conrado must likewise be
discarded be­cause it is materially at odds with Uberita’s story.

That Sgt. Uberita and
Tumbaga went to the banana plantation in the night of March 28, 1971, to look for the body of Conrado can be taken as a fact but Utrela dented having made a sketch which he gave to
Uberita. He also denied going to the
site of the cadaver the following morning. In view of his scrupulousness and alacrity in reporting the shooting to
Mayor Alonzo, we prefer to believe Utrela. He appears to us more credible than Sgt. Uberita whose evidence was by
and large hearsay.

In convicting the
appellant for the death of Conrado, the trial court said:

“There is no direct evidence to show
that accused hacked the victim Conrado Areola. There are circumstantial evidence however, closely linked with each other,
that proved the accused as the author thereof. First, when Feliciana Areola ran away after
she was shot by the accused, she left her son Conrado in their banana
plantation with no other person than the accused himself. Second, the surrender of the accused to the
Municipal Mayor, Juan Alonzo, of Ballesteros, Cagayan, before whom he claimed
having shot Feliciana Areola and hacked to death Conrado Areola. Third, the revelation made by him on how he
disposed the body of his victim when he stated that he placed him under a
fallen tree and covered the body with grasses. Fourth, the failure of the authorities to
locate the victim and were able to find him only when the accused went with
them to pin­point the place where he hid his victim. Fifth, the surrender of a bolo (Exh.
“B”) which he used in killing the victim coinciding with the
conclusion and findings of the doctor that said weapon could have caused the
injuries found on the body of the victim.” (Decision, pp. 11-12.)

To be sure, “Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if: (a) There is more than
one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Rule 133, Sec. 5, Rules of
Court.)

But a close scrutiny of the circumstances mentioned by the trial
court will show that they are at best speculations and do not meet the
requirements of the Rules of Court.

The trial court said that
when Feliciana ran away after she was shot she left Conrado with no other
person than the accused himself. But
the appellant said that after he fired his gun and heard a scream he ran away
from the scene. This must be so because
prosecution witness Tumbaga said he saw the appellant with policemen Uberita
and Fernandez soon after the incident. True, Feliciana said she did not see any other person at the scene of
the incident. But from this statement
we cannot draw the conclusion that the appellant remained there with Conrado.

The second and fifth
circumstances are both based on hearsay evidence and have, moreover, been
contradicted by the appellant.

The third and fourth
circumstances have been categorically denied by the appellant.

How did Conrado die? Counsel de oficio offers the
following scenario which is believable because the truth can be more bizarre
than fiction:

“The fatal wound suffered by Conrado should have been no
mystery if the authorities of Ballesteros only performed their jobs properly
and looked into the following probabilities:

“1.  Feliciana testified that Conrado was standing
beside her when she was shot (t.s.n. Areola, hearing of November 21, 1973, p.
8). She was holding a bolo (probably
Exhibit “B” which could have been found beside the body of the boy).

‘I was then holding the bolo when Utrela fired at me, and when I
was hit, sir, it was suddenly thrown away.’ (t.s.n. Areola, hearing of November
21, 1973, p. 19.)

“She at first said that she did not know how far the bolo was
suddenly thrown away. Probably
recalling the force with which she swung it away she said later it was just
about the place where Utrela was about five meters away (t.s.n. Areola, hearing
of November 21, 1973, p. 19). Considering her poor sense of
distance when she estimated the 15-meter distance of Utrela at the time he
fired the shotgun as only five meters, she must really have thrown the bolo
away with a very strong force.

“It therefore appears that Feliciana was so startled by the
thunderous report of the shotgun and by reflex action hurled the bolo she was
holding with such force that when it hit the boy standing beside her at the
back of the neck it almost severed his head. It was the sight of her son whom she had accidentally hacked to death
that made her scream and scream. It was
not her being hit by a shotgun pellet which according to medical science she
could not have felt immediately.

‘The sensation felt at the moment of being wounded is usually
compared to the sting of an insect; the numbness of the part hit being of such a degree that the wounded only
becomes aware of the existence of the wound by the sight of blood.’ (Legal
Medicine by Angeles, p. 259.)

It was Feliciana’s frightening screams
which the accused heard and caused him to run away (t.s.n. Utrela, hearing of
Jan. 28. 1974, pp. 13, 15). She said
she did not call at her son, who was still standing in the same place, when she
ran away (t.s.n. Areola, hearing of November 21, 1973, p. 16). It would be unnatural for a mother to leave
a young son in time of danger and it would similarly be unnatural for a 9-year
old boy to just stand and not instinctively go after his fleeing mother.

“Feliciana ran away and left her son because she knew he was dead and must have had a
terrible feeling of guilt which she expressed in this manner:

‘Q :  What
did you feel also when you found that your son was dead?

‘A :  I
cannot describe, sir, but if it was possible I wanted to die.

‘Q :  But
if that extreme of your sorrows is to be measured in terms of money, how much
would you value those sufferings of yours?

‘A :  As
if it was already my life that was taken, sir.’ (t.s.n. Areola, November 21,
1973, p. 11.)

“2.  The other wounds of Conrado in the arms and
chin could probably have been caused by pellets from the same shotgun fire that
hit Feliciana or they could have been caused by wild boars while he was left in
the forest overnight.

‘. . . the boar uses the protruding teeth of the upper jaw as
weapons. With its teeth and tusks, it
could slash men or dogs if they ventured within reach. Boars live in the forest and wander about at
night to feed on roots, herbs and grains.’ (Compton’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, pp.
226-227.)

“It also appears possible that the wild boar slashed the boy’s
neck.” (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 22-24.)

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the appellant not having been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the judgment of the lower court is
reversed and the appellant is acquitted. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion, J r., Fernandez, Guerrero, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.

Makasiar, J., joins J.
Aquino in his dissenting opinion.

De Castro, J., in the result.