THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, TEOTIMO ALEGARME, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal, by defendant Teotimo Alegarme, from a
decision, of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
del Sur, convicting him of the crime of murder, with
which he is charged, and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to indemni­fy the
heirs of the deceased Basilio Alegarme
in the sum of P6,000.00,
and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs, and acquitting his co-defendant, Adolfo
Alegarme, with one-half (1/2) of the costs de oficio.

It is not disputed that,
while Basilio Alegarme was
walking in the road of the barrio of Dagohoy, municipality of Dumalinao, province of Zamboanga del Sur, on January 19, 1961,
short­ly after 11:00 p.m., someone fired at him, in consequence of
which he sustained injuries which caused his death, due to the consequent hemorrhage.  The issue
in this appeal is, who shot him?  Two persons were prosecuted as his alleged
assassins, namely, his own brothers, Teotimo Alegarme and Adolfo Ale­garme, likewise,
known as Rodolfo Alegarme.

The main evidence for the
prosecution consisted of appel­lant’s alleged confession, Exhibit D, and the
testimony of one Estelita Canencia.  The latter said that, in the evening of
January 19, 1961, she and Basilio Alegarme,
with a number of other per­sons,
attended the religious services
held in a chapel in Dagohoy, Dumalinao,
Zamboanga del Sur, in connection with the town fiesta therein; that, after the aforementioned services, she, Basilio Alegarme, his son, Felipe Alegarme,
one Camila or Camilo Alegarme, and four (4) other persons, proceeded to go home, walking in single file, with Basilio Alegarme
at the head thereof, carrying lighted Petromax lamp;
that, as they reached a place where there were banana groves or clumps of banana trees on the road side, she saw, in one of
said groves or clumps, two
persons, whom she recognized as defendants Teotimo and Adolfo Alegarme; that Teotimo then had a gun aimed at Basilio, whereas
Adolfo held an unsheathed bolo; that as the gun was fired, Basilio fell down slow­ly to the ground;
that, thereupon, the other members of his group scampered away and sought
cover; that she, likewise, did so, behind
another banana grove, from which
she saw the defendants ap­proach
the prostrate body of Basilio; that Adolfo asked Teotimo
whether Basilio was still alive or not; that Teotimo replied in the negative, whereupon he and Adolfo went away; and that there was a land conflict between Basilio
Alegarme, on the one hand, and the defendants, on the other.

His Honor, the trial Judge found this testimony
unworthy of credence, because:

“After a perusal of the record, the Court finds insincerity in
the testimony of Estelita Canencia
– something not easily described, but readily recognized – that carried conviction to the mind of the
court that she was not swearing to the truth. 
Thus she testified that the firing of the gun did not take place
until after one minute from the moment she saw the gun aimed at the deceased,
yet she failed to shout a warning to the deceased.  Likewise, she declared that the wife of Basilio, the deceased, asked her on February 5, 1961, to narrate the incident;
however, she did not execute any
affidavit because she was not called for investigation.  Pressed to tell the truth, she affirm­ed that
she did not tell the wife of Basilio about the
incident, but perhaps Felipe, the son of the deceased, did.   Realizing that her answers have placed the
cause of the prosecution, in a precarious position, she vain­ly attempted to
put a bright aspect of an otherwise dark situation by finally declaring that
she narrated the incident to the wife of Basilio when
they met on February 5, 1961.  Again, asked whether she told the incident to
anybody else aside from the wife of Basilio, she
declared that she did not.  But conscious
of her falsehood, she rectified her answer by admitting with temerity that she
passed on the infor­mation to ones, Major Alegarme.  These circum­stances show that the witness
was testifying with hesitation, labored and confused explanations.  Her reticence in revealing
the truth of the incident until the last hour on trial is indeed extra-ordinary
and labors under grave suspicion because if she really had an intimate knowledge of the facts of the incident, she could have made a timely
revelation of what she saw and could have testified with that character of
singleness, certainty and clearness.

“Moreover, Patrolman Arsenal as a prosecu­tion witness testified that Felipe, the son of the
deceased, who was with his father on the fateful night of January 19, 1961,
told him that the deceased was in company with Marcial.  Patrolman Arsenal further testified that he
included in his list of witnesses Estelita Canencia. 
Nevertheless, Patrolman Arsenal has
not investigated Marcial, nor
Estelita Canencia about
this case.  It is interesting to note
that when this case was filed
on January 27, 1961, the police authorities a Dumalinao had no inkling that she will be a witness for  prosecution because her name does not appear
in the list of witnesses in the criminal complaint.

“On the other hand, Estelita Canencia explained that her failure to reveal the incident
and perpetrators of the crime to
the authorities was because she was not called for investigation.  This pretension of Estelita
Canencia as to her failure to reveal the incident is
as thin as
the cobwebs to support the truth.  It
should be remembered that it was Felipe, the son of the deceased, who supplied
Patrolman Arsenal with the names of the companions of his father that night of January 19, 1961.  Patrolman Arsenal went to the scene of crime
in the morning of January 20, 1961,
and conducted an investi­gation but nobody could shed light to the commission
of the crime.  If it is true as testified
by Estelita that she was together with the deceased
that night of January 19, 1961,
and she was included in the list of Patrolman Ar­senal as one of the witnesses, then why was she not investigated,
nor was she listed in the criminal complaint as one of the prosecution
witnesses?  For an answer, the record is
very revealing on the point.  Felipe, the
son of the deceased, who furnished the police with the names of the companions
of his father, subscribed to his affidavit before the.  Justice of the Peace on January 27, 1961, exactly a week after the
incident in question and Felipe must have had ample time to reflect and re­call
the companion of his father.  Felipe,
however, mentioned only seven persons including himself as the companions of
his father and Estelita Canencia
was not one of them (Exhibit 2).  No
wonder Estelita Canencia
could not consistently testify, as to whether or not she narrated the incident
to the wife of Basilio, nor could she have informed the police of the
perpetrators of the crime, because as the Court finds, she was not in the group
that accompanied the deceased in going home from the chapel that fateful night
of January 19, 1961.

“Furthermore, the records show that one, Capt. Alegarme an uncle of the herein accused, has
another brother, who is the husband of Estelita Canencia.  Stated
otherwise, Estelita Canencia
is the sister-in-law of Capt. Alegarme.  The accused Adolfo Alegarme
testi­fied that h believed Capt. Alegarme is behind
this case because there are land conflicts between Capt. Alegar­me
and his (accused’s)
father and between Capt. Ale­garme and Teotimo.  The records
further reveal that when the accused brothers were brought before the chief of Police of Dumalinao,
the Chief of Police nodded his head and remarked: ‘So you are here.  I was inform­ed by Capt. Alegarme
that you pretended to be tough guys of your locality.’  Likewise, Estelita Canencia when ask­ed if she revealed her knowledge of the
incident to any­body aside from the wife of the deceased,
declared that she also informed Capt. Alegarme.  It is interesting to note in this connection
that as insinuated by the defense, Capt. Alegarme has
always been together with the pro­secution witnesses and present when this case
was call­ed for trial on various occasions. 
And while Capt. Ale­garme as a rebuttal
witness explained that his interest in the case was to secure justice, the
deceased being his nephew, all of the foregoing circumstances taken to­gether
as a whole tend to, confirm the testimony of the accused, Adolfo Alegarme that his uncle, Capt. Alegarme,
is behind his being prosecuted in this case. 
From the foregoing circumstances and, the fact that Estelita
Canencia is not only the sister-in-law but a tenant
as well of Capt. Alegarme, who appears to have an
unusual interest in the case, it is evident that she has an incentive to
exaggerate or give false color to her testimony to please her brother-in-law
and landlord.  And as the facts,
disclose, she has, borrowing the words of a learned authority, ‘a disposition
to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.’ (11 Moore on Facts, 1225).  The
Court, there­fore, is of the opinion that Estelita Canencia is a bias­ed witness.” (pp.
134-138, rec.).

Upon the other hand,
appellant repudiated his alleged confession, Exhibit D, alleging that it had been
secured through duress, in addition to setting up an alibi.  He, Adolfo Alegarme,
Dioscoro Alagenio and
Gregorio Pial testified that the four (4) of them,
together with Adolfo’s wife and their child had spent the evening of January 19,
to 20, 1961, in the house of
Adolfo, who had asked their help because
said child was very ill.  Defendants further testified that, upon
learning, the next morning, about Basilio’s death,
Adolfo conveyed the news to his
sister, who, in turn, relayed it to appellant herein, and then the three (3) of them proceeded to the
scene of the crime, where they
found Patrolman Arsenal and many people around Basilio’s
body that Arsenal said he would
help them locate the killer, and then brought them to the poblacion, where, upon
seeing the defendants, the Chief of Police, Eutiquio
S. Codilla,
remarked: “So you are here.  I was
informed by Captain Alegarme that you pretended to be
tough guys of this locality;” that as Arsenal and Adolfo left the place to
buy something, there was a commotion in the place where appel­lant had been
left; that when Adolfo and Arsenal returned thereto, Codilla
was beating up appellant, who had bruises and contusions on his face; that Codilla continued manhandling appellant, where­as Arsenal
proceeded to box him; that Codilla, likewise, pulled
Adolfo by the left hand and boxed him on the left eye; that, then, defendants
were detained in the municipal jail, where Codilla
warned them he would kill them should they not admit their guilt; that, later
on, appellant was brought to the office of Codilla,
who produced the statement, Exhibit D,
already typewritten, in English; that, without translating its contents into
the native dialect, CodilIa bade him to sign
it, if he wanted to be spared of further maltreatment; that appellant obeyed
because his whole body was already aching; and that, when he was brought to
Justice of the Peace, Inocentes L. Fernandez,
appellant refused to sign Exhibit D.

Although the lower court did not believe the evidence in sup­port
of the defendants’ contention, it has
been established, through the testimony of said Judge Fernandez, that
appellant was brought before him by Codilla, so that
he (appellant) may swear to the truth of the contents of Exhibit D; that as
said officer proceeded to read Exhibit D and translated its contents into the Visayan dialect, he
noticed that there was, at the foot thereof, a signature; that since the
same had to be affixed in his presence, Judge Fernandez cross­ed out said
signature, and then bade appellant to sign the document; and that, appellant
replied he would “think it over,” and, hence, the Judge wrote, on the lower left margin of Exh.
D, the words “accused not willing to sign in my presence” and then
placed his initials thereon.

This notwithstanding, His Honor, the trial Judge, convicted appellant herein upon the theory that

“x x
x the confession of the accused, as affirm­ed
by Patrolman Arsenal, Chief of Police Codilla and by
a witness for the defense, Justice of the Peace Fernandez, which, as the Court
finds was not vitiated by co­ercion, is confirmed by the undisputed facts of
record.  That the corpus delicti has been fully
established can not be denied.  The death
of the victim, Basilio Ale­garme,
is admitted.  In addition thereto, the
Court finds grave and conclusive circumstantial evidence, based upon proven
facts, such as the land conflict between the accused and Pablo Diano, wherein the deceased was a witness in favor of Diano; the repeat­ed intimation of accused Teotimo Alegarme to Generose Diano, wife of Pablo Diano, that he will chop to pieces his brother, Basilio; the information given by the accused to Patrolman
Arsenal that his shotgun (paliuntod) used in the
killing of his brother was hid­den by the cliff and his wife knew where it
could be found; the fact that his wife got the shotgun from where it was hidden
and surrendered the same to Patrolman Arsenal upon demand; and that while
accused Teotimo Alegarme
denied having given such information to Patrolman Arsenal about his wife
knowing where the shotgun was kept, accused failed to deny ownership of the gun
in question.  While these circumstances
standing alone by themselves may be insufficient to convict the accused Teotimo Alegarme of the crime of
murder; however, they certainly do serve to embark the question of his
innocence with uncertainty and suspicion, and when taken in connection with his
confession, positively inspire be­lief in the truth of said confession and is,
therefore, sufficient to warrant the conviction of the accused Teotimo Alegarme of the crime
herein charged.”

In this connection, Arsenal testified that, while he was
investigating the occurrence, at the scene of the crime, on January 20, 1961,
at about 8:30 a.m., the defendants arrived, accompanied by a woman; that
defendants, who were then crying, inquired about the identity of the killer;
that Adolfo was then brandishing a bolo whereas appellant had a bolo tucked in
his waist; that Arsenal bade them to throw their boloes
away, and defendants obeyed that when Arsenal invited them to come with him to
the municipal building, they gladly did so ; that the three (3) of them
proceeded to the boarding house or restaurant in which Codilla
stayed where they had their dinner; that, thereafter, Codilla
bade Arsenal to buy cigarettes, bringing Adolfo Alegarme
with him which Arsenal did; that upon his return, together with Adolfo Alegarme, Codilla told
them that apellant had confessed his guilt; that Arsenal then patted
appellant on the shoulder and in­quired of him why he had not admitted his
guilt at the scene of the occurrence;
that appellant explained that he was ashamed to confess in the presence of other people; that appellant further
confided that he had hid the gun, with which Basilio
had been killed, in a thickly wooded place near his (appellant’s) house, known
to his wife; that, subsequently, Arsenal went to appellant’ s house and bade
his wife to produce the gun; that, there­upon, appellant’s wife went out and
returned later with a box containing a dismantled shot gun, Exhibit A, which
was later as­sembled by the police.

Codilla, in turn, said, that, when
Arsenal and Adolfo Ale­garme left to buy cigarettes,
he (Codilla) asked appellant why he had killed his brother Basilio; that, thereupon, appellant cried and then answered
that he “could no longer endure,” because he had “already spent
a lot of money” in his suit against Basilio, who
had “squatted our land;” that, upon the return of Arsenal and Adolfo Alegarme, he (Codilla) bade
Arsenal to place the de­fendants under detention, in jail; and that the next
day, he (Co­dilla) took appellant’s statement Exhibit
D.

The testimonies of Codilla and Arsenal
are of doubtful veracity.  Indeed, the
prosecution, in the lower court, would have us believe that, upon the departure
of Arsenal and Adolfo Alegarme, to buy cigarettes,
and without any preliminary steps or questions, Codilla
asked appellant, point blank, why he had killed Basilio
Alegarme, and that appellant, in turn, readily
admitted that he had done so because he “could no longer en­dure”
it.  To say the least, this is
unnatural.  What is more, it is
inconsistent with several facts established by the very pro­secution, namely:
1) that defendants went to the scene of the oc­currence, while policeman
Arsenal was investigating the same; 2) that
defendants were then crying and armed with boloes,
at the same time inquiring about the identity of their brother’s assassin; 3) that Arsenal evidently felt that
defendants were so ex­cited and bent on avenging the death of their brother
that he deem­ed it best to disarm them; and 4) that defendants were, in
Arsenal’ s own words, glad to
go with him to the municipal building, where further investigations were
supposed to be conducted.  Although, each
one of these circumstances, when considered singly and in­dependently of the
others, could possibly be of artificious nature and be compatible with a guilty conscience, they strongly
suggest the contrary, when put
together and considered collectively.

If at all, the one direct question,
allegedly propounded by Codilla to appellant –
without any feelers or preliminaries, and
without any evidence whatsoever, at
that time, that he had commited the crime charged – as to why he had killed Basilio,
sug­gests that Codilla had,
seemingly, prejudged appellant guilty.  This is corroborated by the fact that Codilla had
ordered Arsenal to take Adolfo with him, on the pretext of buying cigarettes, for the now obvious purpose to be, alone with appellant, so that nobody – except Codilla and appellant can now testify on how he (appellant)
had been “persuaded” to make his alleged confession.  It may not be amiss to
point, out that the litigation, between the deceased and the defendants,
concerning a land, had been decided before the occurrence in favor of
the latter, who, accordingly, had no reason to take the law into their hands.

Appellant’s alleged shotgun, Exhibit A, does not suffice to justify the decision appealed from,
there being no competent evi­dence that
the cartridge found at, the scene of the crime and the shots that had killed Basilio had
come from said firearm, the only evidence connecting the latter with the former
being the testimony of Estelita, which admittedly is
incredible.  Moreover, the de­fense,
particularly, appellant’s wife, denied that she had delivered to Arsenal said Exh. A, which, by the way, is a home-made dis­mantled shotgun.

At any rate, the circumstances
surrounding the case mani­festly
preclude a finding of appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  In fact, based upon the same evidence, the
lower court acquitted Adolfo Alegarme, and the brief
for the prosecution frank­ly admits “that the evidence for the
prosecution failed to produce (the) moral certainty” necessary to convict
appellant herein.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Solicitor General, the decision appealed
from should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the case against appellant Teotimo Alegarme, accordingly, dis­missed, with costs de oficio.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.