G.R. No. L-32832. June 29, 1979
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUIS BERALDE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANTOS, J.:
This is an appeal filed September 30, 1970 from the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Abra, Hon. Juan P. Aquino, presiding, in
Criminal Case No. 739, convicting accused-appellant Luis Beralde of the crime
of double murder and sentencing him to suffer for each of the crimes of murder
committed by him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of the victims in the sum of P12,000 each and to pay the
costs.
In an Information filed on February 18, 1969 by Provincial Fiscal
Loreto C. Roldan of Abra, accused-appellant Luis Beralde, was charged with the crime
of double murder committed against Constantino Bose and Consolacion Bandayrel
Bose, thus –
“The undersigned, Provincial Fiscal accuses LUIS BERALDE of
the crime of DOUBLE MURDER, defined and penalized under the provisions of Art.
248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, committed as follows:
“That on or about the 31st of July, 1968, in the Municipality
of Bangued, Province of Abra, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Luis Beralde, armed with
sharp-pointed and sharp-bladed instrument, with deliberate intent to kill and
without justifiable motive, with treachery and evident premeditation, abuse of
superior strength and taking advantage of the night, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, hack, stab and bolo
Consolacion Bose and Constantino Bose, husband and wife, respectively,
inflicting upon Consolacion Bose, bolo wound measuring 4 inches in length at
the occipitoÂtemporal region, right; 2 1/2 inches in length on the right ear; 1
1/4 inches located on the upper lip; abrasion superficial on the left shoulder;
and Constantino Bose, bolo wound on the different parts of his body, which
wounds caused their instantaneous death.
“CONTRARY TO LAW, with the aggravating circumstances, in the
commission of the crime, to wit: (a)
treachery and evident premeditation; (b) abuse of superior strength; (c) taking
advantage of the night; and, (d) with the use of sharp-pointed and sharp-bladed
instrument.
Bangued, Abra, Feb. 18, 1969.
SGD. LORETO C. ROLDAN
Provincial Fiscal”[1]
Accused Luis Beralde having pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded
and the prosecution adduced the testimonies of – (1) Narciso Laureta, Chief of
Police of Bangued, Abra; (2) Pat. Eduardo Bringas, member of the Bangued Police
Force; (3) Francisco T. Valera, Municipal Judge of Bangued, Abra; (4) Roque
Alcantara, former member of the Bangued Police Force; (5) Mrs. Jael Pisco, a
niece of the victim Constantino Bose; (6) Dr. Luis F. Bringas, Rural Health
Physician of Dolores, and 25 pieces Exhibits “A” thru “J”
with sub-parts. Among the exhibits
presented were the – (1) autopsy reports (Exhibits “A” and
“C”); (2) the bolo recovered in the middle of the corn field (Exh.
“B” identified also as Exhibit “G”); (3) the bolo and the
scabbard taken from the victim Constantino Bose (Exhibits “F” and
“F-2”); (4) the pictures taken of the dead victims (Exhibits
“E” – “E-5”); and (5) the confession of Beralde reduced
into writing (Exhibit “H”).
The defense which relied on alibi, presented the testimonies of – (1)
accused Luis Beralde; (2) Juliet Beralde, his wife; (3) Perfecto Fabriga, his
father-in-law; and (4) Antonio Alagao Adrion, a friend of Juliet Beralde; and
Exhibit “1”, a drawing of the bolo; and Exhibit “3”, a
scabbard of the bolo of the victim Constantino Bose. The prosecution then presented by way of
rebuttal police chief Narciso Laureta, Judge Francisco T. Valera, Roque
Alcantara and Jael Pisco.
No eyewitness to the commission of the double murder was
presented. But on the basis of
appellant’s extrajudicial confession and the testimonies of witnesses who
conducted the investigation of the offenses, the following facts were
established.
On the night of 31 July 1968, at about 10:00, Chief of Police
Narciso Laureta received a report from one of his policemen that two persons
were found dead in the middle of the road leading to Barrio Anggad, Bangued,
Abra. Thereupon, Laureta, together with
Municipal Judge Francisco T. Valera, and some policemen and a civilian, followed
later by Dr. Luis Bringas and Patrolman Eduardo Bringas, went to the
place. They found the dead bodies of an
old man and an old woman. Lying at a
distance of 25 to 30 meters apart, the victims were identified as Constantino
Bose and Consolacion Bandayrel-Bose, husband and wife. It was apparent that they came from the
fields. When Constantino Bose was found,
the yoke of the plow was still on his shoulder and his hand was holding a rope
tied to a cow which was nonchalantly grazing at the side of the road.
Pictures were taken of the victims by Mr. Vic Abaya and a sketch
of the scene of the crime was drawn by Cpl. Faustino Castillo Jr. Thereafter, the bodies of victims were
brought home.[2]
As a routine procedure, Chief of Police Laureta began his
investigation and inquiry to identify the perpetrator(s) of the crimes. It was then that one policeman, Pat. Eduardo
Bringas who was on duty informed him that a few hours earlier in the same
evening at about 8:00 p.m., while he was on his way to the Municipal Hall,
coming from his house where he took his supper, he passed by Luis Beralde and
Jaime Bringas, standing at the junction (lipit) leading to Barrio Anggad, some
30 to 40 meters away from the scene of the crime. According to Pat. Bringas, the two men
stopped him to ask for cigarettes and he obligingly gave them one stick of
cigarette each. He lingered for a while,
talked with them, and asked why they were there, and Beralde told him that he
was waiting for his wife. He (Pat.
Bringas) then proceeded on his way to the Municipal building.[3]
The following morning, on August 1, 1968, Chief of Police
Laureta, acting upon the information of Pat. Bringas, ordered his policemen to
bring Luis Beralde and Jaime Bringas to the Municipal Hall. They fetched, first, Jaime Bringas. At the beginning of the investigation,
Bringas hesitated to give his story.
Finally, however, he relented and told Chief Laureta that while he and
Luis Beralde were waiting at the opening of the alley, Luis intimated to him
his plan to kill the couple. Because he
did not like the idea, he persuaded him to go home. Luis Beralde, however, refused and so he
(Bringas) went home alone. That later,
Beralde arrived home and informed him that “they were already
dead”. Jaime Bringas’ statements
were taken down by Sgt. Martin Arce in the presence of Chief Laureta who
occasionally asked questions.[4]
Later on, at about 10:00 a.m. of the same day, Pat. Eduardo
Bringas arrived with Luis Beralde. Chief
Laureta interrogated him. At first,
Beralde was also evasive; but after several searching questions, he broke down
and cried and admitted that he was the one who killed Constantino Bose and
Consolacion Bose. He told Chief Laureta
that he killed them because the woman was a witch and she had
“tapped” his wife’s head, which caused her illness; that he felt that
there was no use to go on living if his wife would die because of her
condition; that he first boloed the woman on the head and when Constantino Bose
turned around and found what happened, he delivered a thrust on the breast of
Constantino. When asked what weapon he
used in killing the victims, he revealed that it was a pointed bolo and that
the same was buried in the middle of the corn field, east of their house in
Barrio Anggad. Thereupon, Chief Laureta,
together with some policemen accompanied Beralde to the said place, and there,
at the spot Beralde pointed to, they unearthed a bolo which had stains on the
blade. It could not be ascertained,
however, if the stains were human blood.[5]
Brought back to the municipal building, Beralde reiterated to
Bangued Mayor, Simplicio Bringas, the circumstances surrounding the killing of
the old man and the old woman. Later, in
the presence of Chief Laureta — who also propounded questions, particularly
the motive for the killing — and Cpl. Faustino Castillo, the statement of the
accused was reduced to writing by Sgt. Martin Arce.[6]
Judge Francisco Valera administered the oath to Beralde.[7]
The relevant/material portion of the extraÂjudicial confession
reads as follows –
x x x
“Q – Are you
willing to give your volunÂtary statement in this investigation?
A – Yes, Sgt.
Q – Tell me your name, age and other personal
circumstances.
A – Luis Beralde, 24 years old, married and presently
employed in the Bangued Water Works, Sgt.
Q – Why are you here in the office of the Chief
of Police?
A – I am here because I was invited due to the
death of Constantino Bose and his wife, Sgt.
Q – Who killed the spouses if you have any
knowledge?
A – I am the one, Sgt.
Q – What is the reason or cause why you killed
the named spouses if there is any?
A – Because they be-witch my wife, Sgt.
Q – Who bewitch your wife if you know anybody?
A – The wife of Constante who is Ansing.
Q – What kind of weapon did you use in
killing the spouses?
A – A pointed bolo, Sgt.
Q – Where is that bolo now used in the
killing?
A – It is in our house in Anggad where I
hid it.
Q – Showing to you a pointed bolo, what is
the relation of this bolo to you?
A – That is the bolo that I used, Sgt.
Q – You said before that you killed the spouses
because they bewitch your wife, who of them bewitched your wife?
A – The girl, Sgt.
Q – Why did you also kill the old man?
A – Because when I was boloing the woman,
he came to bolo me also, so I have to kill him, Sgt.
Q – Is it not true that you have a companion
in killing the spouses?
A – None, I was only one, Sgt.
Q – Do you know Jaime Bringas?
A – I know him because he is staying in our
place.
Q – Is it not true that Jaime was your
companion in going to the house of the spouses and it was that place where you
should do the killing, but since they were not there, you went to wait in the
path going to the barrio of Anggad?
A – Yes, that was true, Sgt.
Q – Where was the place of the killing of
the spouses?
A – Right at the street near Barrio Anggad.
Q – Do you remember the time when you killed
the spouses?
A – Yes, it was around 10:00 o’clock in the
evening, July 31, 1968.
Q – You said that you went near the house of
the spouses, how did you know that they are not in their house?
A – I heard voices of two girls and one said,
come let us eat and they will also eat when they will arrive.
Q – When you were waiting at the path at
barrio Anggad, the souses whom you wanted to kill, is it not true that police
Eduardo passed you by?
A – Yes, Sgt. and I even beg for a
cigarette?
Q – So Police Bringas gave you a cigarette?
A – Yes, he gave me, Sgt.
Q – After killing the spouses, where did you go
if you remember?
A – I went home to the Poblacion (Bangued),
Sgt.
Q – Where did you walk when you went to the
Poblacion?
A – The big street, Sgt.
Q – What time is your calculation when you
arrived at the Poblacion?
A – At around 11:00 o’clock in the evening of
July 31, 1968.
Q – When you arrived at the Poblacion, where
did you went?
A – At the house of my father-in-law, Sgt.
Q – Upon arriving at the house of your in-laws,
did you not tell to anybody about the killing?
A – None, Sgt.
Q – I have no more to ask from you, do you have
something more to say?
A – No more, Sgt.
Q – Are you forced, intimidated, dictated or
being promised of a reward in giving your statement?
A – No, Sgt.
Q – Do you want to sign this statement?
A – Yes, Sgt.”9
x x x
Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, the bodies of the
victims were autopsied. Dr. Felix
Buenafe, reduced his findings on the body of Consolacion Bose. The following wounds were found on her body:
“Wound No. 1 – incised, measuring 4
in. in length, located on the occipitotemporal region, right, featuring the
skull on the same area with brain tissue coming out;
Wound No. 2 – incised, measuring 3 in. in
length, located 3/4 inch above Wound No. 1;
Wound No. 3 – incised, measuring 1 inch in
length, located 1/2 below wound No. 1;
Wound No. 4 – incised, measuring 2 1/2 ins.
in length, located on the ear, right;
Wound No. 5 – incised, measuring 1 1/4 ins.
in length, located on the upper lip right aspect and continues to the gum;
Wound No. 6 – abrasion, superficial,
located on the left shoulder.”10
The result on the autopsy of the remains of Constantino Bose
performed by Dr. Luis Bringas show the following findings re the cause of his
death:
“Stab wound – Triangularly shape,
situated at 4th left Sternocostal junction (Sterno Costal junction fractured)
the base (6 cm) parallel to ribs perpendicular side everted (7 cm), in line of
sternum Hypotenus everted (11 cm), slightly curved in. Fracturing the bone, penetrating and perforating
the Thoracic cavity slightly left downwards, medially posteriorly and
internally to a depth of 24.5 cm. The
prove director inserted, the 6th rib at back was felt. When opened it shows a small hole in it showing
the instrument used was pointed.
Internally:
– The left Thoracic cavity was filled with plenty of blood clots and
scrosangenous fluid.
1. The right latero-anterior portion of right
ventricle puncÂtured Y shaped (7 cm) wide peneÂtrating and perforating the down
to left ventricle (6 cm) wide and up to the 6th rib a small hold on it.
2.
There were plenty of adhesions on both sides and back of lungs
indicating advance pulmonary tuberculosis.
Conclusions: Death was instantaÂneous due to Stab Wound
above, secondary to severe internal hemorrhages.”11
On the same day, August 1, 1968, on the basis of the
extrajudicial confession of Luis Beralde and the statements of several persons
which were all sworn to before the municipal Judge the Chief of Police filed a
complaint against Luis Beralde and Jaime Bringas in the Municipal Court of Bangued,
Abra.12
On August 6, 1968, a preliminary investigation was conducted by
Judge Francisco T. Valera.13 Thereafter, on August 9, 1968, a
warrant of arrest was issued for the apprehension of accused Luis Beralde,
pursuant to said court’s order of the same date. Said order also directed the Chief of Police
to amend the complaint by excluding Jaime Bringas, who did not appear to have
taken part in the commission of the crimes.14
On September 17, 1968, accused Beralde was released on bail.15
After several postponements of the second stage of preliminary investigation,
accused Beralde on November 19, 1968, waived his right to present his evidence.16
On February 18, 1969, an information, as adverted to above, was
filed against Beralde accusing him of the crime of double murder.
While the trial was in progress, the Fiscal manifested his desire
to reinvestigate the case so as to include Jaime Bringas as co-accused.17 A
warrant of arrest was issued against Jaime Bringas.18
Jaime Bringas, however, had in the meantime disappeared and the prosecution was
never able to bring him to trial.
After the hearings or on September 18, 1970 — Âthe prosecution
submitted its memorandum earlier, while the defense failed to do so — the
trial Court rendered its decision, holding inter alia that:
X X X
“The accused boloed to death Consolacion Bandayrel-Bose
treacheÂrously and with evident premeditation hence, he committed the crime of
Murder. As to her husband, the acÂcused stated
in his confession that he also killed the old man Constantino Bose when said
Constantino Bose went to help his wife, but the court canÂnot believe this
because according to the testimony of Dr. Luis Bringas and Chief Laureta who
went to see the body of the victims on the night of the incident, they saw the
bolo of Constantino Bose still underneath the body of the deceased unsheathed
from its scabbard, so that the court is of the opinion that the accused also
killed the deceased Constantino Bose treacherously and with evident
premeditation, hence, he has also committed the crime of Murder for killing the
deceased Constantino Bose.”
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, it is
the opinion of the court, and so holds, that corpus delicti, corroborated
by the confession of the accused has been proven completely.
“WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond
any preadventure of doubt of the crime of Double Murder for killing
treacherously and with evident premeditation Consolacion Bandayrel-Bose and her
husband, Constantino Bose. For the
murder of Consolacion Bandayrel-Bose, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Consolacion Bandayrel-Bose
in the sum of P12,000.00, without subsiÂdiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs of this proceedings. For the murder of the deceased Constantino
Bose, the accused is, likewise, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of said Constantino Bose in the amount
of P12,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and also to
pay the costs of the proceedings.
“The bolo, Exhibit ‘B’ and ‘G’, used in the commission of the
crime, and the other bolo, Exhibit ‘F’, found underneath the body of the
deceased Constantino Bose, are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the
government.”19
x x x
In seeking the reversal of the above decision, appellant — thru
counsel de parte Atty. Demetrio V. Pre and Nony R. Rivera of
Bangued, Abra and May Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila — alleges that the trial
court erred:
“I. …IN HAVING GIVEN CREDENCE AND WEIGHT TO THE
UNCORROBORATED EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE APPELLANT, EXHIBIT ‘H’ WHICH WAS
REPUDIATED BY SAID APPELLANT.
“II. …IN NOT HAVING RULED THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
CONFESSION EXHIBIT ‘H’ INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANT.
“III. …IN NOT HAVING GIVEN CREDENCE AND WEIGHT
TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT.
“IV. …IN HAVING CONVICTED THE APPELLANT AND IN
NOT HAVING ACQUITTED HIM ON REASONABLE DOUBT.”20
1. The complementary thrust of appellant’s first and second
assigned errors is that his extrajudicial confession, Exhibit “H” —
upon which, absent eye-witness testimony, the Court relied for his conviction
— is inadmissible. He alleges that (a)
the confession (Exh. “H”) is involuntary;21
(b) Exhibit “H” has badges of fraud and falsity;22
(c) Jaime Bringas and Sgt. Martin Arce were not presented as witnesses;23
and (d) he was denied the right to be assisted by counsel.24
2. By the third and fourth assigned errors, appellant claims that
his defense of alibi should have been accepted, and that he should be acquitted
on reasonable doubt.25
Now to consider and resolve the merits of the foregoing.
1.a. That Beralde’s extrajudicial confession, Exhibit
“H”, is involuntary. In
disowning his extraÂjudicial confession, accused-appellant claims that at the
time he was being subjected to interrogation he was forced, through violence
and intimidation, to admit the killing of the victims; that it was 3:00 in the
afternoon when the investigation was finished; that he was threatened by the
policemen that if he would not swear to it before the judge, he would suffer
further maltreatment; that at the house of the judge he was weak and dizzy as
he had not taken his lunch and he could not pay attention anymore to what was
read to him by Judge Valera; that he signed the confession because of fear that
he would be returned to the presidencia to undergo more maltreatment.26
On the other hand, the trial Court found and We perceive no
reason to disturb its findings which derive ample support in the records —
that appellant’s bare self-serving assertions are not worthy of credence. Thus, it noted “…the accused insisted
that Sgt. Arce maltreated him (but) he knows pretty well that Sgt. Arce, a
former member of the Bangued Police Force is no longer in the service and his
whereabouts is (sic) unknown and cannot be presented at all by the prosecution
because he cannot be located.”27 Moreover, accused Beralde cannot
name the other two policemen whom he alleged to have maltreated him, though he
is a co-employee in the municipal government of Bangued” and he admitted that
he had been going with them, he being a water bill collector.28
And lastly, the Court concluded that since “the accused is a co-employee
of the police authorities, the first natural impulse of a co-employee is to
save a co-employee under ordinary circumstances”.29
We made a painstaking study of the transcript of stenographic
notes and We find that the claims of accused-appellant do not deserve serious
consideration. They cannot overcome the
testimonies of Chief of Police Narciso Laureta and Municipal Judge Francisco T.
Valera that the confession of the accused-appellant was freely and voluntarily
given by him. These public officials who
testified for the state were not shown to have ulterior motives for testifying
falsely against the accused. Moreover,
there is in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their official duties.
Chief of Police Laureta testified that he was the one who
investigated the accused when he admitted the killing of the victims and that
he was present when Sgt. Arce reduced accused-appellant’s statement into
writing. That appellant was allowed to
take his lunch and that there was no force or intimidation employed upon him,
especially as he was their co-employee in the municipal government. That accused easily broke down, cried and
confessed upon learning that Jaime Bringas had supplied the police with vital
information.30
Judge Valera in turn, a disinterested witness, testified that
before appellant swore to his written confession, he informed him of his
constitutional rights, specifically his right not to testify against himself;
that he read the contents of the confession to the accused and he asked him if
he desires to sign his statement, to which he answered “yes”. He likeÂwise stated that when appellant
appeared before him, he was calm and there was no sign of duress.31
Finally, a perusal of the confession shows that it is rich in
details which only he could have revealed to the investigators — the motives
behind the assault on Consolacion and Constantino; the place where the killing
took place and the time; that he met police Eduardo and even asked a cigarette
from him; and, finally, the place where he hid the fatal weapon, which was
verified by the police authorities to be correct and where in fact the bolo
(Exh. “B”) was recovered.
b. That Exhibit “H” has badges of fraud and falsity. It is alleged that there are discrepancies
between the testimonies given in court and the statements appearing in Exhibit
“H”. According to appellant,
his correct age then was 22 and not 24 as stated in the confession. Likewise, Exhibit “H” mentions
10:00 p.m. as the proximate time he killed the victims, while Dr. Bringas
definitely testified that the death of the victims occurred between 7:00 to
7:30 in the evening. Appellant also
capitalizes on the statement of Dr. Bringas that the bolo Exhibit “B”
could not be the weapon that was used in stabbing Constantino Bose because the
wound is triangular in shape. And,
finally, that the motive behind the killing of the victims as stated in Exhibit
“H” is a mere fabrication, alleging that there is no corroboration
that Juliet Beralde had been sick or bewitched by Consolacion Bose and that
there is no evidence that the latter was a witch.
The foregoing alleged inconsistencies, discrepancies and
falsities in the statement (Exh. “H”) upon which, coupled with proof
of corpus delicti, the accused has been found guilty, are either
minor and inconsequential and/or sufficiently explained in the context of the
evidence on record. They do not merit
serious consideration. We find the
People’s Brief32
well taken and successfully establishes the integrity of the confession. Thus –
“Appellant speaks of alleged badges of fraud and falsity of
Exh. “H” (p. 20, Appellant’s Brief).
For instance, he contends that in Exhibit “H”, his age was 24
years instead of 22 which was his correct age.
Similarly, he points to the fact that Exhibit “H” also
mentions 10:00 o’clock p.m. as the approximate time when he killed the
victims. The discreÂpancy in age
appearing in Exhibit “H” could have been deliberately intended by the
appellant to mislead the court into concluding that the confession was not
voluntarily given because of certain inaccuracies therein. By the same token, the information given by
the appellant in Exhibit “H” that he killed the couple at 10:00
o’clock in the night of Oct. 31, 1968 could have been also intended to mislead
the court in its appreciation of the confession. Why would the police investigators give the
wrong information as to the approximate time of the death of the couple when at
the time the conÂfession was executed, they already knew that the approximate
time of the killing was 8:00 p.m. If the
confession was a coerced one, what the investigators would have done was to
make the recital of facts in the confession conform as much as possible with
the actual state of facts, because to do otherwise would render the confession
suspect.
“Again, appellant describes the bolo, Exhibit ‘B’ used in the
killing of the couple, as fake (pp. 21 – 25, Appellant’s Brief). To sustain this view, appellant poses the
question as to why the bolo was not photographed by the police, nor the
recovery of the bolo included in the narration of facts in the confession. The answer to this question is self-evident. One of the reasons why police investigators
usuÂally photograph objects used in the crime is that such objects would be
difficult to be brought to court. Such
is not the case as regards to the bolo.
The omission of any reference regarding the bolo in the confession is
explained by the fact that the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the
bolo were within the knowledge of the police investigators. Hence, any reference on the matter in the
confession would serve no purpose at all.
“Lastly, appellant alleges that the bolo, Exhibit ‘B’ could
not have been the fatal weapon because the wound inflicted on Constantino Bose
was triangular in shape. This contenÂtion,
however, has no basis because as Dr. Luis Bringas had later on tesÂtified, the
triangular shape of the wound could have been caused by the twisting of the
bolo inside the wound, thereby giving a triangular appearance of the
wound.”33
As to motive, it is settled that motive is not a requisite
element of any offense. At any rate the
alleged motive was supplied by accused-appellant himself and he cannot now be
heard to dispute it. Besides Jael Pisco,
a niece of Consolacion Bose, was presented to testify that there was a rumor
that her aunt was a witch; it is a fact, in her own words “that she gives
medicine like what the quack doctor does which we call ‘mangod–odong‘
— calling for the return of the spirit that was left behind somewhere”.34
c. That Jaime Bringas and Sgt. Martin Arce were not presented
as witnesses for the prosecution.
Appellant contends that since Jaime Bringas and Sgt. Arce were the
persons who could corroborate the execution of Exh. “H”, the wilfull
suppression of these witnesses by the prosecution creates the presumption that
presentation would have been adverse to the prosecution and favorable to the
defense, citing Rule 131, Rules of Court, Section 5(e).35
The argument of the Solicitor General by way of traverse is
well-taken.
“x x x There can be no possible adverse effect insofar as the
case of the prosecution is concerned in the non-presentation of these two
witnesses. For one thing, their testimonies
were not indispensable to sustain the court’s finding of guilt of the
appellant. At least their testimonies,
had it been given to court would have been merely corroborative. This is necessarily so because, on the part
of Jaime Bringas, he only provided the clue which was availed of by the police
authorities in tracing the authorship of the crime. It should be recalled that Jaime Bringas was
never an eyewitness to the killing. As
regards Sgt. Martin Arce, while he was the one who investigated the appelÂlant,
which investigation led to the execution of the extra-judicial conÂfession,
Exhibit “H”, his testimony in court was not deemed necessary because
the prosecution had sufficiently established the voluntariness of said
confession from the testimony of the Chief of Police as well as of the MuÂnicipal
Judge of Bangued, Abra. Besides, the
Chief of Police was present during the entire length of the interrogation of
the appellant by Sgt. Arce. The truth of
the matter, however, is that the prosecution tried to present these two
witnesses, but notwithstanding its efforts in this direction, these two persons
were nowhere to be found. If the defense
is of the theory that these two witnesses were available during the hearing of
the case at bar, why did it not present them, albeit, as hostile witnesses to
illicit any information that might have led the lower court to conclude that
the confesÂsion of the accused was a coerced one.”35
d. That Beralde was denied the right to be assisted by a
counsel. This is clearly without
merit. It has been a settled rule in our
jurisdiction since March 3, 1975, first enunciated in Magtoto v. Manguerra,
G.R. No. L-37201-02 and reiterated in subsequent decisions, the most recent of
which is People v. Molleda, G.R. No. L-34248, prom., December 12, 1978,
that the right to be represented by counsel at custoÂdial investigation became
effective and enforceable only after the enactment of the Constitution on
January 17, 1973. Since the
investigation of accused Beralde took place in 1968 and before the enactment of
the new Constitution, the right to counsel was not applicable in this case.
2. That the lower court should have accorded credence to the alibi
of appellant and acquit him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The defense is alibi.
According to accused-appellant, he was at home with his family in the
Poblacion, Bangued, Abra when the victims were killed. He presented his immediate relatives to corroborate
his alibi.
Accused-appellant’s defense of alibi must necessarily fail. The proximity of his place of residence to
the scene of the crime does not preclude the possibility that he was at the
place of the crime at the time it was committed. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is
not enough that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed,
but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to
have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. In the case at bar, the distance between his
house and the scene of the crime could easily be negotiated in half an hour,
especially so if he used the tricycle of his father. Finally, he admitted — which admission was
corroborated by Sgt. Eduardo Bringas — that he was present at the scene of the
crime at or about 8:00 in the same evening it was committed.
Thus, after a very careful consideration of the evidence of both
sides — the extrajudicial confession freely and voluntarily given with the
proof of corpus delicti — and the finding that the alibi is not worthy
of credence, We conclude that the guilt of the appellant has been established
beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, as to the nature of the offense/offenses committed. The accused, under the facts proven on
record, killed Consolacion Bandayrel Bose — whom he suspected of being a witch
and of having inflicted spells on his wife which caused her to suffer — by
hacking her from behind with a bolo and hitting her on the head. With respect to her, therefore, the accused
committed the offense of murder qualified by treachery, i.e., the sudden attack
from the rear which prevented Consolacion from offering any defense against his
sudden homicidal assault.
With respect to Constantino Bose, the accused himself testified
that when Constantino saw him hack Consolacion from behind, Constantino, on
sudden impulse and in order to protect her, made an attempt to come to her
rescue by hitting him with his bolo.
Whereupon, the accused lunged at him, also inflicting fatal wounds on Constantino. The trial court, however, found that the
accused committed murder as against Constantino, thus –
“x x x As to her husband, the accused stated in his confession
that he also killed the old man Constantino Bose when said Constantino Bose
went to help his wife, but the Court canÂnot believe this because, accordÂing
to the testimony of Dr. Luis Bringas and Chief Laureta who went to see the body
of the vicÂtims on the night of the incident, they saw the bolo of Constantino
Bose still underneath the body of the deceased unsheathed from its scabbard, so
that the Court is of the opinion that the accused also killed the deceased
Constantino Bose treacherously and with evident premeditation, hence, he also
comÂmitted the crime of Murder for killing the deceased Constantino Bose.”36
The evidence on record supports the foregoing conclusion.
The oral testimony of Dr. Luis F. Bringas who saw the bodies of
the victims in the evening of July 31, 1968, clearly shows that the victim
Constantino Bose whose body was already lifeless was still holding the rope
of his cow which was still grazing on the side of the road, while the yoke
of his plow was still on his left shoulder, indicating that he came from
the fields. The pertinent portion of Dr.
Bringas’ testimony is quoted hereunder:
“Q.
– So you saw the cadaver of the victims in the evening of July 31, 1968,
doctor?
“A. – Yes, sir.
“Q.
– That is just after they were killed?
“A. – Yes, sir.
“Q.
– The bodies were already lifeÂless?
“A. – Yes, sir, they were lying in the middle of
the street at a distance of around 20 meters from each other. The old man was ahead, while the old woman
was at the back or behind with the particular thing that the old man had, even
dead, was holding the rope of his cow grazing at the side of the road, with his
plow on his shoulder or rather the yoke of his plow at his left shoulder,
indicating that he came from the fields.
x x x x x x
x x x
“Q.
– Doctor, you said that you went to the Municipal Judge or you went with the
Municipal Judge at the scene of the crime and you saw the dead body along the
road. Do you know if there were pictures
taken on the cadavers?
“A. – Yes, there was.
“Q.
– Now, if those pictures were shown to you, can you recognize the victims?
“A. – Yes, sir.
“Q.
– I show to you this picture on page 18 of the record of this case referring to
the deceased Constantino Bose. Now, will
you see doctor if you have seen this body of the victim as now appearing in
this picture?
“COURT
(To the Fiscal)
How many pictures are
there fiscal?
“FISCAL ROLDAN
Three (3) pictures, Your
Honor.
“WITNESS
“A. – These are the pictures of the old man by
the name Constantino Bose. As I have
stated a while ago, the cow could be seen grazing along the road.
“Q.
– The cow that you are referring to is in the picture above the two pictures on
page 18, is it not doctor?
“A. – Yes, sir.
“Q.
– Now doctor, at the bottom, which is the third picture below on page 18, there
is a protruding instrument which seems to be the handle of a bolo behind the back
of the man, what could have been that handle there?
“A. – Maybe that is the handle of the bolo of the
man.
“COURT
Are you not going to
mark that as exhibit fiscal?
“FISCAL ROLDAN
When the photographer is
preÂsented, Your Honor, I will have it marked.
“FISCAL ROLDAN (Cont)
“A. – The bolo must have been drawn a little from
the scabbard and that the scabbard is under the waist of the victim, is that
correct doctor?
“A. – Yes, sir, that is right.
“Q.
– It is partly hidden?
“A. – Yes, the bolo is partly hidden by the
victim as could be seen here.”
Chief of Police Narciso Laureta, who also saw the bodies of the
victims, testified that the rope of the cow was still “tied” to
the hands of Constantino Bose38 and that the body of Constantino
was resting on a bolo which was inserted in its scabbard.39
Furthermore, these witnesses saw that the bodies of the victims
were lying at a distance of at least 20 meters apart.40
If it were true, as claimed by appellant, that Constantino Bose
“came to bolo” him while he (appellant) was attacking Consolacion,
the body of Constantino would not have been found so far away from
Consolacion’s body, and he (Constantino) would have been found holding a bolo
in his hand or, at least removed the same from its scabbard, but not, as the
evidence showed, holding the rope of his cow, with the yoke of his plow still
on his shoulder.
The logical conclusion, therefore, is that accused-appellant
attacked Constantino so suddenly without giving him a chance to prepare for the
attack, or an opportunity to defend himself, and for such a treacherous act,
appellant should be held liable for murder.
And, finally, as to the proper penalty.
The Information charged the accused with double murder. He may therefore – on the basis of the
foregoing established facts – be found guilty of the lesser-included offenses
of separate murders, of Consolacion and Constantino. For the charge for double murder is not
well-taken, it appearing that the offenses committed, as the facts show, were
that of murders committed one after the other and inspired by distinct
homicidal urges, as distinguished from the complex offense of double murder,
resulting from a single act on the part of the accused.
The crime of murder of Consolacion was committed with the
attending, aggravating circumstance of nighttime, which accused purposely
sought to facilitate the commission of said offense. This, however, is absorbed by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.41 With respect to Constantino,
nocturnity is not aggravating since it was not especially sought by the
accused. The intent to kill Constantino
was conceived only shortly before its commission.
The information alleged evident premeditaÂtion as an aggravating
circumstance and the lower court, although it imposed the penalties of two reclution
perpetuas only, noted that evident premeditation, aside from treachery,
attended the killing of the deceased spouses.
Evident premeditation is not present in the case at bar. There is no direct proof offered by the
prosecution to show when Beralde meditated and reflected upon his decision to
kill the spouses and the time that had elapsed before his plan was carried out.42
His admission that he was at Barrio Anggad at 6:00 p.m. is not a sufficient
indication of the time when he made plans or sought the deceased spouses to
accomplish his evil scheme. Furthermore,
the mere fact that the accused waited for his victims just before the attack is
not sufficient to sustain a finding of evident premeditation, in the absence of
proof that he had been lying in wait for a substantial period of time.43
Besides, Pat. Bringas testified that when he met Beralde he found no weapon on
his person.
To appreciate the circumstance of evident premeditation, it is
necessary to establish the following:
(1)the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) act
manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and (3)
a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him
to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resoluÂtion of his will had he desired to hearken to its warning.44
None the foregoing requisites had been proved by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the trial court’s judgment
is affirmed with the sole modification that accused is guilty of two separate
crimes of murder. Appellant is
accordingly sentenced to suffer two reclusion perpetuas and to indemnify
the heirs of Consolacion in the sum of P12,000 and of Constantino in the same
amount. In the service of the two reclusion
perpetuas, the forty year limit fixed in Article 70 of the Revised Penal
Code should be observed. With costs
against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo,
p. 3.
[2]
T.S.N., April 11, 1969, pp. 23-24; 34; 37-38; July 16, 1969, pp. 42-55; July
23, 1969, pp. 100-102; and 106.
[3] Id.,
July 16, 1969, pp. 57-58; July 22, 1969, p. 78; July 23, 1969, pp. 94-99; 103
and 105.
[4] Id.,
Id., pp. 59-61; 72-73; Id., pp. 82-85; Exhibit
“I”.
[5] Id.,
Id., pp. 62-68; 70-71; Id., pp. 79-80; 86-87;
89-90; May 19, 1970, pp. 4-9; 12-13; 26-28.
[6] Id.,
Id., pp. 67; 69-70; May 19, 1970; pp. 11-15, Exh. “H”.
[7] Id.,
July 22, 1969, pp. 77-78; July 23, 1978, pp. 95-96.
9
Records, Exhibit “H”, p. 7.
10
Id., Exhibit “A”, p. 37.
11 Id., exhibit “C”, p. 187.
12 Id., p. 1.
13 Id., pp. 19-34.
14 Id., pp. 37-41.
15 Id., p. 111.
16 Id., pp. 46-47; 120-122.
17 Id., p. 144.
18 Id., p. 158.
19 Decision of the CFI of Abra, pp. 56-57.
20 Brief for Appellant, pp. 1-2.
21 Id., pp. 26-49.
22 Id., pp. 20-36.
23 Id., pp. 14-19.
24 Id., pp. 49-55.
25 Id., pp. 56-58.
26 ld., pp. 36-43.
27 Decision of the Court of First Instance of Abra, p.
37.
28 Id., p. 38.
29 Id., pp. 56-58.
30 T.S.N., April 11, 1969, pp. 63, 68, 73, July 22,
1969, pp. 79-80, 83, 87-88, 90, May 19, 1970, pp. 6-8, 10-11.
31 Id., July 23, 1969, pp. 97-103; May
19, 1970, pp. 17-22.
32 Filed by Hon. Felix O. Antonio, now Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court, then Solicitor General assisted by Assistant Solicitor
General Hector C. Fule and Solicitor General Santiago M. Kapunan.
33 Id., pp. 15-16.
34 T.S.N., May 19, 1970, pp. 37-38.
35 Brief for Appellant-Defendant, pp. 14-19.
35 Brief for the plaintiff-appellee, pp. 13-14.
36 Decision of the CFI of Abra, p. 56.
37 T.S.N. April 11, 1969, pp. 23-24 and 37-39.
38 Id., July 16, 1969, pp. 45-46.
39 Id., Id., pp. 53-55.
40 Id., April 11, 1969, p. 23.
41 People v. Echaluce, et al., L-29776, August
27, 1975, 66 SCRA 221; People v. Undong, et al., L-32641, August 29,
1975, 66 SCRA 387; People v. Tizon, et al., L-29724, August 29, 1975, 66
SCRA 372; People v. Catalino, L-25403, March 15, 1968, 22 SCRA 1091;
People v. Curiano, L-15256-57, October 31, 1963, 9 SCRA 323; People v.
Enot, L-17530, October 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 325.
42 See: People v.
Roncal, L-26857-58, October 21, 1977, 79 SCRA 509; People v. Tizon, supra;
People v. Bodoso, L-30450-51, September 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 61.
43 U.S. v. Buncad, 25 Phil. 539.
44 People v. Lim, L-34397, L-34398 and L-34399,
71 SCRA 249, June 19, 1976; People v. Bodoso, supra;
People v. Manangan, L-32733, September 11, 1974, 59 SCRA 31; People v.
Ardisa, L-29351, January 23, 1974, 55 SCRA 245; People v. Diva, et al.,
L-22946, April 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 332.