THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANSUETO JAMERO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MANSUETO JAMERO, RODRIGO HONORICO LOPEZ, JULIAN PABICON AND JOEL BINGCANG, DEFENDANTS…

On appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance Of
Negros Occidental in its Criminal Case 6527, entitled “People of the
Philippines versus Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon, Rodrigo Honorio Lo­pez
& Rudy Lopez, Joel Bingcang, Florentino Vasquez, Jr. @ Junior Vasquez,
Jesus Vasquez @ Susing Vasquez, Pedro Arana, Oscar Ramirez, John Doe and
Richard Doe”, wherein accused Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon, Rodrigo
Honorio Lopez @ Rudy Lopez and Joel Bingcang were found guilty of the crime of
murder for the killing of Ernesto Piccio, in the night of July 19, 1958, and
were sentenced to death; their co-accused, Jesus Vasquez @ Susing Vas­quez,
Florentino Vasquez, Jr. @ Junior Vasquez, Pedro Arana and Oscar Ramirez were
acquitted on reasonable doubt.

Our own examination of the record revealed the follow­ing broad
outlines of the facts of the case which appear to be indubitable.  The details shall be discussed as We review
the evidence.

The victim, Ernesto Piccio, was a law practitioner and politician
in the province of Negros
Occidental dur­ing his lifetime.  At the time of his death in 1958, he was
incumbent councilor in the municipality
of Sagay, said province, having
been elected to the position in the local election of 1955.  He had a residence at Nueva
St., Bacolod City, and
maintained a law office in the South­ern Motors Building, also in Bacolod
City.

At about 5:30 o’clock
in the afternoon of July 19, 1958,
Ernesto Piccio left his residence in Bacolod
City, bound for Sagay, Negros
Occidental.  He rode in his jeep which
was loaded with cans of paint, plants, and some small boxes.  That was the last time that his wife Anita
Cuaycong, saw Ernesto Piccio alive, for on the following day, it was the
lifeless body of her husband that was taken back to Bacolod City; it was found
by an old woman lying inside a sugarcane field at Barrio Tinampaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occidental, some meters from the right shoulder of the road leading to
Sagay.

Two days after the discovery of the body of Ernesto Piccio, or on
July 22, 1958, to be
precise, it was autop­sied by Major Antonio U. Briones of the Medico-Legal
Branch, Philippine Constabulary.  His
findings and re­marks, as appear from his necropsy report dated July 24, 1958, were as follows:

“II. POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:

Multiple stab wounds as follows:

1.                
Stab wound, measuring 1.8 cm. on
the inner canthus of the right eye entering the soft tissues without injuring
the eyeball and entering the spheno-maxillary fissure of the lower orbital
surface and is directed in­ward, downward and slightly toward the right to a
depth of 4.8 cm. reaching the base of the maxillary antrum without puncturing
it.

2.                
A stab wound, 2.7 cm. in length
and with a depth of 2.6 cm. si­tuated midway between the center of the bridge
of the nose and the inner canthus of the right eye, directed downward and
slightly lateral to the right.

3.                
Stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length and
with a depth of 2.5 cm. on the inner canthus of the left eye, directed inward
and downward.

4.                
A stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length on
the lower palpebral folds of the left eye directed inward and downward
puncturing the eyeball and chipping off a piece of bone of the lower brim of
the socket to a depth of 2.5 cm.

5.                
A stab wound, 3 cm. in length run­ning
obliquely across the nose cut­ting off the ligament and destroy­ing the nasal
septum.

6.                
A small stab wound, 0.7 cm. invol­ving
the whole thickness of the soft tissue on the upper temporal region and
chipping off superfi­cially a piece of bone fragment about 1.5 cm. in diameter.

7.                
A stab wound, 1.6 cm. in length on
the left lower temporal region about 2.4 cm. posterior to the la­teral end of
the left eyebrow, directed inward to a depth of about 3.9 cm. without entering
the skull.

8.                
A stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length,
on the lower temporal region posterior to the entrance of wound No. 7, and
about 4.6 cm. anterior to the left auricle, penetrating the skull and dura
sheath, injuring the brain tissue with a moderate amount of hemorrhage on the
surface of the temporal lobe of the brain.

9.                
A stab wound, on the interior
aspect of the right shoulder ver­tical in disposition, directed inwards the
left and slightly posteriorward penetrating the 2nd intercostal space, entering
thorasic cavity and puncturing the surface of the apex of the right lung to
about 1.0 cm.  Total depth of this wound
was approxi­mately 7 cm.

10.            
A slight subaponeurotic contusion
about 4 x 5 cm. on the occipital region.

11.            
Subdural and meaningeal hemorrhage
over an area about 3 x 6 cm. on the frontal aspect of both hemisphere with an
area of brain laceration about 2 x. 1 cm. superimposed on this sites.  Hemorrhage in the falxcerebri and
interhemispheric fissure was also found.

REMARKS:

The various multiple stab wounds were inflicted antemortem causing
profuse hemorrhage.  They must have been
due to a long, sharp pointed and bladed weapon inflicted with a vary­ing degree
of force from moderate to heavy.

The subaponeurotic contusion at the back of the head must have been
due to a blunt force with a wide striking surface and the contrecoup lesions in
the frontal aspect of both hemispheres must have been the result of the traumatic
force applied with a moderate to heavy degree at the back of the head.

Stab wound No. 4 penetrated the eyeball with the extrusion of the
aqueous and vitreous humor.

The multiple stab wounds were sutured from previous examination.

The length of the wound in the right shoulder was extended and mo­dified
by suturing, hence its actual length could not be measured defi­nitely.

There were multiple abrasive marks all over the face more on the
right side, and mostly in horizontal dispo­sition all postmortem in
nature.  Minor post mortam scratches were
also noted in the left chest and external aspect of the left arm.

Multiple postmoetem abrasive marks were found in the palm and
dorsum of the left hand.  A postmortem
scratch was noted on the dorsal aspect of the lower third right hand, measuring
4 x 2 cm.  Another postmortem abrasion
0.4 x 0.3 cm was noted on the left knee.

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Brain concussion, intracanial he­morrhage and shock, secondary to
pro­fuse hemorrhage.”

After months of investigation, a Special Prosecutor from the
Department of Justice filed on May 9,
1959, an Information for Murder In the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental against the accused aforementioned including Inocencio
Retirado, to wit:

“The undersigned Special Prosecu­tor accuses MANSUETO JAMERO,
JULIAN PASION, JOEL BINGCANG, JESUS VASQUEZ @ Susing Vasquez, FLORENTINO
VASQUEZ, Jr. & Junior Vasquez, RODRIGO HONORIO LOPEZ @ Rudy Lopez, OSCAR RAMIREZ,
PEDRO ARANA, INOCENCIO RETIRADO, JOHN DOE and RICHARD DOE, of the crime of
‘Murder’ committed as follows:

“That on or about the 19th day of July, 1958, in the
Municipality of Cadiz, province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping each other with evident
premeditation end treachery, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously with intent to kill, assault, attack and stab with blunt
instruments and sharp pointed weapons one ERNESTO PICCIO on different parts of
his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which caused his death
immediately thereafter.

“That there are present in the commission of the crime, the
following aggravating circumstances, to wit.

“1. Nighttime which was purposely sought by the accused to
facilitate its commission and to avoid being identi­fied;

“2. Use of superior strength – in that all the accused, some of
whom were armed with blunt instruments and pointed wea­pons, jointly took part
in the commission of the crime against the victim who was then unarmed;

“3. Use of motor vehicle – in that the accused purposely rode
with the victim with them deliberate intent to facilitate the commission of the
crime;

“4. Uninhabited place – in that the ac­cused deliberately committed
the crime in an uninhabited place to insure the com­mission thereof and for the
purpose of impunity;

“5. Graft and trickery was employed; and

“6. Cruelty – in that the wrong done in the commission of the crime
was delibe­rately augmented by extricating the right eye of the victim which
was not necessary for its commission.

“CONTRARY TO
LAW.”     

On May 13, 1959,
the prosecution filed a motion for the discharge of accused Inocencio Retirado
from the Information so that he could be utilized as state witness.  To the said motion, the different counsels
for all the remaining accused (except John Doe and Richard Doe), filed their
oppositions.  Hearing was had on the said
motion and the oppositions thereto on May
18, 1959, after which the motion was granted by the court a quo
in its order bear­ing the same date.  The
dispositive part of that order reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding the motion of Special Prosecutor Enrique
A. Agana for the discharge of Innocencio Retirado to be utilized as a State
witness to be well founded, the same is hereby granted and the accused,
Inocencio Retirado, is hereby ordered discharged.  So ordered.”

This order precipitated the filing a petition for certiorari with
preliminary injunction with this Court by remaining accused on the issue as to
whether or not accused Inocencio Retirado, who had allegedly been con­victed
for malicious mischief, could be discharged as state witness.  The said petition, G. R. No. L-15552
(Mansueto Jamero, et al., vs. Hon. Jose F. Fernandez, etc., et al.), however,
was dismissed by this Court for lack of merit in its Resolution of June 25, 1959.  Meanwhile, the remaining accused (except John
Doe and Richard Doe) were arraigned on May
23, 1959.  All pleaded
“not guilty” to the charge for murder.  Thereafter, they stood trial.

The witnesses who testified for the People at the trial were: (1)
Antonio U. Briones physician and chief, Medico-Legal Section, PC; (2) Inocencio
Retirado, a buy and sell broker in Fabrica, Sagay, Negros Occidental, who was
originally included in the Information but later dis­charged upon motion of the
prosecution to become State witness; (3) Nepomuceno Fabros, a Notary Public in
Sagay, Negros Occidental; (4) Juan de la Peña, a policemen in Victorias, Negros
Occidental; (5) Arsenio Gapana, businessman in Lagasan, Cadiz, Negros
Occidental; (6) Pedro Velasco, Jr., a student, Bacolod City; (7) Pedro Galon,
PC, San Carlos, Negros Occidental; (8) Teodulo Galo, employee, Malabon, Rizal
(formerly security guard, Lopez Sugar Central in Sagay, Negros Occidental); (9)
Anita Cuayong Vda. de Piccio, widow of the victim Ernesto Piccio; (10) Emilia
Villaluna attendant to Mrs. Piccio; (11) Anunciacion Placencia, housekeeper, Hacienda
Canaan, Cadiz, Negros Occidenta; (12) Gorgonio Drillon, J.P. Sagay, Negros Oc­cidental;
(14) Arturo Piccio, brother of the victim(15) Fernando Canlas, merchant, Sagay,
Negros Occidental; (16) Rodolfo Monillo, employee, Southern Motors Co., Bacolod
City; (17) Manuel Soriano, lawyer, Iloilo City; (18)Quen­tin Katalbas, mayor,
Sagay, Negros Occidental; (19) Ino­cencio Adrias, mayor, Siniloan, Laguna
(formerly CIS agent); (20) Crispin Garcia, captain, PC: (21) Leonardo No-ot,
PAL employee, Bacolod City; and (23) Emilio Loga, farmer, Sagay, Negros
Occidental.  Stripped of unessen­tial
details, they testified as follows:

Witness Teodulo Galo declared that in 1949, he was a security
guard at the Lopez Sugar Central Sagay, Negros Occidental, the manager of the company,
Eduar­do Lopez, called down Rodrigo Honorio Lopez (one of herein accused) to
explain why he manhandled Arturo Piccio, bro­ther of the victim Ernesto Piccio,
daring the absence of the said manager. 
Rodrigo Honorio Lopez (Rudy Lopez, for short), was castigated and almost
knelt before Arturo Pic­cio as he apologized to him.  Attorney Ernesto Piccio learned about the
manhandling of his brother; and the following day, he came to the Lopez Sugar
Central hunting for Rudy Lopez.  Atty.
Ernesto Piccio was only pacified upon promise of the Manager that he would oast
Rudy Lopez from his job.

Witness Nepomuceno Fabros testified that in the local elections
of 1955, the Nacionalista Party in Sagay, Negros Occidental was divided into
three (3) factions, namely the Quentin Katalbas, Amalio Cuevas, and the Jesus
Vasquez political aggrupations.  In the
last faction, ac­cused Jesus Vasquez was candidate for Mayor, and in his ticket
were accused Rodrigo Honorio Lopez who ran for vice Mayor, and the accused
Oscar Florentino Vas quez, Jr., and Pedro Arana who all ran for councilor.  The witness, along with accused Julian
Pabicon, Mansueto Jamero and Jose Bingcang, rallied behind that faction of
Jesus Vasquez.  The deceased Ernesto
Piccio was a candi­date for councilor of the Liberal Party in that election,
but his name was also carried as a guest candidate of the Nacionalista Party in
the tickets of the factions headed by Quentin Katalbas and Amalio Cuevas.  Witness acted as legal adviser to the faction
headed by accused Jesus Vasquez appearing in its behalf in inclusion and
exclusion, proceedings in Sagay, Negros Occidental, and helping in all matters
that needed legal advice, for he was a law graduate.

During that political campaign, according to witness Teodulo
Galo, the rivalry between the faction headed by accused Jesus Vasquez and the
faction of Quentin Katalbas and the deceased Ernesto Piccio, became so bitter
that in their speeches, accused Rudy Lopez, Mansueto Jamero and Joel Bingcang
hurled personal insults at Ernesto Piccio, calling him “Spaniard,
pig”, while the deceased in his speeches referred to accused Rudy Lopez as
“a waste matter of the Lopezes”, and called the others
“gago” (dumb).  At one instance
in that campaign, the deceased and the witness, who were together on their way
from Bacolod City to Sagay, were stalled on the way because accused Lopez,
together with accused Jamero and Bingcang had parked their truck in the middle
of the road and did not move aside until Atty. Piccio bluntly addressed accused
Lopez, “what is this, pare?” On another occasion, Piccio was riding
home to Sagay when, upon passing a store in front of the Lopez Su­gar Central,
accused Lopez and Jamero shouted at him, “kastila, pig”.  Piccio stopped and demanded an explana­tion
of the insult and accused Lopez met him with a dare, “so what”.  That incident would have resulted in fishti­cuffs
had others not intervened.

On election day, as related by the same witness, the deceased
went to the precinct located at the Eusebio Memorial School and chanced to meet
there the accused Lopez, Jamero and Pabicon. 
Lopez addressed Piccio to look inside and see the many “zeros”
he made in that precinct, to which remark Piccio countered that it did not matter,
for in Sagay, they will let him (Lopez) “eat mud” also.  These remarks precipitated a discussion which
developed into a near-fight.  They were
pacified, nevertheless, by a policeman nearby.

Witness Nepomuceno Fabros narrated further that in that local
election, accused Jesus Vasquez lost to Quentin Katalbas in the mayoralty
race.  The victim, Ernesto Pic­cio came
out as No.1 councilor, although accused Rudy Lopez and Oscar Ramirez also won
as vice mayor and coun­cilor, respectively. 
A victory ball was held in January of the following year in honor of governor-elect
Valeriano Gatuslao, whom not only the accused in this case but also the victim,
Ernesto Piccio had supported in that local election.  There was a heated altercation that developed
between the late Atty. Piccio and accused Oscar Ramirez in that victory ball;
and accused Rudy Lopez, seeing that his political ally was out-smarted in the
altercation, intervened to such an extent that his bodyguards, one of whom was
accused Mansueto Jamero, and the bodyguard of Atty. Piccio, Constancio Tan,
soon alerted in preparation for the defense of their respective masters.  There were Constabulary soldiers and members
of Sagay Police Department around, however, who pacified the protagonists and
prevented the near-shooting. 
Nevertheless, sometime thereafter, Constancio Tan was manhandled by Rudy
Lopez, Mansueto Jamero and Sotero Mosqueda, who inflicted upon the former,
bodily harm resulting in the filing of a physical injury case against
them.  Accused Rudy Lopez and his group
also filed a counter-charge against Constancio Tan as a result of that
incident, but both cases were later dismissed. 
This testimony of Fabros regarding the incident that victory ball was
substantially corroborated in by witness Teodulo Gala who declared that he
remembered accused Oscar Ramirez and the late Atty. Piccio had a discussion
then; that Rudy Lopez approached and the bodyguard of Atty. Piccio, Constancio
Tan also approached; that a short time later, accused Rudy Lopez and Mansueto
Jamero, along with other security guards of the Lopez Central were inflicting
fist blows upon Constancio Tan; and that they were all arrested after that and
brought to the municipal building.

Fabros also mentioned a case for physical injuries and another
one for slander filed against the accused Oscar Ramirez by Hernani Serafin and
by Delia Lamela in the Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay.  Atty. Piccio inter­vened in these cases for
the complainants.  Still another case was
filed by Letty Balison for acts of lascivious­ness (abuse of honor) against accused
Rudy Lopez who, according to witness Fabros, enlisted his help.  He (Fabros) and accused Mansueto Jamero then
took the complainant, Letty Balison, to Bacolod
City where she was fixed by accused
Rudy Lopez by giving her cash and other considerations, behind the back of
Atty. Piccio who had instigated the filing of the case.

The same witness declared further that in the later part of 1957,
accused Rudy Lopez was summarily dismissed by the Lopez Sugar Central at Sagay on
petition of the Sagay Sugar Planters Association.  Aside from the fact that Atty. Piccio was a
member of the Board of Di­rectors of that association, there were additional
rea­sons for accused Rudy Lopez and Mansueto Jamero to sus­pect that Atty.
Piccio had something to do with their dismissal from the Central Lopez, for in
the resulting labor case subsequently initiated by the more than 100 laborers
of the company who were dismissed with accused Rudy Lopez and Mansueto Jamero,
Atty. Piccio stood by the Company against the interests of the laborers; and
when violence erupted during one of the hearings of that labor case wherein one
Elias Lirio sustained physical in­juries, Atty. Piccio instigated the filing of
the corresponding criminal complaint in the fiscal’s office against accused
Rudy Lopez and his followers.

Manuel O. Soriano, a lawyer of the Lopez Sugar Cen­tral,
confirmed the testimony of Fabros that accused Rudy Lopez was dismissed by the
Company upon complaint, not only of the Board of Directors of the Sagay Sugar
Planters Association of which the late Atty. Piccio was a member, but also of
other planters who were not members of that association.  He declared that as a result of that
dismissal, accused Rudy Lopez lost a yearly income of P12, 400.00 representing
a monthly salary of P200.00 as a warehouseman in the Central and the amount of
about P10, 000.00 annually derived by him as a contractor in charge of the
“pakyaw” for hauling sugar.

Deprived of that means of livelihood, accused Rudy Lopez and his
group, according to Fabros, conceived of a plan by which they could assume the
mayorship of Sagay.  The plan was to file
a trumped-up administrative complaint against Mayor Quentin Katalbas and work
for his suspension.  Part of that
conceived plot was the proposed appointment of accused Jesus Vasquez to the
position of Chief of Po­lice of Sagay as soon as accused Rudy Lopez shall have
wrested the position of Mayor from Katalbas. 
The existence of such a plan was, likewise, testified to by witness Ine­cencio
Retirado who said that in connection therewith, he was summoned to the house of
Teodoro Lopez in Bacolod City
by accused Rudy Lopez thru a person named Tiroc.  In said house on that: occasion, he met
accused Rudy Lopez, Junior Vasquez, Pabicon and Jamero, along with other
people.  Fabros was there, preparing the
affidavits of witnesses to be used in substantiating the trumped-up
administrative, charge against Mayor Katalbas. 
He (Retirado) and two others were later made to sign those
affidavits.  That scheme failed, however,
according to Fabros, because the late Atty. Piccio interceded in behalf of
Mayor Katalbas and made the necessary representations with the Provincial
Governor of Negros Occidental.

Fabros also recalled that in the month of February, 1958, he
dropped at the house of Jesus Vasquez in Bacolod City where he saw accused Rudy
Lopez, Junior Vasquez, Man­sueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon and Jesus Vasquez in a
sort of meeting or conference.  He did
not consider seriously then what he heard during that meeting; but later he
considered significant, because he remembered that while there he heard Junior
Vasquez said, “if Piccio is alive, we can not do anything, we had better
kill him.” That statement was addressed to accused Jesus Vasquez, Man­sueto
Jamero, Julian Pabicon and Rudy Lopez; and it was the latter who replied:
“just take it easy, because we are not yet the king of the Provincial
Jail.” He heard Jesus Vasquez comment: “Just take it easy boys.”
That meeting was followed by another occasion in March, 1958, where he met the
same group of Rudy Lopez, Junior Vasquez, Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon and
Jesus Vasquez in the house of the latter. 
There was talk there regarding the political activities of the group and
in those conversations, he heard them ex­pressing words of anger against Atty.
Piccio.  Rudy Lopez said: “that this
Atty. Piccio is only our bar­rier as in all troubles we have had, he always
stands and identifies himself with the opposite side.” Jesus ‘Vasquez’
comment then was to the effect that he con­sidered Atty. Piccio a smart guy and
“we must do some­thing about it.” To that comment, Junior Vasquez ans­wered:
“Just tell us what to do.” And accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian
Pabicon said that they were just waiting for his words.  There was still another meeting in April by
the same group in the house of Jesus Vasquez, where there was talk against
Atty. Piccio in ordinary conversation. 
Accused Rudy Lopez was heard to comment that the late Atty. Piccio was
always the stumbling block in their political activities.

State witness Inocencio Retirado declared that there were at
least five (5) occasions wherein state­ments regarding the plan to kill Atty.
Piccio were made by the accused in his presence.  Thus, he testi­fied that on the occasion when
he was called to the house of Teodoro Lopez to sign the affidavit prepared by
Fabros, he heard the conversation between Junior Vasquez and Rudy Lopez in the
presence of Pabicon, Jamero, Tiroc, Fabros, Padernal and the two sons of
Teodoro Lopez, Teddy, and Toto. 
Substantially, Junior Vasquez said: “that if they can not have
Mayor Katal­bas suspended, there is a more powerful man in Sagay in the person
of Atty. Piccio who always frustrates whatever things they do in Sagay”;
and in effect, the answer of Rudy Lopez was: “Since we cannot do anything,
it is necessary to liquidate one of them, and the first one we are going to
liquidate is Atty. Piccio, so that there will be no more powerful man in
Sagay.”

Then one afternoon in the month of April, 1958, accused Oscar
Ramirez and Pedro Arana told this witness that they would go to the house of
Jesus Vasquez the following morning.  He
went with them as they told him and had lunch in the house of Jesus Vasquez.  In the evening of that same day, he was feted
in a night club at the Shopping Center owned and operated by the Vas­quez
brothers.  He dined and drank at the
place.  Accused Junior Vasquez, Mansueto
Jamero, Julian Pabicon, Rudy Lopez and Jesus Vasquez, were all there, although
the last two left ahead before 2:00
a. m.  It was at about that time, when
the customers of the nightclub were gone, that Retirado sat at a table with
accused Junior Vasquez, Mansueto Jamero, and Julian Pabicon.  As they drank, Junior Vasquez asked:
“When are we going to do this? Who among you will volunteer?” It was
then that accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabi­con voiced their willingness
to do the job provided their respective families would be supported; and Ju­nior
Vasquez gave them assurance: “It is arranged if that is your problem, go
ahead, it is alright.”

The same group of Jesus Vasquez, Junior Vasquez, Julian Pabicon,
Mansueto Jamero, Oscar Ramirez, Pedro Arana, Rudy Lopez and Retirado met in the
months of May and June in the same house of Jesus Vasquez.  In these meetings, the plan to kill Atty.
Piccio was discussed; and as usual, there were talks about politics and
expressions of anger and hatred against Atty. Piccio.  Invariably repeated also in said meetings
were the assurances that the families of accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian
Pabicon would be taken care of by the Vasquez brothers should they be
discovered.

Meetings were more frequent in the month of July, 1958.  At that accused Rudy Lopez had already been
appointed warden of the Provincial Jail of Negros Occidental.  According to witness Fabros, a meeting was
held in the house of Jesus Vasquez in the second week of that month where
accused Rudy Lopez made the following announcement: “Are you now ready?
Now that I am the warden of the Provincial Jail, I think we can carry out our
plans.” Accused Junior Vasquez together with accused Mansueto Jamero and
Julian Pabicon simul­taneously replied: “Just decide when.”

Continuing his testimony, witness Inocencio Re­tirado declared
that there was another meeting held in the second week of July, 1958, in the
house of Jesus Vasquez in front of the Provincial Jail.  Those present in that meeting were he and
accused Jesus Vas­quez, Junior Vasquez, Pedro Arna, Oscar Ramires, Ju­lian
Pabicon, Mansueto Jamero, and Rudy Lopez. 
Before the meeting broke up, accused Rudy Lopez instructed accused
Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon, along with the witness to report again at
the house of Jesus Vas­quez for final briefing in the morning of July 19, 1958.  In the afternoon of July 18, 1958, accused Ped­ro Arana (Tatay Pandoy
to the witness) also told Reti­redo to go to the house of accused Jesus Vasquez
the following morning.  Pedro Arana was
with accused Oscar Ramires at the time.

In the morning of July
19, 1958, at about 10:00
of 11:00 o’clock, accused Pedro Arana
and Oscar Ramirez, together with Retirado, arrived at the house of Jesus
Vasquez, Julian Pabicon, Mansueto Jalero and Rudy Lopez.  About ten (10) minutes later, accused Joel
Bingcang also appeared at the house.  He
addressed accused Rudy Lopez: “I was sent hereby my employer.” Lopez
and Bingcang re­tired to a farther place wherein they engaged in conver­sation
not heard by the others for about five minutes. 
He left the house after that conversation; but before leaving, he uttered:
“I am leaving now, I am going to wait in that place at Tinampaan.”
After the departure of Joel Bingcang, accused Rudy Lopez again reiterated his
idea that they can not do anything in Sagay insofar as politics is concerned
unless they kill Atty. Piccio.  There was
unanimous agreement among those present as to the idea.  Accused Junior Vasquez again gave the
assurance of financial assistance to the families of the ap­pointed
hatchetmen.  He even remarked: “It
is harder to kill a chicken than to kill him.” Accused Rudy Lopez informed
the group then that at about 5:00 o’clock
that afternoon, Atty. Piccio will be going home to Sagay.  He instructed accused Mansueto Jamero and
Julian Pabicon to wait at the place of Southern Motors Building where Atty.
Piccio would start, while Retirado was advised to wait at the place of Ramos
Machine Shop where Atty. Pic­cio would pass. 
From these assigned places, the three would hitch for a ride with Atty.
Piccio to Sagay.  Definite instructions
were given to use a hunting knife or any other weapon which does not explode in
killing Atty. Piccio so that the people in the nearby house may not hear; and
to use their revolvers only should Atty. Piccio put up a fight, for the latter
had a .38 caliber pistol.  They were made
to understand that after the mission shall have been accomplished, the body of
Atty. Piccio would be dumped in the sugar cane fields and his jeep taken to
Pandanan where it would be abandoned. At this juncture, witness manifested that
he would not participate in the actual killing, but accused Junior Vasquez
warned him that since he had been present in planning the killing from the very
beginning, he would be the one to be killed if he would not agree.  Retirado was consoled by accused Pedro Arena
who promised that they would take care of him as they would follow them in
another car; and was, therefore, prevailed upon to go.

According to witness Emilia Villaluna, attendant in the Piccio
home, somebody called by phone at about .5:30 o’clock in the afternoon of that
day, July 19,1958.  He was riding in his jeep which was loaded
with cans of paint, some plants and small boxes.

Continuing his testimony, Retirado declared that in the afternoon
of that day, he waited at the Ramos Machine Shop as previously agreed upon in
their morning conference.  When he saw
Atty. Piccio’s jeep coming near, he stopped him.  He requested, and was allowed, to take a ride
with him.  Accused Mansueto Jamero and
Julian Pabicon were already there; Jamero was seated in the front seat, beside Atty.
Piccio who was driving; Pabicon was seated at the back, just behind Atty.
Piccio.  Retirado also took his seat at
the back, behind Jamero.  At Ginhalaran,
Atty. Piccio stopped his jeep and got down to inquire from a nearby flower pot
manufacturer as to the price of a flower pot. 
That was the precise time that accused Julian Pabicon pushed aside the
flower pots loaded in the jeep from the place where the jack (Exh. B) and a
tire wrench (Exh. C) were.  Pabicon
placed the objects near him and made a motion to Retirado to use one of
them.  That was also the time, while the
jeep was parked at Ginharalan that the car supposed to follow them, passed by
and signalled that they were going ahead.

From Ginhalaran, Piccio drove his jeep with his three chance-passengers
towards Sagay.  He made another short
stop at the outskirt of Silay and had a short conversation with the driver of a
pick-up truck.  This pick-up truck
appears to be the same pick-up ridden by Pedro Velasco, Jr., who testified that
he saw Atty. Piccio with three other men in his jeep at Silay in the afternoon
of July 19, 1958, as he
(Piccio) talked with their driver.  Said
witness, a 12-year old student, declared that he recognized the men with Atty.
Piccio at the time, but he failed to identify said men from among the people in
the court-room where all the accused were present after two attempts he made by
walking around the courtroom.

Atty. Piccio made a third stop on their way to Sagay at the town
of Victorias.  Here, he talked with a local policeman and
inquired about the whereabouts of his friend, Sgt. de la Peña.  He was corroborated on this point by the
testimony of Patrolman Juan deIa Peña then; and that he told him that he could
be found further down the way.

Retirado failed to notice the car that was supposed to follow
them at Crossing Bombahan where it was agreed it would park and flash some
signals with its lights, i. e., if its lights were bright, they would mean
signs of danger and they should not proceed with the killing of Atty. Piccio,
and in the absence of said lights, the un­derstanding was that the plan to
liquidate him should be carried on.  At
some point after Crossing Bombahan, how­ever, Retirado noticed the car already
following them, its “lights being put out and put on again.”

At some distance from Km. Post 64 at Tinampaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occidental, accused Mansueto Jamero re­quested Atty. Piccio to stop the
jeep because he wanted to urinate.  He
reiterated his request when they were just a few meters from a big tree on the
side of the road.  Atty. Piccio stopped
the jeep and accused Jamero got down.  He
did not leave the jeep however; one of his feet re­mained on the running
board.  At that precise time, ac­cused
Joel Bingcang appeared from behind the big tree.  Upon seeing him, Atty. Piccio engaged him
conversa­tion and asked: “Why are you here?” Bingcang answered:  “I a waiting for a bus.” Atty.
‘Piccio pressed his ques­tion: “Why are you here?” And Bingcang
explained that he was there to visit a relative.  While thus engaged in conversation, accused
Julian Pabicon lifted the jack (Exh. B) and pounded it upon Atty. Piccio,
hitting him at the back portion of the head. 
Atty. Piccio stopped for­ward, swayed to the right, then to the left, in
a stag­gering position; and at that juncture, accused Jamero stabbed him three
or two times.  He did not see clearly
whether Jamero stabbed Atty. Piccio on the right side, on the arm or shoulder,
for he was terrified.  He imme­diately
fled from the place.  He ran and hid in
the near­by coconut grove and sugarcane fields some two hundred (200) meters
from the place where his companions were. 
He remained in hiding there for sometime until he heard the sound of a
coming vehicle.  With the fear that his
companions might now be after his own life, Retirado tried to ascertain first
whether or not the coming ve­hicle was Atty. Piccio’s jeep; and only after he
had as­sured himself by the presence of lights at the top of the vehicle that
it was not the one but a passenger truck, did he come out of his hiding place
to stop it.  He board­ed the bus and got
off at Fabrica, reaching his house at about 3:00
o’clock in the morning.  By
his own estimate, that incident near the big tree at Tinampaan must have occurred
between 7:00 to 8:00 o’clock in the
evening. 

Another witness, Arsenio Gepana declared that at about that time
between 7:00 to 8:00 in the evening of July 19, 1958, while he was seated on a
bench by the right side of the road going to Sagay near the bridge at Lagas-an,
Cadiz, Negros Occidental, he noted an on-coming jeep swerve to the side of the
road where he was; and he recognized it to be the jeep of Atty. Piccio; he
figured that Atty. Piccio must be drunk. 
It came so close to him that it would have crushed his feet had he not
moved them side on time.  There was a
passenger bus on the op­posite side of the road at the time which stopped to
unload some passengers, and there was another cargo truck coming from the same
direction opposite that of Atty. Piccio’s jeep, and the latter had to stop for
a moment to give way to the on coming vehicle. 
As the jeep made that brief stop in front of him Gepana was able to
ascertain that it was not Atty. Piccio but accused Josel Bingcang who was
driving, with accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon with him.  After that brief stop the jeep proceeded on
its way and turned left towards Pandanan upon reaching the crossing
nearby.  Arsenio Gepana said he was sure
it was the jeep of Atty. Piccio he saw that evening because he had seen the
jeep many times before.

 Anunciacion Placencia, a
51-year old woman from Sitio Canaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occidental, testified that on July
23, 1958, at about 9:00 o’clock
in the morning, she and a companion Teresita, were on their way to Crossing,
Maingoy, in the same municipality when she noted stains of blood on the
roadside near a big tree at Tinampaan. 
She looked around and saw not far from the place, the lifeless body of a
man lying face dowward inside the nearby sugarcane field on the right side of
the road going north.  She and Teresita
hurriedly left the place upon peeing the body and continued their way to
Crossing Maningoy.  They informed the
policeman there about their discovery, and the said policeman took them along
with him in going back to the place at Tinampaan.  Upon seeing the body, the policeman
recognized it to be that of Atty. Piccio.

A photographer from the place, Carlos Serafin, was then engaged
to take pictures of the dead man and the said photographer later identified two
of the pictures (Exh. F and F-I) he had taken of the late Atty. Piccio on that
occasion.  Arturo Piccio, brother of the
victim, also identified said pictures to be those of his brother. He likewise
identified a jacket (Exh. H), a pair of pants (Exh. I), a polo shirt (Exh. J)
and a belt (Exh. K) to be those worn by Atty. Piccio in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, when he saw his
remains loaded in a truck at Silay City.

 The same day, July 20,
1958, the jeep of Atty. Pic­cio was found abandoned a few meters from the
shoulder of the road between Barrios Lagas-an and Tiglawigan, Cadiz, Negros
Occidental.  The same photographer who
took the pictures of the body of Atty. Piccio at Barrio Tinampaan, also took
several pictures of the said jeep on that day, and he later identified exhibits
4-PJL 5-PJL, 6- PJL and 7-PJL to be the pictures of the jeep he had taken.  The PC soldier who was assigned to guard the
jeep at the place where it was discovered, also identified Exh. 5-PJL as a
picture of the Jeep he guarded on that day.

Dr. Antonio Briones testified that he autopsied the body of Atty.
Ernesto Piccio at a funeral parlor in Bacolod
City on July 22, 1958. 
He declared that the stab wounds he described on Items Nos. 1 to 9 of
his necropsy report (Exh. A) were caused by a sharp pointed instrument.  Item No. 10 must have been caused by a blunt
object whose striking surface was applied with such force that caused the
countrecoup lesion in the frontal aspect; that Item No. 11 was the injury in
the brain caused by the impact or the occipital region which cause concussions
and intracranial hemorrhage.  Death,
according to him, ensued due to shock, secondary to hemorrhage.  He said, however, that the multiple stab
wounds he had earlier described were inflicted ante-mortem.

Inocencio Retirado declared further that the day immediately
following the night of the incident in Tinam­paan, he had thought of giving up
himself to the authority.  But he desired
to surrendered to agents coming from Manila
and not to the authorities in Negros, because he
entertained fears that, should he surrender to them, his companions in the
commission of the crime may kidnap him while detained in the province.   He testified that he had the feeling all
along that his companions might do him harm, but he admitted that although they
met several times after the death of Atty. Piccio in cockpits and other places,
they never discussed with him about the killing of the victim, much less
inflicted any harm upon his per­son.  He
said that he had some difficulty in getting in touch with the agents from Manila
assigned to investigate the case end was able to see the CIS agents only in
February, 1959, in Hacienda Magdalena. 
Thereafter, he was placed in protective custody of the PC at Camp
Crame, Quezon
City.  He
admitted further that since them, he had been receiving a P90-monthly allowance
from the PC who were also kind enough to allow him to leave the Camp and engage
in the buying and selling of hogs, which enabled him to sustain his family
consisting of his wife and seven (7) children.

 Patrolman Juan de la Peña
declared further that at about 10:00 o’clock
in the morning of July 20, 1958,
he heard the news that Atty. Piccio had died the night before.  That same day, he informed Sgt. de la Peña
that he had seen Atty. Piccio with three (3) men in his jeep as they passed by
on the night of July 19, 1958.  He ad­mitted tho that he only revealed the
identities and the names of Atty. Piccio’s companions five (5) days after the
killing when CIS agent Adrias came to him and investigated him.

Arsenio Gepaña also revealed that as early as August 9, 1958, he had been
investigated by the CIS agents.  He was
hiding in a coconut grove near his house when they first came, for be did not
want to get involved in the case.  The
agents, however, were insistent and took his statement just the same which they
later asked him to sign.  In that
statement, he readily identified accused Joel Bingcang and Mansueto Jamero as
among those he saw inside the jeep of Atty. Piccio in the evening of July 19, 1958, but he was not able to
identify or give the name of accused Julian Pabicon then because he forgot his
name.  He said that on September 24, 1958, the CIS agents
again asked him questions about the incident and again he was made to sign the
statement taken.  At that time, he
already remembered the name of accused Julian Pabicon, but still, he did not
mention his name in his second af­fidavit because soon after, he signed his
first affidavit, Julian Pabicon accosted him and argued with him, trying to
convince him to see the Governor of the province on some important matter, that
is why kept silent about it in order to avoid further troubles.  That, according to him, was the very same
reason why he did not mention the name of Julian Pabicon during the preliminary
inves­tigation.  But after sometime, he
realized that he should testify for the sake of justice; and after he was given
personal security, he identified accused Julian Pabicon during the trial.

For their defenses, all the accused separately de­nied the truth
of the testimony of prosecution witness Inocencio Retirado to the effect that
they held several meetings during the period from February to July 1958,
wherein they invariably voiced their hatred for Atty. Piccio and plotted to
eliminate him from the political scene in Sagay by killing him; all claimed
ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the death of Atty. Piccio on the
night of July 19, 1958.  More
specifically, each of the accused explained his whereabouts on that parti­cular
date.

Accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon offered a common alibi
– they testified that they were both in Manila
during the period from July 15 to 23,
1958.  They maintained that
they could not have been in Negros Occidental in the evening of July 15, 1953, the day Atty. Piccio
was allegedly killed in barrio Tinampaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occidental.  Their testimonies in
court described in detail their trip from Bacolod
City to Manila
on July 15, 1958, their
return trip from Manila to Negros
Occidental on July 23, 1958,
and the various activities they had in Manila
and its suburbs during the intervening period. 
They were substantially corroborated in all material details by the
testimonies of their companions in that trip, namely: Asst. Provincial Warden
Severino Remo, and Provincial Guards Anastacio Caceres and Ernesto Ocana who
all testified in court.  This is the they
altogether told in court:

On July 14, 1958, at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Asst.
Provincial Warden Severino Remo toge­ther with Mansueto Jamero and Julian
Pabicon (accused), Anastacio Caceres, Ernesto Ocana and Panchito Guanzon, all
provincial, guards of Negros Occidental, escorted 27 insane prisoners, in
compliance with the orders of Governor Valeriano Gatuslao to transfer the said
prisoners from the provincial jail of Negros Occidental to the Psychopatic
Hospital in Mandaluyong, Rizal.  The
prisoners were first taken to the port
of Pulupandan from Bacolod
City in a truck.  They reached Pulupandan at about 6:00 o’clock that same afternoon.  At Pulupandan, the 27 pri­soners were taken
on board the “SS El Cano” which took them along with the Asst. warden
and provincial guards escorting them in the early morning of July 15, 1958, to the port
of Iloilo which they reached at
about 5:00 o’clock a.m.  The “El Cano” then left the port
of Iloilo around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same with
the insane prisoners and their escorts on board.  It arrived in Manila
in the afternoon of July 16, 1958.  The truck of the Psychopatic Hospital
(National Mental Hospital), the guards were expecting to be at the pier area
when they landed to ferry the prisoners to Mandalu­yong, Rizal, was not around
then, and Asst. Warden Remo had to fetch the same from Mandaluyong, leaving
accused Jamero and Pabicon, along with provincial guards Ocana, Caceres and
Guanzon behind to guard the prisoners. 
Remo did not find the truck of the National
Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong,
however, for after he left the pier area the said truck arrived and Jamero,
Pabicon, Caceres, Ocana and Guanzon
loaded the insane prisoners on the truck without wanting for Remo anymore.  They arrived at the National
Mental Hospital at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening where they found
Asst. warden Remo waiting for them.  It
took the guards several hours before they were able to leave the place, for
aside from the fact that the 27 insane prisoners had to be individually
interviewed by the admitting physicians of the hospital and the provincial
guards had to act as interpreters, one of the prisoners named Cadangdang
Jalando-on had a small child whom the hospital authorities refused to
admit.  They were lucky they found a
couple willing to take cus­tody of the child in the persons of spouses
Francisco and Felicisima Dacumos.  They
left the National Mental
Hospital at about 3:00
o’clock already in the early hours of July 17, 1958.  They
proceeded to their board­ing house at the Clover building on Echague, Sta.
Cruz, Manila, in two taxis,
reaching the place around 4:00 a.m.,
where they slept in a corridor till morning after which they were given
definite room assignments.  Asst. Warden
Remo did not stay in the place, however, for he went to his boarding house at 1620
Kansas Avenue, Manila.

After breakfast that morning, July 17, 1958, ac­cused Jamero and Pabicon, together with
Ocana and Cace­res went to the
Philamlife Compound in Quezon City
to make a report of their arrival to Governor Valerians Gatuslao, who was then
staying in the residence of his brother Congressman Agustin Gatuslao at 62
South Maya, Quezon City preparatory
to his scheduled travel abroad. 
Provincial Guard Panchito  Guanzon
was left behind at Clover building to look for someone to buy his fighting
cock.  Asst. Warden Remo was also at the
Philamlife Com­pound that morning for the purpose of reporting to the Governor,
and he met Jamero, Pabicon, Caceres
and Ccana there.  After reporting to the
Governor, accused Jamero and Pabicon, together with Ocana and Caceres left the
place at about 10:00 o’clock that morning and went to Polo, Bulacan, to deliver
two (2) fighting cocks, the gift of accused Rudy Lopez to Governor Gatuslao’s
in-law, Mayor Ignacio Santiago of said municipality.  They arrived at Polo around 11:00 am. 
They took lunch with Mayor Santiago who also gave them some drinks. He,
likewise, took along the said provincial guards in his car and drove around the
town with them.  Jamero, Pabi­con, Caceres
and Ocana left Polo that afternoon when it was already about 4:00 or 5:00
o’clock, reaching their boarding house at Clover around 6:00 o’clock.   

In the morning of July
18, 1958, accused Pabicon, together with Caceres
and Ocana again left their board­ing house to see the Governor at Philamlife
Compound.  They borrowed P10.00 each from
the Governor, who later left in his car taking along with him Caceres
and Ocana; accused Pabicon was left behind because the car was already full,
and he had to return to their hoarding house alone.  Jamero and Guanzon also followed their
companions to the Philamlife Compound that morning, but they did not catch up
with the group – Ocana and Cace­res
had left with the Governor in his car then, while Pabicon had gone home alone
to the Clover boarding house.  So, Jamero
and Guanzon did not stay long at Philamlife Compound and decided to go to
Malacañan to visit Jamero’s brother-in-law there, after which they returned to
their boarding house.  Meanwhile, Pabicon
found himself alone in the boarding house upon his return from Philamlife
Compound; he went out and loitered around the place.  Jamero and Guanzon were already there when he
returned later in the afternoon, and still later, Ocana and Caceres
also returned to the place after their trip to the PNB and other government
offices in the company of Governor Gatuslao. 
They all slept in their boarding house that evening after supper.

The following day, July
19, 1958 Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres
again went to see the Governor at Philamlife Compound, arriving there between
the hours of 8:00 and 9.00 in the
morning.  Jamero and Guanzon stayed
behind at Clover and played mahjong with their landlady, Mrs. Nar­cisa Vilches,
and another student boarder.  In that
particular occasion at Phil-Am Compound, Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres saw and met
Congressman Gatuslao and his wife, Governor Gatuslao and Mrs. Gatuslao, Deputy
Governor Agustin Segovia of Negros Occidental, Asst. Provincial Treasurer
Aniano Norboneta who was scheduled to leave the airport for Negros that
afternoon, while Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres walked the distance from Quiapo to
their board­ing house at Clover in Echague. 
They found Jamero and Guanzon still there, for they stopped the mahjong
game at about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon.  And remembering that Pabicon,
Ocana and Caceres had obtained a loan of P10.00 each from the Governor the day
previous, Jamero and Guan­zon went to Phil-Am Compound to borrow P10.00 each
also.   The Governor obliged, after which
Jamero and Guanzon returned to the Clover.

At about 7:00 or 8:00 o’clock in the evening of that day,
Pabicon, Jamero, Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon were in­vited to a party in Sta. Mesa,
Manila, by a Visayan student boarder at Clover. 
They went with some 20 other students boarding at Clover, returning to
the boarding house around 11:30.  They tarried a while near the Dencia
Restaurant and played the pin ball machines. 
They met there Amado Torres of the Bacolod Police Department, and they
talked about their respective missions. 
After Torres was gone, they slept at about 12:00
o’clock.

In the morning of Sunday,
July 20, 1958, Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres
attended mass at Quiapo, while Jamero went to the Phil-Am Compound.  Guanzon stayed at the board­ing house.  From Phil-Am Compound, Jamero proceeded to
the North Harbor
to fix his ticket for the return trip to Neg­ros Occidental.  Upon return to the Clover from the church,
Ocana and Caceres, likewise, went
to the North harbor for the same purpose.  
Pabicon did the same sometime later. 
They had to make arrangement with the steamship company be­cause the
return tickets they secured in Negros Occidental before their departure for
Manila were on the steamship “Jolo” which was scheduled to leave the
North Harbor for Negros on that day, and they could not as yet leave be­cause
they still had some unfinished business – to secure a prisoner at Muntinlupa
upon orders of the Governor, in compliance with the order of the Municipal
Court of Baco­lod City.  They had their
tickets changed for the “SS Basilan” which was scheduled to leave Manila
for Negros Occidental on July 23, 1958.

In the afternoon of that same day, Remo arrived at the Clover
boarding house and invited Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres
to walk wit him along the Dewey Boulevard.  As they strolled along, a candid photographer
took their pic­tures and gave Pabicon two receipts (Exhibits 24-PJL and
24-PJL-1).  Pabicon did not get the
pictures later however.  When they
returned to the Clover boarding house after hours of walking, they found Jamero
and Guanzon there still playing mahjong.

In the morning of July
21, 1958, Pabicon and Jamero went to Malacañan to meet Remo there
as previously arrang­ed by Pabicon and Remo during the stroll at the Luneta the
other day.  They deposited their firearms
at Gate 4 in the Palace and proceeded to the Local Government Section.  There, they signed their names on the ”
visitors book” at the table of a certain Mr. Villanueva.  Remo arrived later and presented the
Governors order authorizing their trip to Manila;
Mr. Villanueva prepared the necessary “certifi­cate of appearance” of
Remo and the five provincial guards with him in the trip which was later signed
by Secretary Sofronio Quimson.  The said
certificate was marked as Ex­hibit 29-PJL-2, while the page of the visitors
book where­on the names of Pabicon and Jamero appear was marked as Exhibit
28-PJL.

From Malacañan, Remo, Jamero and Pabicon went to Muntinlupa to
get an inmate there, Pableo Bolinas, whose appearance was needed in the Municipal
Court of Bacolod
City.  They failed to secure the said prisoner,
however, because the Prison’s Superintendent required them to pro­duce a
subpoena signed by a Judge of the Court of First Instance, so, they returned to
Manila empty-handed.

Meanwhile, Ocana and Caceres
went to Phil-Am Com­pound that same morning. 
They failed to see the Governor on that occasion.  Knowing that Jamero and Pabicon had gone to
Malacañan earlier, they went to the place upon their return to the Clover
boarding house.  Guanzon joined them this
time.  But upon reaching Gate 4 of
Malacañan, they saw the names of Jamero and Pabicon already written in the log
book there and upon inquiry from the guard, learned that they had left.  Knowing also that Jamero and Pabicon were to
go to Muntinlupa to get priso­ner Pableo Bolinas after their trip to Malacañan,
Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon followed them to Muntinlupa but again, upon inquiry
from the guard, they were informed that cer­tain provincial guards from Negros
Occidental had left earlier, so, they also returned to Manila, arriving at
Clover boarding house about past noon. 
They did not leave the boarding house after that.

In the morning of July
22, 1958, Pabicon, Jamero, Ocana, Caceres
and Guanzon went to the Phil-Am Compound to bid Governor Gatuslao good-by.  They stayed there until about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, when they
returned to Clover boarding house.   Then
they started preparing for their return trip to Negros Occidental.  They actually left Manila
on board the “Basilan” at around 2:00
or 3:00 o’clock in the morning of July 23, 1958, and reached Pulu­pandan,
Negros Occidental, the following day. 
Shortly after their arrival, they prepared the corresponding vou­chers
and attached thereto the necessary supporting papers in order to obtain
reimbursements for their travelling ex­penses during their stay in Manila.  Said papers were pro­duced from the
Provincial Treasurer’s Office and/or the Provincial Auditor’s Office of Negros
Occidental during the trial and marked as exhibits.  A PAL passenger mani­fest for July 19, 1953,
from Manila to Bacolod City (Exh. 5I-PJL) was, likewise, identified and
presented in evi­dence to show that accused Jamero and Pabicon did not re­turn
by plane to Negros on that day which was within the period of their stay in
Manila from July 16 to 23, 1958, as their names do not appear in said passenger
manifest.

The above declarations of accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian
Pabicon, along with those of Asst. Provincial Warden Severino Remo and
provincial guards Anastacio Ca­ceres and Ernesto Ocana were further
corroborated by the testimony of Governor Valeriano Gatuslao who said that in
the morning of July 17, 1958, accused Jamero and Pabicon, along with Reno,
Ocana, and Caceres visited him at the house of his brother, congressman
Gatuslao, at the Phil-Am Compound and reported that they have delivered the 27
insane prisoners to the National Mental Hospital; that after said report, Pabicon,
Jamero, Ocana and Caceres went to Polo, Bulacan to deliver certain fighting
cocks to Mayor Ignacio Santiago, his son-in-law; that in the morning of July
18, 1938, Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres again visited him and he took along Ocana
and Caceres with him to the PNB; that he loaned the three guards P10.00 each
that day; that  in the morning of July
19, 1958, the three guards visited him again, and he remembered having sent a
letter addressed to Mr. Mariano Yagore of the PNB branch at Bacolod City to Asst.
Provincial Treasurer Narboneta at the airport thru Segovia who left the Phil-Am
Compound at about 1:00 that afternoon with Pabicon, Remo, Ocana and Caceres;
that in the afternoon of that day, Ja­mero and Guanzon also came to see him to
borrow P10.00 each; that he did not see any of the guards on Sunday, July 20,
1958; that in the afternoon of July 21, Remo reported to him that Pabicon,
Jamero and he, had gone to Muntinlupa that day to get prisoner Pableo Bolinas
but were not able to secure his release; and that in the morning of July 22,
1958 accused Jamero and Pabicon, along with Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon informed
him that they were going to leave for Negros on board the “Basilan”;
while Remo told him that he would leave by plane.

The Governor declared further that upon learning about the death
of Atty. Ernesto Piccio in the newspapers, he called up the Provincial
Commander of Negros Occiden­tal and ordered him to make the necessary
investigation.  The said Provincial
Commander informed him later upon his return from abroad in March, 1959, that
provincial guards Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon were among those sus­pected
as having something to do with the killing. 
He later recalled, however, that Pabicon and Jamero were a­mong the
provincial guards he sent to Manila
at the time Atty. Piccio was killed; that is why he had to speak to Gen. Campo
about the matter, in one of his trips to Manila.  He was advised to send the said guards over
to Manila for investigation; and
upon his return to Negros Occidental, he instructed Pabicon, Jamero, Remo,
Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon to
present themselves at Camp Crame.  For reasons of economy, he made the
instruction on the occasion of the delivery of a group of prisoners by the same
group to Muntinlupa.

Mrs. Narciso Vilches, operator of the Clover board­ing house,
also confirmed the Statements of Jamero and Pabicon that they were in Manila
at the time of the death of Atty. Ernesto Piccio.  She declared that between July 16 and 22,
1958, she saw Pabicon and Jamero in her board­ing house together with Guanzon,
Ocana and Caceres.  She remembered specially Ocana who was
nicknamed “Cabatsoy”; and Caceres
who was always singing.  She testified
further that she was investigated several times by the CIS agents at Camp
Crame in the months of April and
May, 1959.  She signed several statements
in connection with the said investigations, one of which was the statement
(Exh. P) wherein she appears to have stated that “she did not re­member
having seen accused Jamero and Pabicon in the evening of July 19, 1958.” She explained that, that
statement there, was not actually made by her; that it was placed in the
statement by Capt. Yapdiangco of the CIS; and that the truth of the matter was
that said accused, Jamero and Pabicon, were there at her boarding house at
Clover building on Exhague St.   She explained further that she was beguiled
into signing the document by Capt. Yapdiangco of the CIS who told her that such
statement was necessary in order that neither the family of the late Atty.
Piccio nor accused Jamero and Pabicon would have any grudge a­gainst her.

For his defense, accused Rodrigo Honorio Lopez @ Rudy Lopez
denied the statements of prosecution witnesses Ino­cencio Retirado and
Nepomuceno Fabros regarding his alleged involvement in the plot to kill Atty.
Piccio during the various meetings mentioned by them.  He, likewise, denied that he followed the
jeep of Atty. Piccio in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, much less gave the alleged signals to
Pabicon, Jamero and Retirado to go on with the killing of Atty. Piccio by
putting the lights of his car “out and on”.  He never went to Crossing Bombahan, and his
car was parked at his place of residence the whole afternoon of that day.  Although he was Provincial Warden at the
time, he had no hand in the selection of the provincial guards who escorted the
27 insane prisoners from Negros Occiden­tal to Manila
during the period that Atty. Piccio was killed.   He merely approved the list of guards to
accompany the prisoners that was submitted to him.

Rudy Lopez further testified that he really called Atty. Piccio
“Spaniard” during the 1955 election political rallies.  He, furthermore, admitted that he was really
ac­cused in a case involving the incident between his group and Constancio Tan,
but that it was he himself who had the case settled between them without the
intervention of Atty. Piccio.   He denies
the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution that Atty. Piccio was
instrumental in his se­paration from Lopez Sugar Central, for it was the
Manager Mr. Arthur Cooper who had a grudge against him after the 1957 election
because Cooper supported a candidate opposed to the one he supported who won in
that election.  In that case against
honor filed against him by Letty Balison, he heard rumors that it was filed at
the instigation of Atty. Piccio, but when he asked him (Piccio) if there was
truth in it, Atty. Piccio denied having anything to do with that case.  Moreover, after the 1957 election, he complete­ly
lost interest in politics and left Sagay to reside in Bacolod
City.  Apart from politics also, accused Rudy Lopez
testified that he and Atty. Piccio were good friends: they were compadres; were
“poker pals” in Sagay, and used to take refreshments during session
of the Municipal Council of Sagay.  He
also recalled that Atty. Piccio acted as guarantor when he first acquired a
truck from the South­ern Motors, and later, he was able to trade-in his old
panel, with a new truck from, the Southern Motors with his aid also.

Regarding the alleged teetings in the house of ac­cused Jesus
Vasquez in the months of May and June, 1958, wherein, according to prosecution
witness Retirado, he participated in plotting the killing of Atty. Piccio,
accused Rudy Lopez testified that in those months he was not in Negros
because he attended the in-service train­ing of Provincial Wardens in
Muntinlupa, Rizal.  He pro­duced a copy
of the Graduation Program of that training (Exh. 52-PJL-1) wherein his name
appears, and the picture taken on that occasion (Exhs. 52-PJL-2 & 52-PJL-3)
where­in he also appears.  He admitted,
however, that the said in-service training was during the period from May 16 to
June 5 or 6, 1958.

Accused Joel Bingcang offered his own alibi – he was in Ajuy, Iloilo,
on July 19, 1958.   He testified that on July 18, 1958, he took a motor boat at Manapla,
Negros Occidental to Culaso, Ajuy Iloilo. 
He went to the place upon instructions of Mr. Eduardo Ledesma, the
administrator of Mr. Ramon Lacson, for the purpose of looking into the possibility
of acquiring cattle from the place for breeding purposes.  In the evening of July 18, 1958, he slept in the house of Mayor
Jose Roxas of Ajuy.  The following
morning, July 19, 1958, he
met a local tough guy by the name of Conrado Anigon who asked him money for
drinks.   The guy got rough with him in
front of many people when he denied his request which left him no alter­native
– a fight between them ensued.  Anigon
was rendered unconscious in that fight, while his right hand got sprained in
that encounter.  As a result, he and
Anigon were arrested at about 11:00
or 12:00 o’clock in the morn­ing and
placed in jail.  He was released only at
about 3:00 or 10:00 o’clock in the evening of that day after. Anigon
expressed his desire not to file any complaint against him.

In the course of his testimony, a written certifi­cation of the
Chief of Police of Ajuy, Iloilo,
relative to the detention of Joel Bingcang in the municipal jail thereat on July 19, 1958, was presented and
marked as Exh. 3-Bingcang.  A photostat
copy of the corresponding page of the Police Blotter of Ajuy wherein an entry
appears to the effect that “at about 11:00
am. July 19, 1958, Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigon were arrested
and lodged in jail for fighting each other by Sgt. Luis Celis”, and that
“at about 8:00 p.m. July 19, 1958, Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigon were
released was also presented later marked as Exh. 4-Bingcang.

Joel Bingcang also made a blanket denial of the tes­timony of
Inocencio Retirado regarding his alleged parti­cipation in the killing of Atty.
Piccio on the night of July 19, 1958.  He admitted tho that he acted as toastmas­ter
in one of the political meetings of accused Rudy Lopez in the 1955 campaign and
said “Do not vote for a Spaniard”, but declared that he and Atty.
Piccio were friends after 1955.  They
used to greet each other.   Atty. Piccio
even invited him once to join him in going to the boxing bout which he did not
accept.

For his defense, accused Florentino Vasquez, Jr. @ Jr. Vasquez
denied all the allegations of Rtirado and Fabros that he was present during the
various meetings men­tioned by them wherein he and the other accused discussed
the plot to kill Atty. Piccio.   He
testified that during the lifetime of Atty. Piccio, they were good
friends.  They were together in the Sugar
Planters Association; they cam­paigned together for Congressman Jose Puey
against Ramon Lacson in the 1953 election. 
Although they belonged to different factions in the 1955 election, still
they were friends.  There were times when
Atty. Piacio took him home at Hacienda Bulanon in his (Piccio) car or
jeep.  He recalled that they were once
together in a dance at Para­iso, Fabrica, when the toughies there began
harassing Atty. Piccio; he at once approached him and took him to a lighted
place, away from the toughies.  Atty.
Piccio had also invited him to his farmhouse near Hacienda Conchita and showed
him his fighting cocks, house and plants about three weeks or a month before
his death.  There, they had occasion to
talk about politics, and he recalled that Atty Piccio asked him whether or not
Rudy Lopez or his brother Jesus Vasquez were intending to run for Mayor in
1959. He assured him then that neither of them was intending to run for the
position.  Atty. Piccio even asked him to
make comment in his chances of winning should he decide to run for Mayor.  He added that Atty. Piccio and his younger
brother Antonio were very good friends and were always to­gether.

He declared further that he knows Retirado and Fabros.  They were introduced to him by accused Pedro
Arana during the 1955 election campaign. 
They once had occasion to come to his house in March, 1958, seeking his
help in getting employment for them either in the Office of Gavernor Gatuslao
or Congressman Gatuslao.  He frankly told
them, nevertheless, that there were no available positions, there for which
reads they both got mad at him.  He
denied the allegation that the plan was to have him appointed Chief of Police
should their plot to secure the suspension of Mayor Katalbas materialize, for
he knew he was not qualified for the job, not only because of his size
(5’2″) but also for the reasons that he was not a civil service eligible,
not a guerilla, never been employ­ed before, and not physically fit for the job
as even dur­ing his high school days, he had always been exempted from military
training due to his enlarged heart.

He also admitted in the course of his testimony that he
volunteered to help the PC solve the mysterious killing of Atty. Piccio; but
that was not for the purpose of mis­leading the PC investigators.  He offered his help because he was a friend
of Atty. Piccio and he knew the places where he went before he died.

Accused Jesus Vasquez testified that he and Atty. Piccio were
close to each other as early as 1937 when they were still students in Manila.  They were together in one political group in
1953 – they both supported Jose Puey against Ramon Lacson.  They belonged to different factions in the
political fight in Sagay in 1955, but they were, nonetheless, together in their
support for the candidacy of Governor Valeriano Gatuslao in that election.  In 1957, Atty. Piccio supported the candidacy
of Jose Puey while he supported his opponent, Gustilo.  He also recalled that in 1953 or 1954, Atty.
Piccio was his guarantor when he bought a truck from the Southern Motors.            –

Jesus Vasquez declared further that in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, at about 5:00 o’clock, he was talking with Salvador
Escalanta and Mr. Hollero in his house in front of the Provincial Jail when
Atty. Piccio passed by in his jeep. 
Atty. Piccio stopped for sometime and con­versed with him – he was
inviting him to join him in see­ing the boxing bout in Fabrica.  He told him, he would join if he could wait
because he had to take a bath first, to which Atty. Piccio replied:
“Compadre, I am sorry, I am in a hurry.”

Atty. Piccio and he were good friends.  He would of­ten pass by his house and watch
at he train his fight­ing cocks.  He also
remembered that about three months before his death, he gave him (Piccio) two chico
seed­lings.

Regarding the testimonies of Retirado and Fabros, relative to his
alleged participation in the planning of the killing of Atty. Piccio in the
various, meetings al­legedly held in his house, accused Jesus Vasquez denied
his involvement therein.  He denied that
any such meetings were ever held in his house. 
He remembered tho that sometime in March, 1958, Retirado and Fabros came
to his house and had a conversation with his brother, Jr. Vas­quez.  As he was then reading in the sala, he heard
the requests of Retirado and Fabros seeking the help of his brother to find
work for them.  He knew his brother had
told them that there was no work available for them, and he noticed that both
Retirado and Fabros got dis­gusted with his brother.

Salvador Escalante corroborated the testimony of Jesus Vasquez
that they were conversing in the house of the latter in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, when the jeep of Atty.
Piccio passed by and Atty. Piccio backed his jeep and invited Jesus Vasquez to
join him in seeing the boxing bout at Fabrica. 
He further testified that he had seen Atty. Piccio passed by the house
of Jesus Vasquez several times before, and recalled that at one time Atty.
Piccio even went up the house and talked with Jesus Vasquez in the balcony.

 For his part, accused
Pedro Arana had another alibi to offer. 
He declared that he was in the farm on July 19, 1958.  He
was there at Sitio Cabungahan, about 27 kms. from his house in Fabrica,
Sagay.  He went there at about 7:00 o’clock in the morning and reached the
place at about 9:00.  He stayed in the place for about three hours
only and had to go home to Fabrica at about 1:00 p.m. be­cause a farm hand,
Venancio Soledad had sought him there trying to collect his wages for plowing
his fields.  They left the farm together
and reached Fabrica at about 5:00 o’clock
in the afternoon.  He did not leave his
house after that and stayed there till the following morning.

Accused Pedro Arana declared further that he had nothing to do
with the killing of Atty. Piccio on that day. 
He denies the statement of Retirado that he attend­ed several meetings
in the house of Jesus Vasquez wherein the plot to kill Atty. Piccio was
hatched.   He also denied the claim of
Retirado that they were relatives, although he admitted that Retirado called him
Tatay Pendoy.  He, further, admitted that
at one time, he and his wife approached Atty. Piccio in his office at the
Southern Motors Build­ing and solicited his help in order that the Southern
Motors should not proceed in foreclosing the mortgage of a truck he acquired
from the company thru another person, but he denied the testimony of a
prosecution witness to the effect that his wife cried when Atty. Piccio told
them that there was nothing he could do as he was only follow­ing the orders of
the Company.  He declared finally that he
entertained no resentment against Atty. Piccio after that incident.

Corroborating Pedro Arana’s testimony, Venancio So­ledad declared
that he did seek out Pedro Arana in his farm on July 19, 1958, to collect his unpaid wages for plowing his
fields because he failed to find him in his house in Fabrica and he was badly
in need of money on that day.  Asked why
he specially remembered that occa­sion to be             on July
19, 1958, Venancio Soledad explained that he remembered the day
because it was the time his brother got married, the very reason why he got
short of funds and had to collect from Pedro Arana.  Asked by the court why he thought of
collecting on the very day of the wedding, Venancio Soledad explained further
that he only realized they were short of money on the day of the wedding, that
is why he had to go and see Pedro Arana early in the morning even if in so
doing, he missed the wedding ceremony of his brother.

Finally, accused Oscar Ramirez declared that he was in his place
of work, at the Insular Lumber Company, in the morning of July 19, 1958.  
Office hours on that day was up to 12:00
noon and he had his dinner at
home.  He never left the house after that
except at about 7:30 in the evening
when he went to Fabrica to witness the boxing bout.   He went home only after the boxing bout was
over at about 11:30 or 12:00 midnight.  Like his co-accused, Ramirez denied any
complicity in the plot to kill Atty. Piccio allegedly discussed in the various
meetings men­tioned by Retirado.  He also
denied the claim of Retirado that they are relatives.  He admitted that in the inaugu­ral ball in
honor of Governor Gatuslao, Atty. Piccio and he had an altercation or
discussion, but explained that they were both tipsy then and Atty. Piccio did
not make anything out of it.  He did not
file any case against him, for they were good friends.  Atty. Piccio, as a mat­ter of fact, placed
his arms around him after the inci­dent. 
Regarding the case of physical injuries and slan­der filed against him
by Hernani Serafin and Delia Lamela, Ramirez declared that he filed counter
charges against them also.  It was on
that occasion that Retirado offered himself to be his witness to which he
consented; but Retirado was not able to testify in court because both cases
were dismissed later.  After that
incident, however, Retirado began molesting him by asking loans in money, rice
and other things which he denied.   That
was the time he knew Retirado was not a reliable witness, because he told him:
“You deny my requests now that I am so hard-up, but during the time of
your case, I even, volunteered to testi­fy for you even if I was not present
during the incident.” He learned later that Retirado was not really
present dur­ing the incident involved in the cases aforesaid.

Atty. Ernesto Pilla testified in this connection that he knew
Retirado to be a professional witness. 
He was known in the community where he lives as a “procurador
special”.  He testified further that
on the night of July 19, 1958,
he saw Inocencio Retirado in the boxing bout at Fabrica at about 9:30 in the evening.

Accused Oscar Ramirez concluded his testimony by declaring that
he abandoned politics shortly after his election as councilor of Sagay together
with Atty. Pic­cio in the 1955 election; that he attended sessions of the
municipal council only from January to October, 1956, after which he completely
lost interest in the same and devoted full time to his work as an employee in
the In­sular Lumber Company.

In rebuttal, the prosecution presented the testimony of CIS agent
Inocencio Adrias, Amado Torres of the Bacolod Police Department, Leonardo Boot
of the PAL Office at Bacolod City,
and a former Chief of Police of Sagay, Negros Occidental. 

Agent Adrias of the CIS testified to rebut the tes­timony of Mrs.
Narcisa Vilches of the defense to the ef­fect that she only consented to the
statement in her af­fidavit at Camp Crame that she did not remember having seen
accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon at her boarding house on July 19,
1958, at the insistence of Capt. Yapdiangco of the CIS who explained to her
that such state­ment had to be placed in order that neither the family of Atty.
Piccio nor the accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon will have no
resentment against her; although in truth and in fact, she did not make any
statement of that sort because she was sure that they were there in her
boarding house on said date.  Contrary to
such statement of Mrs. Vilches, CIS Agent Adrias declared that he was present
during the times that Mrs. Vilches testified at Camp
Crame and at no instance during the
whole proceed­ing there, did Capt. Yapdiangco ever make such an insi­nuation.   He declared that all the answers appearing
in the affidavit of Mrs. Vilches were given by her personally; that Mrs.
Vilches read the statement herself after the same was prepared; and that she
signed it voluntarily thereafter.  Capt.
Yapdiangco, on the other hand, did not testify as to the circumstances
surrounding the taking of the statement of Mrs. Narcisa Vilches in question as
the prosecution had earlier manifested that it was not putting the said captain
on the witness stand to testify, and in consequence of which manifestation,
Capt. Yapdiang­co was never excluded from the courtroom during all the time
that the other witnesses for the prosecution were testifying.  Agent Adrias also testified that he
investigated accused Joel Bingcang before the Justice of the Peace of Sagay on July 27, 1958, in connection with the
killing of Atty. Piccio on July 19,
1958, but that Joel Bingcang refused to sign the said statement
later.

Witness Amado Torres of the Bacolod City Police Department
testified to disprove the claim of accused Man­sueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon
that they met him in the evening of July
19, 1958, in Manila.  He declared that he really saw them one
evening playing the pin ball machines in the vicinity of Dencia’s Restaurant;
but that was on the night of July 20, not on July 19, 1958, as claimed by them.  He maintained that he was positive about the
date, because it was a Sunday, and earlier in the morning of that day, he had
gone to church and heard mass.

The local PAL agent in Bacolod
City, Leonardo Boot, declared that
as station agent of the Philippine Airlines, he knew for a fact that in 1958,
there were two regular flights between Bacolod
City and Manila,
one in the morning and one in the afternoon. 
He testified that the re­gular flying hours or time between the two
places was only two hours.   Apparently,
this testimony was presented to counteract the effect of the passenger manifest
of the PAL trip from Manila to Bacolod
on July 19, 1958, purport­ing
to show that the names of accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon were not
among those listed in said pass­enger manifest.

The former Chief of Police of Sagay, Emilio Loga, declared that
in the morning of July 20, 1958,
which was a Sunday, he met accused Mansueto Jamero in front of the Jet
Department Store in Bacolod City.

With the foregoing evidence, the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, the Hon. Judge Jose F. Fer­nandez, presiding, handed down
the decision in this case dated January
27, 1962, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds and so declares that the following
accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, under Art.
248, R.P.C., to be applied in its maximum degree, (Art. 64, R.P.C.) and they
are hereby sentenced, each, to suffer the extreme penalty of death:

1.     
RODRIGO HONORIO LOPEZ,

2.     
MANSUETO JAMERO,

3.     
JULIAN PABICON, and

4.     
JOEL BINGCANG

“With respect to the accused Je­sus Vasquez, Florentino
Vasquez, Jr., Pedro Arana and Oscar Ramirez, the evidence shows that these four
ac­cused were present in those seven meetings held during the period from
February to July 19, 1958,
and that they were vocal about the liquidation of Atty. Piccio who was the
stumbling block to their political ascendency in Sagay.  The accused Florentino Vasquez, Jr., in
particular, even went to the ex­tent of promising support to the families of
Jamero and Pabicon if something happened to them.  Jesus Vasquez on his part was not only vocal
about his desire to eliminate Atty. Piccio, but the four meetings, including
the last one on July 19, 1958, were held in his house in front of the
provincial jail in Ba­colod City.  These
four accused shouted for the blood of Atty. Pic­cio, but they did not have the
nerve to commit the crime.  Like the mul­titude
in the Roman Coliseum of old, they seem to be mere “spectators”,
instead of “gladiators”.

“The four accused above-men­tioned discussed the murder of
Atty. Piccio in the seven meetings during the period from February to July 19, 1958, and they proposed the
same to be committed by Pabicon, Jamero, and Retirado.  Hence, it is quite clear that they conspired
together and con­nived with each other in the murder of Atty. Piccio.  However, the evidence does not clearly show
that they actually shared in the decision of Rodrigo Lopez on the execution of
the crime of murder on the morning of July
19, 1958.  Conspiracy and
propo­sal to commit a crime without a defi­nite decision having been reached by
the conspirators to commit it, is not punishable, except in certain cases
specified by law, but murder is not one of them.

“Hence, the following accused namely: JESUS VASQUEZ,
FLORENTINO VASQUEZ, Jr., PEDRO ARANA and OSCAR RAMIRES are hereby apprised of
the gravity and irreparable consequences of their highly condemnable act which,
although not punishable is nonethe­less reprehensible, and they are hereby
acquitted on reasonable doubt only.

“In the interest of justice, this Court will recommend a
punitive legis­lation for conspiracy and proposal to commit murder.

“SO
ORDERED.”

Accused Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon, Rodrigo Ho­norio Lopez @
Rudy Lopez and Joel Bingcang who now stand convicted and sentenced to death,
have appealed.

Appellants have taken the position that it was error on the part
of the lower court in ordering the discharge of Inocencio Retirado from the
Information in order to make him state witness. 
It is pointed out that the atti­tude of the court, during the hearing on
the motion of the prosecution to discharge the said witness and the opposition
they filed thereto, had misled them into believing that it was not necessary
for them to prove that then accused Inocencio Retirado is the same
“Cresencio Retirado” who was convicted of the crime of malicious
mischief in Criminal Case No. 470 the Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay,
Negros Occidental, due to the comment of the trial court that “what is
more important is the answer to the question as to whether the crime of
malicious mischief involves moral turpitude”.  And it is contended that the said order of
discharge was a clear violation of the pro­visions of the Rules of Court
regarding the discharge of an accused to be utilized as state witness, not only
for the reason that the crime of malicious mischief of which Retirado was
previously convicted involves moral turpitude, but also because among the
accused, Retirado appears to be one of the most guilty of the crime charged,
and his testimony was not corroborated.

Appellants’ position is not entirely correct.  It is true that during the hearing on the
motion to discharge Inocencio Retirado from the Information, the trial court
appears to have made the comment pointed to above by herein appellants, which
could really have misled the defense into believing that the court a quo did
not deem it necessary for them to prove that accused Inocencio Retirado and the
“Cresencio Retirado” convicted of malicious mischief in the Justice
of the Peace Court of Sagay were one and the same person; but that alone is no
cause for lament for, even were We to assume that the defense then could have
successfully proven that Inocencio Retirado was the one previously convicted of
malicious mischief by the Justice of the Peace Court, still the question that
would ultimately arise, and We agree with the court below that this is more
important, is the determination of the issue whether or not the crime of
malicious mischief involves moral turpitude. 
Moral turpitude has been described as an act of baseness, vileness and
depravity in the private and social duty which a man owes to his fellowmen or
to society in general^[1]
done, out of a spirit of cruelty, hostility or revenge,^[2]
but there is also authority to the effect that an act is not so done when it is
prompted by the sudden resentment of an injury calculated in no slight degree
to awaken passion.^[3]  In the light of these authorities, We have
searched the re­cord of the case in an effort to ascertain the gravity of the
nature of the crime of malicious mischief allegedly com­mitted by Retirado, but
We found the evidence wanting in this respect. 
What appears to have been established by the defense were the facts that
Cresencio Retirado was convict­ed of the crime of malicious mischief by the
Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay, Negros Occidental, and that the said
accused was therein sentenced to five (5) days imprisonment.  In the absence, therefore, of any evidence to
show the gra­vity and the nature of the malicious mischief committed, We are
constrained to declare that We are not in a position to say whether or not the
previous conviction referred to, assuming Cresencio Retirado and Inocencio
Retirado are one and the same person, proves that Retirado had displayed the
baseness, the vileness and the depravity which constitute moral turpitude.  And considering that under paragraph 3 of
Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, any deliberate act (not constituting
arson or other crimes involving destruction) causing damage to the property of
another, may consti­tute the crime of malicious mischief, We should not make
haste in declaring that such crime involves moral turpitude without
determining, at least, the value of the property destroyed and/or the
circumstances under which the act of destroying was committed.  Moreover, it appears that after the lower
court issued the order of discharge complained of, the defense ventilated
before this Court the issue as to whether, or not the crime of malicious
mischief involves moral turpitude by questioning the legality of the said order
in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. 
The fact that this Court did not give due course to their petition
(Jamero, et al. vs. Judge Enriquez, et al., L­15552) should have been
sufficient warning that the theory advanced by them is not meritorious.

Anent the charge that Retirado should not have been discharged as
state witness because he vas one of the most guilty of the accused, suffice is
to say that the evidence shows that he played only a minor role in the killing
of Atty. Ernesto Piccio – that of acting as a lookout for the car supposed to
follow the victim’s jeep and give out the go-signal for the killers to proceed.  Aside from the fact that he did not lay a
hand upon the victim, he appears to have been a very reluctant actor because he
did not have the nerve to kill a fellowman, as shown by the circumstances of
his fleeing and leaving his companions behind at the scene of the crime immediately
after he witnessed the horrible attack upon the victim, and subsequently,
giving himself up to the authorities and confessing his participation therein.

The claim of herein appellants that the testimony of Retirado was
not corroborated by other witnesses, should also be denied.  It is true that as to the actual act of
killing the victim, the testimony of Retirado was without corroboration; but it
was precisely because of that circumstance that the prosecution had to ask for
his discharge as state witness.   There
was no other direct evidence available to the prosecution, and, therefore,
there was absolute necessity for his testimony. 
At any rate, Retirado’s testimony regarding the motive behind the
killing of Atty. Piccio, and the identity of the persons seen riding his jeep
in that fateful afternoon of July 19,
1958, immediately before and after the killing, appears to have
been substantially corroborated by other witnesses.  It should also be borne in mind that this
Court has time and again declared that even if the dis­charged witness should
lack some of the qualifications enumerated by section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules
of Court, his testimony will not, for that reason alone, be dis­carded or
disregarded.^[4]
In the discharge of a co-defendant, the court may reasonably be expected to
err; but such error in discharging an accused has been held not be a reversible
one.^[5]
This, is upon the principle that such error of the court does not affect the
competency and the quality of the testimony of the discharged defendant.^[6]

Other assigned errors deal. 
With the credibility of the principal witnesses for the
prosecution.  Appellants took pains to
point out various alleged discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies
of Inocencio Retirado, Nopomuceno Fabros, Arsenio Gepana, Juan de la Peña and
Teodulo Galo, both at the trial and during the preliminary investigation of the
case, and upon which they now lay much stress in assailing the various claims
of herein appellants in this regard.

Appellants maintain that Inocencio Retirado is unbelievable and
unreliable because he has a faulty memory; he is known as a “procurador
especial” in the locality where he resides; he has been receiving a
monthly allowance of P90.00 from Camp Crame where he has been staying under protective
custody while this case was being tried in the lower court, and had even been
granted the special privileges of engaging in the buy and sell of hogs during
the period of his stay there.  In support
of the claim that witness has a poor memory, it is pointed out that Retirado,
during the trial, was not even sure whether his real name is
“Inocencio” or “Cresencio”; he could not remember whether
he was previously convicted of malicious mischief in the Justice of the Peace
Court of Sagay as “Inocencio”, or under the name of
“Cresencio”; he could not even recall then his own date of birth, or
that of his youngest child; while he claimed to remember the exact date of the
killing of Atty. Piccio on July, 19, 1958, and the circumstances that took place
months before that date; has failed to remember the date when he testified
during the preliminary investigation of this case; he was not even sure of the
distance of the jeep of the victim from the big tree at Tinampaan, when Jamero
allegedly asked Atty.Piccio to stop his jeep because he (Jamero) wanted to
urinate.  Moreover, appellants insist
that Retirado could not have been in the “inner cabal” of the accused
who allegedly planned the killing of Piccio, because there is no that he had
shown unflinching loyalty to the group to make him an indispensable ally in the
plot, consider that his only previous association with them was in 1955 when
the accused appointed him as “election watcher” in the local election
of that year.

These allegations should be denied.  It is not sur­prising that a poor man like
Retirado would forget the matters pointed out above by herein appellants.  This wit­ness admitted that he was not really
sure of his real name, because since childhood, some of his relatives call­ed
him “Inocencio”, while others called him “Cresencio”.  As to the number of meetings wherein the plot
to kill Atty. Piccio was discussed in his presence, Retirado explained that
there were really about 7 or more meetings in all, but he considered the four
(4) meetings in April, May, June and July he had mentioned, as the most
important ones.  With respect to the
distance of the jeep of Atty. Piccio from the big tree at Tinampaan when Jamero
asked Atty. Piccio to stop because he wanted to urinate, We believe the witness
has also explained that Jamero repeated the request about three times before
the vehicle finally came to a stop; and since the jeep was then running,
naturally, there were several distances involved.  It is true that the wit­ness forgot the date
of the preliminary investigation, but this is not incompatible with the fact
that be very well remembered the date of the killing of Atty. Piccio, not only
because he was a party to the plot to eliminate the victim, but also for the
reason that it is seldom in the life of a man that he should actually witness
the killing of a fellow human being.  He
may not be called a “paid witness” either, for the amount given him
during his stay under protective custody was such a pitance which could not
have impelled him to testify falsely against herein appellants, Retirado is a
family man, and such must be the reason why inspite of the fact that Retirado
was then under protective custody, he was granted the privilege to engage in
some kind of work, like buying and selling of hogs, in order to enable him to
support his family.  It is also true, as
claimed by herein appellants, that Reti­rado did not originally belong to the
inner circle of the accused, but the fact stands out in the record that some
months before the filling of Atty. Piccio, the accused had tried to avail of
the service of Retirado in connection with their attempt to wrest the mayoralty
of Sagay from Katalbas by filing an administrative charge against him; and it
was during this latter association of theirs that Retirado came to know about
the plot to eli­minate Atty. Piccio from the political scene of Sagay, and soon
became a party to the conspiracy to kill him. 
In fact, there is evidence showing that this witness showed reluctance
in joining the “hatchetmen” who were assigned to undertake the job,
but because he had been in the conspiracy all along, the others in the cabal
had to cajole and threaten him, finally assigning him the minor role of acting
as a mere lookout for the car that followed the victim’s jeep on that fateful night
of the killing and gave the signal to its “chance passengers” to
proceed in the commission of the crime.

Other alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony
of Retirado are as follows: Retirado declared in court that Pabicon and Junior
Vasquez were pre­sent at the meeting in the night club in the month of April,
1958, a fact he never mentioned during the preli­minary investigation of the
case; in his testimony, Re­tirado mentioned about the presence of Rudy Lopez in
the said night club, contrary to his previous declaration in the preliminary
investigation that Lopez was not there; during the preliminary investigation,
this witness de­clared that it was Pabicon and “a provincial guard”
who agreed to kill Atty. Piccio for a consideration, while at the trial, he
declared that it was Pabicon and Jamero who promised to undertake the said job;
in court, Retirado declared that nobody made mention of the name of Atty.
Piccio from the time of arrival at the night club until all the participants departed,
whereas, at the preliminary investigation, he said that Piccio’s name was
mentioned by Junior Vasquez in connection with election matters and the
proposal to kill Atty. Piccio; at the trial, this witness declared that Jamero
and Pabicon left the night club ahead of the others at about 2:00 a.m.,
contrary to his declara­tion during the preliminary investigation that he,
Jamero, the provincial guard and Junior Vasquez continued drinking in the night
club until 4:00 a.m.; earlier in his testi­mony, Retirado declared that the
fourth and final meeting was held in the morning of July 19, 1958, only to
state later that the 4th meeting was really held in the second week of July,
1958; in court, Retirado testified that Jesus Vasquez, Junior Vasquez, Araña,
Ramirez, Pabicon, Jamero, Lopez and he were the ones present in the said meet­ing,
whereas, in the preliminary investigation of the case, he did not mention
Pabicon but instead mentioned “two pro­vincial guards” in addition to
the rest in the group; Re­tirado declared earlier at the trial that he went to
Baco­lod City in the morning of July 19, 1958, because in a pre­vious meeting
held the day before, Jamero, Pabicon and he were instructed by Rudy Lopez to
come back that morning for final instructions, contrary to his declaration
later that he went to Bacolod City that morning because in the afternoon of
July 18, 1958, Pedro Araña, who was then with Ramirez, instructed him to see
Junior Vasquez at the house of the latter the following morning; at one
instance in his testimony, Retirado said that Jamero, Pabicon and he were
instructed by Rudy Lopez to wait at certain assigned places before 5:00 p.m.,
July 19, 1958, only to state later on that there was no definite time given,
the instruction being, for them to take a ride with Atty. Piccio in the jeep of
the latter who would be leaving his place of work at 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, and it was up for them to use their heads so that they could ride
with him; he declared earlier that Lopez and Bingcang talked for about 5
minutes, only to declare later on that he was not sure how long they talked
with each other; in his direct exa­mination, Retirado declared that as soon as
he saw the jeep of Atty. Piccio pass by the Ramos Machine Shop where he was
waiting, he hailed it, whereupon, Atty. Pic­cio asked him if he (Retirado)
wanted to ride with him going home to Sagay, which is contrary to his statement
under cross examination, that it was he who asked Atty. Piccio if he could take
a ride with him in going home to Sagay; he declared during the preliminary
investigation that whey Atty. Picco saw Bingcang come from behind the big tree
at Tinampaan, Piccio asked Bingcang why the lat­ter was there, while at the
trial, he declared that it was Bingcang who asked Atty. Piccio where the latter
was going; Retirado declared under direct examination that he could not
ascertain then whether it was a “jack” or a “tire wrench”
with which Pabicon hit the head of Atty. Piccio because it was dark, whereas
under cross examina­tion, the same witness stated that he already knew then
with which object Pabicon hit the victim, only that he was not sure then
whether the said object was the one called the “jack” or the
“tire wrench”; under direct examination, Retirado declared that the
instruction given by Rudy Lopez was “not to use a revolver or any weapon
that explodes” in killing Atty. Piccio, bet under cross examination, he
declared that the instruction was “to find a means of how to kill Piccio
by using a revolver”; Retirado declared that when Jamero struck at the
victim, Jamero’s right foot was on the running board while his left foot was on
the ground, but when he was later asked to demonstrate the position of Jamero
as he saw him thrust at Piccio, he showed that it was the left foot of Jamero
which was on the rennin, board while his right foot was the one on the ground;
earlier in his statement, Retirado declared that after running away from the
scene of the crime, he stayed in hiding “for a while” at a cer­tain
place, only to state later on that he hid in the said place for about 4 or 5
hours; that place where he stayed in hiding was first described by Retirado as
a “coconut plantation”, but later, Retirado described the said place
as a “sugar cane field; and while Retirado first declared that Rudy Lopez
instructed Jamero to look for a hunting knife to be used in the killing, he
said later on that there was no such instruction given.

As regards the testimony of Nepomuceno Fabros, appellants point out
the following alleged contradict­ions: Describing the circumstances that took
place in one of the meetings wherein the plot to kill Piccio was discussed,
Fabros declared that he heard Rudy Lopez make the following remark: “Just
take it easy, because we are not yet the king of the provincial jail”,
contrary to his previous declaration during the preliminary investi­gation that
not only Lopez but all the others who were present in that meeting also made
remarks of substan­tially the same import in “chorus”; in court,
Fabros stated that Jesus Vasquez had also made the remark; “Just take it
easy boys”, which statement Fabros never attributed to Jesus Vasquez
during the preliminary investigation; Fabros declared during the trial that
Pabicon did rot say anything at the time, which is contrary to what he declared
during the preliminary investigation that Pabicon joined in the
“chorus”; in court, Fabros said that he did not hear Jamero say
anything, whereas, in the pre­liminary investigation, Fabros stated that Jamero
was one of those who joined in the “chorus” also; Fabros said during
the preliminary investigation of the case that he left the house of Jesus
Vasquez after eating there, con­trary to his declaration in court later on that
he did not eat then in the house of Jesus Vasquez; Fabros declared earlier at
the preliminary investigation that Jesus Vas­quez was in the house when he
came, contrary to his testimony in court later, that when, he arrived, Jesus
Vasquez was outside the house in front of the Provincial Jail; he declared in
court that Pabicon was present in that meeting, but when he testified in court
later, he did not de­clared that Pabicon was also there; according to Fabros
(when he testified during the preliminary investigation), after the meeting of
the group sometime in the month of February, 1958, they met again for a second
time in the month of July or August, which contradicts his later tes­timony in
court that the second meeting in his presence was held in the month of March of
that year; Fabros de­clared during the preliminary investigation that in that
second meeting Rudy Lopez simply asked the group if they “were already
decided”, contrary to his declaration dur­ing the trial where he
attributed certain statements to Lopez to the effect that Atty. Piccio had
always stood by the opposite camp and caused all their troubles; in court,
Fabros testified that Jesus Vasquez had referred to Atty. Piccio as “a
smart guy” about whom “something must be done”, which statement
Fabros did not attribute to him during the preliminary investigation of the
case; at the trial, Fabros maintained that Pabicon had said, “I am just
waiting for your words”, about which statement the said witness never
mentioned at the preliminary investi­gation, and finally, according to Fabros,
during the pre­liminary investigation, Jamero and Junior Vasquez
“chorused” in saying “just say when”, which statement
Fabros never attributed to them during the trial.

Appellants allege further, in this connection, that the testimony
of Nepomuceno Fabros did not corroborate the testimony of Inocencio
Retirado.  Specifically, they point out
that Retirado did not testify about any meet­ings in the months of February and
March which were, on the other hand, testified to by Fabros; that the meeting
in the house of the father-in-law of Jesus Vasquez des­cribed by Retirado was
not mentioned at all in the testi­mony of Fabros; that while Retirado made
mention of a meet­ing at the night club in the month of April, the meeting in
that month as testified to by Fabros was held in the house of Junior Vasquez;
that while according to Retirado there were meetings in the month of May and
June wherein he was present, Fabros made no mention of said meetings in his
testimony; that while it may be deduced from the testimony of Retirado that the
meeting in the second week of July was held on July 18, 1958, Fabros declared
that the meeting in the second week of July he attended, took place a few days
before July 10, 1958; that Fabros did not testify to the alleged meeting in the
morning of July 19, 1958, which was testified to by Retirado; that in all the
meetings testified to by Retirado, this witness never mentioned that Fabros was
present, inasmuch the same way that in all the meetings attended by Fabros, the
latter never made mention of Retirado as one of the conferees he saw; and that
while Retirado claimed that in all the meet­ings he attended Oscar Ramirez and
Pedro Araña were pre­sent, Fabros never made mention of their presence in all
the meetings held in his presence.

With respect to the testimony of Arsenio Gepana, appellants point
out the following alleged contradictions:

1. In the course of his testimony, Gepana declared that he first
saw the jeep of Atty. Piccio when it stopped about two feet away from him; at
another instance, he said that the jeep was still about ten meters away from
him when he noticed it running parallel to the road; later he said that the
jeep swerved towards him when it was about two meters away, the reason why he
figured that Atty. Pic­cio must be drunk; whereas, in the preliminary investiga­tion
of the case, Gepana declared that even while the said jeep was still far, he
already saw its flickering lights.

2. At the trial, Gepana testified that when the said jeep was
approaching him, “the light was bright”, contrary to his statement
during the preliminary investigation that as the said jeep was nearing the
place were he was sit­ting, its “light became darker”.

3. During the preliminary investigation, Gepana said that the
jeep of Atty. Piccio stopped near him because it had to give way to a passenger
true at the trial, on the other hand, he first said that he did not know why
the said jeep stopped in front of him, only to explain later on that the jeep
stopped because a passenger truck unloaded passen­gers on the opposite side of
the road while another cargo truck passed by; and

4. At the trial, Gepana testified that when the jeep of Atty.
Piccio stopped in front of him on the night of July 19, 1958, he readily
recognized the persons riding the Piccio jeep to be the accused Joel Bingcang,
Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon, which is contrary to his testi­mony during
the preliminary investigation that while he saw Joel Bingcang driving the said
jeep with Mansueto Ja­mere seated beside him, he did not recognize the other
fel­low at the back seat because of the presence of plants and a box inside the
vehicle.

Further, appellants would also assail the veracity of prosecution
witness Juan de la Peña, not only because he admitted during the trial that he
had been always present during the previous hearings of the case, but also for
the reason that his testimony contradicts the other evidence on hand.  Thus, it is pointed out: that while de la
Peña claimed that he was not present in court when Retirado testified, and that
it was Torres who was at the witness stand when he was present, the record
shows that Torres testified only in rebuttal – long after de la Pena had
testified; that while de la Pena had declared that when Atty. Piccio inquired from
him where Sgt. de la Pena was, he gave the information that “he could be
found farther down the road”, Retirado on the other hand, declared that
the answer given by de la Peña then was to the effect that he did not know
where Sgt. de la Pena was at the time; that while de la Pena claimed to have
seen Retirado rid­ing the jeep of Atty. Piccio in the back seat that late
afternoon of July 19, 1958, Retirado’s testimony was to the effect that he was
seated not in the back seat but at the right side behind Jamero who was seated
in the front seat beside Atty. Piccio; that according to de la Peña what Piccio
was wearing at the time of the killing was “similar to a barong”,
contrary to the testimony of Re­tirado that the victim was then wearing a
“jacket”; and that while de la Peña said the rear of the Piccio jeep
was open with a loose flap, Retirado, on the other hand, declared that the rear
portion of the said jeep had a permanent covering at the back.

We have carefully examined all the foregoing al­leged contradictions
and inconsistencies in the testimo­nies of Retirado, Fabros, Gepana and de la
Peña.  Appel­lants have presented them in
such a detailed manner and discussed them at length in their brief, that We had
to read the voluminous record of the case with painstaking solicitude in our
sincere desire to see if they are such as to affect the credibility of said
witnesses.  By and large, however, We
find their testimonies reasonably cre­dible. 
Aside from the fact that a good number of the alleged discrepancies were
satisfactorily explained by said witnesses during the trial, We have also come
to the conclusion, after our own examination of their respective declarations,
both at the trial and during the preliminary investigation, that the alleged
contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by herein appellants as above
set forth, refer merely to minor details in their testimonies which do not
destroy the credibility and value of the main points they have testified
to.   Such inconsistencies on minor
points are clearly the result of the imperfections of the human memory, for it
is quite impossible for witnesses to remember and recall all the minor details
of an occurrence long past. 
Contradictions on minor details on account of lapse of time, far from
being evidence of false­hood, constitute a demonstration of good faith and a
con­firmation of the truth of the parties’ participation.  We note that the state witness, Inocencio
Retirado, testified at various occasions during the long trial of this case
with no brief period intervening in between. 
On those occasions, he was subjected to long and searching
cross-examinations by the brilliant lawyers of the defense.  So much so, that at one instance, Retirado
obviously became groggy; but his good faith and sincerity was clearly evident
from the fact that he withstood the ordeal without any apparent sign that he
was lying.  Retirado did not mention,
except on one occasion, the presence of Fabros in the meetings held in his
presence, but it appears that there were really several meetings held before
the killing actually took place, and, incidentally, Retirado was not present in
the few meetings that Fabros witnessed. 
Such fact alone, however, does not justify a conclusion that their
testimonies should be disregarded altogether. 
The same way may be said about the testimonies of the other witnesses as
against whom We find nothing in the record to show that they might have had any
motive to testify falsely against herein appellants.  The trial court had given the testimonies of
these witnesses full faith and credence, and We are satisfied, after our own
review of their respective testimonies, that the said court did not err in
giving weight to their declarations.  
Suffice it to say, in this connection, that the matter of assigning
values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently
performed by a trial judge who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such
testimony in the light of the declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the
trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate
between the true and the false; and We really find no the cogent reason to
disturb the conclusion of the court below as far as the credibility and
veracity of these witnesses are concerned.

As regards the testimony of Teodulo Galo appellants merely
contend that the incidents mentioned by this wit­ness for the prosecution are
too remote in time to constitute motives for the killing of Ernesto Piccio,
pointing out that the incidents referred to took place more than two years
before the death of the victim.  It is,
there­fore, alleged that the lower court should not have given reliance upon
his testimony out of proportion to its true worth.  We are not impressed with this argument
either.  The incidents testified to by
this witness were, of course, long past. 
But they appear to be sufficient reasons, when viewed in the light of
other circumstances testified to by other witnesses, for the killing of the
victim.  At any rate, proof of motive is
not even necessary here, where there is no doubt that herein appellants have
caused the death of the victim.8

But it is claimed that insofar as appellant Joel Bingcang is
concerned, the evidence does not warrant his convictions pointing out the fact
that the only evidence of his participation were those testified to by
witnesses Inocencio Retirado and Arsenio Gepana which may be summed up as
follows that according to Retirado, about ten mi­nutes after the start of the
meeting in the morning of July 19, 1958, Joel Bingcang arrived and told
appellant Rudy Lopez: “I was sent here by my employer”; that after
some 4 to 5 minutes conversation between Bingcang and Lopez which Retirado did
not hear because they retired to a place in the house a little farther away
from the rest of the group in that meeting, Joel Bingcang started to leave, say­ing:
“I’m leaving now, I’m going to wait in that place at Tinampaan”; that
later Bingcang appeared from behind a big tree by the roadside at Tinampaan in
the evening of July 19, 1958, as soon as Atty. Ernesto Piccio had stop­ped his
jeep near the tree at the behest of appellant Mansueto Jamero who said he
wanted to urinate; that a con­versation then ensued between Bingcang and Atty.
Piccio; and that it was at that precise moment when appellant Ju­lian Pabicon
struck at the head of Atty. Piccio from be­hind with the jack, after which
appellant Jamero stabbed the victim several times.  Arsenio Gepana’s testimony, on the other
hand, was to the effect that in the same evening of July 19, 1958, he saw Joel
Bingcang driving Piccio jeep down the bridge at Lagasan with appellants Jamero
and Pabicon as passengers; and that at the crossing nearby, he saw them turn
left towards Pandanan.  From these
testimo­nies, appellants argue that nowhere did Retirado even tes­tify that
Joel Bingcang ever touched or pinched the vic­tim and should, therefore, had
been acquitted by the trial court.

The claim should be denied. 
While there is no direct evidence showing that appellant Bingcang
participated in the actual killing of the victim, the above circumstantial
evidence shows beyond doubt that he was a party to the plot to kill Atty.
Piccio in the evening of July 19, 1958.  His promise to wait at the place in Tinampaan
where the crime was committed; his subsequent appearance thereat when the
Piccio jeep stopped at the place, in pursuance of that promise; his act of
engaging the victim in conversation then and there which gave a chance to
appellants Pabicon and Jamero to strike at the victim while the attention of the
latter was distracted; and the circumstance that he was seen driving the
victim’s jeep with the principal actors in the killing (Jamero and Pabicon) as
passengers imme­diately after the incident, show beyond a cavil of doubt that
herein appellant Joel Bingcang was in the conspiracy to eliminate Atty. Ernesto
Piccio; and he cannot now exculpate himself from liability by showing that he
never laid a hand upon the victim at the time of the killing.  It is fundamental that in a conspiracy, the
act of one is the act of the others, and all shall be liable for the crime
committed.

Appellant Joel Bingcang would maintain, however, that at the
precise time that Atty. Piccio was allegedly killed at Tinampaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occidental, he was in jail at Ajuy, Iloilo,
wherefrom he was released only at about 8:00
o’clock in the evening of that day.   Consider­ing the distance between the two
places, it is, therefore, suggested that he could not have been present and
seen at the place of the killing in Negros Occidental that very same evening,
at about the same time.  Let us recall
some of the testimony which has already been set forth above, and examine the
strength of this alibi.

It appears that in addition to his uncorroborated testimony in
court regarding his alleged confinement in the municipal jail of Ajuy, Iloilo,
from 11:00 or 12:00 o’clock in the morning to 8:00 or 10:00 o’clock in the
evening of July 19, 1958, appellant Joel Bingcang also identified a document
and the signature thereon of the Chief of Police of Ajuy who issued the same.  This was accordingly marked as Exhibit
3-Bingcang.  For convenience and ready
reference, We shall herein set forth the full text of that exhibit:

“REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROVINCE
OF ILOILO

MUNICIPALITY
OF AJUY

– o –

Office of the Chief of
Police

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that on July
19, 1958, at or about 11:00 o’clock
in the morning Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigan were arrested and, lod­ged in
jail;

That Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigan were released from jail at a­bout
8:00 o’clock in the evening of the
same day.

Ajuy, Iloilo, January 20, 1960.

(Sgd) SIMON SANTOYO

Chief of Police

Ajuy, Iloilo”

At the close of Joel Bingcang testimony,
counsel for appellants Lopez, Jamero and Pabicon made the following manifestation:
“If your Honor, please, on behalf of the accused Lopez, Jamero and Pabicon
would like to make it of record that we are adopting as our own the evidence
presented by the accused Joel Bingcang, but we would like to make a reservation
to produce later on photostatic copies of the entries of the blotter in the
municipality of Ajuy corresponding to Exhibit 3-Bingcang.” When the de­fense
made its offer of evidence later, the said photos­tatic copy of the Police
Blotter of Ajuy, Iloilo for July 19, 1958 (Exhibit 4-Bingcang)
was submitted and ad­mitted by the trial court, over the objection of the pro­secution
on the ground that it was not duly identified. 
This exhibit, as earlier set forth, bears the following entries, among
others:

“At or about 11:00 a.m.
July 19, 1958, Joel
Bingcang and Conrado Ani­gan were arrested and lodged in jail for fighting each
other by Sgt. Luis Celis.

                 x                      x
                     x                      x

“At about 8:00 p.m. 19 July 1958, Joel Bingcang and
Conrado Anigan were released.”

On the dorsal side of the document (exhibit 4-Bing­cang) is a
handwritten certification which reads:

“At the request of Atty. Al­berto M. K. Jamir, I cause the
photostat of all the entries in the Police Blotter of the Municipality of Ajuy,
Province of Iloilo, on July 19, 1958, to be taken.  This photostat was taken under my direct­ion;
I have compared it with the original appearing on the said blot­ter and I have
found it to be an exact and correct reproduction thereof.  The said blotter is under my custody and
control.

“Done at Ajuy, Iloilo,
this 2nd day of November, 1960.

s/ SIMON SANTOYO

w/ SIMON SANTOYO

      Chief of Police

        Ajuy, Iloilo”

After an examination of these documents, the question may be
asked: What is the probative weight or value of these exhibits? There should be
no question that Exhibit 3-Bingcang is not the certified copy of a public or
official record spoken of in the law of evidence.  If a mere certificate of the clerk or other
custodian of a paper, as to the substance, contents, or legal effect of the
docu­ment or as to the fact that the paper attached is an abs­tract or summary
of the original is not admissible, being purely hearsay, because the power of
the officer is limited to a certification that the paper is a true copy of
another writing,9
then with more reason that Exhibit 3-Bingcang is not admissible for the said
exhibit in itself does not show that the same was made with the aid of any
memoran­dum or record.  Definitely,
therefore, Exhibit 3-Bingcang cannot have an probative weight.  The same may be said of Exhibit
4-Bingcang.  While the same purports to
be a cer­tified copy of the police blotter of Ajuy, Iloilo,
there is showing that the same was properly identified during the trial, and
the objection of the prosecution to the admissibility of the document on that
at ground should have been sustained. 
Where the law permits the use of a certified copy, it is incumbent upon
the proponent to establish by competent proof that the paper offered by him is
indeed the cer­tified copy allowed by the law. This is explained by a
well-known authority on the law of evidence as follows, by way of example:

“Let it be settled that a custodian’s certified copy is
admissible and let the public document whose contents are to be proved be an
order of survey by the court commissioners of highways and let a paper be
offered purporting to be a certified copy, the county clerk, of the original
warrant lawfully in his custody.  Here it
still remains to be ascertain­ed that the count clerk is in fact the lawful
custodian of that class of documents, that the person J.S. is in fact the
county and that the signature J.3. was in truth placed there by, the genuine
J.S. (or if there is a seal, that the seal was genuinely his seal placed there
by him).”10

Here, by the doctrine of judicial notice, the law fixing the
custody of public records need not be evidenced; so with the incumbency of
principal public officers as custodian of said records, which would probably
include the case of the chief of police of a municipality.  But when, as in this case, the document
presented does not bear the seal of the office where it originated, the
genuineness of the signature of the custodian cannot be pre­sumed.  There must be some proof that the signature
appearing on the document is that of the official legally autho­rized to issue
the same.  Herein appellants appear to
have failed in this regard, for the alleged signature of the Chief of Police of
Ajuy, Iloilo, appearing on the certifi­cation on the dorsal side of exhibit
4-Bingcang, was never identified by anybody during the trial of the case.  The prosecution was, therefore, right in
objecting to the ad­missibility of said exhibit on that ground.  There is, of course, the signature of the
same official on Exhibit 3- Bingcang which was previously identified by
appellant Bingcang himself; but the trial court had observed that the two
signatures on the two documents were apparently made by different hands, which
observation, We believe, coupled with the circumstance that the signature on
one of them, was not properly identified, is not without rea­sonable
basis.  Hence, We have to declare that,
in effect, the trial court did not err in refusing to give any pro­bative
weight to the said exhibit, although not on the ground of inadmissibility, but
upon the suspicion that the same was “spurious”.  Moreover, alibi cannot be entertained when as
in this case, the identification of the accused as one of the persons seen at
the place or near the scene of the crime has been established by worthy witness­es.  This is more so when there is nothing in the
record to show any motive why the prosecution witnesses would impute to
appellant the commission of so grave a wrong as the one imputed to him.11

Appellants argue further that the lower court erred in convicting
Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon.  It
is noted, however, that the main ground relied upon by herein appellants in
support of this proposition also hinges on their claim that the witnesses for
the prosecution who had testified against them are not reliable, that is why
they still insist that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.  Having arrived earlier at the
conclusion that the alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses alluded to did not affect their
veracity, We may now dispose of this argument without any lengthy
discussion.  For indeed, in the light of
positive identification by witnesses, de la Peña and Gepana, of the presence of
Jamero and Pabicon inside the Piccio jeep in the evening of July 19, 1958,
coupled with the testimony of state witness Retirado that Jamero and Pabicon
were the ones who actually took part in the killing of Atty. Piccio inside the
said vehicle that evening, the evidence is sufficient to establish their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

We agree, of course, with the claim of herein appel­lants that
there is ample evidence for the defense tending to show that Jamero and Pabicon
were in Manila with other provincial guards of Negros Occidental during the
period from July 17 to 23, 1958; but these alibis of appellants Jamero and
Pabicon are not air-tight and do not rule out nor overturn entirely the
positive evidence for the prosecution that they were seen at and/or near the
scene of the crime in Negros on the 19th and 20th of July, 1958, as testified
to by prosecution witnesses.  Ino­cencio
Retirado, Arsenio Cepana, Juan de la Peña and Emi­lio Loga.  Witnesses for the defense, including herein
appellants, maintain that Jamero and Pabicon never return­ed to Negros on the
day of the killing of Ernesto Piccio, and in further support of their claim,
appellants have presented in evidence, the PAL Passengers Manifest for July 19,
1958, tending to show that Jamero and Pabicon did not return to Negros thru the
PAL flight that left Manila for Bacolod City at 2:45 p.m. of that day.  This is not conclusive proof, however, that
it was impossible for them to have left Manila
and return to Negros at anytime within the period of
their sojourn in Manila, for there
is evidence showing that at the time, there were two daily PAL flights from Manila
to Bacolod City,
one in the morn and one in the afternoon. 
The whereabouts of Jamero and Pabicon on July 19, 1958, had been
testified to by a host of witnesses for the defense, but We are more inclined to
believe that they were mistaken in their recol­lection of the presence of these
appellants, in Manila on said date, as it appears that the party in Sta. Mesa,
Manila, they claimed to have attended in the evening of that day was held on
the 20th of that month and not on the 19th as claimed by them.  This conclusion is supported by the testimony
of Amado Torres, a policeman of Baco­lod City, to the effect that he met
appellant Jamero and Pabicon, along with other provincial guards of Negros
Occidental near the Dencia Restaurant about midnight of July 20, 1958, a
Sunday, and not on the 19th as alleged by herein appellants who maintain that
they met the said policeman shortly after their return to their boarding house
from the party in Sta. Mesa; and this is confirmed by the testimony of Mrs.
Narcisa Vilches, a witness for the defense, who admitted during the trial that
she had previously made a statement at Camp Crame where she stated chat the
party in Sta. Mesa, Manila, in honor of her nep­hew, and attended by appellants
Jamero and Pabicon, was held on July 20, 1958. 
The testimony of Mrs. Vilches in court, that she saw Jamero and Pabicon
on July 19, 1958, also appears to be unreliable, as the same had been dis­credited
by the statement she appears to have previously made at Camp Crame to the
effect that she did not remember having seen Jamero and Pabicon at her boarding
house on the said date, although she tried to explain during the trial that she
only consented to the placing of such state­ment in her affidavit upon the
suggestion of Capt. Yap­diangco of the CIS. 
There is also the testimony of former Governor Valeriano Gatuslao to
reckon with, for the old man had testified that he saw Pabicon in the morning,
and Jamero in the afternoon of July
19, 1958, in the house of his brother in Quezon
City.  But it is
not unlikely that the Governor had mistaken other persons for Jamero and
Pabicon, considering that he appears to have about 10 or lore visitors in the
said house on that day.  The witness­es
for the prosecution had good reasons to remember the night of July 19, 1958 –
Retirado was a party to the crime, he could not have been mistaken; Patrolman
de la Peña was investigated by the barely five days after the killing; While
Gepana was called by the CIS agents some twenty days after the death of Ernesto
Piccio, or on August 9, 1958 to be precise witnesses for the defense, on the
other hand, have little or no reason at all to have that date etched in their
minds, unless they were really parties to the crime, and it is more probable
that they could have been mistaken as to the dates mentioned.   With these in mind then, We are more
inclined to disregard the claim of appellants that Jamero and Pabicon were in Manila
on July 19, 1958, and could
not have been at the scene of the killing of Atty. Piccio at Tinampaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occi­dental on the same day.  No
jurisprudence in criminal cases is more settled than the rule that alibi
is the weakest all defenses, and that the same should be rejected when the
identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by
eyewitnesses to the crime.  For it to
pros­per, it is not enough to prove that defendant was somewhere else when the
crime was committed, but must, likewise, de­monstrate that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.12
Obviously the alibis of appellants Jamero and Pabicon do not meet this
standard.

Regarding the conviction of Rodrigo Honorio Lopez, We do not find
it necessary to dwell on the various points discussed in appellants brief
seeking to overturn the finding of the court below, relative to his guilt.  Our own examination of the evidence revealed
that he had the great­est motive to eliminate the victim of the crime.  He was the prime mover in the killing of
Atty. Ernesto Piccio.  There is abundant,
evidence that he was present in the va­rious meetings held for the purpose of
plotting and kill­ing; that it was he who gave the final instructions to the
participants in the actual killing; and that he was in the car that followed
the Piccio jeep in the afternoon of July 19, 1958 and gave the go signal for
committing the crime later in the evening with the lights of the said car.  He did not participate in the actual killing
of the victim, but he is, no doubt, a principal by induction, and the acts of
his co-conspirators in the actual killing were equally his.

Finally, We find the charge of herein appellants that they were
convicted by the court below simply because “their counsel refused to
worship at the shrine of the trial judge”, to be quite unfair.  We note that the trial judge, perhaps in his
zealousness to dispose of the case with dispatch, had engaged the defense
counsels in several lengthily discussions respecting questions of procedure,
admissibility of evidence, propriety of the questions asked and related
matters.  But after We have read the
whole record of the case and passed upon the various portions there wherein the
said discussions were had, We find that the trial judge displayed no signs of
resentment either in the course of, or after the lengthily discussions.  And We can­not subscribe to the insinuation
that the trial court had convicted herein appellants only because the presiding
judge was “peeved” and “annoyed” by the various discussion
aforementioned.  Suffice it to say, that
apart from the incidents alluded to above, all the accused in this, case may
trully be said to have had their day in court, and We find nothing in the
record to sustain any belief that said discussions, in one way or another,
hampered or prevented defense in ventilating its cause.  And above all else, we find sufficient
evidence to sustain the conviction of herein appellants.

     Whatever comment We
would now make on the acquittal of the other accused in this case, would surely
be un­called for, for which reason We find it unnecessary to discuss the charge
that the court below had used an uneven hand in handing down the decision
appealed from.

Finding the judgment to be in accord with the law the evidence,
the same should be affirmed; but for lack of the required number of votes, the
death penalty cannot be imposed.

WHEREFORE, the death sentence imposed upon herein
appellants by the lower court is hereby reduced to life imprisonment.  No costs.

Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J, in the result.

 

---

^[1]
Moore vs. State, 67 So. 789.

^[2]
54 CJS 935.

^[3] Ibid.

^[4]
People v. De Leon,
et al., L-13384, June 30, 1960,
and cases therein cited.

^[5]
People v. Castañeda, 63 Phil. 480; People v. Ibali, L-3386-87, May 18, 1951, 88 Phil 724.

^[6]
See U.S. v.
Abanzado, 37 Phil. 658; U.S.
v. Alabot, 38 Phil. 698; People v. Bacsa, 55 Of. Gaz. 797; People
v. Manigbas, L-10352-53, Sept.
30, 1960.

8
See People vs. McMann, 4 Phil; 661; People vs. Estrada, L-26103, January 17, 1968.

9
See, 20 Am. Jur. 877.

10
5 Wigmore sec. 1679.

11 People v. Teorino, L-18767, 18789-90, May 30, 1964; People v.
Mesias, L-19250, August 30, 1963.

12 See People v. Estrada, L-26103, January 17, 1968, and cases therein
cited.