G.R. No. 12142. March 30, 1960
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARDO TUAZON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BENGZON, J.:
Abra, Mardo Tuazon, 28, was sentenced, for murder, to reclusion
perpetua and to pay P4,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased Catalino
Darisay. He appealed in due time.
Accoording to the evidence of record, Catalino Darisay left his
home town of Dolores, Abra in 1947 to improve his economic conditions in
Cotabato, mandanao. Eight years later, he returned for a short visit
with his aunt Cornelia Darisay, arriving in Tayum, Abra, on October 29,
1955. That very morning he took leave of her to visit his grandfather
Teodoro Britos. She never saw him again. As he had agreed to return to
Cotabato with her after the town fiesta on November 25, 1955, and as he
did not show up, Cornelia Darisay decided to call upon Teodoro Britos.
The latter informed her that Catalino had stayed in his house for two
days and then proceeded to the poblacion of Dolores accompanied by him
(Britos). The old man said he left Catalino in Dolores, because the
latter wanted to proceed to the barrio or sitio called Pudoc, whereas he
had to, and did, return to his house. Admitting he never saw Catalino
again, he however refused to accompany Cornelia when she announced her
intention to report the matter to the municipal authorities. It seems,
according to his own testimony, he had already given notice of
Catalino’s disappearance.
Inquiries failed to elicit information regarding Catalino’s
whereabouts.
Then on December 18, 1955, Roberto Tejero, 27, while looking for
his horse stumbled across some human bones and a skull, in sitio
Nagalangan, Dolores. Nearby were a pair of rubber shoes, a cap, and a
leather belt shown to have been worn by Catalino the day he went to
Dolores. Expert testimony affirmed that the human remains could be those
of a man of the age and physique of Catalino. In fact, everybody agrees
he died.
Notified of the find and Catalino’s disappearance, the
constabulary authorities aarrested Oricolo Balneg whose hut appeared to
be the one nearest to the place of Tejero’s discovery. After some
hesitation, he revealed the grim story of how Catalino had been killed
by Mardo Tuazon. “On October 31, 1955,” he said in court, “Catalino came
to ask the location of the cornfield that belonged to his mother. I was
then plowing my farm. I showed him the place, and then we went to my
hut. It was about midday. Then he asked me the way to Pudoc. I pointed
the way, went with him up to a distance of about 500 meters. When we
reached the gate of my cornfield, I noticed that that Mardo Tuazon was
following Darisay, who in turn was following me. Then Mardo Tuazon told
Catalino to wait for him. Catalino stopped walking, and suddenly Mardo
Tuazon boloed Catalino even as he exclaimed ‘So you have come to get the
land of my wife.’ Catalino fall dead. Mardo threatened me with death
should I reveal the incident.”
Oricolo Balner withstood a thorough cross-examination, and
impressed with his sincerity, the Hon. Felix R. Domingo, Judge, rendered
a verdict of guilt in a well-prepared decision explaining and analyzing
the proofs on both sides. Motive for the crime was this. Catalino had
come to claim, as inheritance from his mother, the land under
cultivation by Mardo, which Britos had given to his stepdaughter, who
was Mardo’s wife.
The evidence offered by the accused set up practically three
lines of defense: (a) Oricolo Balneg killed Catalino; (b) Catalino could
not have been killed in October 31, 1955, because on November 7, 1955,
he went with his grandfather Teodoro Britos to Dolores; (c) alibi.
As to the first, two policemen reported that, when he was brought
to the municipal building for investigation, Balneg confessed to having
killed Catalino Darisay. But these witnesses admitted that the
confession went further; he killed at the instigation of this
appellant, who paid him P50.00. This point, therefore, does no help
the defense.
The second derives no importance, because if it is true that
Catalino went to Dolores on November 7, 1955, then the murder occurred
on that date, Oricolo having merely committed a mistake as to the date
of the deadly assault, He is illiterate, be it noted. Anyway, this
defense led to mainly on the testimony of Teodoro Britos whose sincerity
the judge openly doubted, not only because he has interests adverse to
the deceased (he had disposed of, and was profiting partly from the land
which Catalino wanted to get) but also because he made no serious
efforts[1] to locate his
missing grandson, beyond notifying the authorities, after a long time at
that. (last part of November, 75 s.n.) He did not call on Cornelia
Darisay in Tayum who he knew had accompanied Catalino from Minadanao
(just in case Catalino had rejoined her, instead of coming back to
Lubluba). He did not ask other persons (except his brother and sister)
about Catalino. Instead, he said he looked for Catalino in the bushes
of Pudoc, as if he had a premonition that his grandson lay there.
Mardo Tuazon himself did not knew that Teodoro Britos was looking for
his grandson.[2a] Very
peculiar indeed, because he would be the first whose help Britos would
ask, being married to the latter’s stepdaughter and living only a few
meters away from his house.
As to the alibi, it is supported principally by the testimony of
Britos and of the accused himself.[2]
Of Britos, no further comment need be added. On the other hand, the
accused deserved no credence, he having made on cross-examination
statements highly improbable in the ordinary course of life. These are
related in the following paragraphs of the appealed decision:
“On cross-examination, he admitted that his wife, even before he
married her before the war, was living with Teodoro Britos and that
after their marriage be became a tenant of Teodoro Britos. He was not
informed how many children Teodoro Britos had who would inherit the
latter’s lands which he, the accused, was working on as a tenant.
Neither did it interest him to know, nor was he told, that Teodoro
Brtios had grandchildren in Mindanao. Asked whether in the month of
October, 1955 he saw new faces in Lubluba where he then resided he
denied that he saw new faces therein. He admitted that his house was
only about thirty meters away from the house of Teodoro Britos, and that
they draw their water from a common well. The accused stated that on
October 31, 1955, he was in his house but was working on a land which is
within shouting distance from his house. Asked if it is not true that
it was customary between his family and that of Teodoro Britos to help
each other entertain visitors, he denied such cooperation stating that
each family entertains its own visitors exclusively. He also denied that
on November 6 and 7, 1955, he noticed a new face, a visitor, in the
house of Teodoro Britos but admitted that sometime near Christmas time
in 1955 Teodoro Britos was looking for a relative who disappeared. x x
x.”“In answer to questions propounded by the Court, he stated that
although his house is only thirty meters away from that of Teodoro
Britos, he did not know of the presence of Catalino Darisay in the house
of Teodoro Britos, and that he was informed only by the latter of the
disappearance of Catalino Darisay before December, 1955. He denied
knowledge of whether his own wife who is the daughter of the second wife
of Teodoro Britos visited the house of the latter during the last days
of October and early days of November, stating further that his wife
never told him that there was a visitor in the house of her (wife’s) own
mother. He further stated that he had been married exactly eleven years
before into the family of Teodoro Britos but during that period Teodoro
Britos never mentioned to him that the latter had relatives in Mindanao
nor had he learned from any of their neighbors that such relatives were
living in Mindanao. x x x.”
Needless to say, an emigrant to Mindanao, (land of promise to
Ilocano farmhands) who visits his home-town after an absence of eight
years, could not have failed to excite the interest of the neighborhood.
And one who has married into a family is supposed to know the immediate
members thereof specially if he maintains contact with its head.
There is another witness to the alibi: Meno Quinto, another old
man (80). But he spoke of being with Mardo on November 7, the day
Catalino went, according to Teodoro Britos, to Pudoc. Yet, it is quite
certain the crime occured on October 31, the same Britos having admitted
that Catalino stayed in his house two days only. (104 s.n.) At
any rate, Meno’s account proved to be unreliable when he showed on the
witness stand how poor was his memory concerning dates.
Going back to the lone eye-witness, appellant’s counsel
vigorously assail his veracity, contending that his declarations were
“unnatural, improbable, unbelievable and unthinkable.” They cite no
less than eight instances, supported by quotations from the stenographic
notes, wherein he allegedly contradicted himself or made assertions
contrary to the natural course of human events.
We have read these quotations; as presented, however, they seem
out of context. Interpreted in connection with other statements they do
not so taint the testimony with signs of incredibility as to make it
unacceptable. Indeed, the instances — most of them — were called to the
attention of the trial judge, who ignored them altogether in giving full
credit to Balneg’s eye-witness account. We have found the sufficient
reason to disagree with His Honor’s appraisal of the circumstantial and
direct evidence introduced at the trial of this case.
The attack was sudden and fatal. In the eyes of the law it was
murderous.[3]
Wherefore, the appealed judgment will be affirmed with costs
against appellant.
Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur,
Padilla, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., took no
part.
[1] He did not even proceed to the
place where the remains were found.
[2] The trial judge found it
insufficient, these two being together only up to 10 o’clock in the
morning and after one o’clock in the afternoon; and the crime occured at
midday.
[2a] Until sometime near
Christmas.
[3] People v. Bandajo, 70 Phil. 486; People v. Dosal,
Padilla-Criminal Law (1955 Ed.) Vol. II, p. 371.