THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. BATUNDO MINURAY AND BALICUAT GUBAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Batundo Minuray, Balicuat Gubat and Cuanas Casium were charged with
double murder before the Court of First Instance of Davao for the
killing of Latimbang Mandaya and Velarde Ata. After trial, Minuray and
Gubat were found guilty as charged and, appreciating in their favor the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction and the fact that they
belong to a non-Christian tribe, they were sentenced to suffer a double
penalty of from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal,
to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the victims in the
amount of P3,000.00, and to pay two-thirds of the costs. The charge was
dismissed as to Casium for lack of sufficient evidence. Taken on appeal
to the Court of Appeals, the case was certified to us on the ground
that, considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime,
the imposable penalty would be at least life imprisonment.

The version of the case as reflected in the evidence for the
prosecution is as follows, Batimdo Minuray and Balicuat Gubat, who were
brothers, were laborers of their co-accused Cuanas Casium in his abaca
plantation in Kapalong, Davao. During their stay in Casium’s house, the
latter lost money in the amount of P150.00 and the suspicion as to who
stole it fell on his father-in-law Latimbang. Casium told his two
laborers that if they would kill Latimbang he would give each of them
P100.00. Having agreed to the proposal, in the evening of February 4,
1951, the two brothers, armed with a bolo and a spear, went to the
house of Latimbang in Mangulibas, Kapalong, Davao, and after Minuray
slowly opened the door of the house, he struck Latimbang at the thigh
with his spear which went through and again at the right hypochondrium.
Gubat in turn struck Velarde Ata at the right thigh with his bolo and
then hit him on the left lumbar region.

At that time, Latimbang was sleeping with his wife on the second
floor while Velarde Ata was on the first floor. Because of the attack,
Latimbang’s wife woke up and seized with fear the couple left their
dwelling to flee and on the way she discovered that he was critically
wounded. The two then decided to go to the nearby house of one Botogon.
During the attack the two brothers made use of a flashlight which they
borrowed from Cuanas Casium to identify their victims. They later
returned to the house of Casium to demand from him the amount he had
promised but Casium failed to pay them what he had promised even their
daily wages. After a week of frustration, they left Casium and went to
their home at Bubunao, Kapalong, Davao.

The next morning the authorities were notified of the incident. Cpl.
Marcelino Denupol of the Philippine constabulary went to the scene of
the crime. On the first floor he found the lifeless body of Velarde Ata
under the mosquito net with two serious wounds. In the house of Botogon
he found Latimbang in a critical condition also with two serious
wounds. The corporal ordered that Latimbang be taken to the town of
Maniki for treatment but nevertheless he died at 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of February 5, 1951. The corporal sent for the father of
Velarde, Aylabon Mamburao Ata. The latter arrived and after identifying
his son, he was buried in Mangulibas. Corporal Denupol asked the wife
of Latimbang who were the killers and she answered that she was not
able to identify them because it was nighttime and dark but she
believed that they were “Mangangayos” because the weapons used were
spears. “Mangangayos” means a native of the place.

Aylabon was informed by his elder brother sometime in November, 1953
that Batundo Minuray and Balicuat Gubat were the ones who killed his
son and Latimbang. The same information was given to him almost at the
same time by Lagare, his brother-in-law. Thereupon, Aylabon proceeded
to see Balicuat Gubat to ask him about the truth of the rumors and then
and there Gubat confessed to him in the house of his elder brother in
the presence of Lagare that he, Balicuat and Minuray killed his son.
Thereafter, Gubat proposed that if Aylabon will not bring the case to
court and will agree to settle the matter extra-judicially, he will
give Aylabon 5 hogs and 10 sacks of palay, Aylabon asked Gubat why he
and his companion killed Velarde and Latimbang and he answered that it
was by order of Cuanas. In the afternoon Batundo Minuray arrived and
also confessed to Aylabon that he and Gubat killed the victims.

Sometime in the same month of November, 1953, Minuray gave to
Aylabon a bolo, a scabbard, three chickens and one sack of palay on
condition that he refrained from bringing the case to court. Aylabon
accepted these things in the presence of his elder brother and Lagare.
However, on December 13, 1953, Aylabon went to see Sgt. Bonifacio
Botogon in the latter’s house to inform him that the killers of Velarde
and Latimbang were the two brothers. Sgt. Botogon sent Lagare, a PC
contact man, to fetch the two from Gupitan. They arrived in the
afternoon of December 15, 1953 and upon being investigated they
confessed to be the killers. The following morning Sgt. Botogon brought
the two brothers to the Justice of the Peace of Monkayo in order that
he may get their written statements. Accordingly, Justice of the Peace
Francisco Prosianos questioned the two brothers who informed him that
they were making a confession to the effect that they were the ones
responsible for the death of Velarde and Latimbang. Prosianos then took
down in writing their statements under oath which were thumbmarked by
them in his presence. Exhibit B is the affidavit subscribed by Batundo
Minuray while Exhibit C is the affidavit subscribed by Balicuat Gubat.

The version of the defense, on the other hand, is as follows:
Batundo Minuray and Balicuat Gubat for sometime after the commission of
the crime were residing in the barrio of Gupitan, Kapalong, Davao
engaged in the construction of a house belonging to one Donoan. One day
in the month of November, 1953, the two met Aylabon Mamburao while
riding on a raft. Armed with a shotgun, Aylabon ordered them to anchor
the raft and to stand by the bank of the river. Then, at the point of
his gun, he took the bolo that Minuray was carrying and told them to
confess that they were the ones who killed Velarde and Latimbang. They
refused. All of a sudden the shotgun exploded wounding Gubat on the
left leg. Afterwards, Aylabon left carrying with him three chickens and
a sack of rice belonging to the brothers.

Subsequently, the two brothers received a letter from Sgt. Botogon
requiring them to report to Camp Vista. They arrived there in the
afternoon of December 16, 1953. Upon their arrival, they found there
Aylabon and when they were asked as to whether they killed Velarde and
Latimbang, before they could give their answer, Aylabon intercepted and
answered for them the question in the affirmative. On the following
day, the two were taken by Sgt. Botogon and a corporal to the office of
the Justice of the Peace of Monkayo for investigation who thereupon
took down their written statements and made them affix thereon their
thumbmarks. The justice of the peace explained to them in the presence
of the mayor that he could assign to them a counsel de oficio
to assist them in the investigation but, according to said justice of
the peace, the two declined. The statements were couched in the English
language not known to them. They stated that they did not know their
contents and if they placed their thumbmarks thereon they were only
forced to do so. They even intimated that on that occasion they were
boxed by the mayor of the place. At the trial of the case, the two
repudiated the alleged confessions.

The thing that strikes us in this case is that no one has been able
to identify who the killers of the victims were despite the fact that
the assailants had allegedly made use of a flashlight to find their way
in the house and identify their victims, the only evidence on which the
conviction of appellants is predicated being merely the supposed
admissions or confessions made by them before some of the witnesses for
the prosecution. If the alleged admissions or confessions are
discarded, there will be nothing on which to predicate their
conviction, not even a circumstantial evidence to corroborate them. It
is because of this peculiar circumstance that we entertain serious
doubt as to their guilt for which reason we are inclined to acquit them
on reasonable doubt.

The first circumstance we wish to mention is the fact that one of
the victims, Latimbang Mamburao, did not succumb immediately after his
attack for he was able to make some outcries and flee from the house
assisted by his wife who was awakened by his outcries, and did not die
until the following day. If it is true, as the prosecution seems to
sustain, that the assailants made use of a flashlight to lighten the
house and identify the victims, it would appear strange that they were
not identified either by Latimbang or by his wife thereby removing any
doubt as to their identity. In fact, one of the witnesses for the
defense is Latimbang’s wife, Hitamanog Mamburao, who manifested that
she was not able to identify any of the assailants because the attack
took place at midnight and was dark, and she added that she believed
that they were “mangangayos” because the weapons they used were spears.
By this term she meant to refer to the natives of the place who used to
kill persons using a spear as their weapon. The statement of this
witness cannot but bear the earmark of truth for if there is anyone who
should show personal interest in the detection of the culprits it is
she because of her relationship to one of the victims. The two accused
are not natives of the place but are from Samar and Cebu. i. The claim
of Aylabon Mamburao that when he heard rumors that the authors of the
dastardly act were the herein appellants which were conveyed to him by
his brother-in-law Lagare, he went to the place where they were then
working in Gupitan and when questioned by him about the killing they
readily admitted their guilt, cannot be taken on its face value. To
begin with, it is hardly believable what Aylabon claimed that in spite
of their admission of guilt the brothers proposed to give him 5 hogs
and 10 sacks of palay on condition that they be not reported to the
authorities or taken to court, for everything seems to indicate that
the two were mere laborers who could not be expected to possess so much
property. Then, why would they readily admit their guilt when they knew
well that Aylabon was not holding any position nor had any authority to
inquire into the case? If it is true that the alleged admissions were
made in the presence of Lagare, who was a PC contact man, why was he
not presented as a witness to corroborate such admission? And the
situation is more strange if we consider the fact that, according to
Aylabon, the two gave him a bolo and a scabbard apparently as an
advance compliance with the proposal to compromise the case but that
when he reported the matter to the authorities he did not make any
mention of the bolo or the scabbard.

On the other hand, the story given by the two brothers regarding
what has actually happened when they were confronted by Aylabon
Mamburao on the occasion mentioned by him strikes us to be more natural
and reasonable and in keeping with truth. Thus, according to these two
appellants, when Aylabon met them on that occasion, he was armed with a
shotgun and when notwithstanding his threats to induce them to admit as
authors of the death of his son they refused, he made use of his
shotgun by aiming at them and causing it to explode hitting Gubat on
the left leg. And this story appears corroborated by the big scar shown
by Gubat in court as a result of the wound caused by the explosion.
There is nothing in the record to dispute this piece of evidence of the
defense.

The only remaining incriminating evidence against appellants are the
alleged written statements made by them before the Justice of the Peace
of Monkayo, Francisco Prosianos, but again, there are circumstances
extant in the record which make of the testimony of said justice of the
peace of doubtful validity, circumstances which create in our mind the
doubt as to whether they really contain the voluntary confessions of
appellants. In the first place, appellants appear to be of nil
instruction for they do not know how to read and write. They do not
even know how to write their names as in fact the confessions merely
contained their thumbmarks. According to the justice of the peace, all
the statements appearing therein came voluntarily from appellants and
he merely took them down in writing and made them affix their
thumbmarks on the place he has indicated. Yet, insofar as the
confession of Minuray is concerned, it would appear that his thumbmark
was placed not only on top of his name but also at the middle of the
document. And with regard to the confession of Balicuat Gubat, we have
his statement that he was forced to affix his thumbmark because he was
boxed by the mayor of the place. In this connection, it is well to note
that while the mayor testified that he was not present when the
investigation of these two appellants was conducted by the justice of
the peace, the latter belied him when in an unguarded moment he stated
that he was present when the accused waived their right to a
preliminary investigation. Discarding these confessions, as we must in
view of the above circumstances, there would be nothing left on which
we may predicate the conviction of appellants.

Apart from the above considerations, we cannot overlook the fact
that the only alleged motive for the killing of the victims is the loss
of P150.00 belonging to one Cuanas Casium who allegedly hired the two
appellants to do the killing with the condition that he will pay each
of them P100.00. Aside from the fact that Latimbang is a father-in-law
of Cuanas Casium, it strikes us as unbelievable for him to offer a
compensation of P200.00 for the unholy act as compared to the sum of
P150.00 he actually lost. This appears to us to be a last minute
concoction to advance a motive for the commission of the crime.

In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded to conclude that the
guilt of appellants has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. They
are, therefore, entitled to acquittal.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. Appellants are acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.