G.R. No. 17599. April 24, 1967
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NICOLAS CUNANAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, NICOLAS CUNANAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANCHEZ, J.:
The dossier of this case discloses that:
May 16, 1957. – On the night of this day, between barrios Anao and San Juan
near Km. post 80, in Mexico,
Pampanga, 25-year old Jose David, while driving a
jeep, received a gunshot wound at the left side of his back. Taken to the provincial hospital in San
Fernando, Pampanga, he there
expired at about 3:30 a.m. the
following day, May 17, 1957. Dr. Crisostomo Y.
Reyes, in his medico-legal necropsy report prepared on the same day, found one
gunshot wound, as follows:
“Gunshot wound, with contusion collar, point of entrance about
3/4 inch in diameter at the scapular region, left, 1 inch medial to the lateral
border of the scapula and about 1-1/2 inches below the superior border of the
scapula, left, with dressings.”
This gunshot wound has no point of exit. Cause of death:
“1. Shock, severe, irreversible due to profuse pulmonary
hemorrhage.
“2. Traumatic shock, severe.
“3. Gunshot wound of chest, left.”
May 20, 1957. – About 6:00 o’clock p.m. this day, 1st Lt.
Jose Bautista, P.C., filed with municipal mayor Marcos L. Padilla of Mexico, Pampanga, a criminal complaint[1]
for the murder of Jose David, against Nicolas Cunanan
– alone. Following a preliminary
investigation, that same night Mayor Padilla issued an order of arrest.
May 21, 1957. – On this day, that is, the morning following
the filing of the criminal complaint, the papers of the case were brought to
the attention of Mexico
municipal judge Antonio Bondoc. He examined the record, made a partial
investigation of his own. On the same
day, he issued an order lifting the order of arrest.
Judge Bondoc took up his vacation
leave. Judge Xerxes Garcia of the
neighboring municipality of San
Luis acted in his place.
May 28, 1957. – At the behest of Mexico
chief of police Felipe P. Salas and acting upon a letter of the provincial
fiscal, Judge Garcia forwarded the expediente
to the Clerk, Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
May 20, 1957. – Meanwhile, prosecution witness Miguel Laxamana, on May
20, 1957, gave Sgt. Francisco Baliñgit,
PC, a statement sworn to on May 21, that the only man found at the scene
of the crime – at the time of the commission thereof – was the second
accused Clemente Manaloto.
May 30, 1957. – The provincial fiscal filed direct in the
Court of First Instance of Pampanga an information,
this time against both Nicolas Cunanan and Clemente Manaloto, for the murder
of Jose David. The fiscal charges
conspiracy, night time, treachery and evident premeditation.[2]
June 15, 1957. – Nicolas Cunanan
surrendered to the provincial fiscal, was lodged in jail. Since July
6, 1957, he is on provisional liberty upon a P30,000.00 bond.
August 25, 1960. – After trial, the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga rendered judgment. Clemente Manaloto was acquitted “for lack of evidence.”
But, Nicolas Cunanan was found guilty of murder, and
sentenced to life imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of Jose David in the sum
of P6,000.00, and to pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
Nicolas Cunanan appealed.
Appellant’s brief assails the probative value of the People’s
evidence, challenges the Court’s findings, and seeks acquittal.
1. The People’s case was built mainly on the testimony of four (4)
witnesses: the three (3) pointing the
finger of guilt at Nicolas Cunanan alone; the
fourth solely at Clemente Manaloto.
Reproduced here is the version of each.
LUCIANO PUNZALAN – The afternoon of that day, his wife Maria Musñgi suffered stomach ache with abnormal bowel movements,
in their home in barrio Anao,
Mexico, Pampanga. He went to
the house of Juan David located in the same barrio, and borrowed the latter’s
jeep to take his wife to Dr. Logan at San Fernando,
Pampanga. At
about 7:30 that same night, the jeep
started from Anao on its way to San
Fernando.
Following were the occupants of the jeep: Jose David, son of Juan David, was at the wheel. To his right on the driver’s seat was Maria Musñgi. To the right
of Maria Musñgi on the same seat was Constancia Gonzales. Behind Constancia
Gonzales on the right side of the jeep was Luciano Punzalan. To the
left of Luciano was Gregorio Guevara. To the left of Gregorio was Miguel Laxamana. On the
left side of the jeep opposite the last three, were Antonia Mallari
who sat immediately behind Jose David.
To the right of Antonia was a vacant seat; and occupying the left rear
corner seat of the jeep was Andres David, brother of Jose David.
Some 14 or 15 meters from Km. post 80, at about 8:00 o’clock p.m., the jeep reached a
depression in the road about 1-1/2 feet deep and 2 meters wide. As the jeep was moving down slowly into that
hole, Nicolas Cunanan suddenly appeared between
Antonia Mallari and Andres David on the left side of
the jeep, outside, “holding a gun [which according to him was a revolver,
with a barrel as big as his forefinger and about 4 inches in length], and
pointing it at the back of Jose David.” There was an interval of
“[a]bout one (1) minute or even less” from the time Cunanan pointed the revolver to the time he fired the
shot. The jeep traveled a distance of
about 2-1/2 meters and stopped. After
the shot, Cunanan ran to the left shoulder of the
road, where there was cogon grass, and towards the field.
Four (4) of Punzalan’s companions,
Gregorio Guevara, Antonia Mallari, Miguel Laxamana and Andres David, alighted, went to the barrio to
get help. Punzalan
and his wife proceeded to San Fernando. After his wife was attended to by Dr. Logan
that same night, he took her back to Mexico.
ANDRES DAVID – This 18-year old younger brother of Jose David
corroborated Luciano Punzalan
up to the point when the shot was fired.
His version is that as they were nearing a hole in the road at the place
indicated by Punzalan, he heard a shot or an
explosion. He thought it was a blowout.
He did not see Cunanan fire the shot. He stuck
his head out of the left side of the jeep and, in so doing, “saw Nicolas Cunanan” more or less two meters away “somewhat
facing us still.” Cunanan ran to the ricefield. He did
not notice whether Cunanan was carrying a gun. Having heard his brother Jose David moaning,
he alighted. He saw Jose leaning for
support on the steering wheel and praying.
Jose told him to fetch their father because he was injured and to get
another jeep to take him away. The four riders heretofore mentioned proceeded
to the barrio. Andres told everybody he met that his brother was shot. He asked his uncle Moises
David to relay to the temporary policemen (T. P’s.) the news “that my
brother had been shot.” Catching up with the jeep his father, the
temporary policemen, and one Cayetano Tayag were on, they went back to Jose. He lifted his brother who was taken to the
second station hospital in San Fernando
where they were told to take him to the provincial hospital.
While his brother was in the emergency room, Mayor Padilla of Mexico
and some companions came. He led them to
the place of the incident, told the mayor:
“Here is where they shot my brother.”
GREGORIO GUEVARA. – Also
one of those in the jeep, this witness declared that between barrios Anao and San Juan
he heard a shot. Taken aback, his first
impulse was to jump out. He did not do
so, because he saw defendant Cunanan for the first
time about 3 meters to the left towards the rear running away, and he
feared Cunanan “might think I was chasing
him.” When the jeep stopped he, with others, left for the barrio. He did not notice if Cunanan
was carrying anything. He only
saw Cunanan.
MIGUEL LAXAMANA – This witness had another story to tell. As the jeep was about to go down a hole in
the road in an uninhabited place, he heard an explosion from the left side of
the jeep. He looked around. He saw “somebody lying face down towards
the rear of the jeep,” about two meters therefrom. He was about to alight. It was then that he recognized that person to
be the defendant Clemente Manaloto. He did not see Manaloto
do anything. Neither did he see where Manaloto went to.
When Manaloto “was no longer” in the
place he ran towards home.
2. We are at grips with the serious problem of ascertaining
whether credence should be accorded the witnesses just mentioned.
Pertinent to recall is that only one, Luciano
Punzalan, testified to having seen the actual act of
shooting. The two who corroborated him,
Andres David and Gregorio Guevara, allegedly took note of Cunanan’s
presence after the shot was fired and the fourth did not see Cunanan, only saw Manaloto,
the acquitted defendant. The conduct
observed by all of these witnesses following the shooting is quite revealing.
Despite the gruesome incident that Luciano
Punzalan witnessed, he sealed his lips as to who
shot Jose David. That night, he never
mentioned the name of Nicolas Cunanan to his
companions in the jeep or to anybody else, not even to Juan David, Jose’s
father who brought Jose to the hospital.
The first time he revealed the identity of Cunanan
was four (4) days after May 19 the day Jose was buried, and solely to one
person, Juan David. His reason was that
every member of the family of Juan David was very angry and he was afraid to
reveal the identity of the culprit sooner as “something also untoward
would even happen,” and “[t]he situation might be aggravated.”
How about Andres David?
Here is what he said: At the
hospital at about midnight of May 16,
he revealed to his brother, Attorney Restituto
David, one of the four private prosecutors, that it was Nicolas Cunanan who shot his brother Jose. Atty. David counseled Andres not to talk too
loud and not to tell their father about Cunanan’s
identity “because this thing might grow worse and it is impossible that he
was alone.” It was only after he was investigated by the Constabulary on
May 19th that he told his father that Cunanan was the
perpetrator of the crime. His reason for
so divulging was that then he (father) “was no longer very angry after my
brother had been interred.” He did not tell Mayor Padilla the identity of
the culprit because, again in his own words, “my secret plan was to get
him man to man and take vengeance against him.”
Along the same lines, the other witness Gregorio Guevara
gave this version: Shortly after the
shot was fired, he “did not hear anyone talk” about the possible
culprit. He was with the group of four
who returned to the barrio. In the store
where he sat in Barrio Anao he kept silent. That night he did not tell Andres David – a
companion of his in the jeep, brother of Jose – that he saw Cunanan.
Even his wife was not informed. Like the
other witnesses, he feared vengeance of Jose’s family. It was only on the 20th of May that he opened
up. His reason was that the Constabulary
was already investigating him and by that time he was confident that the ire of
the David family would have subsided.
And then, too, “[i]t was possible
that after that period, I was no longer afraid [of Cunanan],
because I was already with the authorities.”
Miguel Laxamana, for his part,
declared that that night he told Juan David that his son Jose met with some
misfortune, not that he saw Manaloto; and that all
that Andres David then informed his father Juan David was that “his elder
brother [Jose] had been shot” – and no more. Laxamana further
narrated that he told nobody that he saw Clemente Manaloto. It was
only after Jose’s burial that he revealed the presence of Manaloto
to the private prosecutor and to the provincial fiscal.
Antonio Balajadia – who claims he saw Cunanan
in the barrio shortly after the crime holding a gun wrapped in a piece of
spotted black and white piece of cloth – likewise mentioned to no one that he
saw Cunanan on the night Jose David was treacherously
killed. He divulged what he did
allegedly knew only on May 19 when Jose was interred.
The pattern of conduct of the five witnesses just related, cannot
but evoke comment. The four of them have
one stock excuse for not revealing the culprit – afraid that the family of Jose
David would wreak vengeance, take the law into their hands. This is quite difficult to believe. How easy would it have been for anyone of
them to whisper to the mayor, to the chief of police, to the policemen, to the CCU’s and to the temporary police, who were at the scene
or, for that matter, to the barrio lieutenant Ernesto Gamboa
– that the real culprit was Cunanan. And this, to the end that Cunanan
could be safely held in prison or in the constabulary barracks, and thus
prevent him from frustrating justice by flight or taking vengeance.
The threadbare excuse of Gregorio Guevara that he feared
the ire of Cunanan is notches below the level of the
probable. Right from the start, the
Mayor, the Chief of Police and the Constabulary took a hand. On May 17, the barrio was patrolled by the Constabulary
soldiers. Nothing in the record suggests
that Cunanan is a violent man. If he was, the slashing of his carabao (he is a farmer) prior to this incident by
prosecution witness Antonio Balajadia could have
given him a casus belli. On the other hand, Guevara could well obtain
protection from Juan David who, the record discloses, is a man who throws his
weight around.
The recitals of these witnesses just mentioned – five of them –
bordering on conspiracy of silence, raise grave doubts as to the veracity of
their statement that they saw Cunanan that night the
crime occurred. Indeed, reason exists
for an impartial observer to say that all of them crossed the boundaries of
credibility.
3. Quite apart from the foregoing, disturbing circumstances there
are which induce rational belief that Nicolas Cunanan
was not really identified as the man who shot at and killed Jose David.
First. In the verified statement given on May 20, 1957, by Miguel Laxamana, the following appear:
“Q – Aside from
CLEMENTE MANALOTO were you not able to see whether he (C. MANALOTO) has any
companion?
A – None, sir.”[3]
Miguel Laxamana, it should be
remembered, was on the right side of the jeep.
The People’s evidence is that Nicolas Cunanan
appeared about two meters on the left side of the jeep between Antonia Mallari and Andres David and tarried for sometime before he
fired the gun. Laxamana
was facing the left side and Cunanan was in the range
of his vision. It stands to reason to
say then that if Laxamana declared that he saw nobody
except the other defendant Clemente Manaloto – who had no companion – we have a case where in
reality Nicolas Cunanan was not identified as the
one who shot Jose David.
Second. In the morning of the 17th of May, 1957, Clemente Manaloto and Luciano Punzalan were together in a jeep going from barrio Anao to San Fernando. They talked about the incident the night
before. The following from the
conversation between the two who are friends and compadres,
as related by Manaloto, is indicative of lack of identification
of the perpetrator, viz:
“Q What was your
conversation with him?
A I
started the conversation, sir. I said, ‘You, my friend, were in the jeep. Will you please tell me the truth? What
happened? Did you see anybody?’ The
answer was, ‘I did not see anybody'”.[4]
Third. Contrary to the testimony of the People’s
witnesses, chief of police Felipe P. Salas assured the Court that that night of
May 16th was “very dark.” The chief added that “we could not
write because it was very dark.” And yet, prosecution witnesses Luciano Punzalan and Gregorio
Guevara could say that on that night Cunanan was
wearing yellow (culyawan) short-sleeved polo
shirt, with khaki pants and with particularity that he wore no hat and was
unshod. This shakes confidence on their
truthfulness. They obviously overshot
their mark.
Fourth. While Punzalan saw that Cunanan used a
revolver the other two – Gregorio Guevara and Andres David could not say that Cunanan had a revolver.
Fifth. We come to Antonio Balajadia’s
narrative. This witness is a brother-in-law
and a bodyguard of Juan David, father of the deceased Jose David. He testified that early in the evening of May 16, 1957 while he was in the
house of Casimiro Guinto in
barrio Anao, the wife of Michael del Rosario who was
in a nearby house looked out of the window and told him that his compadre “Padil”
(Jose David) was shot. He went down Guinto’s house and proceeded home. Near the residence of Alfredo de Guzman he
saw defendant Cunanan leaning against the fence, left
hand in his left pants pocket and right hand behind him holding a gun wrapped
in a piece of spotted (black dots) and white cloth. He declared that he saw the barrel of the
gun which was black in color, protruding two inches, as also the butt of the
gun which was held in the middle portion by Cunanan. Here is what Balajadia
told the Court –
“COURT:
Q You saw the entire gun or
you only saw the barrel, which is two inches long?
A The barrel was showing
and also the butt of the gun.
Q Those were the only
things that you had seen?
A Yes, sir.
ATTY. CONCORDIA:
Q What is the size of the
butt that you saw?
A The butt that I saw was
not too big, because it was curving and only the end of the butt was showing
and also the barrel.
Q With what material was
that gun wrapped?
A Rag.
Q What was the color of the
rag?
A It was spotted black and
white.
Q You are certain of that?
A I am sure, sir.
COURT:
Q What is the color, black
and white?
A The rag, sir.
Q Yes?
A It was spotted with
white and black dots, more of the latter.
Q What is the base or fondo white or black?
A It was not too
white.”[5]
Balajadia was trapped in the bogholes of exaggeration.
The following from his affidavit given on May 19, 1957 betrays him, thus: –
“Q You stated that when
you stepped out of your gate you saw Nicolas Cunanan
leaning against the fence of Alfredo Guzman and that when he saw you he moved
little backward and made himself closer to the fence thereby you saw him hiding
his right hand at his back is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q When he moved backward
was he facing you squarely?
A He was facing me
side-wise (slightly).
Q When he moved backward
did you not notice him holding something with his right hand?
A He was holding something
but I can not determine as to what was that because it was wrapped with a
piece of cloth.”[6]
Not that Balajadia’s testimony given in
court is surprising. He was previously
accused by Cunanan for slashing Cunanan’s
carabao. He
was prosecuted in court. Juan David
intervened to settle the matter and Cunanan
refused. He was convicted by the
Municipal Court of Mexico.
Sixth. Let us pause
to consider Cunanan’s situation. If Cunanan had
reason to believe that he was identified that night as the culprit, it is not
likely that immediately after the crime he should have tarried and exposed himself
to the danger of being caught, if not liquidated. This detracts any driving force from what Balajadia just related.
Andres David testified that on the morning of May 17th – the day
after the crime – Cunanan alone visited the
house where the deceased Jose David was lying in state. Andres started hitting Cunanan
with his fists. He was held back by
somebody. He tried to chase Cunanan. He was
prevented. He hit Cunanan
because “it was he who had shot my brother.” It is interesting to
note that then his father Juan David did not ask him why he gave fist blows to Cunanan.
The first instinct of man is self-preservation. If Cunanan was the
author of the crime, or that he felt that someone could have seen him commit
the crime, it is improbable that he should have the temerity to have exposed
himself to the danger of being the object of vengeance.
Seventh. On the
night of the crime – May 16 – chief of police Felipe P. Salas of Mexico
was notified thereof. With his policemen
Pacifico Musngi, Melencio Nicdao and Lorenzo Gozon, together with Mayor Padilla, he rushed to the scene
of the crime. They came upon a parked
jeep, and there he met the victim’s brother Andres David. He interrogated him. David told the chief that he did not know who
the culprit was. He investigated five
passengers of the jeep. They likewise
disclaimed knowledge of the identity of the assailant. He went to the house of Luciano
Punzalan. When
asked who shot Jose David, Punzalan’s answer to
Chief Salas, like that of Andres David and others, was that he did not know,
and that “they did not see (other) persons other than the passengers of
the jeep.” That same night he went to the hospital but the doctor on duty
told him that the victim was in a serious condition. On the following day, he instructed Sgt. Gozon to prepare a report for the PC and to enter the
incident in the police blotter. The
report was made, checked and signed by the chief. There he stated that Jose David was shot by
an unknown assailant. The entry in page
40 of the Mexico
police blotter for May 16, 1957,
reads:
“At about 8:35 p.m.
of this date one Jose David of Anao, this
municipality, was reported shot by unknown assailant near Km. 80
of said barrio Anao.
The victim succumbed at the Provincial
Hospital where he was brought for
medical treatment. The victim who was
driving a passenger jeepney at the time of the crime
was shot at the back at close range.”[7]
The chief of police had no motive to falsify the facts. Why, he even asked municipal judge Xerxes Garcia
to forward the papers to the fiscal. The
least that can be said is that he had regularly performed his duties.[8]
Eighth. Proof of
motive is unnecessary to pin a crime on the accused if evidence of
identification is convincing.[9]
Here, proof of identification is not convincing.
And, nothing in the record would as much as intimate such a motive
on the part of Nicolas Cunanan to kill Jose
David. Jose David’s widow, Bella Guevara
Vda. de David, assured the court that there was no
misunderstanding between Jose David and Cunanan, and
that they were intimate barriomates.
In People vs. Hajan, supra – a
case for murder – this court said (p. 547) that “though proof of motive is
not indispensable to conviction, yet a void in the evidence in this respect
discloses a weakness in the case for the prosecution.”
4. Why then was the accusing finger pointed at Cunanan
and Manaloto? Juan David, father of the
deceased, is the local President of the Catholic Action. Nicolas Cunanan and
Clemente Manaloto are the
followers of the religious group known as “Iglesia
Ni Kristo.” The following culled from the
decision below is interesting:
“As disclosed by the prosecution, the people of Anao, Mexico,
Pampanga, have taken sides and have divided themselves
into two groups on a religious issue – the Catholic segment, on the one hand;
and the members of the Iglesia Ni Kristo,
on the other. Such has been the feeling
engendered by the feuding factions that personal violence seemed inevitable.
Thus, it has been shown by the testimony of the barrio lieutenant of Anao, Ernesto Gamboa, a witness
of the prosecution, that Benjamin Sinamban, a
follower of the Iglesia, stabbed Pascual
Tiamson, a Catholic.
Another incident with a religious taint occurred in connection
with the image of the Virgin de los Remedios for which the Catholics gaily decorated the
barrio. It seems that the bamboo
fence that was erected along the road thru which the image would pass, was
pulled out by Nicolas Cunanan in front of his
house. On being asked the reason for
this conduct, Cunanan, according to Ernesto Gamboa, sarcastically inquired of him why he had allowed
himself to be fooled by “Mariang Bulugan“, alluding to the virgin.[10]
What appears, however, to have heightened the passion came about
as a result of the public meeting which was organized and held by the Catholics
in which Juan David, father of the victim, Jose David, was elected their spokesman
and in which it was agreed that the Catholics shall refrain from dealing
directly with members of the Iglesia. This action, which the opposing sect called a
boycott, was so resented that one of their active members, Primo del Rosario,
was said to have remarked, according to Casimiro Guintu, another witness of the prosecution, to the effect
that until they succeeded in killing one of the Davids,
they would not stop.”
As to Cunanan, in addition to the
incident about the virgin just related, there is the circumstance that Juan
David tried to settle the criminal case between his brother-in-law and
bodyguard Antonio Balajadia and defendant Cunanan in reference to the slashing by Balajadia
of Cunanan’s carabao mentioned
earlier. Cunanan
refused and Juan David got angry. Motive
to kill can hardly be deduced from the facts just recited. But the axe has to fall on someone.
No wonder, when asked why he was charged with the instant crime,
Nicolas Cunanan could only surmise – “it was
said [by “our barrio mates there”] that we were the ones who
killed.”
5. The defense is alibi.
Witness Ricardo Escoto, a student teacher of Iglesia Ni Kristo who was
assigned to Anao, testified that Nicolas Cunanan and Clemente Manaloto arrived at the chapel of the Iglesia
Ni Kristo about 6:00
o’clock in the afternoon of May
16, 1957. This Iglesia Ni Kristo chapel was in
the house of Primo del Rosario in Anao. The two of them did not leave the chapel
until about 8:30 or 9:00 in the evening after the services. May
16, 1957 was a Thursday.
And, the services of the Iglesia Ni Kristo is held on Thursdays and Sundays. The presence of Nicolas Cunanan
and Clemente Manaloto was
necessary because they were deacons.
The two of them made the collections between 8:30 and 9:00 o’clock
that evening. Thereafter, the services
ended. This testimony finds
corroboration in Emiliano del Rosario, another Iglesia Ni Kristo member, who was
also in the chapel. Of course, the two
defendants similarly testified.
6. Alibi is known to be the weakest of all defenses. Easy to concoct, it is difficult to disprove.[11]
We do say however, that here the defense of alibi assumes importance
and looms large because evidence of appellant Cunanan’s
identification is weakened and rendered unreliable.[12]
This court recently, in People vs. Fraga, et al., No.
L-12005, August 31, 1960,
had occasion to say the following, through Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes:
“x x x an
accused cannot be convicted on the basis of evidence which, independent of his
alibi, is weak, uncorroborated, and inconclusive. The rule that alibi must be satisfactorily
proven was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases;
otherwise, we will see the absurdity of an accused being put in a more
difficult position where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and weak than
where it is strong.”
7. The natural reaction of one who witnesses a crime is to reveal
it to the authorities, unless, of course, he is the author thereof. It defies credulity that not one or two but five
such witnesses made no effort to expose Cunanan if
they really knew that he was the author thereof. This stultified silence casts grave doubts as
to their veracity.
In the end, we have here a specific case where evidence of identification
is thoroughly unreliable. Reason: No valid explanation was given why the
People’s witnesses did not report the identity of appellant Nicolas Cunanan to the authorities during a long period of time.[13]
As we look in retrospect, we come to the conclusion that the
remaining defendant Nicolas Cunanan was convicted
below more on evidence riddled with serious doubts and not entirely free
from suspicion, than the commanding weight of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The crime here involved is
serious. It is murder. This calls to our mind what Alfonso El Sabio was reputed to have said a long time ago: “Mas vale que queden sin castigar diez reos
presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente.”[14]
And we say that the guilt of Nicolas Cunanan has not
been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Upon the view we take of this case, the judgment below as against
defendant Nicolas Cunanan is hereby reversed, and he
is hereby acquitted of the crime of murder, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalilntal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and
Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
Criminal Case No. 234, Justice of the Peace Court of Mexico, Pampanga, entitled “People of the Philippines,
plaintiff, versus Nicolas Cunanan,
accused.”
[2]
Criminal Case No. 2889 of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga,
entitled “People of the Philippines
versus Nicolas Cunanan and Clemente
Manaloto, accused.”
[3]
Exhibit E, p. 3.
[4]
Tr., Magat, August
6, 1959, p. 18 (158).
[5]
Tr., Lagman, pp. 206-207.
[6]
Exhibit 7, p. 2, emphasis supplied.
[7]
Exhibits 3-A, 3-B; emphasis supplied.
[8]
Sec. 5(m), Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court.
[9]
People vs. Hajan, 50 Phil. 545, 547; People vs.
Dalmani, 63 Phil. 188, 195; People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, 256-257; People vs. Zamora, 59
Phil. 568, 569.
[10]
This was denied by Cunanan. Emphasis supplied.
[11]
U.S. vs. Olais, 36 Phil. 828, 829; People vs.
Pili, 51 Phil. 965, 966; People vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 265, 272; People vs. Bautista,
L-17772, October 31, 1962; People vs. Dayday,
L-20806 & L-20807, August 14, 1965.
[12]
People vs. Rafallo, 86 Phil. 22, 29-30.
[13]
People vs. Felicisimo, 44 Off. Gaz., (No. 8), pp. 2770, 2773; People vs. Gani, 81 Phil. 139, 143-144.
[14] Frases, Ideas y Pensamientos de Varios Autores recopilados por Pablo Buill, p. 112.