THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR ESCUDERO, SR., SALVADOR ESCUDERO, JR., AND MARGARITO HONRA, DEFENDANTS. SALVADOR ESCUDERO, SR., AND SA…

Meliton Hagos, municipal president of
Casiguran, Sorsogon Province, was killed without warning about eight
o’clock in the evening of July 25, 1932, while sitting in the sala
of his house. The weapon used in the commission of the crime was a gun
loaded with No. 4 shot and slugs made from galvanized iron rivets. The
gun was fired from the direction of the front entrance to the house.

The municipal police and the constabulary promptly began to
examine the premises and to question the people in the house of the
deceased and the neighboring houses as to what they knew about the
crime. The investigation was continued, but without any immediate
results, and on July 29th the provincial governor issued a proclamation
addressed to the residents of Casiguran, in which he denounced the
crime, urged the people to aid the authorities in discovering the
murderer, and to give to the constabulary immediately any information
that might lead to the detection of the author of the crime. To show
his appreciation of the attitude of the people, the governor offered a
reward of ^50 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of
the person that had committed the crime.

As soon as it became known that the municipal president had been
murdered, a rumor was started that the Escuderos were responsible for
the crime. Apparently it was at first assumed that the Escuderos were
implicated in the crime solely because of the political rivalry and ill
feeling that bad existed between them and the deceased municipal
president. As a motive for the commission of the crime, the prosecution
adduced evidence tending to show that at the instance of Meliton Hagos,
Salvador Escudero, jr., was charged with frustrated murder on May 17,
1932; that after he had been arrested, his father, Salvador Escudero,
sr., went to the office of the chief of police and told him that he had
been persecuting his son, and that if anything happened to him, the
chief of police and his associates had better take care; that on the
night of May 28,1932 Salvador Escudero accused Meliton Hagos of hiring
thugs to molest him and his son; that Salvador Escudero, jr.,
intervened and advised his father to drop the matter, saying that they
would meet Meliton Hagos some other time; and that the next day
Salvador Escudero sent a telegram to the GovernorGeneral stating that
he and his family were in danger of being assaulted by the followers of
the municipal president, that there was an understanding between the
authorities and the thugs, headed by the president and the police. He
asked for protection and an investigation. This telegram was referred
to the provincial governor and by him to the municipal president for
comment and explanation, but apparently nothing further had been done
when Meliton Hagos was killed. Salvador Escudero denied having made the
threat attributed to him by the chief of police, Pablo Grefaldeo, and
stated that he had filed administrative charges against Grefaldeo. He
further testified that after mutual explanations his differences with
Meliton Hagos had been adjusted; but at any rate proof of motive is not
proof of guilt.

On September 7, 1932 a complaint for murder was filed in the
justice of the peace court of Casiguran by the deputy fiscal against
Salvador Escudero, jr., Margarito Honra, and Basilio Bilay. Upon the
termination of the preliminary investigation, the complaint was
dismissed as to Basilio Bilay. The other defendants were remanded to
the Court of First Instance for trial, where on October 7,1932 the
deputy fiscal filed an information for murder against the defendants
including Salvador Escudero, sr., who waived his right to a preliminary
investigation. The defendants entered a plea of not guilty.

The trial was begun before Judge Tomas Flordeliza on October 31,
1932, and continued until December 23d. The trial was resumed on July
28, 1933, before Judge Diego Locsin, who decided the case. Judge Locsin
found Salvador Escudero, jr., and Margarito Honra guilty as principals
of the crime of murder, and sentenced each of them to suffer reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000; he found
Salvador Escudero, sr., guilty as an accomplice, and sentenced him to
suffer an indeterminate sentence of not less than eight years and one
day of prision mayor and not more than twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal,
and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500. Each of
the accused was made subsidiarily responsible for the civil liability
of the others, and sentenced to pay one-third of the costs.

Salvador Escudero, sr., who is also referred to herein as Salvador
Escudero, and Salvador Escudero, jr., have appealed to this court.
Margarito Honra did not appeal. The appellants made the following
assignments of error:

“El Juzgado incurrio en error:

“1. Al
declarar que el occiso Melitdn Hagos y el acusado Salvador Escudero,
padre, eran entre si enemigos personales ademas de serlo politicamente.

“2. Al estimar que el movil del asesinato de Meliton Hagos, cometido el
25 de julio de 1932, fuera dicha supuesta enemistad entre el occiso y
Salvador Escudero, padre, y actos tales como, haber este enviado al
Gobernador General una queja, redactada por el abogado Silo, pidiendole
‘proteccion e investigacidn’ (Exhibits F y LL) y haber dado cuenta a la
Constabularia de un incidente ocurrido en mayo de 1932, entre dicho
acusado y el occiso.

“3. Al no rellamar a los testigos de la
acusacion que ha bian declarado ante al Hon. Juez Flordeliza, para
apreciar por si mismo el grado de credibilidad de tales testigos y
especialmente al desestimar la peticitfn de la defensa de que fuera
rellamado para declarar el testigo Juan Coderis, testigo principal de
la acusacion, para someterlo a repreguntas adicionales y para que el
Hon. Juez pudiera apreciar, por la manera y forma de declarar dicho
testigo, acerca de la credibilidad del mismo.

“4. Al dar
crSdito a los testimonies de los testigos de la acusacion Beala
Hitosis, Juan Coderis y Alberto Hababag y del coacusado Margarito
Honra, en vez de estimar falsos e indignos de credito los testimonios
de tales testigos de la acusacion.

“5. Al declarar sin valor lo declarado por todos los testigos de la defensa.

“6. Al no declarar que los acusados han sido victimas de una trama
urdida contra ellos, iniciada por Andres Hagad y aceptada y sostenida
por el Capitan Donesa y el Teniente Santiano, oficiales de la
Constabularia en Sorsogdn, quienes con el dicho Hagad, desarrollando
dicha trama, han utilizado medios ilegales y han ejercido presion e
influencia sobre los testigos para obstruir y anular la defensa de los
acusados y obtener as! la condena de e”stos.

“7. Al estimar
que la escopeta, cuyos restos son los exhfbitos V y VI, fue el arma
usada para cometer el delito y que con la misma se dispararon
simultaneamente dos capsulas contra el occiso Meliton Hagos.

“8. Al declarar y estimar, respecto al uso y disparo con el arma dicha,
la comision del delito objeto de la querella tal como en esta se alega
haber sido cometido, en contra de lo declarado por los peritos
presentados por la defensa.

“9. Al no declarar, por las
circunstancias que rodearon el hallazgo de los exhibitos V y V-l,
restos de la escopeta supuestamente utilizada contra el occiso, que
dicha prueba fue planeada y fabricada por los oficiales de la
Constabularia que han mantenido la acusacion.

“10. Al no
estimar probado, en relacidn con el testimonio pericial del senor
Colmenar y eh relacidn con el resultado de la autopsia del occiso y el
testimonio del facultativo que la practicd, que el tiro que matd a
Melitdn Hagos f ue disparado a treinta y seis (36) metros de distancia
y que era flsicamente imposible que tal disparo se hubiese hecho a
cinco y medio (51/2) metros de distancia como se pretende por la
acusacion.

“11. AI condenar a los acusados en vez de
absolverlos, por no haber pruebas que, fuera de duda racional,
establezcan la culpabilidad de los mismos.”

The case for the prosecution rests on the testimony of Beata
Hitosis, Alberto Hababag, Ricardo Huerto, Juan Coderis, and Margarito
Honra, and the finding of the barrel of a gun by Margarito Honra on
December 24, 1932.

After carefully considering the evidence of record and the
arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that the guilt of the
appellants is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Neither the character nor the conduct of the witnesses for the
prosecution inspires confidence in the truth of their testimony. They
are impeached by witnesses for the defense entitled to equal or greater
credit. In this matter of the credibility of the witnesses it is to be
borne in mind that all the aforementioned witnesses for the prosecution
and most of the material witnesses for the defense testified before
Judge Flordeliza during the period from October 31 to December 23,
1932, and that the judge who decided the case did not have the
advantage of hearing them testify.

Beata Hitosis, who was staying in the house of Tomas Hebres, near
the house of Meliton Hagos, testified that about eight o’clock on the
night in question she went to her grandmother’s house to gei; food for
her sick brother and met Salvador Escudero on the way; that she spoke
to him, but he did not answer; that when she was washing the dishes
Salvador Escudero, jr., turned his flashlight on her and she called him
a devil; that he turned his flashlight on the house of Huet, which was
nearer to the house of Meliton Hagos.

The falsity of the testimony of this witness is proved not only by
the testimony of her cousins living in the house with her, who
testified that she did not leave the house until after the municipal
president was killed, but also by its absurdity. Who would believe that
the leader of a band of conspirators, who had gone to the house of the
deceased for the purpose of killing him with a shotgun, would begin by
turning his flashlight on the neighboripg houses? Although Beata
Hitosis was a relative of the wife of the deceased, and the
constabulary several times investigated the occupants of the house of
Tomas Hebres, when she was present, she never revealed to them that she
had seen the Escuderos that night. Her only excuse was that no
questions were addressed to her. We have no hesitation in branding her
testimony as a fabrication.

Juan Coderis testified that he went to the house of Meliton Hagos
on the night in question for the purpose of consulting him about the
attachment of his father’s land by the Singer Sewing Machine Company;
that when he reached the gate in front of the house, he saw two men on
the steps, and almost simultaneously heard a shot; that he recognized
Salvador Escudero, jr., as the man that fired the shot, and his
companion as Margarito Honra; that Escudero, jr., and Honra then passed
under the railing of the steps and ran towards the side of the lot, and
Salvador Escudero came from behind some camia bushes near the house and
ran out of the front gate, colliding with Coderis; that Margarito Honra
was carrying a bolo; that the witness then ran away.

That is a fine story, apparently complete in every detail; but in
fact overdone as to details. Coderis testified that Margarito Honra was
carrying a bolo, but Honra, upon whose testimony the conviction of the
appellants principally rests, testified that he carried only a palma
brava stick. Coderis testified that Salvador Escudero came from behind
some camia bushes, ran out of the front gate, and struck against him.
Honra testified that Salvador Escudero was on guard outside of the
premises of the deceased. As to the realistic detail mentioned by
Coderis that Salvador Escudero, jr., and Margarito Honra ducked under
the railing of the steps, the photographs show that there was no
railing. The Solicitor-General tries to minimize these discrepancies,
and argues that they only tend to show the sincerity of the witnesses.
He overlooks the fact, however, that oftentimes when witnesses are
deliberately perverting the truth, the only way to demonstrate the
falsity of their testimony is to cross-examine them closely as to
details that would otherwise be unimportant.

The evidence shows that Juan Coderis was convicted of estafa
committed as an agent of the Singer Sewing Machine Co., and that
Salvador Escudero as municipal president was active in collecting the
evidence, and made him work on the streets when he was a prisoner. The
evidence further shows that Juan Coderis was eating his supper in the
house of Gregorio Habal when the crime was committed, and did not know
anything about it until his sister, Justina, passed by crying that the
president had been shot.

Although Coderis went to the house of Meliton Hagos next morning
and saw constabulary soldiers there and heard the people say that they
suspected Salvador Escudero and Salvador Escudero, jr:, of being the
authors of the crime, he never revealed to the authorities or to anyone
else present that he had seen the president shot to death in cold blood
the night before and had recognized the murderers. It was not until
August 14th that he told a constabulary soldier, disguised as a
laborer, that he knew something about the murder of Meliton Hagos.

The Solicitor-General naively remarks that it is not true that
Coderis did not tell anybody what he had seen, because he says he told
his brother-in-law, Juan Lacsa, but Lacsa, who was a witness, was not
asked to corroborate the statement of Coderis. The admitted fact is
that he never told the police or the constabulary or the family of the
deceased that he was present when the municipal president was murdered
and knew who committed the crime. Besides the other reasons for not
crediting the testimony of Juan Coderis, we cannot believe that if he
had been present when the crime was committed, as he claims he was, he
would have failed to make that fact known when he went to the house of
the deceased the.next morning to see the dead body and heard the people
expressing their suspicions that the Escuderos were responsible for the
crime. The only reason he could give for not telling the constabulary
or the family of the deceased what he had seen was that he was afraid
of the Escuderos. If he had seen the municipal president murdered, as
he claims, his subsequent conduct was contrary to human nature, and
when witnesses cease to behave as human beings, judges will have no
landmarks to guide them in their efforts to ascertain the truth. It
will be necessary to evolve a new philosophy of evidence.

Alberto Hababag, who lived near the house of Meliton Hagos,
testified that about eight o’clock on the night in question, when he
was returning from the house of Mamerto Hael where he had gone to
borrow some buyo he heard a detonation when he was in front of his
house; that he stopped and heard a noise in a corner of the fence
around the house of the municipal president, and saw two persons come
out of the lot; that they approached the place where he was standing
and he recognized them as Salvador Escudero, jr., and Margarito Honra;
that Salvador Escudero, jr., was carrying a shotgun and Margarito Honra
a bolo.

The testimony of Eugenio Hitosis who was spending the night in the
house of Alberto Hababag and is a cousin of Hababag’s wife, shows that
Alberto Hababag returned home that evening about seven o’clock from a
distant barrio where he had gone to get three sacks of potatoes, and
that he never left his house that night after he reached home; that
when Eugenio Hitosis and Alberto Hababag heard the report of a gun and
a woman crying for help and saying that the president had been shot,
Alberto Hababag closed the window and fastened it, and put out the
light and went to bed.

Alejo Hadap, who appeared to be a trustworthy witness, testified
that the next day Alberto Hababag and Eugenio Hitosis came to his
house, and in their conversation he asked Hababag who shot the presidente,
and Hababag answered that he did not know; and said that after hearing
the report of a gun he closed the window and put out the light, and did
not leave his house.

The lower court refused to credit the testimony of Eugenio Hitosis
and AJejo Hadap, because Hadap had been a candidate for vice-president
on the Escudero ticket, and because Eugenio Hitosis said that he did
not know the responsibility of one who testified falsely in court,
although he ratified as true all that he had said when it was explained
to him that a person who testified falsely might be prosecuted for
perjury. The court refused to credit the testimony of Venancio
Hagosajos without giving any reason therefor. In this connection, it is
to be remembered that the judge who decided the case did not hear any
of these witnesses testify.

While Hababag testified that he saw Salvador Escudero, jr., and
Margarito Honra coming out of the corner of the lot of Meliton Hagos,
which was inclosed with barbed wire, and that Margarito Honra was
carrying a bolo, Margarito Honra himself testified that he and the
Escuderos went out through the gate, and that he was not carrying a
bolo.

The house of Tomas Hebres faces that of Alberto Hababag. When
Vicente and Dionisia Hebres and Vidal and Beata Hitosis, who were in
the house of Tomas Hebres, heard the wife of Meliton Hagos crying for
help they immediately ran down and started for the house of Hagos, but
none of them saw Alberto Hababag standing in front of his house.

Ricardo Huerto, fourteen years old, a nephew of the wife of Meliton
Hagos, testified that about nine o’clock on the night of July 25, 1932
he saw his uncle, Basilio Bilay, Salvador Escudero, jr., and Margarito
Honra in the si do of Tiris; that Bilay was carrying a flashlight and
Salvador Escudero, jr., a doublebarreled shotgun; that he followed them
until they reached the house of Bilay.

In our opinion the testimony of this boy is obviously a
fabrication. The night was dark and it was drizzling. Even if it were
true that Ricardo Huerto was awake and in the street at nine o’clock on
a dark and rainy night, he could not have seen what he claims to have
seen. Furthermore, his testimony is directly opposed to that of
Margarita Honra, who testified that after the commission of the crime
he and the Escuderos went directly to Cagpacol. The evidence shows that
from the house of the municipal president Tirisr and Cagpacol are in
opposite directions.

The conviction of the appellants was based by the lower court
principally upon the testimony of Margarito Honra, one of the accused.
In weighing the testimony of this witness, it should be borne in mind
that he was a nephew of the deceased; that he had been convicted of
robbery; that he was formerly a constabulary soldier, and that the
provincial commander of constabulary in Sorsogon recommended that Honra
be excluded from the complaint in this case. At the time of the
commission of the crime in question he was attending to a coconut grove
on a plantation that was under the management of Salvador Escudero who
lived in Cagpacol with his son and two daughters. Honra lived in
Tughan, Juban, about a kilometer from the Escuderos. Briefly, the story
of Margarito Honra that was accepted by the lower court is that on the
night in question he and Salvador Escudero, jr., waited near die house
of Manuel Escudero in the poblacidn of Casiguran for Salvador Escudero,
Basilio Bilay, Eugenio Bercacio, and Pedro Niebres, who arrived at
7.30; that Basilio Bilay brought a gun in a sack, which Salvador
Escudero, jr., took out and loaded; that after the gun was loaded
Salvador Escudero said: “Let us go and kill the presidente”; that
they then went to the house of Meliton Hagos, and when they reached the
front gate Honra and Salvador Escudero, jr., went inside, while their
companions waited outside of the lot; that Honra and Salvador Escudero,
jr., stood on the steps leading to the sola of the house, and Salvador
Escudero, jr., shot the municipal president; that they then ran out of
the front gate; that Honra and the Escuderos separated from their
companions and returned to Cagpacol; that he, Honra, was afraid of
Salvador Escudero, who told him not to reveal to anybody what they had
done, and warned him that if it came to the knowledge of other persons
he would kill him and his family; that about eleven o’clock the next
day Salvador Escudero, jr., threw the gun into a small river which
crosses the Casiguran-Juban road in Cagpacol; that the place where
Salvador Escudero, jr., threw the gun was under a hill near a balete
tree; that before throwing the gun into the river Salvador Escudero,
jr., separated the barrel from the stock; that he, the witness, did not
state these facts when he first testified because his family was in the
custody of Salvador Escudero; that he told a different story when he
testified before Major Martinez because he was induced by Salvador
Escudero and his attorneys to testify falsely.

Margarito Honra has told so many conflicting stories that he is
utterly unworthy of credit. Constabulary soldiers went to his house on
July 26, 1932. He told them he was at home the night before and did not
know anything about what had happened to Meliton Hagos. He reaffirmed
this in an affidavit on August 14th and again on September 2d, and he
testified to the same effect in the trial of this case on December 20,
1932, but the next day he repudiated his previous testimony and told
the story accepted by the lower court.

On February 10, 1933, that is, after he had changed his first story
in court and had found the barrel of a gun on December 24th, he asked
to be allowed to testify before Major Martinez, who was investigating
certain administrative charges against the constabulary in Sorsogon.
His request was granted, and he testified under oath before Major
Martinez. He repudiated the testimony given by him in court on December
21st; declared that the gun taken by him from the river had been
planted by him at the instance of the constabulary on the night of
December 20, 1932; that the deputy fiscal and the private prosecutor
went to the jail at midnight on December 20th and instructed him to
tell the story about the murder of Meliton Hagos.

Whatever be the truth as to the finding of the gun barrel on
December 24, 1932, the circumstances surrounding it were not such as to
inspire confidence in the testimony of those participating. It ought
not to be necessary to remind the officials concerned that a prisoner
in the provincial jail who is being tried is subject to the orders of
the trial court and cannot lawfully be removed and taken to another
place without the permission of the court.

In the case at bar Honra was removed from the provincial jail and
taken to Tughan to look for the gun, without the permission of the
court or notice to the attorneys for the Escuderos. Tughan, in the
municipality of Juban, where the barrel of a gun was found, is a
different place from Cagpacol, where the gun had been thrown into the
river, according to Honra.

The record does not show where or by whom the gun stock introduced
into evidence was found. Honra testified that he did not know it,
because he found only the barrel.

We shall not undertake to determine whether Margarito Honra told
the truth on December 20 or on December 21, or whether he ever told the
truth. It is enough to say that we cannot assent to a conviction for
murder that rests upon the testimony of a self-confessed perjurer.

The foregoing conclusions make it unnecessary for us to consider at
length the contention of the appellants that they were,not present when
the crime was committed. In proof of their alibi they presented
intelligent and apparently credible witnesses, whose testimony could
only be rejected by finding that they deliberately perverted the truth.
There could be no mistake as to the date or the hour, and if Salvador
Escudero, jr., was eating his supper with his sifters in Cagpacol at
eight o’clock, he could not have participated in the murder of Meliton
Hagos, as alleged, and the testimony of Honra and the other
eyewitnesses of the prosecution is false.

The decision of the lower court is reversed as to the appellants
Salvador Escudero, sr., and Salvador Escudero, jr., and they are
acquitted with the costs de oficio, and it is ordered that Salvador Escudero, jr., who is detained in jail, be immediately released from custody.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

MALCOLM, J.;

I concur in the result.

HULL, J.;

I concur in the result.

AVANCENA, C. J.;

I dissent.

STREET, J.;

I dissent.