THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE P. ANCHETA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ISIDORO DEL ROSARIO, AND BENITO GASPI, APPELLANTS.

This case grew out of an affray which took place in a small and
isolated community, the municipal district of Balabac, Province of
Palawan. Appellants, with twelve others, all members of the
constabulary, were charged in the Court of First Instance of Palawan
with having murdered Guillermo Salazar who was at the time the justice
of the peace of the said municipal district. Upon motion of the
prosecution, one of the accused, Isaac de Guzman, was excluded from the
information and used as a state witness. After due trial, the court
found the appellants Isidoro del Rosario and Benito Gaspi guilty of the
crime charged, as principals, and the appellant Vicente P. Ancheta, as
accomplice, and sentenced each of the first two to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, and the last the penalty of not less than six years and one day of prision mayor and not more than twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal. The three appellants were further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Guillermo Salazar in the sum of P1,000, pro rata, to suffer the other accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs. The eleven remaining accused were acquitted.

While the information alleged that the fifteen accused conspired to
kill Salazar, the trial court held that there was no proof of such
conspiracy. According to the findings of the court, Salazar was shot
and killed by Gaspi while the former was being assaulted by Del
Rosario; and although there was no expressed finding of conspiracy
between these two appellants, they were both found guilty of the
alleged crime, as principals. The appellant Ancheta was found guilty,
as accomplice, for having failed to restrain his co-appellants from the
commission of the alleged criminal act.

This appeal seeks to
reverse the judgment of the court below, and to have the appellants
acquitted. On the other hand, the Solicitor-General maintains that the
appellant Ancheta, like his two co-appellants, is guilty of murder, as
principal. The Solicitor-General takes the view that the appellants
were engaged in the commission of an unlawful act when Salazar was shot
and killed by Gaspi.

It is undisputed that, at the time of
the commission of the alleged crime, all the fifteen persons originally
included as accused in this case, were members of a constabulary
detachment in the municipal district of Balabac, Province of Palawan.
The appellant Ancheta, with the rank of third lieutenant, was their
commander. The appellant Del Rosario was a sergeant, while the
appellant Gaspi, was a private. Ancheta became engaged to a young woman
by the name of Bibiana Sanson who belonged to one of the most prominent
families in that municipal district. Bibiana had two brothers named
Cirilo and Rufo. About six months, prior to the occurrence of the
events which gave rise to this case, the engagement of Ancheta to
Bibiana was broken. Whether because of this rupture or some other
reason, the relations between Ancheta and the Sanson brothers appeared
to be quite strained. The Sanson family was running a store located on
the ground floor of their house facing the main street. On that fateful
Sunday morning, January 13, 1935, Bibiana, her two brothers, and the
deceased Salazar were gathered in the store. After the mass and while
passing in front of the store, Ancheta was assaulted and beaten by the
Sanson brothers and received multiple bruises and cuts about the face.
In the course of the scuffle Ancheta fell down, and while Cirilo
grappled with him, Rufo continued to box him. Ancheta carried a pistol
on his waist, and while he was thus being attacked by the Sanson
brothers, the deceased Salazar took the pistol and kept it. The
evidence is irreconcilably in conflict as to what transpired
afterwards. It is likewise in conflict as to what motivated the assault
perpetrated on Ancheta by the Sanson brothers.

According to
the evidence for the prosecution, Bibiana approached Ancheta, as he was
walking in front of the store, in order to demand from him an
explanation about certain statements alleged to have been made by
Ancheta, which were derogatory to the dignity of Bibiana; that Ancheta,
out of spite, slapped Bibiana on the face and thereupon Bibiana’s
brothers, Rufo and Cirilo, came out of the store and engaged Ancheta in
a fight giving him a bad beating; that in the course of the fight
Salazar pulled out Ancheta’s pistol from his waist and kept it,
presumably to forestall more serious consequences; that after the
combatants had been separated, six soldiers arrived and tried to strike
Salazar and the two brothers; that, at this juncture, Ancheta ran to
the barracks and had a bugle call to arms sounded; that in response to
the call, all the soldiers composing the garrison, except one who
remained on guard duty, with loaded guns and fixed bayonets, marched to
the town, firing in the air as they went; that they arrested the two
brothers and Salazar; that while Salazar was under the custody of the
soldiers, appellant Del Rosario gave him a blow on the stomach with his
left fist, while with his right hand he struck him with his pistol;
that Salazar became groggy, and as he was falling down, appellant Gaspi
shot him.

On the part of the defense, Ancheta testified that
on the morning in question, while on his way to the forest station, he
saw Bibiana standing in the store; that she came out to meet him and
said that she wanted to ask him something; that, smiling, she pointed
to his right shoulder and asked what he had on it; that he looked at
his shoulder and, as he did so, Bibiana embraced him tightly; that
Bibiana’s brothers, Rufo and Cirilo, and Salazar came out of the store
and attacked him; that Rufo struck him on the back of the head and his
sight became dim; that he was thrown down and Rufo and Cirilo mounted
on him and beat him on the face with stones; that he scratched Cirilo
with his left fingers; that the sergeant of police came and separated
the Sanson brothers from him; that when he stood up he noticed that his
pistol was missing from its holster; that he inquired who took it, and
Salazar answered: “I have your pistol but I will not give it”; that he
left and went to the store of Wy Dian Lo to see his face, which was
bleeding, in the mirror; that from that store, he proceeded to the
barracks; that he did not reach the barracks because he met appellant
Del Rosario between the bridge and Jupeda’s store; that he told Del
Rosario that he had been assaulted by the Sanson brothers, their sister
Bibiana, and Salazar; that he further told Del Rosario that his pistol
was with Salazar, and ordered him td make the necessary investigation
to effect the arrest; that after talking with Del Rosario, he went to
his residence and lay down; that while thus lying down in his house, he
heard shots from the direction of the town; that although he felt weak,
he made an effort to go down to find out the cause of the shooting
suspecting that the shots had been fired by his soldiers, and fearing
that they might have done harm; that when he reached the intersection
of two roads near the Catholic church, he saw soldiers coming out of
the house of the Sanson family, and he stopped and waited for them;
that when the soldiers came near him, he asked corporal Sapad, who came
ahead of the rest of the soldiers and who accompanied the Sanson
brothers, about the shooting; that Sapad answered that they had been
fired in the air to effect the arrest of the Sanson brothers who closed
themselves in their house and did not want to surrender; that he and
the soldiers walked towards the barracks; that when they came in front
of the church, he heard two shots coming from behind; that he
immediately went back and saw Salazar lying on the ground; that the
first shot he heard was a pistol shot and the second must have been
fired from a rifle; that upon reaching the place where Salazar lay
dead, he asked who killed him, and the appellant Gaspi answered: “I
did, sir. I shot him because he wanted to shoot against the sergeant
once more”; that he then ordered Del Rosario to watch the corpse, and
left for his house with private De Guzman to have his wounds treated.

Gaspi testified that he was among the soldiers who were sent out to
arrest the Sanson brothers and Salazar; that after arresting them they
started to take them to the barracks; that the three persons arrested
did not come out of the house of the Sanson family at the same time;
that the Sanson brothers came out first, and were guarded by Del
Rosario, Sapad and three other soldiers; that Salazar was under the
custody of corporal Baquiao and himself; that they were not able to
take Salazar to the barracks because upon nearing an acacia tree, Del
Rosario and private Aguilar approached them and the former required
Salazar to surrender Ancheta’s pistol; that Salazar told Del Rosario he
did not have the pistol, whereupon the latter told the former that he
would search his person; that as Del Rosario was about to approach
Salazar to search him, the latter stepped back and at the same time
drew a pistol out of the left pocket of his trousers and fired at Del
Rosario; that the latter could parry Salazar’s left hand, and thus
avoided the shot; that Salazar again stepped back and was about to fire
again at Del Rosario when he shot and killed Salazar to save Del
Rosario’s life.

The theory of the defense is that the Sanson
brothers, their sister Bibiana and Salazar had conspired to assault
Ancheta. While there are some circumstances which seem to lend
plausibility to this theory, we are unable to accept it. A conspiracy
to commit a crime must be established by positive evidence, and such
evidence does not obtain here. Neither is there enough evidence to
support the theory of the prosecution that the purpose of the soldiers
in marching to the town was not merely to arrest the Sanson brothers
and Salazar, but mainly to avenge the assault committed against Ancheta
by the Sanson brothers. If such were the case, if the soldiers were
really determined to take the law into their hands and punish those who
assaulted and wounded their superior officer, Ancheta, the first object
of their revenge would have been the Sanson brothers, and not Salazar.
And yet the former suffered no serious bodily harm at the hands of the
soldiers. The evidence fails to show that there was even an attempt on
the part of any of the soldiers to shoot anyone of the Sanson brothers.
What the evidence for the prosecution tends to show is that upon seeing
the Sanson brothers, Ancheta wanted to shoot them, but was prevented by
Del Rosario and Baquiao. Granting this to be true, it reveals that Del
Rosario and Baquiao who, as sergeant and corporal, respectively, were
in charge of the expedition sent out to arrest the Sanson brothers and
Salazar, preserved their self-control, and did not run amuck, as some
of the witnesses for the prosecution would have us believe. That Gaspi
shot Salazar in defense of Del Rosario’s life is, we believe,
established by a preponderance of evidence. Gaspi, is, therefore,
exempt from criminal liability. (Revised Penal Code, article 11, clause
3.) It follows that Ancheta and Del Rosario must also be acquitted.

Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence in this case, we are inclined
to believe that, in convicting the appellants, the trial court was
unduly influenced, unconsciously no doubt, by the local atmosphere
which seems to have been strongly unfavorable to the appellants. This
is indicated by the fact that the appellants and their codefendants in
the court below were even prosecuted and convicted for the crime of
sedition, Which action the Solicitor-General, upon a more calm and
careful review of the evidence, later admitted to have been
unwarranted, when he asked for a reversal of the judgment of conviction
for the said crime of sedition. (See People vs. Ancheta, G. R.
Nos. 46250 and 46251, Nov. 29, 1938.) While it may appear to the mind
of the average person that there was an altogether excessive show of
force on the part of the members of the constabulary involved in this
case When they effected the arrest of the Sanson brothers and Salazar,
we must bear in mind that we are dealing here with men who were trained
to take no chances in an emergency and to uphold their authority by
force of arms. And while we may not approve of their conduct in this
particular instance, we must not allow such consideration to affect our
judgment as to their guilt or innocence of the particular crime now
imputed to them.

The judgment appealed from must be reversed, and the appellants acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J.; I dissent because I find no reason for altering the conclusions of the appealed judgment.