THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRISTINA E. MAGALLANES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Accused Cristina Escobina Magallanes was charged with the crime of Parricide,
committed as follows:

On or about the 16^th day of February, 1981 at barangay Badiang, municipality of
Anda, province of Bohol,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused with intent to kill and without
justifiable motive, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and stab with the use of a bladed weapon one
Ernesto Magallanes her husband, thereby inflicting
upon the vital parts of the body of the latter physical injuries which caused
his immediate death; to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the
deceased.

Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Article
246 of the Revised Penal Code.

City of Tagbilaran, May 19, 1981.

Upon arraignment, she entered a plea of not
guilty.  After trial, the lower court rendered a decision
finding accused guilty of the crime charged and sentencing her to suffer a
penalty of life imprisonment to its full extent which shall not exceed 30 years
and to indemnify the heirs of Ernesto Magallanes the
amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos.

The statement of the facts as narrated by the prosecution in
its brief reads as follows:

“The appellant, Cristina Magallanes, and
her late husband, Ernesto Magallanes, were married on
January 23, 1969 (Exhibit B;
p. 2 Folder of Exhibits).

At the time of the incident, February 16, 1981, they resided in Barangay Badian,
Municipality of Anda,
Province of
Bohol.  Around
midnight, the spouses had a quarrel
which lasted for some ten (10) minutes.  Raised voices from them
were clearly heard by a neighbor, Quirico Deloso, whose house is about twenty (20) meters away (tsn, pp. 29-31, December 22, 1981).

Then at about 5:00 o’clock
that morning, Quirico Deloso
was awakened by the loud agonizing voice of Ernesto Magallanes emanating from the latter’s house. 
Shortly, the appellant appeared at the house of Deloso and requested him to fetch her brother, Lorenzo Escobia, from the neighboring barangay, Linawan. 
It took Deloso about thirty (30) minutes to
fetch Lorenzo Escobia and with him, Deloso proceeded to the house of the appellant. 
Thereat, Deloso stayed for about twenty (20)
minutes during which he saw Ernesto Magallanes lying
on a bed inside his bedroom, with three (3) wounds in his abdomen. 
Blood oozed from the wounds and a portion of his intestine was even vicible.  While Deloso was at the appellant’s house, he witnessed Lorenzo
Escobia speaking to Ernesto Magallanes, but he did not reply and merely stared at Escobia (tsn., pp. 29-37, December 22, 1981).

After Deloso had gone, Escobia himself left the appellant’s house for the municipal
building in order to report the incident and fetch a policeman (tsn., p.
28, October 18,
1982).

Meanwhile, at around 6:00 o’clock that morning, the appellant’s
nephew, Alfredo Hinayon, who lived about one-hundred
(100) meters away, was informed by one Filemon Saldivar that Ernesto
Magallanes had been stabbed.  At that,
Hinayon proceeded to the appellant’s house where he
found her and one Felisa Deligerio in the kitchen of the house.  Hinayon then went to the bedroom where Ernesto Magallanes lay, and the following ensued:

“Q.   Were you able to talk to Ernesto
Magallanes?

A.    Yes, sir.

Q.   What question did you ask Ernesto Magallanes at that time?

A.    I asked this question to Ernesto
Magallanes:  ‘Iyo, who wounded you?’
Ernesto Magallanes respondent:  “Your aunt.’

Q.   To whom was Ernesto Magallanes referring to when he told you ‘your
aunt’?

A.    Cristina Magallanes his
wife.

Q.   Is she the same Cristina Magallanes who is your aunt and the accused in this
case?

A.    Yes, sir’.

After a short while, Hinayon left the
appellant’s house as he had to attend to his work.  He returned at
around 10:00 o’clock, after Ernesto
Magallanes had expired notwithstanding medical
treatment at his house (tsn., pp. 4-28,
November 26, 1981; p. 27,
October 18,
1982).

Around 10:30
a.m. of that day, Rafael Vallecera, Substation commander of Anda, Bohol, arrived at Barangay Badian where he
interviewed Alfredo Hinayon, the appellant, and their
neighbors.  By that time, preparations were being made
for the burial of the deceased.  Alfredo Hinayon informed Vallecera that he
(Hinayon) would “tell everything after the
burial.”  When Vallecera viewed the
bedroom where the corpse of Ernesto Magallanes lay, he
found out that it had been cleaned of the deceased’s blood by the appellant, and
the clothes he wore when he was stabbed were nowhere to be found. 
Upon inquiry, appellant admitted that she had washed them but could not
remember where they were.  The weapon used to stab the deceased was
not recovered (tsn., pp. 42-47, February 26, 1982).

At 3:20 that afternoon,
Dr. Pezas of the Rural Health Unit of Anda, Bohol, examined the
body of the deceased.  Dr. Pezas issued
the following Post-Mortem Examination (Exhibit A; Folder of Exhibits, p.
1):

“POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION

Name   :        ERNESTO
MAGALLANES

Age      :        52 years, Male,
Married

Add      :        Badian, Anda Bohol

Date & Time of death       :    
Feb. 16,
1981

8:30 a.m.

Date & Time of Exam.    
:     Feb. 16,
1981

3:30 p.m.

INFORMANT :  Cristina Magallanes (wife)

FINDINGS:

1. 
–    Stab wound, clean-cut vertical, with sharp extremeties, 3 cm x 1 cm, sideline, 7 cm above the umbilicua.

2. 
–    Stab wound, clean cut; vertical, with sharp extremeties, 3 cm x 1 cm (with 1 foot of small intestines
externalized) 4 cm below the umbilicus along the mid midline.

3. 
–    Stab wound, clean-cut, vertical, with sharp
extremities, 3 cm x 1 cm, iliac, left.

4. 
–    Incised wound, inner aspect, proximal phalanz, ring finger, right.

5. 
–    Incised wound, outer aspect, proximal phalanz, ring finger right.

6. 
–    Incised wound, anterior aspect, proximal
phalanz, index and middle finger right.

(SGD.)  ERNESTO L. PEREZ,
MD

Dr. Pezas testified that the first three
(3) wounds were the fatal ones and the cause of the death was shock
due to loss of blood.  The stab and incised wounds could have been
caused by a sharp double-bladed instrument, and the assailant
was either on top of the victim or immediately at his side, with
the victim lying flat with his face looking up (tsn.,
pp. 3-11, August 31,
1981).

The deceased was buried in the afternoon of the day of the
incident.  The following afternoon, Substation Commander Vallecera returned to Badian whero a confrontation was had at the residence of the
parents of Alfredo Hinayon.  Present on
that occasion, besides Vallecera, were Alfredo Hinayon, his parents and sisters, and Cristina Magallanes.  At that confrontation, Alfredo
Hinayon stated that the deceased had pointed to the
appellant as the assailant.  The appellant, however, denied the
accusation.  Alfredo Hinayon reiterated
that statement in the affidavit he executed before Vallecera on February 21, 1981 (tsn., pp. 46-52, February 24, 1982; Exhibit
C).”

On the other hand, appellant’s version is presented
in her brief as follows:

“As observed by the court a quo in its findings, reflected
in the decision on pages 2 to 9, the following facts were admitted:

(a)  The herein accused-appellant and the deceased were
lawfully wed and resided in the barrio of Badiang,
Anda, Bohol; they were childless.

(b)  That in the evening of February 15, 1981, they
were heard by their neighbor whose house is 20 meters away from theirs to have
quarreled, page 9, decision, and that they often quarreled but only verbally
especially when the deceased was drunk, testimony in affidavit of prosecution
witness Alfredo Hinayon, marked Exhibits C, C-1, and
C-2;

(c)  That in the morning of February 16, 1981, her husband was stabbed and
died on same day;

(d)  That the deceased had killed a man a few years, 2
in fact, from 1981 and the relatives of the man killed were living in said
barrio at the time of the incident in question, testimony of station commander
for Anda, Rafael Vallecera,
reflected in court decision;

But the following
material and pertinent facts were disputed or not openly admitted by one or the
other party to the case:

(a)  But in the late evening of February 15, 1981 when
parties or rather accused-appellant were in bed but still awake, somebody from
outside their house shouted angrily “Who wants a duel?” in the dialect; to
which the deceased answered also loudly “Be quiet there you will only disturb
people who want to sleep”.  But the
person shouting outside still repeated the
challenge.  The deceased rose and got his bolo and made
efforts to go out but the accused prevailed upon him not to go out,
not to mind the one shouting outside, and to go back to
sleep instead.  The deceased did as bidden; page 7
decision;

(b)  This particular testimony of accused-appellant was
not rebutted by prosecution despite full opportunity for it to dispute it and
the court appeared to have overlooked this fact in its decision;

(c)  While prosecution witness Alfredo Hinayon declared that when he want to the house of
accused-appellant after having learned from other people that Ernesto Magallanes was stabbed, in the morning of February 16, 1981,
he asked the husband as to who stabbed him in the seeing and hearing presence of
accused-appellant in same room and this allegedly answered “Your Tia“, the latter denied this and said that that
was NOT THE ANSWER her husband gave to Hinayon but that it was “ASK YOUR TIA.” (As this court will
presently see this particular conflict of the parties on this
precise point deserves concentrated attention because the guilt or innocense of accused-appellant
hangs on this line — this is the rationale of the court in concluding that the
guilt of accused was established beyond reasonable
doubt.)

(d)  Another un-contradicted
testimony of the defense is that of witness for the accused Lorenzo Escobia who said while passing by the house of
accused-appellant at around 4:00 dawn already of February 16, 1981, he saw a
person hurrying down from the house without recognizing this and as he was
merely passing by he did not tarry and did not hear any sound coming from the
house.”

Appellant raises a sole assignment of error to wit: 
That the trial court erred in concluding that the guilt of the
accused was established beyond reasonable doubt on the meager and unreliable
evidence of the prosecution.

It is undisputed that there was no eyewitness to the
crime.  Accused was convicted merely on circumstancial evidence namely:  (1) that a
serious altercation between the deceased and accused who were childless preceded
the stabbing incident, (2) that she (accused) caused her brother to be fetched
from the neighboring barangay on the pretext that the
deceased was suffering from a stomach ache indicating her intention to hide the
crime from the public (3) that accused did not shout for help
when she allegedly discovered that her husband had been stabbed and
that she was abnormally unperturbed by the dire condition of Ernesto Magallanes all throughout and (4) that she suppressed
evidence by hiding the clothes that were worn by the deceased when he was
stabbed.  The trial court gave great weight to the testimony of the
witness for the prosecution Alfredo Hinayon, that the deceased
Ernesto Magallanes, pointed to the appellant as his
assailant.  The trial court treated it as a dying declaration and
thus, admissible as part of the res
gestae, having been given
immediately subsequent to his stabbing.

We do not agree with the conclusion reached by the trial
court in its appreciation of the evidence.  Some undisputed facts
raise questions in Our minds which must be resolved
before We can establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 
The testimony of witness Alfredo Hinayon should
not be given credence because his testimony and extra-judicial statement (Exh. C) that the deceased pointed
to the appellant as his assailant contradicted his
(Hinayon’s) statement during the preliminary
examination (Exh. 2) in the Municipal Court of Anda, wherein he stated the following:

“Q.   Was Ernesto still alive when you
arrived?”

A.    Yes.

Q.   Did you inquire from his (sic) as to who
stabbed him?

A.    Yes.

Q.   What was his answer?

A.    He answered ‘YOU ASK YOUR TIA‘, meaning
Auntie.

Q.   Whom did he refer to as Tiya?

A.    He was referring to Tiya Cristina (referring to “appellant”) (underscoring for
emphasis)

When asked about this inconsistency,
witness explained that he only gave the above mentioned answer because he was
prevailed upon by some people who wanted to save his aunt.  We are
not satisfied with the explanation offered by witness. 
The variance in the answers of witness is greatly disturbing and
irreconcilable.  While the answer “Your Tia” appears to convey a
categorical directness the answer “Ask your Tia” —
contradicts the assertion.  The discrepancy in witness’ statements
shows that he was either lying when he executed it or he had simply forgotten
what was truly spoken by the deceased.  Besides, accused-appellant
(who was acknowledged by witness as inside the room with him and
the victim when asked who stabbed him) denied that the answer given by
the deceased was “Your Tia.” Furthermore,
the prosecution failed to prove that the quarrel between the spouses in the
evening of the commission of the crime was so violent or so heated and
acrimonious that accused-appellant was so inflamed to have decided
to kill her husband.  We fail to see any motive on the part of the
accused why she should desire to kill her husband.  There must
always be a compelling reason for one spouse to want to kill the other as for
example, 1) repeated beatings by the husband of the wife to have engendered in
the latter a desire to be rid of the husband; 2) where the wife has a lover to
whom she is more strongly attached than her husband, or the other
way around, where the husband has a “kept woman” of whom the wife has developed
extreme jealousy and 3) where the deceased husband had a large
insurance to have tempted accused-appellant into thinking of inheriting big
money.  The entire evidence for the prosecution is absolutely
barren of any evidence that one or the other of the above existed.

Nor can We consider Hinayon’s Affidavit (Exh. C, C-1
& C-2 re the supposed reference by the dying man
to “Your Tia“, as
part of the res gestae or a dying declaration.  The
ambiguous tone of Hinayon’s testimony as to the
precise answer of the deceased to the question who
killed him detracts from any entitlement it would have had as part of the res gestae.  For testimonies to be vested
with such character, these have to be un-equivocal, clear and precise, not where
there are — as in the case at bar — clear vulnerabilities because of a
recollection tainted already with forgetfulness.  We did not
fail to consider the fact that the evidence for the defense is also weak;
however, conviction must come from the strength of prosecution’s evidence and
not from the weakness of the defense evidence.  The rule is that
before there can be a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances
proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, as the author of the crime.  (People vs. Pamintuan, 127 SCRA 820).  We cannot
be morally convinced, therefore, that the accused who
is a wife in her late sixties with her known loyalty to her husband, would kill
him without any plausible motive.

WHEREFORE, accused-appellant Cristina E. Magallanes, is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

SO
ORDERED.

Feria, (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.