PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE IGPAS, SALVADOR DUMORAN, BEATO ESCUÑA, JR., AND PEDRO DABUCOL, ACCUSED.  VICENTE IGPAS, SALVADOR DUMORAN AND PEDRO DAB…

DEMETRIO and INOCENCIA
DEMORAL were an elderly couple “known for extending loans to friends and
relatives in consideration of varied but not commendable rates of
interest.”^[1] They owned lands and lived in relative
comfort by rural standards. Their
children being all married now live separately from .ls them. But in June 1985, their 14-year old
grandson, Roel Amores, who was attending classes at a nearby school, moved in
to live with them in sitio Vito; Argawanon,
San Remigio, Cebu.

At around six-thirty in the evening of 5 September 1985,
ferocious barking of dogs prompted Demetrio to go out of their house to inspect
his roosters at their backyard. He
passed through the kitchen door. Roel
followed an arm’s length behind. Suddenly, Demetrio was hacked by a man
with “deep-set eyes, long nose and
dark complexion,” later identified by Roel as Beato Escuña, Jr.

In his fright, Roel ran upstairs passing by his grandmother who
was sitting on one of the steps of the stairs facing the kitchen door. At this juncture, according to Roel, he
noticed Vicente Igpas, a distant relative, with a bolo tucked
to his waist turning towards the kitchen door. Sensing that two robbers had entered their house, Roel jumped out of the window and ran to the place of Alfon Demoral, an uncle, who
had other relatives called. Roel then
related to them and to the responding PC soldiers what happened, except as to
the presence of Vicente Igpas which, Roel claims, he disclosed only to his
father who supposedly advised him not to divulge the matter to anybody for fear
of reprisal.

When Luz Demoral Layson, a daughter of the deceased, arrived at
eleven o’clock that evening, she found the contents of her parents’ aparador strewn open and scattered around the room. The paper bills amounting to P20,000.00
placed in a bag as well as the coins worth P3,000.00 kept in a tin can were
missing. Luz claims she was there a
week before and she counted the remaining
money of her parents
after borrowing P8,000.00 from them. There she learned of the threat to have her father robbed by Vicente for
refusing to lend him money. A week
before he was killed, Demetrio who was then looking frightened and
apprehensive, related to Gerardo Demoral, a nephew, that he (Demetrio) also turned down the
request of Beato Escuña, Jr., to lend him money.

Four days before the bloody incident, or on 1 September 1985, at about eleven o’clock in the evening,
Felipe Cabansag was walking along a highway with Felipe Demoral when the former overheard Salvador Dumoran, who was in
the company of Escuña, Jr., and Pedro Dabucol, saying in Cebuano,” Ang
tawo nga dili pabaylo ug kuwarta,
mobanaw ang dugo,”^[2] and Escuña, Jr., concurred.

For their defense, accused raised diverse alibis, i.e., Vicente
Igpas about the time of the murder was cooking supper in his house; Pedro
Dabucol did not leave the premises where he worked as gatherer of dried copra; Beato Escuña, Jr., was playing mahjong at a vigil; and,
Salvador Dumoran just woke up from an afternoon nap and went to see Conrado
Loon at the latter’s residence.

But the trial court found their excuses unpersuasive and upheld
the prosecution instead. Thus, on 28
February 1989, the court convicted all the accused, except Beato Escuña, Jr.,
who died in the meantime while in detention. The dispositive portion of the decision now on appeal reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused VICENTE IGPAS, SALVADOR DUMORAN
and PEDRO DABUCOL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, as principals, of the crime
of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, defined and penalized in Par. 1, Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, and condemns all said accused to suffer the penalty of
RECLUSION PERPETUA, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Demetrio and
Inocencia Demoral, the sum of P60,000.00; to restitute the amount of
P23,000.00, and to pay the costs.

The criminal liability of accused Beato Escuña, Jr., having been
extinguished by reason of his death, in accordance with Art. 89 of the Revised
Penal Code, the case against him is considered DISMISSED, with costs de oficio.

While we respect the trial court’s appraisal of the testimonies
of the witnesses, we are not bound to believe them in their entirety,
especially where they defy human experience. But first, we concur with the Office of the Solicitor General that appellants
Dabucol and Dumoran should be acquitted as it concedes that their conviction
based on circumstantial evidence is erroneous. There is only one circumstance linking them to the crime, i.e., their
alleged conversation in the evening of 1 September 1985 that blood would flow
from one who would not lend money.

This circumstance alone does not sufficiently prove that said
appellants committed the crime charged. Unlike Dabucol and Dumoran, Igpas was not only spotted at the crime
scene but was also said to have threatened to have the victims robbed. But, for being hearsay, we have no
alternative but to disregard this testimony of Luz Demoral Layson on the
alleged threat of Igpas as she did not personally hear the threat; it was only
related to her by her father. Thus,
with only one circumstance left implicating Igpas to the supposed conspiracy to
rob and kill the spouses Demetrio and Inocencia Demoral, Igpas could not be
convicted on circumstantial evidence.

In any case, we view with skepticism Roel’s actuations after the
incident. In his earlier accounts
immediately after the shocking incident, Roel intentionally withheld the name
of Igpas from his inquiring relatives and responding PC soldiers allegedly for
fear of reprisal. He omitted the same
information when he first reported the incident to his uncle Alfon, even when
not one of the suspects was around. Having known Igpas as a relative who was frequenting their house, a startled Roel could not be expected to
consciously omit Igpas’ name from his spontaneous narration of facts. Roel was familiar with Igpas and unfamiliar
with the other accused and while
the name of Igpas could have
easily leaked from his unrehearsed report yet it was about a stranger with
deep-set eyes, etc., which predominated his narration. And even when he saw Igpas among the crowd
of onlookers, Roel had no reason to be afraid to point him out in the presence
of Roel’s relatives and PC soldiers.

Granting arguendo
that he had basis to fear reprisal, he failed to elaborate what “the right
condition”^[3] was on 8 November 1985 that made him report
Igpas to the authorities. We do not
know what emboldened him to finally mention his name since the record does not
disclose any consequential circumstance that altered the situation since the
incident happened.

This is not a normal
impulse we expect from a witness out to vindicate the death of
his maternal grandparents he was living with. He should not have lost time in identifying to the authorities all those
responsible for the dastardly act lest they be afforded an opportunity to
escape. The delay in incriminating
Igpas is a positive sign of hesitation and incertitude on the part of Roel that
restrains us from affirming the conviction of Igpas.

On the other hand, Igpas did not flee. He was among the kibitzers when the PC soldiers arrived at the
scene. He was at the wake of the
victims and was among those who attended the funeral. In fact, it appears that the name of Igpas only surfaced from an
unsubstantiated suspicion generated from the story of his aunt, Luz Demoral
Layson, about the threat allegedly made to the victims, and Roel supposedly
confided to his father the information on Igpas only at dawn.^[4]
These circumstances may not necessarily establish his innocence, but when added
to the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution would reinforce our
sustained belief that indeed he had nothing to do with the murder and/or
robbery of the victims, or that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City, Branch 7, convicting accused-appellants VICENTE IGPAS,
SALVADOR DUMORAN and PEDRO DABUCOL in Crim. Case No. CBU-6648 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new one entered acquitting them of the crime charged as their
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Cruz, (Chairman), and
Kapunan, JJ., on leave.

^[1]
Decision penned by Judge Generoso A. Juaban, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Br.
7, Crim. Case No. CBU-6648, p. 2.

^[2]
“One who will not lend money
will spill blood” (Sworn Statement of Felipe Cabansag executed 17
October 1985 before SSG Timoteo R. Buayaban, Jr., of the 342nd PC/INP Company,
Dist I, Bogo, Cebu, RTC Rec. p. 21).

^[3]
TSN, 10 April 1986, p. 17.

^[4]
TSN, 10 April 1986, p. 26; TSN, 22 May
1986, pp. 37-38.