G.R. Nos. 56465-66. June 26, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. PEDRO GALENDEZ, EULALIO GALENDEZ, NARCISO ACABO, FELIX TADIOS, CARLOS TADIOS, FABIAN SAJOT AND EMELIO LLEMIT, ACCUSED.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Originally for automatic review before us prior to the abolition
of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution, the present consolidated
cases for murder are now on appeal after the accused-appellants manifested
their intention to exercise their right to appeal.
Two separate informations charging the accused-appellants with
the crime of murder were filed before the former Court of First Instance of
Misamis Oriental, 15th Judicial District, Branch V, Cagayan de Oro City for the
killing of the spouses Gaudencio Jamero and Dionisia Tadios Jamero.
In Criminal Case No. 333-M(78), the information reads:
“The undersigned, accuses Pedro Galendez, Eulalio Galendez,
Narciso Acabo, Felix Tadios, Carlos Tadios, Fabian Sajot and Emelio Llemit, of
the crime of Murder, committed as follows:
“‘That on or about the 4th day of February, 1978 at more or
less 11:00 o’clock in the evening, at Kibungol, Hindangon, Gingoog City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping
one another, with deliberate intent to kill and with evident premeditation,
treachery and by taking advantage of superior strength, by employing means or
method to insure its execution and without risk to themselves, armed with
deadly weapons, to wit: two
sharp-pointed bolos, one sharp-pointed knife, a scythe, a stone and a coffee
stick (sic), with which the accused were conveniently provided, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, stab, wound and hit
one DIONISIA TADIOS JAMERO, thereby wounding the victim on her face, nose,
eyes, jaw, frontal bones and other parts of her body, which injuries caused her
instantaneous death thereafter. The
following aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the
crime, namely: (1) that it was
committed in the dwelling of the offended party; (2) treachery; (3) cruelty;
(4) evident premeditation; (5) superior strength; (6) nighttime; and (7) by a
band.'”
Contrary to and in violation of Article 248 in relation to Article
14, paragraphs 3, 6, 13, 15 and 16, all of the Revised Penal Code.”
(Rollo, p. 3)
In Criminal Case No. 334-M(78), the same accused were charged
with murder for the death of Gaudencio Jamero allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 4th day of February, 1978 at more or
less 11:00 o’clock in the evening, at Kibungol, Hindangon, Gingoog City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping
one another, with deliberate intent to kill and with evident premeditation,
treachery and by taking advantage of superior strength, by employing means or
method to insure its execution and without risk to themselves, armed with
deadly weapons, to wit: two
sharp-pointed bolos, one sharp-pointed knife, a scythe, a stone and a coffee
stick (sic), with which the accused were conveniently provided, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, stab, wound and hit
one Gaudencio Jamero, thereby wounding the victim on his face, left and right
foot, stomach, and other parts of his body, which injuries caused his
instantaneous death thereafter. The
following aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the
crime, namely: (1) that it was
committed in the dwelling of the offended party; (2) treachery; (3) cruelty;
(4) evident premeditation; (5) superior strength; (6) nighttime; and (7) by a
band.” (Rollo, p. 8)
At the arraignment, all the above-named accused entered pleas of
not guilty. Joint trial proceedings
ensued upon the agreement of the prosecution and the defense considering that
the crimes as charged were committed on the same occasion and required the same
evidence.
After trial, three of the accused, namely, Emelio Llemit, Fabian
Sajot and Carlos Tadios were acquitted on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence while the accused-appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of double murder. The dispositive
portion of the trial court’s decision rendered on December 20, 1979 states as follows:
“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused
Eulalio Galendez, Pedro Galendez, Narciso Acabo and Felix Tadios guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in both Criminal Cases Nos. 333-M and
334-M and, therefore, sentences each of them to suffer the supreme penalty of
Death in each case, to indemnify, jointly and severally, the Heirs of the
offended parties in both cases in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00) and to pay the costs. The
accused Carlos Tadios, Fabian Sajot and Emelio Llemit are acquitted of the
charges in both cases for insufficiency of evidence, and the warden or whoever
is in custody of these three accused is/are directed to discharge them from
confinement immediately unless they are facing other charges.
SO ORDERED.” (CFI Decision, p. 65, Rollo, p. 73)
The antecedent facts are presented by the Solicitor General in
his brief as follows:
“On February 4, 1978, about 11:00 P.M., appellants together
with Carlos Tadios, Fabian Sajot and Emilio (should be Emelio) Llemit went to
the house of spouses Gaudencio and
Dionisia Jamero located at Kibungol, Hindangon, Gingoog City. Their purpose, according to appellants, was
to have the aching shoulder of appellant Pedro Galendez treated. Gaudencio Jamero tapped it the day before,
and Pedro Galendez felt that his right arm would fall from its socket (p. 7,
tsn, Oct. 15, 1979; p. 8, tsn, Oct. 22, 1979; p. 4, tsn, Oct. 25,
1979). Gaudencio Jamero was claimed to
be known as a sorcerer whose notoriety spread throughout the locality (Exh.
“M”; p. 8, tsn, Oct. 15, 1979; p. 10, tsn, Oct. 26, 1979). But Emilio Llemit stated that the purpose of
appellants for going to the Jamero house was to avenge the death of Eutiquio
Baino, a relative of Pedro and Eulalio Galendez, who died a victim (sic) of
Jamero’s sorcery (pp. 10-12, tsn, Oct. 26, 1979).
Pedro Galendez was armed with a long, sharp-pointed bolo (Exh.
“J”), Eulalio Galendez with a scythe (Exh. “O”), and
Narciso Acabo was bringing a torch (pp.
6, 8, tsn, April 16, 1979).
When Pedro Galendez,
Eulalio Galendez and Narciso Acabo climbed the stairs in the Jamero house,
Fabian Sajot, Carlos Tadios and Emilio Llemit stayed behind at a distance of
about 30 meters (pp. 11-12, tsn, Oct. 26, 1979). The dogs of the Jameros were then barking (pp. 5, 51, tsn, April
16, 1979). Felix Tadios stood watch at
the foot of the stairs (Exh. “Q”). Narciso Acabo called out for Gaudencio Jamero and gave his name when
asked to identify. As soon as Gaudencio
opened the door, Pedro Galendez stabbed him with a long bolo on his stomach;
Gaudencio staggered towards the wall (Exh. “J”; pp. 5-7, 12, 51, tsn,
April 16, 1979). Lourdes, 19-year old
daughter of Gaudencio Jamero, tried to help her father; but Eulalio Galendez,
who was already inside with Narciso Acabo, held her hands (pp. 9, 54,
id.). Flavio, 15 year old brother of Lourdes, tried to help his sister but
Eulalio boxed him on the left eyebrow. Flavio fell, but he instantly stood up and jumped out of the window,
fleeing to the forest. (pp. 10-11,
id). Lourdes also jumped out of the
window after she was freed from Eulalio (pp. 54-55, id).
The three who were outside
the house, namely, Emilio Llemit, Carlos Tadios and Fabian Sajot heard Gaudencio
Jamero shout. Realizing that something
was wrong, they ran away (pp. 13-14, tsn, Oct. 26, 1979).
Meantime, Dionisia Jamero,
wife of Gaudencio, was awakened by the commotion and, sensing what was
happening, fled toward the stairs. She was however met downstairs by Felix Tadios who struck her head and
face with the use of a stick cut from a coffee tree (Exh. “Q”, cf.
pp. 54-55, tsn, April 16, 1979).
On February 5, 1978,
appellants together with Llemit, Sajot and Carlos Tadios surrendered themselves
to Sgt. Wilfredo Mueco of the PC Detachment stationed at Balason, Gingoog City
(pp. 31-33, tsn, Dec. 11, 1978). Pedro
Galendez also surrendered a bolo, Exhibit “J” (pp. 34-35, id). Then Sgt. Mueco and some companions went to
the house of the Jameros and found the dead body of Gaudencio (pp. 37-38,
id). They searched for Gaudencio’s
wife, but they could not find her (p. 38, id). The next morning, February 6, another group found the dead body of
Dionisia Jamero under a second growth forest, 450 meters from the Jamero house
(p. 12, tsn, Dec. 12, 1978). She was
promptly buried following her husband (p. 39, tsn, Dec. 11, 1978).
In the afternoon of
February 6, 1978, Dr. Vicente Jadol, City Health Officer of Gingoog City,
exhumed the dead bodies of Gaudencio and Dionisia Jamero and conducted a
post-mortem examination (pp. 4-6, tsn, Dec. 11, 1978). Gaudencio Jamero died of internal hemorrhage
due to multiple hacking and stab wounds on different parts of his body. Dr. Jadol’s findings are as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
“‘Face – multiple hacking (cutting wounds) were noted
measuring more or less 5 to 6 inches in length gaping in character, severely
cutting and fracturing the bones of the
face – including the frontal bones exposing
the brain.
Right Eye – was missing and nose was severely cut
into several pieces including the mount. Most of the wounds were sharp – clean cut
and gaping in character.
Neck – just below the chin and lower jaw – a big incised
wound was noted cutting across the neck
measuring 5 inches in length with clean
cut sharp edges – cutting the blood vessels
of the neck.
Right shoulder – anterior region. Another hacking cutting wound was noted cutting the skin, muscle and
hitting the shoulder bones, measuring 2 inches in length and gaping in
character.
Abdomen – There are multiple stab wounds and incised wound noted at
the abdomen cutting the skin, muscles and intestine. One (1) wound was noted penetrating the abdomen (thru and thru)
just 2 inches above the navel – left medially measuring 1 1/2 inches in length
– above edge were (sic) a sharp clean cut with the exit at the back part below
the left thoracic rib measuring 1 cm. in length.
Chest – just one (1) inch above the left nipple region. Another stab wound was noted measuring one
(1) inch in length edges were clean cut and other edges were rounded.
Left thigh – Just above the left knee – another hacking – cutting
wound was noted measuring 2 inches in length and gaping in character, edges
were clean cut – sharp and hitting the femur bones (lower portion)
Feet – both feet were severely cut and hack (sic) fracturing the
bones of the feet (tarsal bones).
The body was still in the state of rigor mortis.
Approximate time of death: 36 to 40 hrs.
Cause of Death:
Internal hemorrhage due to multiple hacking and stab wounds of the
different parts of the body.
(Decision attached to appellants’ brief, at pp. 5-6).
On the other hand, the findings of Dr. Jadol on his examination of
Dionisia Jamero are as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
Pertinent Findings; was (sic) centered at the head, especially at
the face, and because mostly of the injuries inflicted were in this region, fracturing
the bone (comminuted fracture) of the
skull, including the frontal bones.
Mouth, Nose and Ears. –
Bloody discharges were noted on the different orifices especially in the ears
orifices.
Glabellu – at the root of nose – Between the eyebrows.
– A big lacerated
wound was noted, cutting the skin, muscle and fracturing
(Comminuted fracture) the frontal bones. The lacerated wound measured 1 inch in
length, gaping and the edges were irregular and fracturing
the frontal bones and exposing the brain.
Face at the right side – maxillary region. A big stab wound
was noted measuring 1 1/2 inches in
length, gaping and edges were clean cut. Below this region a big contusion and
hematoma was also noted measuring 2 inches
in diameter.
Below the left eye. –
Another stab wound was noted measuring 1 cm in length, hitting the left
maxillary bones.
Another big stab wound was noted at the left jaw,
measuring 3 cm in length, gaping in character and the edges were sharp
clean-cut and other edges were rounded.
The body was still in the state of rigor mortis.
Approximate time of Death: 36 to 40 hrs.
Cause of Death:
Cerebral hemorrhage
Due to Comminuted Fracture of the skull and Internal Hemorrhage due
to multiple stab wounds. (ID, at
pp. 6-7)
All seven surrenderees were taken to the City Hall where the police
investigated them. As a result, they
all signed and swore to their statements namely: Exhibit “M”, for Pedro Galendez, Exhibit “L”,
for Eulalio Galendez, Exhibit “P”, for Narciso Acabo, Exhibit “Q”,
for Felix Tadios, Exhibit “R”:, for Carlos Tadios, Exhibit
“S”, for Fabian Sajot and Exhibit “T”, for Emilio Llemit
(pp. 6-12, rec. of Crim. Case No. 334-M)”. (Brief for the Appellee, pp. 3-10; See Rollo, p. 159)
The defense version as contained in the accused-appellants’ brief
is:
“On February 4, 1978, at about 11:00 P.M., appellant together
with Carlos Tadios, Fabian Sajot and Emilio (should be Emelio) Llemit went to
the house of the spouses Gaudencio and Dionisia Jamero. According to the testimony of Emilio Llemit,
appellant Pedro Galendez was alleged to have forced the 3 to accompany them as he along with his companions were (sic)
going to kill Gaudencio Jamero, a person who in their locality was thought to
possess voodoo power (TSN, Emilio Llemit’s testimony, October 26, 1979, p. 10)
and who moreover was thought by appellant Pedro Galendez to have caused the
death of Eutiquio Baino, a relative of appellant Pedro Galendez (Ibid.,
p. 12) The 3 being threatened with death by appellant Galendez were forced to
accompany appellants (Ibid). This alleged motive of appellants in going to see Gaudencio Jamero was
however disputed by appellants. The
latter’s motive for going to the Jamero house was to have the aching shoulder
of appellant Pedro Galendez treated; it seemed that Gaudencio Jamero had tapped
it the day before, appellant Pedro Galendez felt that it was “going to
fall off.” (TSN, Testimony of Pedro Galendez, Oct. 15, 1979, p. 7; TSN,
Testimony of Eulalio Galendez, Oct. 22, 1979, p. 7; TSN, Testimony of Narciso
Acabo, Oct. 25, 1979, p. 4).
The three stayed thirty or more meters away from the Jamero house
(TSN, Testimony of Emilio Llemit, Oct. 26, 1979, p. 13) but appellants went
inside the house (Ibid, p. 14). Llemit
testified that he heard Gaudencio Jamero shout, and realizing that something
was wrong, ran to the forest together with Sajot and Carlos Tadios (Ibid.).
As to what happened inside the Jamero house, appellant Pedro
Galendez testified that Gaudencio Jamero opened the door and upon learning that
appellant Pedro Galendez wanted his shoulder treated, said ‘whenever people get
sick, they place the blame on me (Jamero).’ (TSN, Testimony of Pedro Galendez,
Oct. 15, 1979, p. 11). Jamero then got
very angry, retreated and reached for his bolo. (Ibid. p. 12) Appellant Galendez then pulled out his bolo
and stabbed him (Ibid.) several times (Ibid., p. 14). By this time, appellants Narciso Acabo and
Eulalio Galendez, as well as Dionisia and the Jamero children ran away (Ibid.,
p. 12).
Flavio Jamero, Gaudencio Jamero’s son, however alleged, that his
father upon hearing appellant Acabo calling him, opened the door and was then
stabbed by appellant Pedro Galendez with a large bolo (TSN, Testimony of Flavio
Jamero, April 16, 1979, pp. 5-6). His
father staggered to the wall; his sister Lourdes tried to help her father, but
her hands were held by appellant Eulalio Galendez (Ibid., p. 9). Flavio tried to come to the aid of his
sister, but he alleged that appellant Eulalio Galendez hit him on the left side
of his lower eyebrow (Ibid., p. 10). Flavio Jamero then jumped out of the window and saw that two persons who
(sic) he could not identify were beating his mother Dionisia (Ibid.) who
by this time had also fled from the house. Flavio returned to the house the following morning and saw that his
father was already dead (Ibid., p. 14). He then went to report the death to the Philippine Constabulary together
with his cousin, Juan Todle (Ibid., p. 15) Also on February 5, 1978,
Flavio told a neighbor Jose Namoc that Dionisia Jamero had died. Namoc, together with some 22 of his
companions searched for the body of Dionisia and found it on February 6, 1979,
450 meters away from the Jamero house (TSN, Testimony of Jose Namoc, Dec. 12,
1978, p. 12) with a wound between her two eyes above the bridge of the nose (Ibid.).
Sgt. Wilfredo Mueco assigned to the Philippine Constabulary
Detachment at Balason, Gingoog City, testified that appellants together with
Llemit, Tadios and Sajot surrendered themselves to him on February 5, 1978
(TSN, Testimony of Wilfredo Mueco, Dec. 11, 1978, p. 31), for the reason that
they ‘killed somebody’ whom they named as Gaudencio Jamero (Ibid., p.
32). Appellant Pedro Galendez also was
said to have surrendered a bolo (Ibid., p. 35). After which, Sgt. Mueco together with some
companions went to the house of Gaudencio Jamero and found his body (Ibid.,
p. 38).
All seven surrenderees were taken to the City Hall, where they were
subjected to questioning and gave extra-judicial confessions. It is in respect of these extra-judicial
confessions upon which the trial court based its decision finding appellants
guilty of the separate crimes of murder of Gaudencio and Dionisia Jamero, a
reliance which will be shown to be prejudicial error. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 2-4; See Rollo, p. 147)
The lone assignment of error made by the accused-appellants that:
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING
THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS AS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THEM AND
BASING ITS DECISION OF FINDING THEM GUILTY THEREON” (Appellants’ Brief, p.
1)
rests on their allegation that the said
extrajudicial confessions were involuntarily given inasmuch as force,
intimidation and violence attended the taking of the sworn statements from the
accused-appellants in connection with their respective participation in the
crimes of murder under consideration.
After a painstaking review of the records of this case, taking
into account the letters forwarded to us by the accused-appellants begging for
our mercy, we are not persuaded to tilt the scales of justice in their favor.
As far as the death of the victim Gaudencio Jamero is concerned,
the prosecution presented the children of the deceased spouses who positively
identified the accused-appellants as the assailants of their father. On direct examination, Flavio Jamero
categorically declared as follows:
x x x x x x x x x
FISCAL TACANDONG: (Cont.)
Q. Do
you remember where were you (sic) on February 4, 1978 at more or less 11
o’clock in the evening?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Where
were you?
A. I
was in our house at Kibungol, Hindangon, Gingoog City.
Q. Could
you remember if there was an unusual incident that took place at that time?
A. Yes,
there was.
Q. What
was it?
A. I
heard barks of the dog and I heard the voice of Narciso Acabo calling my
father.
Q. Now,
whose dog was barking at that time?
A. Our
dog.
Q. And
you said that it was Narciso Acabo who was calling for your father, why do you
know that it was Narciso Acabo who was calling for your father?
A. Because
when he called out, my father opened and asked him “Who are you?” and
he answered, I am Narciso Acabo.”
Q. And
what did your father do after that?
A. He
opened the door.
Q. What
happened after your father opened the door of your house?
A. He was stabbed by Pedro Galendez.
Q. And what happened to your father after he was stabbed by Pedro
Galendez.
A. My
father was hit.
C O U R T : (to the witness)
Q. Where?
A. Here (witness pointing to his
stomach).
FISCAL TACANDONG: (cont.)
Q. What
particular weapon was used by Pedro Galendez in stabbing your father and
hitting his abdomen?
A. A
long bolo.
Q. We
reserve our right to present that Your Honor. Now, if Pedro Galendez is in the courtroom now will you please point to
him?
C O U R T : (to the witness)
You go down.
A. (Witness
went down and tapped the shoulder of Pedro Galendez) This is Pedro Galendez.
FISCAL TACANDONG: (cont.)
Q. You
said it was nighttime, how were you able to recognize that it was Pedro
Galendez who stabbed your father at that time?
A. I was lighted by a lamp.
Q. Where
was the lamp?
A. The
lamp was at the altar.
C O U R T : (to the witness)
Q. How far was that lamp to the place where Pedro Galendez was, who
stabbed your father?
A. About this distance. (witness indicating a distance of 2 1/2
meters)
Q. What
was that lamp made of?
A. Made
of tin can, a kerosene lamp.
FISCAL TACANDONG: (cont.)
Q. What
else transpired after you saw your father after he was (sic) stabbed by accused
Pedro Galendez?
A. My
father staggered.
Q. Towards
what direction was your father?
A. To
the wall.
Q. And
then what happened next?
A. Eulalio
Galendez and Narciso Acabo went inside.
Q. You
said that you saw Eulalio Galendez, what was he holding, if any?
A. Eulalio
Galendez was holding a scythe.
Q. How
about Narciso Acabo, what was he holding at that time?
A. A lamp.
Q. Was
that a lighted lamp?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
what did Eulalio Galendez do inside your house?
A. When my sister Lourdes Jamero
tried to help my father, she was held by Eulalio Galendez.
Q. How
did your sister, Lourdes Jamero, try to help your father?
ATTY. FABE:
Your Honor, please, we
object an opinion.
FISCAL TACANDONG:
It is based on his
actual observation.
C O U R T :
It is ‘how did’.
I withdraw the question.
Q. (cont.)
You said that your sister attempted to help your father but Eulalio Galendez
held the hands of your sister. How did
Eulalio Galendez do this to your sister?
A. Eulalio
Galendez held the two hands of my sister.
Q. If
this Eulalio Galendez is in the courtroom now, will you please point to him?
A. This
is Eulalio Galendez (witness went down from the witness stand and point Eulalio
Galendez).
Q. This Narciso Acabo who was with Eulalio Galendez and Pedro Galendez at
that time who was holding a lighted kerosene lamp, will you please point to
him?
A. This is the one. (witness pointing to the accused who gives
his name as Narciso Acabo).
Q. When
Eulalio Galendez held the hands of your sister, what happened?
A. I tried to help my sister Lourdes
but I was boxed by Eulalio Galendez.
C O U R T : (to the witness)
Q. Where
you hit?
A. Yes,
sir. I was hit here (witness pointing
to the left side of the lower eyebrow). (TSN, April 16, 1979, pp. 4?10)
Likewise, Lourdes Jamero in her testimony stated that the
accused-appellants assisted each other in killing her father. She testified that:
“DIRECT EXAMINATION BY FISCAL
TACANDONG, JR.:
Q. Do
you remember where were you (sic) on February 4, 1978 at about 11 o’clock in
the evening?
A. Yes,
sir.
C O U R T: (to the witness)
Q. Where
were you?
A. I
was in our house.
Q. Where?
A. At
Kibungol, Hindangon, Gingoog City.
FISCAL TACANDONG: (cont.)
Q. Will
you please tell the Honorable Court if there was an unusual incident that took
place during that time?
A. There
was.
Q. What
was it?
A. I
heard the barking of the dog and heard Narciso Acabo calling my father.
Q. Who
is your father?
A. Gaudencio
Jamero.
Q. What
did your father Gaudencio Jamero do after he was called by Narciso Acabo?
A. My
father asked: ‘Who are you?’ and be
answered, ‘I am Narciso Acabo.’
Q. After
telling your father that he is Narciso Acabo what did your father do?
A. He
opened the door.
Q. After
your father opened the door, what happened?
A. I
saw Pedro Galendez stabbed (sic) my father Gaudencio Jamero.
Q. Was
your father hit?
A. Yes,
sir, and the weapon pierced through his back.
Q. What
part of the body of your father was first hit?
A. Here
(witness pointing), on the stomach.
Q. With
what kind of weapon was your father stabbed by Pedro Galendez?
A. A
sharp pointed bolo.
Q. Would
you recognize that sharp pointed bolo?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. I
am showing to you a sharp pointed bolo marked Exh. J, for the prosecution, what
relation has this bolo to the bolo you said used by Pedro Galendez in stabbing
on the abdomen of your father and pierced through his back?
A. This
is the one.
Q.
And what else happened after you saw
your father being stabbed by Pedro Galendez with Exh. J?
A.
When my father was stabbed, Narciso
Acabo and Eulalio Galendez went near my father.
Q.
Now, you said that you saw Eulalio
Galendez and Narciso Acabo went near your father, what did (sic) Eulalio
Galendez holding at that time?
A.
A scythe.
Q. Now,
did you notice that scythe?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. I
have here a scythe, will you please inform
the Honorable Court what relation has this scythe to the scythe you noticed
being held by Eulalio Galendez?
A. This
is the one.
Q. Already marked Exh. O, for the
prosecution. Now, immediately after you
saw — I withdraw. What was Narciso
Acabo holding at that time?
A.
A lamp.
Q.
Will you please inform the Honorable
Court what kind of lamp was it?
A. It
was a ‘moron’.
Q.
And what else happened after you saw
Narciso Acabo and Eulalio Galendez went near your father?
A.
I also went near my father to help him
but I was pulled by Eulalio Galendez.
Q.
How did Eulalio Galendez pull you?
A.
He twisted my hands.
Q.
Your both hands or only one hand?
A.
Both hands.
Q. And
while Eulalio Galendez held your both hands, what else transpired?
A. My
younger brother Flavio Jamero came near to help.
C
O U R T: (to the witness)
Q.
When he came near to help, what
happened?
A. Eulalio
Galendez released me. (Ibid, pp. 50-54)
We find no flaws in the aforequoted testimonies that would
discredit the witnesses considering the relationship that existed between them
and the deceased since we have consistently held that the mere relationship of
a witness to a party does not impair his credibility. (see Ebajan v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 178 [1989] citing
People v. Demetrio, 124 SCRA 914 [1983]) Moreover, in the case at bar, Dr. Vicente
Jadol, the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examinations on the
bodies of the deceased Jamero spouses provided collaborating testimony,
thereby, rendering the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, Flavio and Lourdes,
credible. Dr. Jadol described the
severity of the wounds sustained by the Jamero spouses and the instrument that
could have caused the said wounds (TSN, December 11, 1978, pp. 4-20)
Thus, we reiterate our ruling in the case of People v.
Gil Uy, et. al. (G.R. No. 84275, February 14, 1992)
that:
“x x x mere
relationship to the victim need not automatically tarnish the testimony of the
witness. When there is no showing of
improper motive on the part of the witnesses for testifying against the accused, the fact that they are related to
the victim does not render their clear and positive testimony less worthy of
full faith and credit. x x x (At pp.
13-14)
We further held in the same case that:
“x x x collaborating
testimony of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the victim renders the
testimony of the eyewitnesses credible (At p. 14 citing People v. Encipido, 146
SCRA 478 [1986]).”
With respect to the death of Gaudencio’s wife, Dionisia, the
records teem with circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused-appellants as
the ones responsible therefor. The
following circumstances are not disputed: (1) Both children of the deceased spouses related in Court that when
they were able to free themselves from their father’s attackers, both of them
immediately ran for their lives. Flavio
Jamero jumped out of the window and after having landed on the ground, saw two
persons beating his mother. Lourdes
Jamero, on the other hand, jumped out of the door where she saw her mother
lying face down on the ground near the stairs of their house (TSN, April 16,
1976, pp. 10-11; 54-55); (2) Three of the accused-appellants, namely Eulalio
Galendez, Narciso Acabo and Pedro Galendez admitted in open court that they
went to the house of the Jamero spouses on the evening of February 4, 1978, the
date and time of the fatal killing of both spouses; that their purpose in going
there was to have the aching shoulder of Pedro Galendez treated; and that the
said visit ended with the killing of Gaudencio Jamero as he was stabbed by Pedro
Galendez after an altercation between Gaudencio and Pedro ensued; (TSN, October
22, 1979, pp. 6-17; TSN, October 25, 1979, pp. 3-11; TSN, December 15, 1979,
pp. 6-15); (3) the defense of alibi given by the accused-appellant Felix Tadios
is unavailing considering that the distance between his house (where he
allegedly slept from nine o’clock in the evening of February 4, 1978 until four
o’clock the following morning) and the Jamero’s residence is only two
kilometers and there was no showing that it was physically impossible for
accused-appellant Tadios to be at the scene of the crime at the time in
question; (4) Dr. Vicente Jadol asserted in his testimony that after having
conducted a post-mortem examination of the bodies of the deceased spouses on
February 6, 1978, he concluded that the Jamero spouses had been dead then for
36 to 48 hours (TSN, December 11, 1978, p. 28), thus, placing the time of death
at the time the accused-appellants could have been at the Jamero residence; and
(5) Emelio Llemit revealed in open court that the real purpose of the
accused-appellants in going to the house of the Jameros was to kill Gaudencio
because the latter was a “barangan” (witch) and that he, together
with Fabian Sajot and Carlos Tadios, was forced by the accused-appellants to
accompany the latter to the house of the Jameros in order to avenge the death
of one Eutiquio Baiño who allegedly died of Gaudencio’s sorcery.
We are convinced that the requirements under Rule 133, Section 4
of the Revised Rules of Evidence for circumstantial evidence to sustain a
conviction in the death of the wife are present in this case. As we have held in the case of People
v. Jara, (144 SCRA 516 [1986]):
“x x x In
determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction,
each case is to be determined on its own peculiar circumstances and all of the
facts and circumstances are to be considered together as a whole, and when so
considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction, although one or more of
the facts taken separately would not be sufficient for this purpose (23 CJS, p.
555). x x x” (At p. 539)
Otherwise stated, before there can be conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pinpointing the
accused, to the exclusion of the all others, as the perpetrator of the crime
(see People v. Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431 [1991], citing People v. Ritter, 194 SCRA
690 [1991] and People v. Subano, 73 Phil. 692 [1942]; see also People v.
Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368 [1991]). The
circumstances in this case are such that no doubt exists as to the finding that
the accused-appellants are also the ones responsible for Dionisia Jamero’s
death.
Inasmuch as the presence of conspiracy is borne out by the
records considering that as found by the trial court all the accused-appellants
went to the house of Gaudencio Jamero for one definite purpose – to avenge the
death of Eutiquio Baiño and that the numerous wounds inflicted on the victims indicated
a plurality of assailants, all the accused-appellants are liable as
co-conspirators. Hence, the act of one
is the act of all.
It is a well-entrenched rule that conspiracy need not be
established by direct evidence but may be proven through a series of acts done
in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose (People v. Alfredo Moreno, Jr. y
Andaya, et al., G.R. No. 94755, April 10, 1992 citing People v. Alvarez, 169
SCRA 730 [1989]; People v. Dante Donato, et. al., G.R. No. 94530, March 6, 1992
citing People v. Bicog, 187 SCRA 556 [1990]; People v. Quijano, et al. 197 SCRA
761 [1991]).
In view of the foregoing, we need not dwell on the assigned error
raised by the accused-appellants in this appeal. The extra-judicial confessions which clearly admitted their full
participation in the two crimes with full details are not essential to find
them guilty. We simply note that the
accused-appellant’s claim of maltreatment at the time of the taking of their
extrajudicial confessions are unsubstantiated by the evidence on record.
On April 1, 1991 appellant Pedro D. Galendez, writing from his
dormitory in the New Bilibid Prison, urged the release of his co-appellants and
insisted that he was the sole criminal in the crimes. The records prove otherwise. Conspiracy is clear.
We, therefore, find no reversible error in the trial court’s
findings of fact to which we accord full respect and credence in consonance
with the well-entrenched rule that the findings of the trial court should not
be disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances may have been
overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the case considering that
the trial court has the privilege of observing the demeanor of the witnesses
while on the witness stand thereby allowing it to discern if the witnesses are
telling the truth or not. (People v.
Vicente Rebulado, et al., G.R. No. L-42987, March 4, 1992 citing Amarante Heirs
v. Court of Appeals, et al., 155 SCRA 46 [1987]; People v. Gil Uy, et al., supra
citing People v. Kyamko, 192 SCRA 374 [1990]; People v. Lorenzo, 200 SCRA 207
[1991].
Furthermore, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that
the aggravating circumstances as alleged in the informations of these
consolidated cases are present and well-supported by the established facts.
With respect to the penalty of death imposed by the trial court,
we reduce the same to reclusion perpetua in view of the mandate
of the 1987 Constitution (Article III, section 19(1), 1987 Constitution). The indemnity to the heirs of each of the
deceased spouses is raised to P50,000.00 pursuant to present
jurisprudence. (People v. Dante Donato,
et al., supra citing People v. Sison, 189 SCRA 643 [1990]).
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed with the modification
that each of the accused?appellants
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the
offended parties in the amount
of P50,000.00 in each case.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.