G.R. Nos. 83373-74. July 05, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO CORDOVA @ “REY” CORDOVA, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ “SULI” CORDOVA, ISIDRO CORDOVA, JR. @ “DROBAT,” FREDDIE BUENCONSEJO @ “ODO…
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Marcelo Barruela and Segundo
Maguad were killed in Barangay Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz in the
evening of 29 May 1986. Upon the complaint of the former’s widow,
Teresita Barruela, Criminal Case No. 705 for Double Murder was filed against
the accused and Clarita Cordova with the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Pontevedra-Panay in the Province of Capiz by the Station Commander of
Pontevedra on 16 June 1986.[1] After conducting a preliminary examination, the MCTC ruled that a probable cause existed
against all the respondents with the exception of Clarita Cordova.[2] Thus, on 25 June 1986, the Station Commander
filed an Amended Criminal Complaint against the accused.[3] In due course, a warrant for the arrest of
the accused was issued.[4] Upon their arrest, the accused moved for the
immediate transmittal of the records of the case to the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal for the purpose of filing the appropriate information if a prima
facie case warranted the same.[5] After undertaking a reinvestigation of the
case, Acting Provincial Fiscal Claro A. Arches of Capiz recommended the filing
of two separate and distinct informations for murder;[6] consequently, two cases were filed on 29
January 1987 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City which were
docketed as Criminal Case No. C-2422 and Criminal Case No. C-2423. Both cases were raffled off to Branch 16 of
the said court.
The accusatory portion of the Information in Criminal Case No.
C-2422 states:
“That on or about the
29th day of May, 1986, at Barangay Bantigue, Municipality of Pontevedra,
Province of Capiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and
mutually helping one another, armed with long and short high?powered
firearms and with deliberate intent to kill one Marcelo Barruela, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with treachery and evident
premeditation, attack, shoot, and wound with such weapons said Marcelo Barruela
in different vital parts of his body, thus inflicting upon him the following
gunshot wounds, to wit:
1. Gunshot wound with entrance at
level of 3rd rib anterior chest wall left side 1 cm. x 1 cm., 3 cms. from
sternum laterally;
2. Probable wound of exit at level of mid-clavicle 5 cms. x 2.5 cms.;
3. Gunshot wound, entrance 1.5 cm. at level arm fracturing midhermerus
with wound of exit 9.5 cms. x 7 cms. at opposite side;
4. Probable wound of entrance 4.5 cms. x 2.5 cms. located 5 cms. below the
left axilla;
which wounds directly caused the
instantaneous death of said Marcelo Barruela.”[7]
On the other hand, the accusatory portion
of the Information in Criminal Case No. C-2423 reads as follows:
“That on or about the 29th day of May, 1986, at Brgy.
Bantigue, Municipality of Pontevedra, Province of Capiz, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together, mutually helping one another, and armed
with long and short high-powered firearms, with deliberate intent to kill one
Segundo Maguad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
treachery and evident premeditation attack, shoot, and wound said Segundo
Maguad with such weapons in the vital parts of his body, thus inflicting upon
him a gunshot wound with entrance below the left side of the neck 1 cm. x 11
cm. at the right scapular area and shattering the scapular bone, which wound
caused his instantaneous death.”[8].
At their arraignment on 11 March 1987, each of the accused
pleaded not guilty to the charges.[9]
During trial, the prosecution presented as its evidence in chief
six witnesses, viz., Rodolfo
Maguad, son of Segundo Maguad; Teresita Barruela, the spouse of Marcelo
Barruela; Norberto Javier; Dr. Salvador Billones, the doctor who autopsied the
victims; Pat. Rafael Dipon; and Pfc. Allan Contreras. Its rebuttal witnesses were Nemia Besana, Allan Contreras and
Angel Belalo. For its part, the defense
presented as its witnesses all of the accused and thirteen other persons.[10]
Prosecution witness Rodolfo Maguad testified that at around 7:00
o’clock on the night of the killing, he was at the fishpond dikes near the
house of the Barruelas at Barangay Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz inspecting the
fishpond gates. While there, he
suddenly heard the voice of Marcelo Barruela who was at the second floor of the
said house; Barruela was conversing with some men who were outside the
house. Rodolfo proceeded towards the
house but hid from the men because in the many years that he has stayed with
the Barruelas, no one has visited the latter at that time of the night. Rodolfo recounted that when Marcelo Barruela
asked who these men were, one of them — a
person whom he (Rodolfo) recognized as Eduardo or Suli Cordova — introduced himself as Richard de la Torre. Rodolfo observes Eduardo Cordova request
Marcelo to bring them to Pontevedra in Marcelo’s motorboat; Marcelo, however,
replied that he did not have enough gasoline for the trip. Eduardo Cordova thereupon insisted that they
be brought instead to Barangay Quiawa, also in Pontevedra. When Marcelo asked Eduardo how many they were,
the latter replied that they were four. Marcelo then instructed his farm help, Segundo (Godo) Maguad —
Rodolfo’s father — to prepare a torch (“moron”). After so instructing Segundo, Marcelo
beamed a flashlight at the group and asked Eduardo where his companions
were. When Eduardo replied, “They
are here,” two persons appeared, one of whom Rodolfo recognized as
Reynaldo Cordova. The latter, who had a
long firearm with him, immediately fired six shots in rapid succession at
Marcelo. Thereafter, Reynaldo fired two
more shots at Marcelo’s house. Rodolfo
then ran for safety and proceeded to the house of one Alex Acolentaba where he
related to Alex what had happened. After
sometime, both of them went to the Barruelas’ house where Rodolfo saw his father
lying dead on the first floor with a gunshot wound in his neck; on the second
floor, both discovered the lifeless body of Marcelo Barruela. The latter’s wife, Teresita Barruela, who
was also there, told Rodolfo to report the incident to the police authorities
in Pontevedra, Capiz. Instead of doing
so, Rodolfo and Alex proceeded to the house of Marcelo’s nephew, Jessie
Sevilla, and narrated the tragedy to the latter. Jessie then told them to promptly head for Roxas City to inform
Marcelo Barruela, Jr. (Toto) about the incident. Upon being so informed, Toto Barruela, Rodolfo and Alex returned
to Jessie Sevilla’s house where they met three policemen, namely, Pfc. Allan
Contreras, Rolando Alcazaren and John Dipon. Upon being questioned by the policemen, Rodolfo disclosed that his
father’s and Marcelo’s killers were the accused Eduardo Cordova, Reynaldo
Cordova and two other men whom he did not recognize. After this preliminary inquiry, the entire group proceeded to the
scene of the crime in Barangay Bantigue.[11]
Witness Teresita Barruela narrated that at about 7:00 o’clock in
the evening of 29 May 1986, she was praying in their house in Bantigue,
Pontevedra, Capiz. With her at that
time were her husband Marcelo, Segundo Maguad, Gloria Maguad and Rodolfo Maguad. She said that she then heard someone calling
for her husband thus: “Tay Seloy, Tay Seloy, Tay Seloy.” When
Marcelo asked the caller who he was and where he was going, the latter
identified himself as Richard de la Torre and
requested Marcelo to conduct them to Pontevedra in his motorboat because they
were benighted. Marcelo replied that he
did not have enough gasoline for the trip. Thereupon, the man insisted that they be brought instead to Barangay
Quiawa, which is also in Bantigue. Marcelo then told Segundo Maguad, their farm help who was at the first
floor of the house, to prepare a torch for their use during the trip. At this point, Teresita said that she
stopped praying and whispered to her husband that the intentions of the men
outside were not good. Marcelo merely
replied, “It seems,” and forthwith got a flashlight. Teresita then peeped through the window and
saw two men — Suli (Eduardo Cordova) and his younger brother, Isidro
Cordova. According to her, she was able to recognize both of them
because of the light emanating from the petromax on the ground floor of the
house. When her husband approached the
window, beamed the flashlight at the man who called on him and asked the latter
how many they were, the man replied that they were four. Suddenly, Reynaldo Cordova emerged with
another person from the dark and fired about six “rapid shots” at her
husband with the long firearm he was carrying. Teresita lay down on the floor and her husband fell beside her.
While still in the same position, she heard two more shots fired
in the direction of their house. She
then remained prostrate on the floor with her fallen husband until Rodolfo
Maguad and Alex Acolentaba arrived. Rodolfo told her that his father, who was downstairs, was dead. She then asked Rodolfo to report the
incident to the police station at the poblacion. At about 2:00 to 3:00 o’clock in the morning of the following
day, policemen arrived to investigate the killing. Although they interviewed Rodolfo Maguad, they could not get
Teresita’s statement because she was crying profusely. It was only on 11 June 1986 that she gave
her sworn statement.[12]
Teresita further testified that her family and the Cordovas had
not been in good terms because her husband “was against their fish trap
near our fishpond.” Moreover, Marcelo had told her that when he was still
single, he had killed the uncle of Clarita Cordova — mother of accused
Reynaldo, Eduardo and Isidro Cordova, Jr., mother-in-law of accused Freddie
Buenconsejo and grandmother of accused Ernesto Estorque, Jr.[13]
Prosecution witness Norberto Javier declared that at about 7:00
o’clock on the night of the incident, he was fishing with his son along the
Pontevedra river when he noticed a motorboat carrying five men approach them. He identified the men as Eduardo Cordova,
Reynaldo Cordova, Isidro Cordova, Jr., Freddie Buenconsejo and Ernesto
Estorque, Jr., the “driver” of the boat. With a gun pointed at him, Eduardo asked him to put out his torch
while Reynaldo asked for his gasoline. Norberto got the container of gasoline in his banca and handed it over
to Isidro. The group then proceeded in
the direction of Pontevedra. Later,
while he was across that same place where he had encountered the group, he saw
the motorboat return, this time with only three men on board. He no longer recognized these men.[14]
Pfc. Allan Contreras of the Integrated National Police (INP) in
Pontevedra testified that at around 1:30 o’clock in the morning of 30 May 1986,
Jessie Sevilla appeared in the police station and reported that Marcelo
Barruela and Segundo Maguad had been shot by four persons in Barangay
Bantigue. Together with Pat. Rafael
Dipon and Rolando Alcazaren, he proceeded to Sevilla’s house where they waited
for Rodolfo Maguad who had gone to Roxas City to inform Toto Barruela of his
(Toto’s) father’s death. When Rodolfo
arrived, Contreras asked him if he knew who shot the victims; the former
answered that the killers were “Drobat” (Isidro Cordova, Jr.) and
“Suli” (Eduardo Cordova). Thereafter, they headed for Barangay Bantigue and conducted an
investigation at the scene of the crime. Pat. Dipon made two sketches of the crime scene, marking the spots where
the assailants allegedly fired at the victims, the place where Rodolfo Maguad
hid and other important points at the crime scene. Contreras also asked Teresita Barruela if she knew the identities
of the assailants but the latter could not answer his questions as she kept on
crying. After concluding the
investigation, they brought the bodies of the victims to Pontevedra. At Pontevedra, somebody whispered to him
that Ernesto Estorque, Jr. had ferried some NPAs on his grandmother’s motorboat
on the night of 29 May 1986. Contreras
thus sought, and eventually found, Estorque. The latter revealed that the group which commandeered his grandmother’s
motorboat was led by a Commander Jojo. Estorque then voluntarily agreed to give a written statement, which was
accomplished on 30 May 1986 (Exhibit “M”). A second informer told Contreras that the same men got some
gasoline from someone who was fishing by the river that same night. The latter turned out to be Norberto
Javier. Contreras likewise questioned
Norberto Javier who revealed that the persons who procured gasoline from him
were Reynaldo and Eduardo Cordova. Norberto, however, refused to give a statement at that time because he
was afraid; he nevertheless promised to prepare one upon the arrival of his
brother “from the army.”[15]
With the exception of Ernesto Estorque, Jr. who admitted having
seen Norberto Javier in the evening of 29 May 1986, all of the accused denied
having been in Barangay Bantigue on the night of the murder. All, however, disclaimed having killed the
victims.
Accused Reynaldo Cordova declared that he was in the house of
Vice-Mayor Ildefonso Bernales in Punta, Tabuc, Roxas City on the night of the
incident. Claiming that he and his
family were residing in the said house, he further recounted that between 7:00
and 7:30 o’clock that night, Roberto Makato and Ildefonso Bediones, Jr. arrived
to fetch the vice-mayor and take him to a meeting of the Kiwanis Club. After having been served some beer, the duo
left with the vice-mayor at about 8:00 o’clock. Reynaldo claims that he never left the vice-mayor’s house that
night. In fact, when the vice-mayor
arrived at around 12:00 o’clock midnight, he was there to open the door for the
latter.[16]
Reynaldo Cordova’s testimony was corroborated by Vice-Mayor Bernales who added
that the distance between Punta, Tabuc and Bantigue is about twenty-one
kilometers; Bernales claims that it takes him forty minutes by car to get to
Pontevedra. From Pontevedra, one had to
take a one-hour motorboat ride to finally reach Bantigue.[17]
On the other hand, accused Eduardo Cordova stated that he was at
his mother’s house at Barangay Agbalo, Pontevedra, Capiz, on the night of the
killing. He likewise claimed that he
never left the said house that evening.[18] His
testimony was corroborated by his sister, Lydia Buenconsejo, who happens to be
the wife of accused Freddie Buenconsejo.[19]
Accused Isidro Cordova maintained that on 29 May 1986, he was in
Banica, Roxas City attending the last day of the novena for the barangay
fiesta. He averred that he spent the
night in the house of a certain Eduarda Doloso and that he did not leave the
said house that night.[20]
Isidro’s testimony was corroborated by Eduarda Doloso.[21]
Presenting a similar defense, accused Freddie Buenconsejo
testified that he was in his parents’ house in Sangkal, President Roxas, Capiz on
the night of the shooting. He admitted,
however, that his wife resides in his mother-in-law’s
house in Barangay Agbalo, Pontevedra, Capiz.[22]
Buenconsejo’s testimony was corroborated by Lydia, his wife, and Edwin
Bergancia, a resident of Sangkal.[23]
For his part, accused Ernesto Estorque, Jr., who was thirteen
years old at the time of the
killing, did not deny his presence in Bantigue in the evening of 29 May
1986. Nor did he contradict Norberto
Javier’s statement that he (Estorque, Jr.) piloted his grandmother’s motorboat
that night. Estorque, however, narrated
that on the said night, while both he and his grandmother, Clarita Cordova,
were harvesting the fish in their fishtraps adjoining the Barruelas’ fishpond,
they heard gunshots coming from the direction of the latter’s house — a mere
twenty meters from their fishtraps. After about fifteen minutes, a group of men headed by a certain
Commander Jojo “commandeered” his grandmother’s motorboat and ordered
him, at gunpoint, to ferry them to Binangig. After reaching Binangig, he returned to Bantigue to fetch his
grandmother.[24]
Rebuttal witness Angel Belalo testified that Lucio Babela,
Clarita Cordova’s uncle, was shot to death by Marcelo Barruela in 1953.[25]
On 11 March 1988, the trial court promulgated its decision[26]
finding accused Reynaldo Cordova, Eduardo Cordova and Ernesto Estorque, Jr.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The two Cordovas were held liable as principals while Estorque was found
to be an accessory after the fact. Accused Isidro Cordova and Freddie Buenconsejo, on the other hand, were
acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding the killings to have been committed with
the use of a motorized banca and illegally possessed firearms at nighttime at
the dwelling of the victims where there was no provocation from the latter,
qualified by the circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, this
Court pronounces guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of
Murder in both the above cases accused Reynaldo Cordova, alias Rey Cordova, and
accused Eduardo Cordova, alias Suli Cordova, and only as accessory after the
fact accused Ernesto Estorque, Jr., accordingly sentencing them, to wit:
1. Reynaldo Cordova and Eduardo Cordova in
Criminal Case No. C? 2422, for the death of Marcelo Barruela, in
contemplation of Art. 111, Section 19(1), 1987 Constitution of the Philippines,
there not being any mitigating circumstance, each to imprisonment of thirty
(30) years of reclusion perpetua (Arts. 27, 248 — Revised Penal Code) and the
payment by each jointly and severally
of indemnity in the sum of P25,000.00, and Ernesto Estorque, Jr., with
discernment having committed the crime as an accessory, appreciating the
special mitigating circumstance of minority, with no aggravating circumstance
offsetting this, to the straight penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months
(Art. 68 No. 2, RPC, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended by
PD 1179, Art. 192, last paragraph) and the payment of P2,000.00 as indemnity to
the deceased’s heirs;
2. Reynaldo Cordova and Eduardo Cordova in
Criminal Case No. C-2423, for the death of Segundo Maguad, in contemplation of
Art. 111, Section 19(1), 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, there not being
any mitigating circumstance, each to an imprisonment of thirty (30) years of
reclusion perpetua (Arts. 27, 248,
Revised Penal Code) and the payment jointly and severally by each in the sum of
P15,000.00, and Ernesto Estorque, Jr., with discernment having committed the
crime as accessory, appreciating the special mitigating circumstance of
minority without any aggravating circumstance offsetting this, to a straight
penalty of four (4) months imprisonment and the payment of P1,000.00 as
indemnity — in both cases to the deceased’s heirs, and with all the accessory penalties of the
law. Accused Reynaldo Cordova and
Eduardo Cordova are given the benefit of Article 29, as amended, of the Revised
Penal Code, being in detention.
Accused Isidro Cordova, alias Drobat, and accused Freddie
Buenconsejo, alias Odong, their guilt
in both cases not having been proved beyond reasonable doubt are hereby
acquitted of the crimes charged in the two informations.”[27]
The judgment of conviction is based primarily on the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses Rodolfo Maguad, Teresita Barruela and Norberto
Javier. The trial court rejected the
defense of alibi because it was satisfied that the accused were positively
identified by the said witnesses and that the latter had no motive to falsely
implicate the former. Taking into
account treachery and evident premeditation, the court said:
“x x x What more pretensions and treachery than the
calling of Marcelo Barruela as ‘Tay Seloy’, meaning Father Seloy, and variously
as Richard de la Torre and Commander Jojo. Taking revenge for the death of an uncle at the hands of Marcelo
Barruela in 1953, among others, the accused could only have planned their
strategy much, much before physically executing the killing, including the
procurement of their lethal firearms.”[28]
From the judgment of conviction, accused Reynaldo Cordova,
Eduardo Cordova and Ernesto Estorque, Jr., hereinafter referred to as the
Appellants, filed a notice of
appeal manifesting their intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals.[29]
Thereupon, the trial court ordered the transmittal of the records of both cases
to the Court of Appeals on 28 April 1988.[30]
However, in view of the penalties imposed, the appellate court forwarded the
records to this Court on 16 May 1988.[31]
The appellants filed their Brief on 27 October 1988 while the
People filed the Appellee’s Brief on 14 February 1989.
On 26 April 1989, the law firm of BELO, ABIERA and ASSOCIATES
filed a notice of appearance as counsel for appellant Reynaldo Cordova. On 7 July 1989, said new counsel filed a
separate brief for Reynaldo Cordova with a manifestation that the same was
being submitted in support and/or amplification of the brief submitted by Atty. Roger Patricio, counsel of
record for all the appellants. Consequently, on 19 July 1989, Atty. Patricio filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel in view of his appointment as Presiding Judge of Branch 38
of the RTC of Iloilo City. On 4 October
1989, Atty. Fredicindo A. Talabucon entered his appearance as counsel for the
appellants in substitution of Atty. Patricio.
In their common brief, the appellants assign the following
errors:
“I. THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF TERESITA
BARRUELA, RODOLFO MAGUAD, AND NORBERTO JAVIER.
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
APPRECIATING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE POLICE BLOTTER REPORT (EXHS,
“4”, “4-A”, “4-B”, “4-C,”) AND THE SPOT REPORT OF THE INP
STATION COMMANDER OF PONTEVEDRA, CAPIZ TO THE PC DISTRICT COMMANDER OF CAPIZ.
(EXHS. “5”, “5-A”, “5-C”) AS WELL AS THE SWORN
STATEMENTS OF CLARITA CORDOVA AND ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR. (EXHS. “1”,
“1-A”, “1-B”, “1-C”, “1-C”); EXHS.
“N”, “N-1”), AND EXHS. “2”, “2-A”,
“2-B”, “2-C”, “2-D”, (EXHS. “M”,
“M-1”) RESPECTIVELY.
III. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF LEOPOLDO BARRIOS,
RADIO ANNOUNCER OF RADIO STATION DYVR IN ROXAS CITY, AND OF ENRICO GALAPAN.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONIES OF ALFONSO BEDIONES, JR. AND
VICE-MAYOR ILDEFONSO BERNALES, WITH RESPECT TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF
ACCUSED-APPELLANT REYNALDO CORDOVA DURING THE TIME WHEN THE INCIDENT IN
QUESTION OCCURRED.
V. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TESTIMONIES OF BARANGAY CAPTAIN JUAN
BESANA AND DOMINADOR BUENAVISTA.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING ACCUSED EDUARDO CORDOVA AS A MENTALLY DERANGED
PERSON.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS REYNALDO CORDOVA AND EDUARDO
CORDOVA AS CO-PRINCIPALS AND ACCUSED-APPELLANT ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR. AS
ACCESSORY NOTWITHSTANDING THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.”[32]
In the separate
brief filed by the law firm of BELO, ABIERA and ASSOCIATES for appellant Reynaldo Cordova, the following
errors are imputed to the trial
court:
“I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT REY CORDOVA WAS POSITIVELY
IDENTIFIED BY THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI OF REY
CORDOVA.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY
(sic) OF ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR. AND CLARITA CORDOVA AS TO WHAT TRANSPIRED ON THE NIGHT OF MAY 29, 1986.”[33]
The foregoing errors merely supplement
those set forth in the common brief.
Under the first assigned error in the common brief, the
appellants brand the principal prosecution witnesses as “unreliable, as
they are untruthful,” and consider their testimonies as “highly
improbable and incredible.”[34]
Claiming that the same should have been rejected by the trial court, they then
attack Teresita Barruela’s declaration — which they find unbelievable — that
Marcelo Barruela had still asked Eduardo Cordova to identify himself when the
Cordova brothers were personally known to the Barruelas, and point out
inconsistencies in her testimony regarding the sequence of events after one of
the Cordovas had introduced himself as Richard de la Torre. While she had testified on direct
examination that the men outside their house and her husband had a running
conversation before the latter directed Segundo Maguad to prepare a torch for
the trip, she later contradicted herself by stating that Segundo Maguad was
given the said instruction as her husband was fetching a flashlight. Appellants likewise challenged Teresita’s
claim that she had recognized her husband’s assailants; appellants cite her
failure or refusal to reveal their identities when the police conducted an investigation after the
killing. When Pfc. Contreras repeatedly
questioned her about the identities of the assailants in the course of his
six-hour investigation at the scene of the crime, she did not offer any answer.
The appellants similarly assail the credibility of Rodolfo
Maguad. As in Teresita Barruela’s case,
they claim that Rodolfo allegedly
failed to immediately reveal to the authorities the identities of the
assailants. Even during his interview
over radio station DYVR the day after the killing, he asserted that he did not
recognize the assailants.
On the other hand, witness Norberto Javier is described by the
appellants as a “perjured witness” presented by the prosecution “in its frantic
desire to corroborate by circumstantial evidence the highly incredible,
improbable and concocted testimonies of Teresita Barruela and Rodolfo
Maguad.”[35]
Amplifying on their second assigned error, the appellants fault
the trial court for refusing to appreciate in their favor (a) the police
blotter of the Pontevedra police station which very clearly records the fact
that four “unidentified” persons killed Marcelo Barruela and
Segundo Maguad; (b) the spot report which discloses that “5 unidentified
persons” were the perpetrators; and (c) the sworn statements of Ernesto
Estorque, Jr. and Clarita Cordova which declare that the appellants were not responsible
for the killing.
For the third assigned
error, the appellants insist that the trial court should have appreciated in
their favor the testimony of Leopoldo Barrios, a radio announcer at station
DYVR, to the effect that in the evening of 30 May 1986, Rodolfo Maguad
went on the air to inform his brothers and sisters in Mindoro about their
father’s death. When asked by Barrios
about the details of the incident, Maguad categorically stated that a group of
men, the members of which he could not recognize, shot his father. Enrico Galapan, a resident of Sitio
Kalipayan, Punta Tabuc, confirmed that he had heard Maguad’s statements over
the radio.[36]
In the fourth and fifth assigned errors, the appellants take to
task the trial court for not according full faith and credit to the testimonies
of Alfonso Bediones, Jr., Vice-Mayor Bernales, Barangay Captain Besana and
Dominador Buenavista.
In support of the sixth assigned error, the appellants question
the trial court’s refusal to acquit Eduardo Cordova on the ground that as
testified to by his mother, he
is “mentally defective.” As a matter of fact, in his
cross-examination of Eduardo, Fiscal Claro Arches asked only one question
because he (Arches) knew that he could get nothing from a
“mentally-deranged” person.[37]
In the last assigned error, appellant Reynaldo Cordova claims
that if he were indeed guilty, he would have escaped. On the contrary, however, he even visited the Barruela family to
pay his last respects to the deceased Marcelo Barruela whom he and his family
fondly called “Tay Seloy.”
Appellants then end their arguments by insisting that although
alibi is a weak defense, it must be believed in this case since the testimonies
of the principal prosecution witnesses are unreliable, uncorroborated and
inconclusive.
At the center of these assigned errors is the issue of the credibility of the opposing
witnesses. A rule of long standing in
this jurisdiction, the respect for which remains undiminished, is that this
Court will not interfere with
the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of opposing witnesses unless there appears
in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which
has been misinterpreted.[38] This
is due to the fact that the trial court is in a better position to weigh conflicting testimonies, having heard
the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Such deference, however, may be withdrawn if
it is shown that the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[39]
We have, in the course of
the resolution of this case, meticulously pored over the voluminous transcripts
of the stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses for both parties. After
a careful and painstaking evaluation thereof, we have reached the inevitable
conclusion that the exception to the foregoing rule must be applied for, as
hereinafter expounded on, facts and circumstances of great weight and value
have been overlooked and misinterpreted by the trial court. At the outset, we find the prosecution’s
evidence insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants with moral certainty or rebut the presumption
of innocence accruing in their favor. In short, proof beyond reasonable doubt is wanting in this case.
1. There was absolutely no direct evidence presented to show how
the killing of Segundo Maguad was consummated and who were responsible therefor
since soon after the firing of the initial six shots at Marcelo Barruela — who
was standing by the window of the second storey of his house — Teresita
Barruela fell face down on the floor while Rodolfo Maguad ran away to
hide. Neither of them saw Segundo
Maguad’s exact position at the time these shots were fired. As to the next two successive shots, neither
of them saw where these shots were aimed at. There is as well no showing that the gunshot wounds sustained by Segundo
were caused by bullets fired from the firearm used in the killing of Marcelo.
2. None of the prosecution
witnesses saw appellant Estorque at the scene of the crime. It was only Norberto Javier who declared
that he saw the latter at 7:00 o’clock in the evening of 29 May 1986
“driving” Clarita Cordova’s motorboat with Eduardo and Reynaldo
Cordova, Isidro Cordova, Jr. and Freddie Buenconsejo as passengers. The trial court convicted Estorque as an accessory. By so doing, therefore, it assumed that at
the time he was seen by Norberto Javier, the crimes in question had already
been committed. No proof was offered to
support this assumption. Nevertheless,
even if we are to concede to such a hypothesis, it will likewise be observed
that the prosecution presented no proof to show that Estorque had known of the
commission of the crimes. For one to be held liable as an accessory,
it is essential that he must have knowledge of the commission of the
crime. Article 19 of the Revised Penal
Code defines accessories as:
“x x x those who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners:
1. By
profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime;
2. By concealing or destroying the
body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent
its discovery;
3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in
the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an, attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.”
Nor could it be assumed that even if a conspiracy had existed
among the assailants, Estorque could be considered a part thereof for at most,
his having been seen together with the other accused in the motorboat is purely
circumstantial evidence which, standing alone — for there is no evidence of
any other circumstance — does not sufficiently link him to such a
conspiracy. For circumstantial evidence
to be sufficient for conviction, the following requisites must concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b)
the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.[40]
There is a further obstacle that stands in the way of Estorque’s
conviction. While it has been proven
that he was only thirteen years old at the time of the incident, there are no
allegations in both informations that Estorque had acted with discernment. And even if we are to consider the
allegations that he had committed the imputed acts “with intent to
kill” as sufficient compliance — as we have in the past[41]
— he would still not be held liable as no proof was offered during trial that
he had so acted with discernment. Accordingly, even if he was indeed a co-conspirator or an accessory, he
would still be exempt from criminal liability.[42]
3. The evidence for the
prosecution clearly shows that appellant Eduardo Cordova was not the person who
fired the shots. Hence, his liability
would depend entirely on the existence of a conspiracy among the
assailants. The trial court ruled that
conspiracy existed between Eduardo and Reynaldo Cordova who, as prosecution
witnesses Rodolfo Maguad and Teresita Barruela claimed, both fired the
shots. A conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.[43]
Direct evidence is not necessary to prove the same for such schemes are usually
hatched in secrecy, with witnesses other than the conspirators themselves
proving to be extremely difficult to find. Moreover, it is settled that conspiracy need not be shown by direct
proof; it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be
inferred the existence of a common design or may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[44] As
regards the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and
during its existence, the law on evidence provides that such acts and
declaration may only be given in evidence against
the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration.[45]
Of course, it would be an entirely different matter if any of the conspirators
who are charged with the commission of an offense are utilized as state witnesses.[46]
In the instant case, if we are to believe the testimonies of
Teresita Barruela and Rodolfo Maguad, we would not hesitate to rule that
conspiracy was duly established. It was
Eduardo who, introducing himself as Richard de la Torre, called Marcelo
Barruela to request that he (Eduardo) and his companions be ferried in the latter’s motorboat to
Pontevedra. It was also Eduardo who,
upon being informed by Marcelo that the motorboat did not have enough gasoline,
insisted that they be brought to barangay Quiawa instead. Thereupon, one of Eduardo’s companions, whom
the said witnesses identified as Reynaldo Cordova, immediately fired six shots
at Marcelo.
Considering the testimonies of Teresita and Rodolfo in
conjunction with the declaration of Norberto Javier that at about 7:00 o’clock
that same evening, he saw Eduardo and Reynaldo together with their co-accused
Isidro Cordova, Jr. and Freddie Buenconsejo at the Pontevedra river aboard
Clarita Cordova’s motorboat then being “driven” by appellant Estorque,
it would appear logical to conclude that Eduardo and Reynaldo were together
either before the shooting, if Norberto saw them before such shooting, or after
the incident, if he saw them after the killing. As earlier observed, there is no evidence to show that Norberto
saw the appellants and the other accused either before or after the shooting.
Since the foregoing disquisitions are based on the assumption
that the statements of witnesses Rodolfo Maguad and Teresita Barruela are true,
it behooves us to determine whether such testimonies, particularly with respect
to the presence of appellants Eduardo and Reynaldo Cordova at the scene of the
crime, are indeed credible. On direct
examination, Rodolfo maintained that he was not inside Barruela’s house when he
saw Eduardo and Reynaldo. He claimed to
be at the fishpond dikes near the said house when he heard Marcelo Barruela
conversing with Eduardo.[47] Yet,
during Teresita Barruela’s direct examination, it was categorically stated that
when someone — identifying himself as Richard de la Torre — called for her
husband, she was praying inside their home and her companions at that time were
Segundo Maguad, Gloria Maguad, Rodolfo Maguad and Marcelo Barruela. Thus:
“ATTY. ALOVERA:
x x x
Q Mrs. Barruela, where were you on the
night of May 29, 1986?
A I
was at barangay Bantigue, Pontevedra, Capiz.
Q Why
were you there?
A Because
we have a fishpond there.
Q At
around 7:00 that night of May 29, 1986, what were you doing?
A I
was praying.
Q At
the time you were praying will you please tell the court if you have any companion?
A Yes,
sir, I have companions.
Q Who?
A Segundo
Maguad, Gloria Maguad, Rodulfo (sic) Maguad and my
husband, Marcelo Barruela.”[48]
It is clear that Rodolfo Maguad’s declaration that he was out of
the house is unreliable as it has been shown that, on the contrary, he was
inside the house when the assailants allegedly arrived and Marcelo Barruela was
shot. While we have arrived at such a conclusion,
however, we cannot help but observe that Rodolfo was quite categorical in
asserting that upon seeing Teresita Barruela in the second floor of the house
with the body of Marcelo, the latter told him “to report to the police
authorities at the poblacion of Pontevedra, Capiz”; thus, he and Alex
Acolentaba immediately left. They,
however, proceeded to the house of Jessie Sevilla, Marcelo’s nephew, where they
related what had happened to Marcelo and Segundo Maguad. It is logical to presume that if he had
truly seen and recognized the assailants, Rodolfo would have forthwith revealed
their identities to Jessie Sevilla. And
since it was Jessie Sevilla who proceeded to the Pontevedra police station to
report the incident, it is likewise logical to presume that the basis of his
report would be what was narrated to him by Rodolfo. Jessie’s report was entered by Pfc. Allan Contreras[49]
in the police blotter as entry no. 1000002 at 1:30 o’clock in the morning of 30
May 1986. It reads:
“Jessie Sevella (sic) of legal age, married, res., of Brgy
Tabuc, this mplty., reported that on or about 292000 May 86, Mr. Marcelo
Barruela, fishpond optr and res of Roxas City, and his fishpond caretaker, Godo
Maguad were shot by 4 unidentified persons while at his fishpond at Brgy
Bantigue, this mplty. Immediately, INP
Team led by Pfc Contreras, AC, with Pat Alcazarin RB, and Dipon, RR, Jr., were
dispatched to investigate the reported case.”[50]
Now, if Rodolfo had indeed told Jessie Sevilla who the assailants
of Marcelo and Segundo were, it would have been unlikely for Jessie not to have
revealed the same to the police authorities as he (Jessie) immediately
proceeded to the station. Nor would
Jessie have been merely satisfied by informing the police that the authors of
the crime were four “unidentified persons” considering that his own
uncle, Marcelo, was a victim. Thus, the
only plausible reason why Jessie described the assailants as
“unidentified” is because his source — Rodolfo, whose own father was
killed — was not in fact able to identify them.
Upon his team’s return, Pfc. Contreras himself[51]
made the following entry in the same police blotter. Entry number 1000003, recorded at 7:00
o’clock in the morning of 30 May 1986, reads:
“Team led by Pfc.
Contreras, AC, return Station with info that the victims were Marcelo Barruela
y Diva, 58 yrs old, married, fishpond optr/Radio Announcer, and res of Dorado
Sub-division, Roxas City, and Segundo Maguad y Macabiling, 70 yrs old, res of Brgy Bantigue,
this mplty, which (sic) were shot by unidentified persons at Brgy Bantigue,
this mplty, victims sustained gunshot wounds in the deff (sic) parts of the
body which caused their instantanious (sic) death (sic). Five (5) empty shells and five (5) live
ammos of 5.56 caliver (sic) were recovered at the crime scene. Case under investigation.”[52]
It bears stressing that Contreras made this entry upon meeting
Rodolfo at Jessie Sevilla’s house — after the latter had made the report
summarized in the first entry (Exhibit “4-B”) — and after having
verbally investigated him and completed the inspection of the crime scene in
his and Teresita and Toto Barruela’s presence. Upon being questioned by the trial court, Contreras admitted that this
entry was based “on my investigation from Brgy. Bantigue,”[53]
i.e., the investigation he conducted in the barangay where the killings
took place. It is thus obvious that
despite all these, Pfc. Contreras and the members of his team were unable to
ascertain the assailants’ identities as their names were not entered in the
police blotter.
It is true that entries in police blotters should not be given
undue significance or probative value, for they are usually incomplete and
inaccurate, sometimes from either partial suggestions or for want of suggestion
or inquiries. However, in the instant
case, considering that the first entry (Exhibit “4-B”) was made on
the basis of the report given by Sevilla immediately after being informed by
Rodolfo Maguad about the killings and, considering further that Jessie Sevilla
was not even called to the witness stand by the prosecution to testify on what
he had reported, the said entry cannot just be disregarded. On the matter of the second entry (Exhibit
“4-C”), it is to be noted that no less than the team leader himself,
Pfc. Contreras, prepared the same at a time when the occurrences he had just
investigated — even if preliminarily — were still very fresh in his
mind. Being an experienced
investigator, he certainly knew what to enter in the police blotter. He would therefore not have written that the
assailants were unidentified if such was not the fact.
Teresita Barruela’s courtroom testimony is likewise
unreliable. Our evaluation of it
strongly indicates that she was unable to see the assailants, much less
identify them. She claims that she
peeped through the window and saw Eduardo Cordova and his younger brother
Isidro because of the light emanating from the petromax which was under their
house.[54]
If there was indeed a petromax illuminating the place where the persons who
called Marcelo Barruela were positioned, we find it difficult to understand why
the latter still had to look for his flashlight and beam it towards the
former. Moreover, the team of Pfc.
Allan Contreras conducted thorough investigation of the crime scene and meticulously
prepared sketches which indicate the relative locations of the victims, the
empty shells and the other objects which the members saw there, such as the
bed, tables, chairs, jars, a box,
a dirty kitchen stove and the
sink.[55]
It is to be observed that no petromax appears in the said sketches. So vital a piece of evidence could not have
entirely escaped these investigators’ attention. Both Pfc. Allan Contreras and Pat. Rafael Dipon, Jr., the person
who prepared the said sketches, never mentioned, while testifying, that there
was a petromax in the house of the Barruelas or at any other place at the scene
of the crime. Finally, from the
testimony of Teresita Barruela, it may also be gathered that her husband did
not recognize the person who addressed him as “Tay Seloy” and
requested to be brought, together with his companions, to Pontevedra. Thus, Marcelo was only able to answer
“It seems” when Teresita whispered to him that the intention of such
men were not good. If indeed Marcelo
knew the identity of the person who called for him, he would not have just said
“It seems.”
What is more unusual about Teresita’s actuation was her failure
to disclose the identities of the assailants to Pfc. Contreras or any other
member of his team during the entire time they were in her house. The said policemen stayed with her from
early dawn to 7:00 o’clock in the morning of 30 May 1986 or, according to her,
for six hours.[56]
We find her explanation — that she was unable to furnish such information
because she was crying — to be unacceptable. Her answers during cross-examination do not at all suggest that it was
impossible for her to have answered the questions intended to elicit the
identities of the assailants. Thus:
“ATTY. PATRICIO:
x x x
A They
investigated Rudy Maguad.
Q How
about you?
A
They asked questions from me but I
could not answer those questions because I was crying heavily at that time.
Q You did not tell them that the one (sic) who
shot your husband and Segundo Maguad were Suli Cordova and his companions?
A No,
because they could not talk to me.
Q Why,
what happened to you?
A Because
I felt bad and I was crying.
Q How long did those policemen stayed (sic) in
your house?
A In
my estimate maybe about 6 hours, up to the
morning.
Q During that period of six (6) hours, you kept on crying so much so that
you did not tell the policemen who were the perpetrators of the crime?
A Because they were talking also with Rudolfo
(sic) Maguad.
Q But
there was an occasion that Pat. Allan Contreras
attempted to ask you who shot your husband?
A He asked questions from me on the 11th
already.
Q During the time that the policemen were there they did not ask you who
were the persons who were with your husband at the time he was shot?
A They
were also talking with Rudy Maguad.
Q How about you, did not PFC Contreras ask you
what exactly you were doing at the time he was shot?
A He also asked me but I did not answer
because I kept on crying.”[57]
It appears that Teresita revealed the assailants’ identities only
on 11 June 1986. It is of course
settled that delay or vacillation
in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of
a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[58]
In the instant case, we find Teresita’s explanation to be insufficient and
inadequate. There is no evidence to
show that she was hysterical at the time the policemen were in her house; that
she was so distraught as to preclude her from answering any question; or
that she was afraid of revealing the names of the assailants for fear of
reprisal. Considering the fact that it
was no less than her husband who was killed, the most natural thing for her to
have done was to have, despite the tears, identified the Cordovas as the
authors of the heinous crime if indeed they were.
In the light of the foregoing exposition on the testimonies of
Teresita Barruela and Rodolfo Maguad, it is obvious that the culpability of
both appellants have been placed in serious doubt.
Even the testimony of Norberto Javier did not save the day for
the prosecution as the same is inherently improbable. On direct examination, he testified that Reynaldo Cordova pointed
an armalite at him. Thereupon, after
transferring to his (Norberto’s) boat, Reynaldo asked where the gasoline was
kept; when Norberto told Reynaldo that the gasoline was at the rear of the
engine room, the latter ordered him to get it. Norberto then complied with the command.[59] And
yet, during cross-examination, Norberto declared that on 3 June 1987, when
Reynaldo Cordova came to his house, asked him whether the gasoline obtained by
Marcelo Barruela’s killers was taken from him and told him that it was good
that nothing happened to him (Norberto), the latter did not bother to confront
Reynaldo about what he (Reynaldo) allegedly did in the evening of 29 May 1986
simply because Reynaldo “was in a hurry.”[60]
If indeed Reynaldo Cordova pointed an armalite at Norberto Javier and demanded
gasoline, Norberto’s natural reaction should have been to immediately confront Reynaldo about the episode.
4. Adding further doubt to the
culpability of the appellants is the candid admission of Pfc. Contreras that
the police authorities had in fact suspected two groups as being responsible
for the deaths of Marcelo Barruela and Segundo Maguad, viz., that of
Commander Jojo of the NPA and that of the Cordovas. Contreras’ informer revealed that the victims were killed by the
NPAs led by Commander Jojo. The former
gave the following statements on rebuttal:
“COURT:
Q What were the report (sic) of the
informer who have hinted you (sic)?
A The
reports of my informer were different what (sic) Rudy Maguad told me because
Rudy Maguad told me that the suspect he saw were (sic) Rey Cordova and alias
‘Suli’, and the reports of my informer was (sic) that the one (sic) who shot
Marcelo Barruela were NPAs and was lead (sic) by Commander Jojo and the one
that transported them from Brgy. Bantigue in a barrio of Panay was Ernesto Estorque Jr.
x x x
ATTY. ALOVERA:
Q Did you ask your informers where they
based their informations?
x x x
A Yes,
sir.
ATTY. ALOVERA:
Q And
what did they tell you?
A They
answered that they based their reports through informations that was
disseminate (sic) inside the public market.”[61]
It is to be likewise noted that Pfc. Contreras had earlier
declared that he investigated Estorque on 30 May 1986. Estorque supposedly averred that he was the
one who “conducted” the banca used by the NPAs who were led by
Commander Jojo. Estorque’s sworn statement
was immediately taken on that date and subsequently offered by the prosecution
in evidence as Exhibit “M.”[62]
Needless to say, the prosecution is bound by said Exhibit “M” which
is also marked as Exhibit “2” for the defense.[63]
5. Finally, we are
not persuaded by the trial court’s thesis that appellants Reynaldo and Eduardo
Cordova killed Marcelo Barruela out of vengeance because the latter purportedly
killed their mother’s uncle, Lucio Barruela, in 1953. Evident premeditation is thus suggested.
Reynaldo Cordova was only twenty-nine years old when he testified
on 17 September 1987[64]
while Eduardo Cordova was twenty-three years old when he testified on 23
September 1987.[65]
In other words, Reynaldo and Eduardo were born in 1958 and 1964, respectively
— long after Lucio Barruela’s death. There is no evidence on record to show how Lucio was killed and whether
Marcelo Barruela was convicted or acquitted for such an act. It was, as well, not established whether
appellants Reynaldo and Eduardo Cordova had determined to kill Marcelo in
retaliation for the death of Lucio and had clung to such a determination. For evident premeditation to exist, the
following requisites must concur: (1) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime, (2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination, and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[66]
None of these requisites are present in this case.
We are not convinced that the prosecution was able to discharge
its burden of overcoming, by proof beyond reasonable doubt — or that degree of
proof which produces a conviction in an unprejudiced mind[67]
— the presumption of innocence which appellants Eduardo and Reynaldo Cordova
are entitled to. Short of this, it is
not only the appellants’ right to be freed; it is, even more, the
constitutional duty of the court to acquit them.[68] It must always be remembered that an
accusation is not synonymous with guilt and that an accused’s freedom is
forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in
existence. The proof presented against
the accused must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not
be permitted to sway judgment.[69]
The foregoing disquisitions render unnecessary further discussion
regarding the other issues raised in the assignment of errors, save for the
claimed insanity of Eduardo Cordova under the sixth assigned error. We shall now consider this ascribed error.
The law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is
improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously.[70]
The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof
beyond reasonable doubt.[71]
Since insanity is in the nature of a confession and avoidance, it must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt.[72]
Moreover, an accused is presumed to have been sane at the time of the
commission of the crime in the absence of positive evidence to show that he had
lost his reason or was demented prior to or during the perpetration of the
crime.[73]
Eduardo’s mother was already making a conclusion when she stated that Eduardo
had no work because he was insane. More
concrete acts showing the mental condition of the person alleged to be insane need to be shown in order that
insanity may be appreciated in his favor. In People vs. Dungo,[74] we held:
“Thus, insanity must be shown by surrounding circumstances
fairly throwing light on the subject, such as evidence of the alleged deranged
person’s general conduct and appearance, his acts and conduct inconsistent with
his previous character and habits, his irrational acts and beliefs, and his
improvident bargains.”
The neuro-psychiatric evaluation report for appellant Eduardo
Cordova dated 4 September 1987 and which states the following:
“Impression-Neuro-psychiatric and psychological evaluation
shows that the subject is suffering from a mental disorder called schizophrenia
Paranoid Type.”[75]
is not relevant at all as it concerns his
mental condition at the time of trial. The inquiry into his mental condition should relate to the period
immediately before or at the very moment the crime was committed.[76]
Moreover, appellant Eduardo Cordova did not even ask for the
suspension of his arraignment on the ground that he was suffering from
insanity. Paragraph (a), Section 12,
Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the arraignment of an
accused who appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition
which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him
and to plead intelligently thereto, shall be suspended. In the case at bar, Eduardo Cordova even
took the witness stand to testify.
The records, however, disclose that in April of 1988, when
Eduardo showed signs of mental abnormality, the Provincial Warden of Capiz
reported the matter to the trial court[77]
which in turn directed the latter’s confinement at the National Center for
Mental Health at Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.[78] On 5
October 1989, his discharge from the center was recommended by a resident
physician thereof because he had improved and was already competent to stand
trial.[79]
It was only on 26 March 1992, however, that Eduardo was discharged from the
center and transferred to the National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa.[80]
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision in Criminal Case No.
C-2422 and Criminal Case No. C-2423 of Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of
Roxas City is hereby REVERSED. The
accused-appellants REYNALDO CORDOVA @ Rey Cordova, EDUARDO CORDOVA @ Suli
Cordova and ERNESTO ESTORQUE, JR. are ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable
doubt. Their immediate release from
detention is hereby ordered, unless any other lawful cause would warrant their
further detention. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.
[1]
Original Records (OR), Crim. Case No. C-2422, 1.
[2]
OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 35.
[3]
Id., 36.
[4]
Id. 43.
[5]
Id., 45.
[6]
Id., 66-79; Id., Crim. Case No. C-2423, 4-17.
[7]
OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 63-64.
[8]
Id., Crim. Case No. C-2423, 1-2.
[9]
OR, Crim. Case No. C–2422, 113; OR, Crim. Case No. C-2423, 36.
[10]
Leopoldo Barrios, Enrico Galapin, Dominador Buenavista, Pat. Rafael Dipon,
Alfonso Bediones, Ildefonso Bernales, Edwin Bergancia, Eduarda Doluso, Lydia
Buenconsejo, Juan Besana, Clarita Cordova, T/Sgt. Frankie Andion and P/Lt.
Romeo Hervias.
[11]
TSN, 3 April 1987, 4-17.
[12]
TSN, 19 May 1987, 3-28.
[13]
Id., 31-33.
[14]
TSN, 1 April 1987 34-41.
[15]
TSN, 20 May 1987, 28-47.
[16]
TSN, 17 September 1987, 4-10.
[17]
TSN, 23 June 1987, 12-15.
[18]
TSN, 23 September 1987, 2.
[19]
TSN, 10 July 1987, 9.
[20]
TSN, 13 August 1987, 16-19.
[21]
TSN, 23 June 1987, 24-28.
[22]
TSN, 13 August 1937, op. cit., 2-9.
[23]
TSN, 10 July 1987, 5; TSN, 23 June 1987, op. cit., 20.
[24]
TSN, 14 August 1987, 2-12.
[25]
TSN, 13 October 1987, 30-31.
[26]
OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 770-793; Rollo 34-57. The decision is dated February 1988.
[27]
OR. Crim. Case No C-2422,
792-793; Rollo, 56-57.
[28]
OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 792; RolIo, 56.
[29]
Id., 803.
[30]
Rollo, 3.
[31]
Id., 2.
[32]
Brief for Accused-Appellants. 1-2; Rollo, 63, et seq.
[33]
Rollo, 92.
[34]
Brief for Accused-Appellants, 9.
[35]
Brief for Accused-Appellants, 36-37.
[36]
Brief for Accused-Appelants, 48.
[37]
Id., 53-54.
[38]
U.S. vs. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. 295 [1910]; People vs. Cabilao, 210 SCRA
326 [1992].
[39]
U.S. vs. Pico, 15 Phil. 549 [1910]; People vs. Tismo, 204 SCRA
535 [1991]; People vs. Lee, 204 SCRA 900 [1991]; People vs.
Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992]; People vs. Garcia, 209 SCRA 164 [1992].
[40]
Section 4, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
[41]
People vs. Nieto, 103 Phil. 1133 [1958].
[42]
Article 12(3), Revised Penal Code.
[43]
Article 8, Id.
[44]
People vs. Tingson, 47 SCRA 243 [1972]; People vs. Alonzo, 73
SCRA 484 [1976]; People vs. Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285 [1976].
[45]
Section 30, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court.
[46]
Section 9, Rule 119, Id.
[47]
TSN, 3 April 1987, 4-6.
[48]
TSN, 19 May 1987, 3-4. Underscoring
supplied for emphasis.
[49]
TSN, 13 October 1987, 2-3.
[50]
Exhibit “4-B.”
[51]
TSN, 13 October 1987, op. cit., 13; 15.
[52]
Exhibit “4-C.”
[53]
TSN, 13 October 1987, 13.
[54]
TSN, 19 May 1987, 9-11.
[55]
Exhibits “G” and “H”.
[56]
TSN, 19 May 1987, 17.
[57]
TSN, 19 May 1987, 67-68.
[58]
People vs. Obngayan, 55 SCRA 465 [1974]; People vs. Roxas, 73
SCRA 583 [1976]; People vs. Elizaga, 73 SCRA 524 [1976].
[59]
TSN, 1 April 1987, 38-39.
[60]
Id., 51-52.
[61]
TSN, 13 October 1987, 11-12.
[62]
TSN, 20 May 1987, 44-45; TSN, 22 May 1987, 46.
[63]
TSN, 13 October 1987, op. cit., 35; Rollo, Crim. Case No. C?2422,
329.
[64]
TSN, 17 September 1987, 5.
[65]
TSN 23 September 1987, 2.
[66]
People vs. Buka, 205, SCRA 567 [1992].
[67]
Section 2, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
[68]
People vs. Pico, 200 SCRA 45 [1991], citing People vs. Maisug, 27 SCRA 742 [1969].
[69]
People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59, 64 [1971].
[70]
People vs. Dungo, 199 SCRA 860 [1991].
[71]
People vs. Dungo, supra.; People
vs. Danao G.R. No. 96832, 19 November 1992.
[72]
People vs. Danao, supra.
[73]
People vs. Rafanan, 204 SCRA 65 [1991].
[74]
Supra. at 867.
[75]
Exhibit “6”; OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 614.
[76]
People vs. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851 [1990].
[77]
OR, Crim. Case No. C-2422, 829.
[78]
Id. 838.
[79]
Rollo, 130.
[80]
Id., 159.