[ G.R. No. 5324. December 28, 1910 ] 18 Phil. 90
[ G.R. No. 5324. December 28, 1910 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AGAPITO LASADA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
TRENT, J.:
On December 9, 1908, the provincial fiscal of the Province of Leyte filed a complaint against Agapito Lasada, Santiago Lasada, Macario Lasada, and Panfilio Closa, charging them with the crime of murder. The case was called for hearing on the 26th of January, 1909. The accused Agapito Lasada, upon his own application, was granted a separate trial, which commenced on that day. On being arraigned on this charge he plead not guilty. After hearing and considering the proofs and arguments presented the trial court found this accused, Agapito Lasada, guilty of the crime of homicide and sentenced him to seventeen years four months and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to pay one-fourth of the costs. He appealed to this court, and his case is the only one before us at this time.
Pedro Sopriengco, a Chinaman and resident of the barrio of Tarragona, municipality of Abuyog, Province of Leyte, left his house about 8 a. m. on March 30, 1908, to visit his coconut grove or rice fields, with the intention of returning early that same afternoon. His body was found the next day, March 31, about 100 brazus from the bridge which crosses the River Balacoue, within the jurisdiction of his barrio. Counsel for the appellant insists: First, that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of his client of the crime charged; and, second, that it has not been shown that the wounds inflicted upon the body of the Chinaman were the direct cause of his death. We will determine the second proposition first: That the Chinaman’s body was found on March 31 at a certain place near the river is not questioned, neither is it questioned that when he left home the day before he was enjoying reasonably good health. By order of the justice of the peace Ramon Mandia, a mediquillo, examined this body on the day it was found, and according to this witness’s testimony, which is not contradicted, the body presented the following described wounds and contusions: A contusion on the forehead, apparently made by a blow; a wound in the right side caused by a sharp cutting instrument. This wound was 5 centimeters deep and 4 centimeters long. On the neck and face there were livid marks. In the opinion of this witness the wound in the side would not, necessarily, have caused the death of the Chinaman, but the blow on the forehead would have caused his death. Julia Sopriengco, daughter of the deceased, gave about the same description of the wounds on the body as did the mediquillo. The blow on the forehead was evidently caused by some heavy blunt instrument, and we are fully satisfied that this blow, together with the other wounds, was the direct cause of the death of this Chinaman. Agapito Lasada and Santiago Lasada were charged in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ley te with the crime of lesiones graves. It was alleged in this complaint that these two men did on the 23d of February, 1906, criminally and maliciously maltreat Pedro Sopriengco, inflicting upon the person of the said Sopriengco three contusions. The Court of First Instance found Agapito Lasada guilty of the crime as charged in the complaint and sentenced him to be confined for the period of four months and to indemnify the injured party in the sum of P50. Lasada appealed to the Supreme Court and this court affirmed the verdict of guilty but reduced the penalty to twenty-five days’ imprisonment in the municipal jail of Abuyog, and fixed the amount of the indemnity the same as the trial court.[1] The certificate, returning the record in this case to the Court of First Instance for the execution of the sentence, was signed by the clerk on the 31st of January, 1908, and it must have arrived in the capital of the Province of Leyte some eight or ten days later, and it required a few days more in sending the order from the capital to Abuyog to the municipal president, directing him to carry the sentence of this Supreme Court into effect. Agapito Lasada was, in a way, serving this sentence on the 30th of March of that year; in fact he was then spending his time in the municipality of Abuyog, but was not confined in the municipal jail. He was permitted by the president, Vicente Tiauzon, to go where he pleased in the town and stayed, at least a parigpf the time, in the house of Tiauzon. On account of Tiauzon failing to confine the accused in accordance with the decision of this court, the deceased Chinaman desired to go to the capital of the province in order to notify the provincial authorities of the noncompliance with the order directing the confinement of Lasada by Tiauzon. The two principal witnesses for the prosecution were Espiridion Moldes and Benito Resardo, who testified substantially as follows: That about 5 o’clock on the afternoon of the 30th of March, 1908, as they were returning to the barrio of Tarragona, and while they were washing their feet in the creek of Tañguigui, the Chinaman, Pedro Sopriengco, came along; that they asked him to wait and all three of them would go together, but the Chinaman did not wait, saying that he had to make some collections and went on, leaving the other two there. A little later, Moldes and Resardo continued their march, looking for the main road. After they had crossed the Balocaue River—it then beginning to get a little dark—they heard screams, saying: “Do not kill me.” That on hearing these screams they walked a little faster, turning away from the main road and hiding in the shrubbery; that from the place of their hiding they saw, at a distance of about 4 brazas, Agapito Lasada, Santiago Lasada, Macario Lasada, and Panfilio Closa, the three first named armed with sticks and the last with a dagger, beating Pedro Sopriengco; that the Chinaman was then on the ground and this accused, Agapito Lasada, was holding him by the hair; that they then heard the accused Agapito Lasada say, speaking to the Chinaman: “You are efficient in making complaints, now you will not do it again.” Lorenzo Gonzaga, another witness for the prosecution, testified that about 4 p. m. on that day he saw the accused, Agapito Lasada, carrying a club and dressed in cañamo clothes, arrive hurriedly at the River Vito, outside the town of Abuyog, and that the accused crossed this river in his (the witness’s) banca; that after crossing the river the accused continued his march in the direction of Tarragona, but he did not travel in the usually traveled road. Lope Margate testified that on returning from the town of Abuyog to the barrio of Tarragona he saw this accused about 8 p. m. on March 30; that the accused was then dressed in cañamo clothes and carried a club or stick; that at that time the accused was accompanied by three men, two of whom he knew, being Santiago Lasada and Panfilio Closa; that these four men, including the accused, entered the house of Santiago Lasada in that barrio. Ramon Mandia, another witness for the prosecution, testified that he saw the defendant, Agapito Lasada, on the morning of March 31 a little after 8 o’clock, some distance from the tribunal in that part of the town called Vitug, the municipal building being on the other side of town, or in that part called Nalibunan; that when he saw the accused on this morning he was dressed in cañamo clothes. The defense sought to establish an alibi, and for this purpose presented Vicente Tiauzon, his son Jose Tiauzon, Ramon Gonzaga, Espiridion Vera, and Doctor Stallman. Vicente Tiauzon was at that time municipal president of the town of Abuyog. He testified that the defendant was in his house in the town on March 30; that he never left the town during that day, nor that night; that he was there serving a sentence, but was not in the municipal jail on account of his sickness; and that he slept in his (witness’s) house on the night of March 30. The second witness, Jose Tiauzon, testified that the defendant was in his (witness’s) father’s house and that they dined together there about 8 p. m. on March 30; that he remembers this because they had quite a conversation on that night. Ramon Gonzaga testified that he saw the defendant on March 30 in the tribunal and that when he was taking a walk he saw him (the defendant) in the window of the house of the president about ten minutes after 6 in the evening. Espiridion Vera stated that he went to the house of the municipal president one night during the latter part of the month of March, but he could not remember the day. Counsel for the defendant withdrew the testimony of this witness. Mr. Stallman, a surgeon in the regular United States Army, testified that he saw the defendant on the 14th of March and various other times from that time until April 4; that the defendant had beriberi; that when he saw the defendant on the 4th of April he was in a worse condition with this disease than he was on the 14th of March, and on being asked whether or not the defendant could make a journey on foot which would require two or three hours’ walking, he replied that the defendant could walk for three hours by stopping at intervals, but to do so it would be very difficult; that it would take a person in the condition of the defendant nearly four hours to walk from the town of Abuyog to the barrio of Tarragona. This witness further testified that he saw the defendant walking around the town before and after the 4th of April; that he did not treat this defendant for this disease, but his attention was called to it when he went to the house of the president, and that he examined the defendant twice, first on the 14th of March and the second time on the 4th of April. If the testimony of the witnesses for the defense be accepted as true, the judgment must be reversed and the defendant acquitted, but if the prosecution’s witnesses have truthfully stated the facts, the defendant is guilty. To determine this question an analysis of the proofs is necessary. The law presumes that a defendant is not guilty of any crime, and this presumption stands until it is overturned by competent and credible proof. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there remains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt or innocence this doubt must be resolved in his favor and he must be acquitted. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise, but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. There are several modes of impeaching1 a witness. One mode is by close cross-examination to involve the witness in contradictions and discrepancies as to material facts stated by him. Immaterial discrepancies or differences in the statements of witnesses do not affect their credibility, unless there is something to show that they originate in willful falsehood. If there are conflicts in the statements of different witnesses, it is the duty of the court to reconcile them, if it can be done, for the law presumes that every witness has sworn the truth. But if the conflicts in the testimony can not be so reconciled as to admit of every witness swearing the truth, the court must adopt that testimony which it believes to be true; and in reaching this conclusion it can take into consideration the general character of the witness, his manner and demeanor on the stand while testifying, the consistency or inconsistency of his statements, their probability or improbability, his ability and willingness to speak the truth, his intelligence and means of knowledge, his motive to speak the truth or swear a falsehood. In reaching a conclusion in the case under consideration we are deprived of the advantage of seeing the witnesses, hearing them testify, and noting their demeanor on the stand, which are of great assistance in reaching a conclusion when the testimony is so conflicting. Counsel for the defendant in his printed brief points out what he considers a number of contradictions in the testimony presented by the prosecution, and also he gives what he thinks a number of good reasons why this testimony can not be believed. Benito Resardo and Espiridion Moldes make different statements as to whether or not there were houses near the place where they saw the defendant and his companions maltreating the Chinaman, and also as to whether or not they separated after leaving that place or continued their journey together. These are immaterial differences. The attention of these witnesses was not specially directed to the question whether or not there were houses close by, and it is of no importance so far as the truthfulness of their testimony is concerned whether there were houses close by or whether they continued their journey together. Their attention was directed to what they saw and they were not thinking about these minor matters. It must be remembered that this trial took place some ten months after the occurrence and these witnesses were no doubt honestly mistaken as to some of the minor details, such as to where they were on the following day when the authorities came to investigate the matter and with whom they talked on that day. Resardo said that he had only testified in this case once. A document was presented to him and he was asked if it was signed by himself. He said it was. The witness said he was only asked questions in the justice of the peace court. The preliminary investigation, if any were held, is not made a part of this record. The witness said that he did not testify before the justice of the peace, but explains this by saying that the justice of the peace only asked him questions. This appears to be a satisfactory explanation on that point. The same witness stated that he was not related to Julia Sopriengco, the daughter of the deceased Chinaman; but, as the court below said, he later explained this mistake. The testimony of Geronimo Barbasan and Justino Mundala, wherein they stated that they, together with Moldes and Resardo, were invited to the house of Julia Sopriengco and while they were all there the said Julia offered them ^200 each on condition that they would testify that the defendant and his brothers killed her father, is so unreasonable that it can not be believed. This testimony was flatly denied by Moldes, Resardo, and Julia; in fact Julia and her sister Felisa testified that they were not at home at any time from the 1st of April to the 7th of April. It is not reasonable that Julia would have called these four men together and made this offer in the presence of all of them, knowing the enmity which existed between Barbasan and Mundala on one side and Moldes on the other. Vicente Tiauzon, the principal witness for the defense, was evidently deeply interested in this case. He had been directed to confine the defendant in accordance with a decision of this court. He failed to do so and was keeping the defendant at his own house. According to Julia Sopriengco, her father had complained to the president about not confining the defendant, so it was to his interest to testify in favor of the defendant. The same influence was no doubt brought to bear upon his son, Jose Tiauzon. The other witness, Gonzaga, as we have said, testified that he saw the defendant in the house of the president about ten minutes after 6 on the evening of March 30. This testimony was given some ten months afterwards. Doctor Stallmen’s testimony is the strongest in support of the alibi, but he testified that the defendant could have made the trip on foot from the town of Abuyog to the barrio of Tarragona, which would have taken about three hours. He also testified that he saw the defendant walking around the town during those days. The defendant could and, in fact, did walk around in the town during that time and never was in a condition so that he could not travel. According to the doctor, as we have said, it would have taken the defendant about three hours to walk to this barrio, but it must be remembered that the cocales or rice fields where the deceased went that day are between the barrio and the town, and it took the deceased, walking fast, a little less than an hour to walk from his home toward the town to these cocales. The Chinaman was killed near the river on that day. Two witnesses saw the defendant and his companions commit this murder. The testimony of these two witnesses is corroborated by the witnesses Gonzaga and Margate. It is also corroborated to a certain extent by Mandia. The testimony of all these witnesses is reasonable. The motive on the part of the defendant for killing the deceased is clearly shown. The testimony of the witnesses for the defense, who sought to establish an alibi, can not overcome the positive and direct testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, especially when we consider the fact that the main witness for the defense, Vicente Tiauzon, was deeply interested in favor of the defendant. Doctor Stallman’s testimony can be accepted as true and then the alibi would not, by any means, be established, as he stated that the defendant could have made that trip, and it has been clearly established that the defendant was walking around the town during these days. The trial judge had an opportunity to see these witnesses, hear them testify, and observe their demeanor on the witness stand. This is one of the best ways of determining the credibility of a witness. After hearing all these witnesses testify he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the witnesses for the prosecution testified the truth. In view of these facts we must give great weight to the findings made by the trial court. We only have the record, and, as we have said, the testimony for the prosecution is reasonable. It is direct and positive. In view of the clear and explicit findings made by the trial court, and after a careful consideration of the testimony presented, we are fully satisfied that the defendant is guilty of this crime. On the 5th of April, 1909, counsel for the defendant presented in this court a motion for the reopening of this case for the purpose of presenting newly discovered evidence. This motion is sworn to and accompanied by two affidavits. The first is that of Apolonio Monton, and according to this affidavit Monton had a conversation with Panfilio Closa in the carcel on the 2d day of March, 1909, and that during this conversation the said Closa told this witness that he, Closa, and a brother-in-law of his were the men who killed the Chinaman, and that this defendant and his brothers had nothing to do with this murder. The other affidavit was made by Agapito Suganob, and according to this affidavit Suganob heard this conversation between Closa and Monton, and heard Closa say to Monton that he, Closa, and his brother-in-law were the authors of this crime. Panfilio Closa was charged, along with this defendant and the other accused, in the same complaint, with having killed the Chinaman. He escaped from jail a very short time after this alleged confession. These parties said nothing about this confession until after Closa had made good his escape. He was confined in the jail at Tacloban when this trial took place and he could have been presented without any difficulty as a witness in favor of this defendant, and if his confession were true this could have been ascertained at the time this trial took place. No reason is given why Closa made this confession. The statements of these two men in these affidavits are so improbable and so unreasonable that they can not be believed, especially in view of the fact that they said nothing about this matter until Closa made his escape. For these reasons this motion is denied. Three other affidavits were filed on February 10, 1910, but they were not accompanied by any motion asking for a reopening of the case, or giving any reasons why these witnesses were not presented during the trial. So these affidavits can not be considered. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. Arellano, C. J., Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur.