[ G. R. No. 45129. July 27, 1937 ] 64 Phil. 515
[ G. R. No. 45129. July 27, 1937 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANACLETO FOLLANTES AND EUGENIO JACINTO, DEFENDANTS. ANACLETO FOLLANTES, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
VILLA-REAL, J.:
The herein accused-appellant Anacleto Follantes was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Isabela for the crime of murder to the penalty of cadena perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third of the costs of the trial, with the accessory penalties of the law.
By reason of his appeal, the appellant assigns four alleged errors claimed by him to have been committed by the court a quo in its judgment in question, which errors may be reduced to the sole proposition that the facts proven during the trial do not Establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution attempted to prove that in the morning of October 16, 1935, Julian Manauis and his son Victor went to a forest in the sitio named Dalena-Tugtug, municipality of Echague, Isabela, within the lumber concession of the Echague Lumber Co., to cut timber. While father and son were felling a tree called cariwat, they were surprised by Anacleto Follantes and Eugenio Jacinto who were accompanied by the boy Julian Pinto. Follantes told them1 to stop cutting the tree because the land on which it stood formed part of the lumber concession of the Echague Lumber Co. of which he was the encargado. Julian Manauis begged Follantes to allow him and his son to continue cutting the tree so that their labor would not be in vain and they kept cutting it. In view of such attitude, Follantes told Julian Manauis and his son that if they did not heed his warning they wouldsome day pay for it, leaving immediately with his companions. Julian Manauis and his son Victor succeeded in cutting and felling the tree but did not finish cleaning it and they decided to return on the following day, October 17, 1935. As the tree was big they could not finish their work and in the afternoon of said date Julian Manauis told his son Victor that he would return alone to the forest on the following day to finish cutting the tree to pieces. Early the following morning, October 18,1935, and before Julian Manauis left for the forest, he told his son Victor to attend the novena, of his deceased grandfather Agustin Escano, and that he himself would try to return before the prayers began or after dinner. As Julian failed to return by noon, Victor became uneasy but he waited until the afternoon to see whether his father would arrive. After having waited in vain, Victor went to the place where they had felled the tree, arriving there at about 9 o’clock in the evening. By means of a lantern he began to search for his father and found his lifeless body lying on the ground near the tree felled by them, with the head completely severed from the body and a few paces away. He noticed several wounds on the body and the axe, which had been used in cutting the tree, lying nearby. He also saw his father’s shirt, hat and bolo hanging from the branch of a tree. Without touching anything, Victor hurriedly returned to the barrio and notified the barrio liutenantof what he had seen. Said barrio, lieutenant, in turn, advised the justice of the peace thereof. Early in the morning of October 19, 1935, Lieutenant Benjamin Molina of the Constabulary, upon being advised by a policeman that the body of a dead person had been found in the sitio of Datena-Tugtug, he called upon the justice of the peace and the chief of police and, accompanied by constabulary soldiers and two policemen, they immediately went to said place and found the body of Julian Manauis as it had been discovered by his son Victor in the morning of October 18th of said year. About three meters from the body they found the basket Exhibit B, containing tobacco and lime; the shirt of the deceased hanging from a branch of the fallen tree, and the axe lying on the ground near the log. After the body had been removed and brought to the municipal building by order of the justice of the peace, it was examined by Dr. Guillermo Blanco, who found the following wounds (Exhibit A):
“(a) An incised mortal wound 14 inches long and 1 inch wide on the right cheek, extending from the comissure of the mouth, along the inferior maxillary bone upwards to the right temporal bone, cutting the principal vessels of the region in addition to the above-stated bones, with a depth reaching to the cavity of the mouth; (b) an incised mortal wound 4 inches long, 2 inches deep and 1 inch wide in the left precordial region under the nipple, extending transversally, cutting the left 4th rib in two and piercing the principal vessels of said region; (c) an incised mortal wound extending longitudinally from above the navel to the sternum on the same level as the xiphoid process, causing the opening of the abdominal and part of the thoracic cavity and freely exposing the visceral organs of which the small and large intestines were cut; (d) an incised mortal wound 12 inches long, 2 inches wide and 3 inches deep in the lumbar region, extending transversely and cutting the vertebral column.
“It is likewise stated that at the time of the autopsy of the body, the head was found to be completely severed from the body, the neck being the point of severance. It was also found that the right hand was completely severed from the corresponding arm, the wrist being the point of severance.”
In the meantime, the constabulary conducted a search for the persons who might have been the authors of the hideous crime and to that effect it organized two patrols, one led by Lieutenant Molina and the other by Sergeant Villanueva, the latter bringing with him the basket Exhibit B. Said sergeant arrested Eugenio Jacinto in the hut of the latter who told him that the basket in question belonged to Anacleto Follantes. Questioned about the crime, Eugenio Jacinto denied participation in the commission thereof and pointed to one Agonos who, according to him, lived in the town of Santiago. The sergeant took Eugenio Jacinto to said town in search of Agonos but they failed to find him. Jacinto admitted later that Agonos was a fictitious person and that he was the only one responsible for the death of Julian Manauis. He was then taken to the Constabulary barracks in Echague where he was questioned by Lieutenant Molina. Lieutenant Molina later took Jacinto to the justice of the peace who, in turn, investigated him and put in writing his statement reiterating, among other things, that he was the only one who had killed Julian Manauis. In view of this confession, a complaint was filed against Eugenio Jacinto in the justice of the peace court, charging him with the crime of murder. Subsequently, while he was still in confinement and upon being questioned further by Lieutenant Piccio, who had relieved Lieutenant Molina as such in said province, the accused Eugenio Jacinto partly repudiated his former confession and implicated Anacleto Follantes. A new complaint was then filed before the justice of the peace charging Eugenio Jacinto, Anacleto Follantes and Julian Pinto with the crime of murder. The accused waived their right to a preliminary investigation and the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The provincial fiscal filed the corresponding information charging Eugenio Jacinto and Anacleto Follantes with the crime of murder and asked for the dismissal of the case against Julian Pinto for lack of evidence. Upon arraignment, the accused Eugenio Jacinto pleaded guilty and was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay one-third of the costs of the trial. The accused Anacleto Follantes pleaded not guilty and the court proceeded with the trial of the case against him.
In view of the plea of guilty entered by the accused Eugenio Jacinto and hi& former statement implicating Anacleto Follantes, the provincial fiscal used him as a witness for the prosecution. Eugenio Jacinto testified that sometime before and up to the date of the crime, he was in the employ of Anacleto Follantes as lumberman and carrier and lived in a hut belonging to said Follanites; that in the morning of Wednesday, October 16, 1935, he, Anacleto Follantes and Julian Pinto went to the sitio of Dalena-Tugtug to visit the timber within the lumber concession of the Echague Lumber Co. of which the appellant was the caretaker (encargado); that there they found Julian Manauis and his son Victor cutting a tree called cariwat; that upon seeing them, Follantes said: “You cannot continue cutting timber because this is within the concession of the Echague Lumber Co. of which I am the caretaker (encargado)”; that Julian Manauis answered saying: “Compadre, please allow us to cut it because it would be a pity to waste all our work”; that Follantes replied: “If you continue to do so, you will later suffer for ft”; that after this dialogue, and as it was already 9 o’clock in the morning of said day, Anacleto Follantes and his companions left and the deceased and his son continued to work until nightfallwhen they succeeded in felling the tree which they were cutting; that on the following day, Thursday, October 17, 1935, Anacleto Follantes and Eugenio Jacinto went together to deliver lumber to the Echague Lumber Co.; that on the succeeding day, Friday, October 18, 1935, Follantes and Jacinto returned to Dalena-Tugtug and on the way Follantes told Jacinto that he intended to kill Julian Manauis; that upon arriving at Dalena-Tugtug they found Julian Manauis alone cleaning the tree which he and his son Victor had cut and felled on October 16, 1935; that upon seeing him, Follantes went to him and said to him: “I told you to stop and you did not stop”; that Julian Manauis answered: “We have continued, compadre, because it would be a pity to waste all our work”; that Follantes replied: “That can not be and, leaving Jacinto who was by his side and in front of Manauis, he went behind Manauis, stealthily unsheathed his bolo which hung from his belt, and said: “I told you to stop that work and you have not stopped”; that upon hearing this, the deceased stopped cleaning the tree and, facing Follantes, said: “Please, compadre, we are’ just going to finish it, it would be a pity to waste all our work”; that at this juncture Follantes inflicted the first blow with his bolo on the back of Manauis who fell to the ground in a sitting position; that while Manauis was in this position with his hands raised to ward off another blow, Follantes struck him with his bolo for the second time, hitting him on the wrist of the right hand, severing it completely; that Follantes then pushed Manauis, who fell to the ground, and said to his companion: “Help me”; that upon hearing this, Jacinto struck Manauis with his bolo, Exhibit E, which he carried in his left hand, inflicting a diagonal wound in the sternum of the deceased; that Follantes immediately struck Manauis on the neck, completely severing his head which rolled to the ground, and causing his death; that Follantes later picked up the head, placed it, at first, with the face towards the right but, on second thought, he made it face towards the opposite side and gave it the last blow on the right cheek, cutting it from the ear to the mouth; that Jacinto and Follantes later went to the river to wash their bolos, leaving, in their haste, the basket Exhibit B, with its contents Exhibits C and D, consisting of tobacco and lime, all belonging to the appellant; that the appellant hid his bolo in a toolbox in his hut; that the reason why he (Jacinto) had testified that he was the only one responsible for the death of Julian Manauis was because Follantes told him not to reveal what had happened to anybody and that if he alone assumed all the responsibility without implicating Follantes, the latter would provide him with an attorney to defend him and give him P50 besides.
Anacleto Follantes denied everything that the witnesses for the prosecution had testified against him and attempted to prove that from the morning of October 16, 1935, until the afternoon of the following day, he was in Echague where he had gone to deliver, as in fact he delivered, lumber to the Echague Lumber Co.; that at about 11 o’clock in the morning of said date, October 16, 1935, he had a business transaction with the public school supervisor, Vicente Mesa, concerning the delivery of the lumber specified in the requisition voucher Exhibit 1; that on the following day Follantes also had a transaction with Silvestre Pintang to supply lumber to the Echague Lumber Co.; that in the afternoon of October 17, 1935, he returned to his house in Garit; that early in the morning of the following day, October 18, 1935, the appellant, accompanied by his wife and child left for the town of Santiago for the purpose of visiting some relatives; that they crossed the river in their own banca at the ford at Suyong, Echague; that from said place they took a bus of the Rural Transit for Santiago; that upon arriving at the barrio of Calao, they went to the house of a niece of his whom they found quarreling with her husband; that as they could not reconcile the spouses, he (Follantes), his niece and her father went to the office of the chief of police of Santiago to ask for his intervention; that as they were told that said officer was in his house they went there, but said chief of police told them to see him again at his office in the afternoon which they did; that on that same day he and his family went to the house of his mother-in-law; that while in Santiago, he met Sergeant Villanueva, accompanied by a soldier and Eugenio Jacinto, looking for one Agonos; that he was then informed that a man had been killed in Dalena-Tugtug; that he left Santiago on October 21, 1935; that on October 22, 1935, while he was in his hut in Dalena-Tugtug, Sergeant Villanueva arrived telling him that he was under arrest because Eugenio Jacinto had implicated him in the commission of the crime; that he informed Sergeant Villanueva that he had nothing to do with the death of Julian Manauis, and that he reiterated his statement when he was investigated at the Constabulary barracks in Echague.
In rebuttal, the prosecution attempted to prove that on October 20 or 21, 1935, Lieutenant Benjamin Molina investigated at the barracks Jose Walat, who was the boatman at the ford, and the latter said that he did not remember having seen Follantes in the vicinity of the ford; that while Follantes was detained at the Constabulary barracks, one Feliciano Castro went to see Attorney Macario Guevara to inform him that Follantes needed his services ; that said attorney went to the barracks and conferred with Follantes who told him that he needed his services for himself and for Eugenio Jacinto; that Follantes asked him how much he would charge for his services and Guevara answered that he had to pay him P400, to which Follantes agreed; that when Guevara told Eugenio Jacinto that Follantes had contracted his services for them both, Jacinto told him that he had no objection; that Guevara then filed his appearance as well as his clients’ waiver of their right to a preliminary investigation; that Eugenio Gaffud, who knew Follantes because he was Gaffud’s subagent in the cutting and sale of logs in the latter’s lumber concession, testified that Follantes used to carry a basket similar to Exhibit B; that at about 12.30 o’clock in the afternoon of October 18, 1935, while Gaffud was on his way home from the office of the municipal secretary of Echague, he saw Follantes accompanied by Eugenio Jacinto and Julian Pinto near the fence of the Constabulary barracks; that Follantes and his companions were on their way to the poblacion from the Echague Lumber Co.; that upon seeing them, Gaffud greeted them saying: “So you are here, pare”; that Follantes did not go to Santiago in the morning of October 18, 1935, inasmuch as he and Jacinto went to the forest at about 7 o’clock in the morning of said day; that Eugenio Jacinto was not in the habit of chewing tobacco and that the basket Exhibit B did not belong to him but to Follantes; that when Follantes and his family boarded a truck for Santiago in front of the municipal building, he told Jacinto not to say anything of what had happened; that Eugenio Jacinto had not been reprimanded by Follantes and that he did not know what e ukulele was nor how to play it or any other instrument; that it was not true that Jacinto and Follantes made deliveries of lumber to the Echague Lumber Co. in the morning of October 16, 1935, because they went to the forest; that the transaction which Follantes had with Vicente Mesa took place at about 5.40 o’clock in the afternoon of said day. There are, therefore, two series of evidence, one for the prosecution and another for the defense, each contradicting the other. The evidence for the prosecution consists principally in the testimony of Eugenio Jacinto, confessed coparticipant in the commission of the crime and, as such, his testimony should be considered with the greatest caution and care. At the beginning Eugenio Jacinto admitted being the only one responsible for the death of Julian Manauis, but later on, while he was confined in the Constabulary barracks, upon being urged by the constabulary soldiers therein to tell the truth, he implicated the appellant Follantes, for which reason the latter was included in the information as his co-accused. During the trial, Eugenio Jacinto, testifying as a witness for the prosecution, stated that at first he assumed full responsibility for the killing of Julian Manauis because Follantes had cautioned him not to reveal to anybody what had happened between the appellant and the deceased and that if Jacinto did not implicate him he would furnish him with an attorney to defend him and would give him 1N50 besides. This testimony of Eugenio Jacinto is partly corroborated by said Attorney Macario Guevara, who had been contracted by Follantes to defend him and Jacinto. Eugenio Jaciuto’s testimony relative to his going to the forest together with Anacleto Follantes and Julian Pinto in the morning of October 16, 1935, and the warning given by Follantes to the deceased that if he continued to cut the tree he would have to suffer for it, is likewise corroborated by that of Victor Manauis, son of the deceased. Therefore, the fact (that Eugenio Jacinto is a coparticipant in the commission of the crime does not render his testimony incredible nor inadmissible inasmuch as he has been corroborated in material points thereof. Furthermore, when Jacinto testified as & witness for the prosecution, he had already been convicted of the crime with which he had been charged and of which he had pleaded guilty. Consequently, he could no longer expect to be discharged nor be treated with leniency. It does not appear that he has been made any promise in the sense of shortening his term of imprisonment and of rendering it less arduous so that, stifling the voice of his conscience, he would implicate an innocent person. It has been insinuated that the spirit of vengeance was their motive that had induced Jacinto to testify against his former employer in whose house he was living, the motive of suchvengeance being made to consist in the alleged fact that he had been severely reprimanded by Follantes for selling lumber and bartering it for guitars, and that he was not provided with an attorney to defend him after Attorney Guevara’s withdrawal from the case. In addition of having been categorically denied by Eugenio Jacinto, such facts are not in themselves sufficient for a witness to implicate his former employer in so serious a crime with so grave consequences, if the latter were really innocent.
The defense of alibi presented by Anacleto Follantes loses its force and value if it were taken into consideration that his alleged going to Echague in the morning of October 16, 1935, to make delivery of lumber to the Echague Lumber Co. is rebutted by the testimony of Eugenio Jacinto and Victor Manauis to the effect that in the morning in question said Follantes went with Eugenio Jacinto and Julian Pinto to the sitio of Dalena-Tugtug where the deceased and his son Victor were cutting a tree called cariwat, and by that of the superintendent of public schools, Vicente Mesa, that his conversation with Follantes took place at 5.40 o’clock in the afternoon and not at 11 o’clock in the morning of October 16, 1935, as stated by the appellant. The defense of alibi to the effect that early in the morning of October 18, 1935, Anacleto Follantes left for Santiago with his wife and child, crossing the river in his own banca, is likewise disproved by the testimony of Eugenio Jacinto that in that morning he and Follantes were in the sitio of Dalena-Tugtug where the crime was committed. But even if it were true that Anacleto Follantes went to Santiago with his family on said day, having been seen in said town at about noon, his presence there is not incompatible with his presence in Dalena-Tugtug in the morning of the same day, inasmuch as he could have left for Santiago with his family after he and Jacinto had washed their bolos in the river and returned to his hut in Garit.
As to the motive of the crime, it is not venturesome to believe that the insistent, though entreating, refusal of the deceased to heed the warning given him by Follantes that if he continued to cut the tree something would happen to him, offended the latter’s dignity as caretaker (encargado) of that part of the lumber concession and he was exasperated when, in the morning of the crime, he saw that Julian Manauis had carried out his disobedience as a challenge to his authority.
Taking into account all the facts of the case, this court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accusedappellant Anacleto Follantes was one of the principal authors, if not the principal author, of the murder of Julian Manauis.
Wherefore, with the sole modification that the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon the accused-appellant be denominated reclusion perpetua instead of cadena perpetua, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, with the costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Judgment modified,.