[ G.R. No. L-340. September 30, 1946 ] 77 Phil. 427
[ G.R. No. L-340. September 30, 1946 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. T0MAS BAQUINO ET AL., DEFENDANTS, EMILIANO BELTRAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PERFECTO, J.:
Emiliano Beltran is accused with Tomas (Tomansing), Venancio and Pedro, all surnamed Baquino, of the murder of Feliciano Lopez, committed in the afternoon of August 9, 1945, in the barrio of Bahay-Toro, Quezon City. His co-defendants being still at large, trial proceeded only against Beltran. On January 21, 1946, Judge Fernando Jiago of the Court of First Instance of Manila sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclucion perpetua , to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000.00, and to pay the costs. From this judgment, Beltran appealed.
Victor Lopez, 71 years old, widower, farmer, testified that his son Feliciano Lopez died in a field in the barrio of Bahay-Toro on August 9, 1945. He was attacked by four persons, “although I do not know who actually shot him. They were Emiliano Beltran, Venancio Baquino, Tomansing Baquino, and Pedro Baquino. We lost a carabao and somebody tipped my deceased son that it was Tomansing, who carried away our carabao.” Felioiano went to see Tomansing and asked him about the carabao. Tomansing denied knowledge of the, lost carabao. Feliciano hit him. “As I saw Feliciano hitting Tomansing, I went to them and stopped them, telling my son: ‘That’s enough! Come let us go and look for the carabao instead; the carabao might go away and we may not be able to find it.’ After that we left and it was Tomansing’s turn to look for us, but he only saw my deceased son and did not see me. Upon seeing my son he and his companions helped each other in attacking him. While I was at a distance-some distance-from them I heard my son shouting, saying that he was being maltreated. So we approached and as we were approaching the four persons fired shots. I don’t know whether or not my son was killed because I ducked. I was at a distance of about 200 meters.” Witness was with his son, named Jose. “Emiliano Beltran was carrying with him a Garand rifle and his three companions were carrying carbines. After the shots had been fired I saw the aggressors leaving and then I got up and went to Feliciano. He was already dead. I saw that he was hit in the forehead and about the left ear. I removed his body from the water and took him to a rice paddy (pilapil). As some people came to me I asked their favor to help me carry the body of my son to the house. Jose went to an American camp for help. The Americans sent M.Ps.” They “took the corpse to the San Lazaro Hospital.” The shooting took place “about three or a little past three o’clock in the afternoon. At the beginning I was at a distance of 200 meters from the scene of the incident, but as I have already told you, when I heard the shots I was then going to approach them to give help to my son, and I was at that distance of 20 meters when the firing was over. What I heard at the start was only a soream and it was while we were approaching that I heard shots.” The missing carabao was finally found, after some arrangements. “The arrangement was that we both should excuse each other-on the part of Tomansing for taking the carabao, and my son for beating Tomansing after accusing him for taking the carabao.” The carabao was recovered from “the forest where it was tied.” At the time the arrangements were being made Tomansing was not present. Only his father was there. The arrangements were made at about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon at a place about 100 meters away from the scene of the shooting. After the arrangements nwe got a rig and started for home. When we were already at Gulod I heard shots." The witness recognized the four attackers “because I have known those boys since their childhood.” (T.s.n., pp. 2-13.)
Jose Lopez, 23 years old, married, farmer, son of Victor lopez, testified that in the afternoon of August 9, 1945, he was looking for a carabao. His brother Feliciano told him that somebody tipped him that it was Tomansing who got the carabao, “thereupon, we went to see Tomansing in the field. My brother struck Tomansing and asked him: ‘Where is our carabao? Somebody told me that you got it.’ He beat him with a piece of wood. As Tomansing refused to tell us where the carabao was we left him and proceeded to look for the carabao. In the meantime Tomansing ran away. Feliciano went to one part of the field and I went to another part to look for the carabao. Later I found the carabao and led it home. Then I started back for the field to let Feliciano know that I had already found the carabao. When I saw Feliciano he was being attacked by the four men-Emiliano Beltran, Tomansing, Venancio and Pedro, some of them hitting him with fist blows, some pulling him and others striking him with their guns. Emiliano Beltran was holding a Garand.” The three others “were holding carbines. Emiliano was saying; ‘Let us finish him; let us kill him; here comes his brother.’ Then they started firing at him and at the same time firing at me and my father. I saw my father ducking first, and then I ran away to the American camp to inform the soldiers there of what was happening. Emiliano was the first to shoot my brother and when my brother fell Tomansing fired another shot.” The witness heard what Beltran said because “there was quiet in that place.” The witness knows Beltran and the three Baquino’s since childhood. “As I was running toward the camp shots were being fired at me and upon reaching the camp I told the Americans there that some laborers were killing my brother and if possible to send some help. Then I went back to the field. On my way I met my father and several people carrying the body of my brother on a bamboo bed” already dead. The witness was able to identify the four attackers “because I have a good eye-sight. Moreover, I have known them since our childhood. As a matter of fact Emiliano Beltran used to out my hair.” (T.s.n., pp. 18-29.)
Agripino Dumlao, 33 years old, married, detective, Manila Police Department, testified that Bahay-Toro, where the shooting took place, is located in Quezon City, under the jurisdiction of Precinct No. 3, San Juan. He was able to recover 3 clips of Japanese ammunition in a barrel where pa lay was in the house of accused Beltran, who told him that he found them on the way during the Japanese occupation and kept them. She clips contained 15 rounds of ammunition used for Japanese rifles. (T.s.n., pp. 34-37.)
Leonard W. Jarcho, 29 years old, single, Captain, Medical Corps, Manila Police Department, identified Exhibit A as a copy of the official autopsy report in the case of Feliciano Lopez performed by Captain Fuller under his direction. The wounds of the deceased were ttthe result of two gunshot wounds on the head, with considerable extrusion of the brain. The cause of the death of the victim was shook, secondary to multiple fractures of the skull and extrusion of a large portion of the brain." In photograph Exhibit B appears the picture of Feliciano Lopez and Captain Fuller, the officer who performed the autopsy. (T.s.n., pp. 39-44.)
Simon Galfiera, 35 years old, married, farmer, as defense witness, testified that on August 9, 1945, he was in his farm. “I was raking the farmland. We were three.” His companions were Emiliano Beltran and Juan Cadaing, “We started to work at eight o’clock on the morning of that day.” Beltran arrived at about eight thirty o’clock in the morning. The witness remained in the farm until five thirty in the afternoon. The farm belonged to Apolonio Baitiong from Balintawak. Beltran “was also raking the farmland with me.” He left the place at nabout five thirty o’clock in that afternoon." From eight thirty in the morning to five thirty in the afternoon of that day, whe was with -us." On the follow-ing day, the witness, Cadaing and Beltran raked the farmland of Cadaing. Beltran’s behavior was natural as on previous days." (T.s.n., pp. 51-55.)
On being asked on cross-examination when he came to learn about to arrest of Beltran, witness answered: “I don’t remember the date. I think that was last month-October. I came to know about it only when I received a letter from the police authorities.” He received the letter from the police authorities about the first week of October. Questioned as to the last time he met Beltran before the letter’s arrest, he answered: “We did not meet anymore after the work was over, as each of us had to work for himself.” But immediately after he declared that after August 9, 1945, he used to meet Beltran at stores and “as we know each other, we greet one another whenever we meet. Most of our meetings were on Sundays.” But on being asked when was the last time that he mat Beltran on a Sunday, he answered? “That was long ago and I cannot now recall the days.” Asked to give the approximate days when he met Beltran for the last time, he replied: “Maybe in September. I cannot remember the date.” (T.s.n., pp. 63-65.)
Juan Cadaing, 32 years old, married, farmer, testified that on August 9, 1945, he was working in the land of Simon at Salipapa. He was plowing the land with Simon and Emiliano Beltran. They began working between eight and eight thirty in the morning and ended at between five and five thirty in the afternoon. On August 10, 1945, he plowed his own land with Simon and Beltran beginning from eight to eight thirty in the morning and ending at five to five thirty in the afternoon. (T.s.n., pp. 69-75.)
While Galfiera testified that he has been working the farm land owned by Baitiong for the last ten years, and that in the work Beltran has been helping him for the last two years now" (t.s.n., p. 56), Cadaing declared on the other hand that Beltran had worked in said land and in his only on August 9 and 10, 1945 (t.s.n., p. 76.) Furthermore, in Cadaing’s testimony, we read:
“Q. Had you the opportunity of seeing accused Emiliano Beltran in the month of October of this year?-A. No, sir.
“Q. When was the last time you saw Emiliano Beltran?-A. The last time I saw Emiliano Beltran was on October 31.
“Q. Of this year?-A. Yes, sir.” (T.s.n., p. 79.)
Emiliano Beltran, 33 years old, married, farmer and barber, denied having assassinated Feliciano Lopez on August 9, 1945, and declared that on said date he was in the land of Simon, plowing in the company of Juan and Simon. He arrived at the place it eight thirty in the morning. Simon was already there, and he and Juan arrived at the same time. He remained until five thirty in the afternoon. The next day he worked on the land of Juan upon invitation of the latter. He knows Victor Lopez;, and Jose and Feliciano Lopez, the latter two since their childhood. He did not meet them on August 9. He was arrested on the 24th of September. His wife, Filomena Deigo, is a cousin of Tomas Baquino. He knows Tomas, Venancio, and Pedro Baquino. Recognizing exhibit C as his statement, where he appears to have declared that he retired to his house at 7 o’clock p. m. on August 9, 1945, and not at 5:30 o’clock as he had testified in court, he said that he made the declaration “because I was afraid, as it was the first time I have appeared before the authorities, and on that occasion, that Pepe (pointing to Jose Lopez) and others gave me fist blows.” (T.s.n., pp. 81-90.)
Agripino Dumlao, the detective who took the statement of the accused marked Exhibit C, belied the accused’s declaration to the effect that he was maltreated when the statement was taken. (T.s.n., p. 93.)
Upon the evidence presented by both parties in this case, we are convinced that Beltran was among the four assailants who attacked and killed Feliciano lopez, the motive for whose killing being his having beaten with a piece of wood Tomas Baquino, also known by the name of Tomansing. Tomansing had strong reasons for taking revenge, he having been twice offended by Feliciano Lopez, first by imputing upon him the theft of the carabao, and second by beating him with a piece of wood, without any chance on his part of immediate retaliation due to the fact that he was alone while Feliciano was accompanied by his brother Jose. Smarting under such a strong resentment, it is but natural for him to summon the help of Venancio and Pedro Baquino, with whom he must be related-although the records do not disclose the grade of relation-and Bmiliauo Beltran, the husband of his cousin. And Tomansing was able to summon the immediate help of his relatives because of the well-known clannish solidarity prevailing among kins. Beltran, since his childhood, is an acquaintance of Victor Lopez and his son Jose. As a barber, he used to out the hair of Jose. No reason or motive was shown why Victor and Jose Lopez should falsely implicate Beltran in the heinous crime of murder under our consideration. Their testimonies bear the earmarks of truthfulness: natural, logical, straightforward, given with all candor. The fact that for some moment they were at about 200 meters from the scene of the shooting can not affect their assurance of having identified Beltran among the killers. The distance of 200 meters ia Just a mere estimate. They were approaching the scene. Farmers usually have good eyesight for great distances, much better than city dwellers. Although Victoria 71 years old, it is a well-known fact that nearsightedness generally afflicts persons leading a sedentary life, not those living in the farm.
The defense of alibi interposed by the accused is not convincing, The testimonies of the two witnesses presented by the defense to the effect that from 8;0O a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on August 9, 1945, the accused was working the farmland of Simon Galfiera belong to the class of evidence that some well-intentioned people are wont to offer because, while helping a friend, they do not assume much responsibility, it being difficult to contradict or belie them. Although they categorically testified that on August 9 they had Beltran in their company, both witnesses appeared on cross-examination not so sure as to their recollection about dates. Simon Galfiera, as an instance, could not mention the date of his last meeting with Beltran, and there is no convincing special reason why he should recollect August
The penalty imposed by the lower court being in accordance with the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing the crime of murder committed by the appellant, is affirmed, with costs against said appellant.
Moran, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.