[ G.R. No. L-873. September 18, 1947 ] 79 Phil. 272
[ G.R. No. L-873. September 18, 1947 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN CAUILAN AND JOSE QUILANG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
MORAN, C.J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan finding appellants Juan Cauilan and Jose Quilang guilty of murder and sentencing each of them (1) to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessories of the law; (2) to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased, Vicente Dammay, in the amount of P2,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and (3) to pay one-half of the costs.
The two appellants were convicted upon the single testimony of a supposed eyewitness, Jose Dammay, the son of the deceased. This witness testified that on April 28, 1945, in the barrio of Callao, municipality of Peñablanca, Province of Cagayan, the two defendants, at about 7 o’clock at night, came to his house and called for his father, Vicente Dammay. The latter followed them and he, the witness joined his father. Upon reaching the bank of a river, defendant Cauilan ordered the witness to go to Damian Bacud’s place, but instead of doing so, he hid himself among guava groves. While thus hiding, he saw the two defendants kill his father. According to him, defendant Cauilan stabbed Vicente Dammay under the right armpit, while Jose Quilang boloed the back of the victim’s head. Vicente Dammay died of his wounds on that same night. The two defendants left and the witness returned home to call his mother. He and his mother went to the place where his father was killed and there they found his dead body.
This testimony, however, is contradicted to a certain extent by the witness’ answers on cross-examination. He said, on cross-examination, that in obedience to Cauilan’s order, he went to the place of Bacud, and when he found nobody there, he came back to the place where he left his father with the two defendants, and upon arriving at that place, the two defendants were about to leave and his father was already dead, meaning thereby that he did not actually see the killing.
The testimony of this witness is also inconsistent with his testimony at the preliminary investigation where he made the following statement:
“Q. Why do you know that he was killed by a person?—A. Yes, because at the time he was killed we were asleep, two persons came to take him, Juan Cauilan and Jose Quilang, that I went with them. When we arrived just east of the gate of the farm of Juan Cauilan, I was sent by them to call for their companion in the house of Roque Bacud. When I returned where I left them, Juan Cauilan, Jose Quilang and my father, I did not meet them anymore. Then I went home to call for my brother-in-law Bartolome Cusipag, so that we would search for my father, and also Jose Quilang and Juan Cauilan, who accompanied my father. That we found the body of my father already dead with so many wounds inflicted on the body caused by bolo cuts.
“Q. Whom do you know who killed your father?—A. The two men Juan Cauilan and Jose Quilang.
“Q. Why do you know that they are the persons who killed your father?—A. Yes, because they were the ones who took my father away at that night, which was the same night when he was killed.”
In this sworn statement the witness attributed the crime to the defendants, not because he saw them kill his father, but because they were the ones who took his father that night. The witness admits his having made the above-quoted statement and tried to explain it by saying that he was afraid of the two defendants who were not yet then arrested. It cannot be true, however, that he was afraid for in his statement he was already accusing the two defendants of the murder of his father although he had not seen them in the act of killing.
Immediately upon finding the dead body of his father, he reported the matter to Rufo Apattad, municipal councilor, who testified that on that occasion witness Jose Dammay did not say anything about his having seen the two defendants kill the deceased. What Jose Dammay then told him was that the two defendants had taken his father who was found dead later.
Although the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient ground for conviction when it appears to be persuasive, yet when not only is it self-contradictory but even inconsistent with previous statements made by the witness himself, conviction cannot be made to rest wholly on it.
There is nothing to show that the two defendants had any motive to kill Vicente Dammay. The defendants were members of the guerrilla, and Vicente Dammay was their companion. There is absolutely no proof that Vicente Dammay was a Japanese spy to be the object of revenge on the part of the guerrilleros. Upon the other hand, there is enough evidence to the effect that the two defendants called the deceased Vicente Dammay by order of Sergeant Parasa who requested him to supply food to the guerrilla, which Dammay did; that the food stores of the Japanese army were then raided and the Japanese in turn rounded up and killed almost all male persons in that barrio and in the surrounding barrios, and it is not unlikely that one of them was Vicente Dammay.
For all the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and appellants are acquitted, with costs de oficio.
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, and Briones, JJ., concur.
MORAN, C.J.:
Mr. Justice Bengzon concurs in this decision.