[ G.R. No. L-1449. January 07, 1949 ] 82 Phil. 501
[ G.R. No. L-1449. January 07, 1949 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE DOSAL ET AL., DEFENDANTS. DANIEL ABOGA, APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
FERIA, J.:
There is no dispute that Marcelo Urbayan and Valentin Urbayan ware on the evening of May 16, 1944, taken from their home in Santa Rita, Samar, to the mountains of Tagakay and killed there on the following morning by a group of about twenty guerilleros; that they did not take anything from the house of the victims, and that the appellant Daniel Aboga, one of the group, was a guerilla lieutenant. Agapito Patrimonio is the only witness who testified that the appellant was the one who killed Marcelo Urbayan with a bolo and Valentin Urbayan was killed by Laureano Bolito (15). This witness said that he and Inocencio Bolito, the other witness for the prosecution, were present at the time of the killing because both of them were captured by the same group on May 12, 1944, and were accompanying their captors when the latter took the Urbayans from their house to the mountains and killed them there; and that the appellant was the leader because he was the right hand of Claudio Bolito, father of Laureano Bolito (17, 18). But Inocencio Bolito who was mentioned by Agapito Patrimonio as his companion, and presented also as a witness for the prosecution, belied the testimony of Agapito Patrimonio and testified that he was present when Marcelo Urbayan was stabbed to death by one Laureano Bolito and not by the appellant, and that Valentin was killed by a soldier or guerillero from Leyte under the command of Jose Dosal, who was the leader of the group (58); that among those in the group were the defendants Daniel Aboga, Laureano Bolito, Tarcelo Bucatcat, Cornelio Geres and Pablo Paldez; that Tarcelo Bucatcat was the one who tied Marcelo Urbayan, and Cornelio Geres held Valentin when they were taken from their house; that Marcelo Urbayan was boxed by Raymundo (Bucatcat, Marcelo Bucatcat, Laureano Bolito and Cipriano Paldez, and that the appellant was only looking at them, and did not help them or maltreated the Urbayans. (33-35). Tarcelo Bucatoat and Cornelio Geres, corroborated the testimony of Inocencio Bolito relating to the persons responsible for the killing of Marcelo and Valentin Urbayan, and the fact that Jose Dosal was the leader of the group, and not the appellant. Tarcelo Bucatcat testified that Valentin Urbayan was killed by a guerillero from Leyte whose name he does not know and Jose Dosal was the patrol leader of the guerillas (74, 79), and Marcelo Urbayan was killed by Laureano Bolito “for the reason that they were pro-Japanese” (73), “Because I saw with my own two eyes that they were purchasing foodstuffs to be delivered to the Japanese in Tacloban. * * * The launch operated by the Japanese used to go to Libtong where the Urbayan family was and Marcelo and his brother Loloy Urbayan were the ones loading foodstuff for the Japanese” (75). And Cornelio Geres declared that the Urbayans were kidnapped by the guerilleros from Leyte, of whom he was a corporal under the command of Jose Dosal who was the leader of the group (37); and that Maroelo Urbayan was killed by Laureano Bolito and Valentin by a soldier of Jose Dosal, for being pro-Japanese, “Because one time they were at Tagakay, I was also there. There they bought foodstuffs and all those foodstuffs that they purchased were brought to their house. Loloy Urbayan was the one who got them and delivered them to the Japanese” (85, 86). The appellant Daniel Aboga admitted that he was one of the group of guerilleros who went to the house of Marcelo and Valentin Urbayan and took them to the mountains, but denied having taken any part in their killing; that lie had no personal grudge against the Urbayans, but was mad at them because, after being members of the guerilla organization, they became pro-Japanese; that he did not kill Marcelo Urbayan; that Laureano Bolito was the one who killed Marcelo, and Valentin Urbayan was killed by a guerillero soldier from Leyte; that the appellant went once in February 1944, “to the fish corral of Valentin Urbayan to buy fish and he was ready to pay for them but the Urbayan refused to sell fish to them and accept the payment, because they were waiting for the launch which was to take the fish, and then the appellant told them that if they were inclined to favor the Japanese they should also do the same to the guerillas” (55, 56); that it is not true that he had a quarrel with the Urbayans at a cockpit in March 1944, because knowing them to be pro-Japanese, he avoided going to the cockpit for fear of being betrayed by them who were pro-Japanese (57); that the Japanese used to go once a month to the Urbayans’ fish corral to get fish(67); and that he personally saw three times the Japanese in a launch accompanied by Loloy Urbayan take foodstuffs from Urbayans’ place, and that once the Japanese, accompanied, by Marcelo and Valentin Urbayan, went to the camarin of Arteche which they burned (64); that from January to May 1944, he did not receive any order from their commander in chief, Pedro Arteche, to capture the Urbayans, but in May when the group of guerillas from Leyte arrived they were the ones who decided to take Marcelo and Valentin Urbayan as wanted for supplying foodstuffs to the Japanese in Tacloban (71). The testimony of Daniel Aboga, the appellant, Tarcelo Bucatcat and Cornelio Geres, about the Urbayans furnishing fish to the Japanese, is corroborated by the witness for the defense Fortunato Japson, who was one of the stockholders of the corporation that owmed the cockpit wherein the alleged fight on January 15, 1944, between Marcelo Urbayan and the appellant, testified to by Eugenio Urbayan, took place. This witness testified that “Once he happened to pass by the Urbayans’ place, and he saw three small barrels loaded with foodstuffs. I asked Valentin Urbayan if he could allow me to buy some. He answered that he could not because those were to be delivered to the launch,” and the launch belonged to the Japanese “because it was orewed with Japanese together with Loloy Urbayan” (100). And by the witness Faustino Nacernope who testified that he was a partner of Valentin Urbayan in the fish corral above referred to, and that since the first catch of fish in said corral, Valentin Urbayan told him not to sell the big fishes, for Loloy ids son would come to get them and sell them to the Japanese, and on January 3, they got the big fishes and loaded them in a Japanese launch (104, 106). In view of the testimony, not only of several witnesses for the defense but also of one of the prosecution, contradicting the testimony of Agapito Patrimonio, the Solicitor General in his brief does not pretend that the appellant had any active intervention in the killing of the Urbayans. He only contends that the appellant is guilty of the crime committed by his companions because there was a conspiracy between them, and although he was “loss than three meters away at the time of the killing did not attempt to prevent the same.” Without necessity of dismissing and deciding whether or not conspiracy not only to kidnap but also to kill the victims may be inferred from the fact that the appellant was one of the group of guerillas who went to kidnap the Urbayans, we are of the opinion that the crime imputed to the appellant comes within the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation, because the killing of the victims was motivated by the belief on the part of the authors of the crime that they had been aiding the Japanese by procuring food supplies for them. This fact is testified to not only by the appellant (67-70) but also by Tarcelo Bucatcat (73-75), Cornelio Geres (85, 86), Fortunato Japson (100) and Faustino Nacenope (104, 106), whose testimonies were quoted above. The conclusion of the lower court ana contention of the Solicitor General that the motive why the Urbayans were kilted was because there existed a resentment between the victims and the appellant is not borne out by the evidence. Eugenio Urbayan, brother and son, respectively, of the deceased Marcelo and Valentin, testifies that on January 15, 1944, that the appellant Daniel Aboga and his two coaccused Bucatcat and Geres had a fist fight with the deceased Marcelo Urbayan in the fish corral of the Urbayans “because the three accused got fish from my brother and the payment they made was not reasonable” (26, 27), and that in March, 1944, “in the fight between their cock and ours both roosters were badly wounded, however our rooster was still in the attitude of fighting pursuing theirs. Their rooster was about to run away but they did not wait for the decision oi1 the referee and they took their rooster.” * * * “On account of that my brother tried to make his own stand but these accused especially Daniel Aboga did not agree. What he did, he took his rooster and smashed it at my brother. Then I intervened. * * * After smashing the rooster at my brother he also tried to smash it at me but I was able to escape” (28, 29). The above quoted testimony of Eugenio Urbayan, who was naturally interested in the conviction of the appellant who he believed was responsible for the death of his brother and father, because he was with the group of guerillas who kidnapped and took them to the mountains never to return, is contradicted by Fortunato Japson (97, 98) and Faustino Nacenope (107). But even assuming that it is true, the offended party or parties in the two incidents related by the witness would have been the Urbayans and not the appellant, and therefore the former were the ones who ought to have had resentment against the appellant, and not vice versa. As to the alleged fight because the payment made by the appellant and his two companions for the fish they got from Marcelo was not reasonable, why should the appellant kill not only Marcelo, but also Valentin Urbayan, the owner of the fish corral, who did not participate in the fight, the natural presumption being that Marcelo must have come out the loser in the fight for he was alone against three? With respect to the supposed fight in the cockpit, is it conceivable that the appellant be the one to take revenge against Marcelo Urbayan after he had succeeded in having his losing rooster declared the winner or at least tied with that of the Urbayans, and had smashed his rooster at Marcelo? If the defendant had a grudge against the Urbayans because of those incident, is it reasonable that he did not take active part, by word or by dead, in the act of taking them from their house and killing them in the mountains? As the appellant was not the leader of the group, as it is clearly established by the evidence for the prosecution and defense, does it not stand to reason that the leader of the group, Jose Dosal, had ordered the killing of the Urbayans, without any other plausible reason, but just to please the appellant on account of the above related incidents the latter had with the former? In view of all the foregoing, the only reasonable conclusion warranted by the evidence is that the motive of the killing of the Urbayans was the belief entertained by the persons responsible therefor that the Urbayans were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We hold that the appellant comes within the terms of the Amnesty Proclamation, and therefore the appealed judgment should be reversed, and the appellant released, without costs. So ordered. Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.