[ G.R. No. L-1765. May 09, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 551
[ G.R. No. L-1765. May 09, 1949 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIO TANDUG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Romblon, finding the appellant, Mario Tandug, guilty of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Cipriano Songcang in the sum of P2,000, with subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one-third of the principal penalty in case of insolvency, plus the costs. Cipriano Songcang was struck by an arrow on the left side in the evening of October 21, 1946, while he and his wife Teofista Mondoy were walking along the road not far from their house in Santa Fe, Carabao Island, Romblon. Cipriano died at four o’clock the next morning. Nobody saw who let loose the fatal arrow, but the appellant was apprehended and investigated on the strength of the ante mortem statement of Cipriano to the effect that, although he did not know the author of the aggression, he suspected three men, namely, the appellant, Avelino Tandug and Florencio Elisan. Appellant’s conviction by the trial court is mainly predicated on the alleged admissions made by the appellant to Sgt. Opiniano Santillan and Cpl. Benigno Hinampas of the military police, to the effect that the appellant shot Cipriano Songcang with an arrow because the latter had previously threatened the appellant and maltreated his grandmother by reason of a certain land dispute, which admissions are incorporated in the written confessions, Exhibits A and B. Appellant’s defense consists in his testimony that the confessions were not voluntary and had been the result of maltreatment inflicted by the investigating MP officers, Santillan and Hinampas. This defense is corroborated by witnesses Avelino Tandug and Maria Sacapano. After weighing the facts of this case, we are led to the conclusion that the appellant should be acquitted. The appellant was brought to and investigated by two armed MP officers in the house of Braulio Songcang, brother of Cipriano, a place of course pervaded by an atmosphere of hostility and hate against the appellant; and no satisfactory explanation had been given for the choice of that place. The appellant, so circumstanced, could not feel absolutely free to insist in denying knowledge or authorship of the offense. Even considering the testimony of Avelino Tandug as biased, we cannot lightly disregard the corroborative statement of witness Maria Sacapano who was not shown to have had such interest in the case as to falsely testify in favor of the appellant. The prosecution sought to strengthen its case by presenting in evidence a sling (Exhibit D) which, according to Sergeant Santillan, was surrendered by the appellant. It is inherently improbable that, however stupid the appellant is, he would have preserved that incriminating evidence and, much less, voluntarily surrendered the same to the authorities. The appellant had sufficient time to conceal or destroy said sling, because he was not arrested until the next morning. The prosecution also put on the witness stand Felix Fellarca who testified that he met the appellant in the vicinity of the place where Cipriano was shot and that, when asked as to where he came from, the appellant admonished Felix not to proceed in his walk. This witness is of course not worthy of credit because he admitted that he was taught what to say in court. Moreover, he has lent weakness to the theory of the prosecution by his failure to notice or state that the appellant then carried a sling. The appealed judgment is hereby reversed and the appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered. Moran, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.