[ G.R. No. L-3712. September 30, 1952 ] G.R. No. L-3712
[ G.R. No. L-3712. September 30, 1952 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAYMUNDO YAP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
From a dispute over the ownership of a chicken late in the afternoon of March 9, 1948, two crimes arose. A complaint for grave threats was formally filed on March 19, 1948, by Raymundo Yap against Teofilo de Emoy, Primo Bornales and Carlos Desipa. Ten days thereafter a complaint for arson was filed against Raymundo Yap. Both cases were elevated to the Court of First Instance of Capiz, wherein the provincial fiscal filed, first, the information for arson and, subsequently, the information for grave threats. We are now concerned with the appeal of Raymundo Yap from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, finding him guilty of arson and sentencing him to the indeterminate penalty of from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, with legal accessories, to indemnify Teofilo de Emoy and Teodorica Martinez in the sum of P200.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The following passages of the appealed decision contain substantially the tenor of the evidence presented both by the prosecution and by the defense:
“Las pruebas de la acusacion demuestran que en la tarde del 9 de marzo de 1943, Teodorica Martinez, una campesina residente en el barrio de Jolongajog del municipio de Pontevedra, provincia de Capiz, envio a su hija Florentina de Emoy con una gallina a la casa de una tal Magdalena de la Cruz, apodada Daling, para ver de permutar dicha gallina con una ganta y media de arroz. Cumpliendo con el encargo de su madre, la niña se fue a casa de Magdalena con la gallina, y alli se encontro con el acusado. Florentina regreso a su casa sin haber podido realizer a permuta diciendo a su madre que Magdalena rehuso comprar la gallina por considerar excesivo su precio de una ganta y media de arroz e informando, al mismo tiempo, de que Raymundo Yap, el acusado, pretendio reconocer la gallina como de su propiedad. Al oir esta ultima informacion de su hija, Teodorica cogio la gallina y con ella se dirigio a la casa vecina del acusado en donde se encontro con la esposa de este. Teodorica demostro la gallina a la esposa del acusado preguntandola como es que su marido reconocia dicha gallina como suya. La mujer del acusado replico que la reclamacion de su marido era una reclamacion necia, porque si bien tenian una gallina de igual color, la que les pertenecia acababa de empollar, Con tal explicacion Teodorica se dio por satisfecha regreso a su casa y amarro la gallina en un mortero. A eso de anochecher, Teodorica oyo al acusado prefiriendo en alta voz desde su casa frases injuriosas contra ellos y diciendo que si no le devolvian la gallina, el, el acusado, les materia; y no contento con expresar injurias y amenazas, el acusado se fue a casa de Teodorica portanto un bolo desenvainado preguntandola a esta por la gallina y requiriendo que se le hiciera entrega de ella. El mismo acusado subio a la casa, y cortando la cuerda con que estaba atada, se posesion de la gallina. Teodorica trato de arrebatarsela pero causalmente llego a la casa Carlos Desipal quien, enterado del motivo de la reyerta, la apaciguo al acusado convenciendole para que devolviera la gallina. El acusado se retiro a su casa no sin antes proferir mas frases injuriosas y amenazas de muerte y de quemar la casa de Teodorica para que esta y su familia se marcharan de aquel sitio. En aquella misma noche Teodorica Martinez observo que el acusado habia trasladado a su familia a casa de su primo, y temiendo que algo , ocurriera estando ausente su marido, ella tambien se traslado con sus dos hijos de corta edad a la casa de su yerno Primo Bornales situada a cierta distancia de la suya, dejando solamente en la casa a una hija ciega de 7 años de edad. A eso de las diez de la noche, al acusado, acompañado de tres policias, se presento en la casa de Primo Bornales. Uno de los policas pregunto a Teodorica por su marido y su yerno, y ella les informo que ambos se encontraban trabajado en el manglar. Con tal informacion los policias y el acusado se marcharon. Teodorica paso aquella noche en vela esperando el regreso de su marido. Hacia las dos de la madrugada el acusado se fue a la casa de Teodorica, y con una vela encendida prendio fuego a una de las paredes de dicha casa. Teodorica que le vio desde la puerta de la casa de su yerno, dio voces de alarma llamando al vecino Santos Dugillo y rogandole para que acudiera a la casa y sacara de ella a su hija ciega. Santos Dugillo se fue corriendo a la casa y alcanzandole al acusado en el acto de estar aun prendiendo fuego, le pregunto por que habia incendiado la casa. El acusado volvio la cara hacia Santos, y sin contestar a la pregunta que este le dirigiera, regreso corriendo a su casa. Santos Dugillo cogio a la hija ciega de Teodorica y se la llevo a la casa de Primo Bornales. Construida como era de caña y nipa y siendo de pequeñas dimensiones, la casa de Teodorica bien pronto fue reducida a pavesas por el fuego. La casa, de acuerdo con la afirmacion de Teodorica, valia P100, y los efectos perdidos por el fuego, consistentes en prendas de vestir, valian otros P100. El acusado, por su parte, tiene otra version del suceso, y es como sigue: Que encontrandose el en la tarde de la fecha de autos en la tienda de Magdalena de la Cruz, la hija de Teodorica Martinez se presento en dicha tienda con el objeto de permutar una gallina con una ganta y media de arroz. Habiendo el reconocido la gallina como una de las suyas, dijo a Magdalena que la comprara porque la gallinaera suya. La ñiña, sin embargo, al oir al acusado decir que era suya la gallina, se marcho, precipitadamente de la tienda. Al regresar a su casa, el acusado examino sus gallinas y descubrio que ocho de ellas se habian desaparecido, entre ellas una de plumaje con notas blancas y negras. Hecho tal descubrimiento de la desparicion de sus aves, el acusado se constituyo en la casa de Teodorica Martinez y a esta expreso sus deseos de comprar la misma gallina que su hija trataba de vender a Magdalena. Teodorica entrego la gallina al acusado, pero que Carlos Decipal se la arrebato de su poder. Carlos Decipal, Teofilo de Emoy y Primo Bornales, estos dos ultimos esposo y yerno de Teodorica, respectivamente, teniendo sus bolos desenvainados, trataron de acorrarle con animo de agredirle, por lo que el, el acusado, se echo a correr. El acusado tuvo que salvar corriendo la distancia de un kilometro perseguido por Carlos,Teofilo y Primo, hasta quese metio en una huerta donde se escondio. Despues que los tres perseguidores se marcharon, el acusado se fue a la casa de Regalado Dumul, e informandole a este del incidente de haber sido perseguido por tres hombres, le rogo que la acompañara abuscar un vehiculo para ir a la poblacion. Dumul le acompaña, y ambos se fueron a alguilar el camion de Henry Dumagpi conel cual se fueron al Municipio de Pontevedra para verse con el jefe de policia. A este le encontraron en su propira casa, y el acusado le informo del hecho de haber sido persguido por tres hobres. El jefe de policia le entrego una nota instruyendole que fuera a verse con el sargento de policia y le entregara dicha nota. El acusado se entrevisto con el sargento entregandole la nota del Jefe, y enterado de su contenido, el sargento se hizo acompañar por los policias Basilio Benlero, Angel Contreras e Isidro de Asis, y con el acusado y Regalado Damul, todos se fueron al barrio de Jolongajog. En dicho barrio se constituyeron en la casa de Teofilo de Emoy, y como no encotraron a nadie en ella, se fueron a la de Primo Bornales. Habiendose salido al encuantro en dicha casa Teodorica y su hija Jovita, el sargento averiguo de Teodorica por su esposo Teofilo y su yerno Primo, y Teodorica les informo que estaban en la casa de Federico Bereber. El sargento averiguo, asi mismo, de Teodorica donde tenia la gallina que el acusado reconocia como suya y fue el origen de los disgustos, y habiendo Teodorica contestado que lo tenia en su casa, el sargento le advirtio que se abstuviera de sacrificarla ni de disponer de ella por que el asunot se investigaria al dia siguiente. De la casa de Primo Bornales, el sargento, los tres policias, al acusado y Dumul se dirigieron a la casa del acusado, en ella sacaron una gallina, y se fueron a la casa de Manuel Billones en donde prepararon una cena para todos ellos. A punto de terminar la cena, y a eso de las dos de la madrugada, aparecio en casa de Billones una tal Felicisima Baulit llevando una carta que la entrego a Billones para que este se lo entregara al esposo de aquella en Balasan. Entergada la carta, Felicisima se marcho, pero despues de un rato la misma Felicisima regreso informando al acusado que su casa se estaba quemando. Todos los presentes se fueron a la loma vecina, y dese ella el acusado vio que no se trataba de su casa y asi lo dijo a sus compañeros. El sargento dispuso entonces que el acusado se quedara en casa de Felicisima Baulite mientras que el y los policias, utilizando a Regalado Dumul como guia, se fueron al sitio del incendio para investigar, habiendo encontrado que la casa encendiada era la de Teofilo de Emoy. Los policias, con le sargento y Dumul, volvieron a la casa de Felicisima ya a las tres de la madrugada para recoger al acusado, y de dicha casa todos regresaron a la poblacion de Pontevedra.”
This case was originally elevated to the Court of Appeals which, however, certified the same to this Court on the ground that the crime committed by the appellant, Raymundo, Yap, should be penalized with reclusion perpetua. The question before us hinges solely on the credibility of witnesses. After mature reflection, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled, at least, to a reasonable doubt. Three witnesses for the prosecution were presented: Teodorica Martinez, Santos Dogelio, and Carlos Desipal. Teodorica stated that the appellant, with a bolo in hand, went to her house and tried to get the chicken which her daughter attempted to sell to a neighbor but which was claimed by the appellant to be his own; that she tried to stop him from taking away the chicken until Desipal arrived; taht after the latter had spoken in a mild manner, the appellant handed said chicken to him; that Raymundo Yap then left for his house bearby, shouting that he would return to get the bird by force and to burn the house of Teodorica Martinez. Witness Carlos Desipal testified that the appellant had handed to him the chicken willingly and, in his opinion, the appellant was not, at all in an angry mood. Teodorica Martinez further testified that on account of the threats made by the appellant and because of fear, she decided to abandon her home with her children of tender years, aged 5 and 2, leaving behind another daughter, 7 years old and blind; that she left her place at 7:00 o’clock; that she went to sleep immediately in the house where she had gone with her children and which belonged to another daughter of hers married to Primo Bornales; that at about 10:00 o’clock that evening, three policemen called at her place and asked for her husband Teofilo de Emoy and son-in-law Primo Bornales; that since these two were away, the policemen left after telling her to keep the chicken because they would investigate the matter the next morning; that she could no longer sleep; that at about 2:00 o’clock a.m. she noticed that the appellant was burning her house which was some 80 meters or 95 brazas away; that she decided to go to the house of her landlord, Federico Bereber, but that, remembering her blind daughter who was left in the burning house, she cried for help. The last witness Santos Dogelio testified that, upon being awakened he got his bolo, jumped out of his house, and ran to the burning hut where he saw the appellant who, upon being asked why he was setting fire to the hut, did not answer at all; that he did not go up the house but was able to snatch the blind child thru a hole in the wall. The theory of the defense is that the appellant, being pursued by the defendants in the other case for grave threats, Teofilo de Emoy, Primo Bernales and Carlos Desipal, sped away until he reached the poblacion and was able to report the incident immediately to the chief of police; that upon instruction in writing from the chief of police, a sergeant and two policemen accompanied the appellant to the barrio; that finding nobody in the house of Teodorica Martinez, they went to the house of her son-in-law the inmates of which had gone; and that after telling Teodorica Martinez that they would return the next morning to investigate, and already feeling hungry, they went to the house of Manuel Billones about half kilometer distant, where they cooked rice and chicken; that after having eaten at 2:00 o’clock a.m., they noticed a fire near the house of the appellant; that the sergeant with a policeman and Regalado Dumul who acted as a guide, went to the place of the fire, instructing the appellant to remain behind; that they found nobody at the place of the fire but that, upon meeting Teodorica Martinez and her neighbor Santos Rogelio, the latter, upon inquiry, answered that they did not know who had caused the fire. If the appellant had handed the chicken to Carlos Desipal in a nice way, as testified to by the latter, it is hard to believe that the appellant would have threatened in a loud voice to use his bolo to get back the chicken and to burn the house of his neighbor Teodorica Martinez. It is also hard to believe that the appellant alone would go up the house to get the chicken by force if, as testified to by Teodorica Martinez, there were other people therein, namely, Federico Bereber, Andronico Villaruel, the latter’s wife, Aladino Bereber, and Taning Bereber. There is, therefore, more reason to believe that, when the appellant attempted to get back the chicken, he was immediately threatened by Teofilo de Emoy, Primo Bornales and Carlos Desipal who had pursued him immediately, compelling the appellant to rush to the poblacion to get aid of agents of authority. The story of the rescue of the girl is, we believe, a fabrication. If there was no girl in the house, there is no truth in the testimony of Santos Rogelio that he had gone to the burning house to rescue the girl and that, upon reaching the place, he recognized the appellant as the author of the fire. It is highly incredible that Teodorica Martinez, who for fear that her house would be burned by the appellant, had to abandon it and go to another place, would leave behind her blind child of tender years. She left her house at 7:00 o’clock in the evening and the burning took plae at 2:00 o’clock the next morning. There was ample time for her to go back to the house and get the blind daughter or for her to ask her daughter Julita de Emoy, wife of Primo Bornales, her neighbors, or even the policemen who admittedly went to see her at 10:00 o’clock, to do it for her, if there was any real reason that had prevented her to go. It is significant that, notwithstanding the emphasis placed on this point by the defense counsel during the trial, the trial court failed to make reference to the detail in its decision. Even the exhibits offered by the defense were rejected for insufficient reason. Exhibit 1 is an affidavit, and yet the ground of objection is lack of identification. Exhibits 2 and 3 are, respectively, the complaint filed in the justice of the peace court for grave threats and the corresponding information filed in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, and yet the trial court refused to admit them on the ground that they are immaterial. An Affidavit need not be identified. The complaint and information were very material, because the first shows that the appellant was the first complainant, and the second shows that the fiscal must have been so convinced of the evidence presented to him that he had decided to file the information for grave threats against Teofilo de Emoy, Primo Bornales and Carlos Desipal. There is even testimony to the effect that Teofilo de Emoy, induced by his landlord, was the one who actually burned his own house. Proceso Benjamin testified that he heard Regalado Bereber say to Teofilo de Emoy: “Set fire to your house, tomorrow Raymundo Yap will have you apprehended and you will not have any revenge against him.” (Transcript, p. 146.) Notwithstanding the lengthy cross-examination made by the trial judge even before the fiscal had started his, the testimony of the witness Proceso Benjamin incriminating Teofilo de Emoy and Regalado Bereber remained uncontradicted although the latter two could have been easily called by the prosecution to testify. It had been shown that the appellant is law-abiding, because, after having escaped from his pursuers, he reported the matter immediately to the agents of authority and sought their protection. At the time of the fire in the barrio, he was in company with said agents of authority. While possible, it is highly improbable that he would commit hte serious crime charged against him, for which the prescribed penalty is life imprisonment. Much was said about the testimony of the police sergeant, a defense witness, for being the brother-in-law of the appellant; but even discarding his testimony, there is that of policeman Isidro de Asis who at the time of the trial was no longer a member of the police force. WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby reversed and the defendant-appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio. So ordered. Pablo, Bengzon, Jugo, and Labrador, JJ., concur. Feria, J., voted for the acquittal. Bautista Angelo, J., took no part.