G.R. No. 46023 - SEPTEMBER 1939 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 46023September 30, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Florendo, et al. G.R. No. 46252September 30, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Leonor de Moll G.R. No. 46298September 30, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Datu Ambis (Bagobo) G.R. No. 46390September 30, 1939 Testate Estate of Petrona Francisco. Casimiro Tiangco, et al. vs. Proceso Francisco G.R. No. 46396September 30, 1939 Alejandro de Guzman vs. Visayan Rapid Transit Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. 46451September 30, 1939 Paz Chua vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. 46484September 30, 1939 Santiago Sambrano vs. Red Line Transportation Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 46724September 30, 1939 Crescencio Reynes, et al. vs. Rosalina Barrera, et al. G.R. No. 46728September 30, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Montenegro G.R. No. 46168September 29, 1939 International Harvester Company of the Philippines vs. Delfin Mahinay G.R. No. 46336September 29, 1939 Ulric Arcand vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 46458September 29, 1939 Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Hermenegildo G. Alagar, et al. G.R. No. 46725September 29, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Maximino Aquino A.C. No. 879September 27, 1939 Pedro De Guzman vs. Tomas B. Tadeo G.R. No. 46080September 27, 1939 In Re: Rafael Fernandez. Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation G.R. No. 46094September 27, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Fernando C. Quebral G.R. No. 46237September 27, 1939 Rosalio Marquez, et al. vs. Bernardo Castillo G.R. No. 46350September 27, 1939 Tan Chay vs. Government of the Philippines G.R. No. 46470September 27, 1939 Juan Castillo vs. Director of Lands, et al. G.R. No. 46539September 27, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Valentin Doqueña G.R. Nos. 46553-46555September 27, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Leon Fabillar G.R. No. 46615September 27, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Aquino G.R. No. 46727September 27, 1939 Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. 46668September 25, 1939 Government of the Philippines vs. Pampanga Sugar Mills, Inc. G.R. No. 46729September 25, 1939 Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Pantranco vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. 46068September 23, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Eustaquio Caroz, et al. G.R. No. 46650September 23, 1939 Mario Bengzon, et al. vs. Auditor General, et al. G.R. No. 46652September 23, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Casimiro Concepcion G.R. No. 46739September 23, 1939 Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. G.R. Nos. 46802-46812September 23, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Resurreccion B. Peñas G.R. No. 46108September 22, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Datu Galantu Medted, et al. G.R. No. 46109September 22, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Carpio, et al. G.R. No. 46197September 22, 1939 Kinkwa Meriyasu Co., P.I., Inc. vs. Collector of Customs G.R. No. 46302September 22, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Toribo C. Costes G.R. No. 46578September 22, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Aniceto Marquez G.R. No. 46580September 22, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro de Guzman G.R. No. 46602September 22, 1939 Yap Tak Wing & Co., Inc., et al. vs. Municipal Board, et al. G.R. No. 46686September 22, 1939 Tranquilino Rubis vs. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes G.R. No. 46715September 22, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Emilio de Jesus, et al. G.R. No. 46170September 20, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Fermin Punto G.R. No. 46780September 20, 1939 Acting Prov'l. Fiscal of Camarines Norte vs. Judge of First Instance of Camarines Norte, et al. G.R. No. 45596September 18, 1939 In Re: Marcela Lao, et al. vs. Domingo Lao, et al. G.R. No. 46412September 18, 1939 People of the Philippines vs. Manoji (Moro) G.R. No. 46497September 18, 1939 Antonio S. San Agustin vs. Conrado Barrios, et al. G.R. No. 46562September 13, 1939 Bardwil Bros. vs. Philippine Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. 46673September 13, 1939 Andres P. Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Florendo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Leonor de Moll People of the Philippines vs. Datu Ambis (Bagobo) Testate Estate of Petrona Francisco. Casimiro Tiangco, et al. vs. Proceso Francisco Alejandro de Guzman vs. Visayan Rapid Transit Co., Inc., et al. Paz Chua vs. Secretary of Labor Santiago Sambrano vs. Red Line Transportation Company, Inc., et al. Crescencio Reynes, et al. vs. Rosalina Barrera, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Montenegro International Harvester Company of the Philippines vs. Delfin Mahinay Ulric Arcand vs. People of the Philippines Erlanger & Galinger, Inc. vs. Hermenegildo G. Alagar, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Maximino Aquino Pedro De Guzman vs. Tomas B. Tadeo In Re: Rafael Fernandez. Guillermo A. Cu Unjieng vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation People of the Philippines vs. Fernando C. Quebral Rosalio Marquez, et al. vs. Bernardo Castillo Tan Chay vs. Government of the Philippines Juan Castillo vs. Director of Lands, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Valentin Doqueña People of the Philippines vs. Leon Fabillar People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Aquino Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Government of the Philippines vs. Pampanga Sugar Mills, Inc. Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa Pantranco vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eustaquio Caroz, et al. Mario Bengzon, et al. vs. Auditor General, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Casimiro Concepcion Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Pambusco Employees' Union, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Resurreccion B. Peñas People of the Philippines vs. Datu Galantu Medted, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Carpio, et al. Kinkwa Meriyasu Co., P.I., Inc. vs. Collector of Customs People of the Philippines vs. Toribo C. Costes People of the Philippines vs. Aniceto Marquez People of the Philippines vs. Pedro de Guzman Yap Tak Wing & Co., Inc., et al. vs. Municipal Board, et al. Tranquilino Rubis vs. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes People of the Philippines vs. Emilio de Jesus, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fermin Punto Acting Prov'l. Fiscal of Camarines Norte vs. Judge of First Instance of Camarines Norte, et al. In Re: Marcela Lao, et al. vs. Domingo Lao, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Manoji (Moro) Antonio S. San Agustin vs. Conrado Barrios, et al. Bardwil Bros. vs. Philippine Labor Union, et al. Andres P. Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JESUS FLORENDO, LORENZO FORMOSO and ADRIANO FORMOSO,defendants-appellants.
M.H. de Joya, Alberto Reyes, Pedro Singson Reyes, and Floro S. Crisologo for appellant Florendo.
Jesus O. Serrano and Conrado Singson for appellants Formoso and Formoso.
Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Gustillo for appellee.
MORAN,J.:
Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the night of March 24, 1937, at Plaza Burgos in the municipality of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Vicente Mariñas received from behind two pistol shots, as a consequence of which he died almost instantaneously.
After the corresponding investigations, Jesus Florendo, Lorenzo Formoso and Adriano Formoso were prosecuted for the crime of murder. The trial, during which voluminous evidence was adduced, was held, and the lower court, after a study thereof, rendered judgment finding all of the accused guilty of the crime of murder, with Jesus Florendo as the principal and Lorenzo Formoso and Adriano Formoso as accomplices, and sentenced the former to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaand to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500), and the latter two to suffer each an indeterminate penalty of from six years and one day ofprision mayor,as minimum, to twelve years and one day ofreclusion temporal,as maximum, and to indemnify jointly and severally the heirs of the deceased in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500), all with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs. The three accused appealed.
As to the guilt of Jesus Florendo, the lower court states as follows:
The crime in question occurred between 8 and 9 o'clock in night of March 24, 1937, within thepoblacionof the municipality of Vigan, llocos Sur, at Plaza Burgos situated on the left side of the cathedral, bounded on north by Padre Burgos Street, on the east by Gobernador Crisologo Street, on the south by Leona Florentino Street and on the west by Emilio Jacinto Street, which was at that time well illuminated with electric lanterns and frequented by many people, because it was Holy Wednesday and lady vendors were constructing tilts, sheds and temporary shelters for their merchandise, candies and delicacies along the sides thereof. At the center of the said plaza rises the monument to Father Burgos on a rectangular cement platform. From the four angles of its square base project four two-step promenades in the form of buttresses. On one of them, that on the northeastern part, the deceased Vicente Mariñas and the herein accused Adriano Formoso were seated, facing eastwards, but while the back of the former remained unprotected, the latter had his to the base of the monument. They were thus eatingsincamaswhen Jesus Florendo, coming from the south, fired a pistol at Vicente Mariñas from the northwestern angle of said monument and only a little more than a meter away from his victim who had his back toward him, the latter falling on the platform on the third shot and dying instantaneously. From an autopsy of the body, which was performed that very night by Dr. P.J. Alvarado, provincial doctor of Ilocos Sur, two wounds were found, the first produced by a pistol missile which penetrated the left suprascapular region, entered the junction of the third cervical vertebra, followed the spinal duct and lodged in the fourth ventricle; and the second, also produced by a pistol missile which entered the left lumbar region, pierced the eleventh space between the left ribs, the abdominal aorta and the intestine, and lodged in the walls of the mesentery. Both missiles were extracted from the body of Vicente Mariñas by Dr. Alvarado and are now Exhibits C and C-1. The above-stated wounds produced by these two missiles caused the instantaneous death of Vicente Mariñas, because they were necessarily mortal, as so testified by Dr. Alvarado and stated by him in his certificate Exhibit B.
The evidence clearly support these conclusions, of the lower court. Three eyewitnesses, namely, Teofilo Catura, Trinidad Guevara and Jose Lazo, saw the accused Jesus Florendo in the act of firing from behind three pistol shots at Vicente Mariñas. And even discarding the testimony of the girl Trinidad Guevara who, by means of an able cross-examination, admitted that everything stated by her had been taught her by Salud Panlasiqui, the testimonies of Teofilo Catura and Jose Lazo are sufficient.
The testimony of Teofilo Catura, however, is impugned by the statement Exhibit 1 made by him, wherein he alleges that he failed to recognize the person who had fired at Vicente Mariñas. But he gave sufficient explanation of said statement by saying that he made it after he had been intoxicated and offered money. The evidence presented to belie this explanation does not satisfy this court. It is noteworthy that the witness Catura has not ratified the statement before a notary public, which was the intention at first, judging by the form in which said statement is written.
The testimony of Jose Lazo is impugned by an alleged statement attributed to him by the other witness Pantaleon Almo, to wit: "it seems that that is the one named Jesus Florendo" made by Jose Lazo when he saw Jesus Florendo in the municipal building on the day after the murder. However, it is illegal to assail the credibility of a witness by means of a statement attributed to him by another, if he has not been given sufficient opportunity to explain it. Furthermore, said statement does not destroy Jose Lazo's testimony that on the night in question he saw Jesus Florendo kill Vicente Mariñas, even granting that he did not know the name of the accused until the following day in the municipal building.
According to the evidence, the motive of Jesus Florendo is vengeance. More than ten years ago, his brother Alfredo Florendo was killed by Vicente Mariñas as a consequence of which the latter was sentenced to jail. Jesus Florendo took vengeance in spite of the fact that his father pardoned Vicente Mariñas.
As to the accused Adriano Formoso and Lorenzo Formoso, we entertain grave doubts of their guilt. Evidence has been presented regarding the alleged conspiracy between them and Jesus Florendo to kill Vicente Mariñas. Such evidence, however, leaves much to be desired, especially if the evidence adduced by the defense is taken into consideration.
Salud Panlasiqui stated that at about 8 o'clock in the evening of March 24, 1937, she accompanied her cousin Vicente Mariñas to the convent of Vigan to pay " he dues for the prospective marriage of Vicente Mariñas to a certain woman; that since it was then Holy Wednesday, Father Belisario told them to return on the following Saturday; that upon passing near the belfry of the cathedral, they met the accused Adriano Formoso who called Vicente Mariñas, saying that he had something to tell him; that Adriano Formoso and Vicente Mariñas together went toward Plaza Burgos; that later she was informed that Vicente Mariñas had been murdered. Father Belisario, however, belies said testimony, saying that Salud Panlasigui and Vicente Mariñas did not go to the convent to see him in the night of March 24, 1937, but at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon of said day.
Regino Purruganan testified that at about 8 o'clock in the evening of March 24, 1937, while he was at Plaza Burgos, he saw the three accused together and that Adriano Formoso asked him whether he had seen Vicente Mariñas, to which the witness answered in the negative. The three accused went toward the northern part of the plaza and shortly afterwards he heard firearm reports. Regino Purruganan, however, is a brother of Bibiano Purruganan, co-accused of Vicente Mariñas in the murder case of Alfredo Florendo, and in said case Lorenzo Formoso, testified as a witness for the prosecution against Bibiano Purruganan.
Pantaleon Almo likewise testified that in the night in question he saw the three accused Lorenzo Formoso, Adriano Formoso and Jesus Florendo talking together; that he later saw Adriano Formoso and Vicente Mariñas near the Father Burgos monument, and that shortly afterwards he heard the firearm reports. But there also exist doubts whether or not Jesus Florendo was the third party with Adriano Formoso and Lorenzo Formoso on that occasion, inasmuch as the witness himself admits that he did not then know Jesus Florendo.
Teofilo Catura testified that in the night of March 24, 1937, Adriano Formoso and Vicente Mariñas were conversing at the foot of the Father Burgos monument when the accused Jesus Florendo fired at Vicente Mariñas. But Adriano Formoso, according to his affidavit Exhibit I, admits that he was talking to Vicente Mariñas when the later received the pistol shots from Jesus Florendo.
Ernesto Centeno stated that he had seen Lorenzo Formoso and Jesus Florendo together in the night of the crime in the bowling alley situated on Leona Florentino Street near Plaza Burgos; that he saw the two accused talking together and afterwards go out into the street; that he likewise saw Lorenzo Formoso take out something from the pocket of his pants and deliver it later to Jesus Florendo, after which both went to the Father Burgos monument; that soon after he heard the three firearm reports and saw Jesus Florendo and Lorenzo Formoso run away. This witness, however, is belied by his uncle Gabriel Centeno who states that Ernesto Centeno went to the movies at about 7 o'clock in the evening in question and did not leave there until about 9 o'clock that same night. Furthermore, this testimony is indirectly disproved by the testimonies of Dr. Ramon Encarnacion and Attorney A. Pilar, which will be discussed later. And afterwards Luis Rivera testified that at about 8 o'clock in the night of March 24, 1937, he was in said bowling alley but he did not see therein either Lorenzo Formoso or Jesus Florendo or Ernesto Centeno.
Jose Lazo testified that after having seen Jesus Florendo fire three pistol shots at Vicente Mariñas, he saw said Jesus Florendo run away, turning over the pistol in question to Lorenzo Formoso. There are doubts, however, whether or not this witness has been mistaken in testifying on this point on account of the confusion arising after the commission of the crime and because he failed to pursue Jesus Florendo.
Arcadio Laperal of the Manila Secret Service also testified to show that the bullets Exhibits C and C-1 found in the body of Vicente Mariñas and the ones marked Exhibits D and D-1 found in the body of Remedios Donato, at whom the accused Lorenzo Formoso fired several pistol shots on February 13, 1937, were discharged from one and the same automatic pistol, caliber .25, judging by certain microscopic grooves and protuberances appearing thereon. However, since this expert could not show either the existence or uniformity of said grooves or protuberances on account of the fact that, according to him, he had no time to take enlarged photographs thereof, his testimony may be given but little value. The probative value of an expert testimony lies not in a simple exposition of the expert's theory or opinion but in the assistance he may afford the courts by demonstrating the facts which serve as a basis for his opinion and the reasons on which the logic of his conclusions is founded (U.S.vs.Kosel, 24 Phil., 594).
Against this evidence for the prosecution, the defense has presented evidence of much weight. It appears that Adriano Formoso and Lorenzo Formoso were very close friends of Vicente Mariñas. The latter was one of the bodyguards of the accused Lorenzo Formoso during the last Vigan Carnival, as corroborated by Exhibit 9. Vicente Mariñas, shortly after his return to Vigan from the Bilibid Prison about the month of December, 1936, was accompanied by Adriano Formoso to ask for forgiveness of the father of Alfredo Florendo who, as already stated, had been killed by Vicente Mariñas more than ten years ago.
Antonio Peralta, chief of police of Bantay, Ilocos Sur testified that four days prior to the crime a Chinese supper was given at the house of Lorenzo Formoso in Vigan, and Vicente Mariñas was among the guests.
Salvador Gray, member of the provincial board of Ilocos Sur, testified that at about 11 o'clock in the morning of March 24, 1937, Lorenzo Formoso, accompanied by Vicente Mariñas, went to see him in the provincial capitol building in Vigan to request him to give Vicente Mariñas a job as laborer of foreman in the public works of the province.
Prospero Soliven, a soldier, testified that on the night of the crime he was taking a walk with Adriano Formoso and Vicente Mariñas along the streets near Plaza Burgos; that while they were thus engaged, they met policeman Simplicio Albayalde who later separated from them; that Vicente Mariñas later invited them to the Burgos monument but the witness declined the invitation because he had to buy cigarettes at a store located on the ground floor of the Plaza Hotel; that while he was in said store, he heard firearm reports.
Policeman Simplicio Albayalde corroborated the testimony of soldier Prospero Soliven.
Doctor Ramon Encarnacion and Attorney A. Pilar stated that at about 8 o'clock in the night of March 24, 1937, while they were conversing at a window of the New York Hotel, situated east of Plaza Burgos, they saw Lorenzo Formoso, whom they already knew beforehand, talking to others on the sidewalk below said window, and that at the same moment they heard firearm reports.
Policeman Regino Anagairan testified that at about 8 o'clock in the night of March 24, 1937, he was on duty on Governor Crisologo Street and saw Lorenzo Formoso come hurriedly to him to tell him that Vicente Mariñas had been killed.
All this evidence shows the good relations of friendship and affection existing between the accused Formosos and Vicente Mariñas and the improbability of the participation of the former in the murder of the latter. And the said accused not only had reasons not to commit the crime but also had reasons not to enter into a conspiracy with Jesus Florendo. Olimpio Florendo, brother of Jesus Florendo, brought an action for adultery against his wife Alberta Formoso. The accused Jesus Formoso was the principal witness for the prosecution. Alberta is a sister of the accused Adriano Formoso and Lorenzo Formoso. The case was pending at the time of the commission of the crime charged herein. These circumstances showprima faciethat at least there was enmity between the accused Formosos and the accused Jesus Florendo, which makes improbable the alleged conspiracy between them.
For the foregoing considerations, the judgment is affirmed as to Jesus Florendo, with the sole modification that he indemnify the heirs of the deceased Vicente Mariñas in the sum of one thousand pesos (P1,000) and the pay the costs of both instances. The judgment is reversed as to the accused Adriano Formoso and Lorenzo Formoso, with the costsde oficio.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ.,concur.