G.R. No. L-29091 - People of the Philippines vs. Jose Omega

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-29091 April 14, 1977

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE OMEGA,defendant-appellant.

Eulogio P. Flores for appellant.

Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio G. Ibarra and Solicitor Oscar C Fernandez for appellant.

CONCEPCION JR.,J.:

About 10:00 o'clock in the morning of February 20, 195', the lifeless body of Juanita Lingad was discovered near a bamboo grove beside a creek in Sitio Maite Tenejero Balanga, Bataan.1Immediately thereafter, a combined group of policemen, PC soldiers, the Municipal Judge of Balanga, Bataan, Judge Vicente Estanislao, the municipal health officer of Pilar, Bataan, Dr. Abelardo Magat, and a photographer, Conrado Aguas, repaired to the scene of the crime to conduct an investigation,2Arriving thereat, the group found the dead woman with her skirt raised up exposing her private part, her torn panty, t loop of rope tied around her neck, and a gaping contused wound on her forehead exposing a portion of her skull.3Surrounding the corpse were foot prints, and shoe prints leading to and around the corpse of the deceased.4After examining the body of the deceased, Dr. Magat issued a medical certificate5to the effect that the victim died of asphyxiation by strangulation.

Around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day, the police authorities of Balanga, Bataan noted the presence of Guillermo Ilaya and Jose Omega, particularly the fact that the former was wearing rubber shoes. Suspecting that they might have something to do with the crime, they were picked up for investigation. Guillermo Ilaya denied that he had been in Sitio Maite in the early morning of February 19,1957. The police then asked him to remove his rubber shoes, which he did. Thereafter, Guillermo Ilaya and Jose Omega were taken to the scene of the crime. A comparison of the rubber sole's of Guillermo Ilaya's rubber shown's with the shoe prints found around the dead woman's body showed that they tallied.6

Thereafter, Lt. (now Captain) Luis Sacramento of the PC took over the investigation of the case.7In the course of the investigation, Guillermo Ilaya pointed to Jose Omega as the author of the crime,8and executed an affidavit wherein he narrated how Jose Omega allegedly raped and killed the deceased.

Hence, Jose Omega was charged in the Court of First Instance of Bataan with the complex crime of rape with murder, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 5083.10Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.11After due trial, the courta quoconvicted the accused of two separate and distinct crimes of rape and murder, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

Dissatisfied with the above judgment, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals,13but the said appellate court certified the case to this Court in view of the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaimposed upon the accused.14

The case for the prosecution is built mainly on the testimony of Guillermo Ilaya, allegedly the only eyewitness to the crime. He testified that at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of February 19, 1957, while he and his compadre Jose Omega were conversing on the street in front of his house at barrio Tenejero Balanga, Bataan, they saw Juanita Lingad going down from her house with a rope in her hand, and thereafter, walking towards the corral Thereupon, Jose Omega invited him to go to the field to gather whatever foodstuff they could get therein. When they saw Juanita Lingad in the field, Jose Omega told him, "She is Juaning, Birahan natin siya." He then inquired of Jose Omega what he meant by "birahan", and the latter replied, "Ako' ng bahala (I will be responsible).15

When they caught up with Juanita Lingad, Jose Omega asked her where she was going. The latter answered that she was looking for her carabao. Jose Omega then pointed to the direction where the carabao could be found which Juanita Lingad followed. Shortly thereafter, Juanita Lingad returned and upon reaching the place where Jose Omega was standing, the latter held and embraced her, prompting her to shout and cry: "Tiyo Jose, Tiyo Jose, you are my uncle. Why are you doing this to me? I will report you to Tiya Auring." Thereupon, Jose Omega pinned her to the ground, tied a rope around her neck, tore her panty and raped her. As Juanita Lingad was complaining of pain, Jose Omega picked up a stone and struck her on the forehead.16

Believing that the girl was already dead, Jose Omega invited him to go home. On their way, they passed by Jose Minta picking up camote. He (Guillermo Ilaya) saw also Pedro Sedano cutting bamboos. Somewhere along the way, Jose Omega told him, "Padre, on this thing I have done nobody knows except you," and he replied, "Padre, as far as I am concerned, you have nothing to worry." Then Jose Omega warned him, "You be careful. If this thing that I have done leaks out, I will kill you." Then he assured his compadre. "Compadre, you do not have to worry about it. If it is on my part, you cannot be sold down the river.17

Upon their arrival at barrio Tenejero they went directly to the store of Erlinda Tuason and took a glass each of "halo-halo". Thereafter they went to the next store, and after taking again a glass each of "halo-halo", they went home.18On the following day, February 20, 1957, he and Jose Omega were arrested by the police.19

On the other hand, the appellant interposed an alibi, corroborated by Mariano Manlapaz. He claims that at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning of February 19, 1957, he and his compadre Mariano Manlapaz went to the house of Abelardo Santos at Balanga, Bataan, to look for work. However, they were not able to talk to him because the latter was in Morong. After lingering for about an hour in the town plaza, they went to the market place where Mariano Manlapaz met his acquaintances. Thereafter, at about 10:00 o'clock they walked home towards Tenejero arriving thereat at about 10:30 o'clock in the morning of that day.20

The appellant now mainly assails the trial court in giving weight and credence to the testimony of prosecution witness Guillermo Ilaya, and in disbelieving his alibi, thus, putting in issue the question of credibility.

Ordinarily, this Court will not interfere with the trial court's findings and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses, in deference to the rule that the latter tribunal, having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying, is in a better position to properly gauge their credibility. This rule, however, is inapplicable to the present case, because while it was the late Judge Ambrosio T. Dollete who heard the testimony of Guillermo Ilaya it was Judge Tito V. Tizon who subsequently penned the decision, when he took over the case and terminated the proceedings.21The reason for the rule does not exist in this case.

Guillermo Ilaya is supposedly the only eyewitness to the crime. For this reason, We examined the entire record, and after a careful and thoughtful review, We find Ourselves unprepared to give weight and credence to this testimony.

To begin with, his testimony is highly incredible and improbable. As correctly observed by the trial court, Guillermo Ilaya is the uncle of Herminio Mata22husband of the deceased, yet he merely stood like a mannequin watching the appellant rape and kill the wife of his nephew. He never attempted to prevent nor convince the appellant from committing the crime.23Besides, it is highly unbelievable that the appellant would rape and kill the deceased in the presence of Guillermo Ilaya, uncle of the deceased by affinity.

Moreover, the natural reaction of one who witnesses a crime is to reveal it to the authorities, unless, of course, he is the author thereof.24If Guillermo Ilaya had really seen the appellant commit the crimes in question, he could have informed the authorities immediately thereafter. But he did not. His claim that he was afraid25is too flimsy to be believed. When he was picked up by the police for investigation together with the appellant,26it would have been very easy for him to inform, or at least, whisper to the police that the culprit was the appellant so that the latter could safely be held in prison and thus prevented from taking vengeance. The second alleged threat of the appellant to kill Guillermo Ilaya was made on October 29, 195727that is, eight (8) months after commission of the crime. On these two occasions, the threats were allegedly uttered, but aside from the spoken words, there was no act or circumstance whatsoever to believe that Ilaya could be intimidated.

Again, when Guillermo Ilaya was investigated by Lt. Luis Sacramento of the PC, he disclaimed any knowledge of the Identity of the perpetrator of the crime.ℒαwρhi৷It was only when Lt. Sacramento had bluffed Guillermo Ilaya by telling him that the appellant had already squealed against him that he denounced the appellant as the culprit.28This circumstance engenders doubt and suspicion as to the motive of Guillermo Ilaya in implicating the appellant, considering that he was arrested by the police and the PC as the principal suspect. Apparently, his denunciation of the appellant came as a mere afterthought, and sprang from his desire to save his own skin rather than from a sincere desire to tell the truth.

On top of that, why would the deceased say to the appellant, "Tiyo Jose, Tiyo Jose,you are my uncle.Why are you doing this to me? I will report you to Tiya Auring", when the appellant is not her uncle but rather Guillermo Ilaya?

Aside from the foregoing, there are facts and circumstances extant in the record which tend to show that the crimes at bar could have been committed by someone else other than the appellant. Thus, as correctly observed by the Solicitor General29the presence of Guillermo Ilaya at the scene of the crime cannot be doubted. The shoe prints found around the dead woman's body tallied with the rubber shoes worn by Guillermo Ilaya.30Remedios Mendoza saw Guillermo Ilaya going to Section Maite at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of February 19, 1957 passing the trail taken earlier by the deceased Juanita Lingad in going thereto.31Perfecto Sedano likewise, saw his nephew Guillermo Ilaya at sitio Maite at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, holding the deceased by the hand and pulling her.32Thereafter, Remedios Mendoza and Perfecto Sedano again saw Guillermo Ilaya at about 8:00 o'clock that morning soaked in perspiration, his khaki pants were wet up to the knee, and his rubber shoes were also wet.33These facts which are not disputed cast a reasonable doubt on the question as to whether or not the herein appellant committed the crimes in question. It should be recalled that Guillermo Ilaya testified that he and the appellant Jose Omega went together to Sitio Maite at about 6:00 o'clock in the morning of February 19, 1957. It is rather strange, however, that Remedios Mendoza and Perfecto Sedano did not see the appellant Jose Omega but only Guillermo Ilaya.

In the light of the foregoing, it is clearly discernible that the evidence for the prosecution is weak, unsatisfactory and inconclusive to justify a finding of guilt as against the appellant.

Although alibi is known to be the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, nevertheless, where the evidence for the prosecution is weak and betrays lack of concreteness on the question of whether or not the accused committed the crime charged, the defense of alibi assumes importance.34Thus, in the case ofPeople vs. Fraga, et al.,35this Court held that:

In other words, the prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the weakness of the defense does not relieve it of this responsibility. The accused does not have to prove his innocence because that is presumed. In the case at bar, the prosecution's evidence falls short of thatquantumof evidence which will justify conviction of the appellant. His guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, he is entitled to an acquittal.

Apparently, this case — as correctly observed by the courta quo —was filed by the prosecution and the PC investigators without conducting a thorough and discreet investigation to determine the real culprit or culprits. The case should, therefore, be brought to the attention of the National Bureau of Investigation for it to conduct a new investigation and to bring to trial those responsible for the heinous crimes at bar. In this connection, it may not be inappropriate to restate what this Court has said in the case ofPeople vs. Roa, et al.36

WHEREFORE,the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the herein appellant JOSE OMEGA is hereby acquitted, with costsde oficio.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation in order that the case be investigated anew, and the guilty party or parties be brought to the bar of justice.

Aquino, J, concur.

Barredo, J., concur also in the separate opinion of Justice Antonio.

Footnotes

Separate Opinions

ANTONIO,J,concurring:

There are significant circumstances which place in serious doubt the credibility of Guillermo Ilaya. Thus, the trial court found that: (1) Guillermo Ilaya has been estranged from his wife for a period of two (2) years prior to the date of the incident; (2) in the early morning of the date of the incident, Ilaya was seen by Remedios Mendoza going towards the field, following the same route taken earlier by Juanita Lingad: (3) not long thereafter, at about 7:00 a.m., Ilaya was seen by his uncle, Perfecto Sedano at the camote plantation of Jaime Ilaya at Maite holding and pulling the hands of Juanita Lingad; (4) later that morning, Sedano saw Ilaya wearing wet rubber shoes and khaki pants which were wet up to the knee; (5) that same morning, Ilaya was seen by Remedios Mendoza; the former still wearing his wet shoes and pants, apparently soaked with perspiration; and (6) the body of the deceased was found at about 10:00 o'clock that same morning near a creek and near the body were prints of rubber shoes which tallied with the prints of the rubber shoes worn by Guillermo Ilaya; and (7) there was undue delay or vacillation in implicating appellant Jose Omega. Ilaya had the motive, intent and opportunity to commit the crime, These circumstances sufficiently indicate that Ilaya had strong motives to falsely implicate appellant Jose Omega in the commission of the crime, which renders the truthfulness of his testimony doubtful.

There can be no question that the value of testimony is estimated by the degree of persuasion that it produces in the mind of the court who is called upon to determine its effect, and to render a verdict accordingly. The rule in all criminal cases is that the court must be persuaded of the truth of the charge made against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

On the basis of the foregoing facts, I am not satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt.